This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I don't think artists should need notability to be listed on a list that lists people on their record label. The fact they they were signed is objective. I am trying to add Stanaj on this list with a source that is from Republic themselves saying he was signed to their label. Why should we purposely make this objective list incomplete due to lack of notability?--Stanajj (talk) 11:40, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Every article in the list must have an article in the English Wikipedia asserting notability through reliable sources. -- Alexf^(talk) 11:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Since when? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:10, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Alexf's "the list" looks to refer to the Republic Records list, not all lists. I understand the confusion (presuming there's confusion), however, because this thread belongs on the list's talk page, which is completely empty. @Stanajj: most lists require notability for list items because of, for example, all the things Wikipedia is not (like a record label's catalog). That doesn't always mean a stand-alone article is necessary, but it usually does, especially when it's a list of people. Ultimately while we have guidelines like WP:CSC, WP:LISTBIO, etc. it's up to the editors on that talk page whether it will be comprehensive or only notable examples. It looks like many editors have been going by the latter, so the next step would be trying to persuade them on the talk page. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

As an aside, Stanajj, since the artist in question is the same as your name, and since it doesn't look like anyone has mentioned this so far, you may want to read WP:COI and WP:PROMO. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:13, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I know he isn't a mainstream artist yet but that doesn't mean I am promoting him for just wanting to mention him. I am not him, nor am I close to him, I'm just a fan.-Stanajj (talk) 15:32, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Alexf's assertion is purely false, goes against the SAL guideline and isn't something that an experienced admin should be claiming. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:55, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Again, Alexf looks to be talking about List of Republic Records artists, and generalizing is only going to confuse. Stanajj made the mistake of taking the dispute here rather than that list's talk page. We most definitely allow individual lists to set inclusion criteria that restrict entries to subjects with extant articles. If that's the case on the list in question, again, it's just confusing to make it seems like it's not allowed somehow. It's certainly not the case that, by default, a list includes everything that exists. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:40, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Even if that's the case, his assertion is still false. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

There is a discussion about list inclusion criteria in the context of software article. This includes a proposal to improve WP:CSC. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Software#Restrictions for entries in software list articles. ~Kvng (talk) 15:16, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I've added the subheading Lists of subtaxa under Appropriate topics for lists. There are many articles on fossils and other plant and animal taxa that contain long lists of subtaxa, while others only contain a link to a separate list elsewhere. I think it may be helpful to develop some guidance. If such guidance reaches stability, links to it should be created on relevant WikiProject pages such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants, Wikipedia:WikiProject Animals, Wikipedia:WikiProject Fungi, Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology, and their subprojects. Dwergenpaartje (talk) 14:31, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

There are some lists where there are included people who are redlinks. They are maintained that way because they inform editors of the work that needs to be done on the article. However, there are some editors who take WP:LISTNAME very very literally and remove any redlinked name, citing that guideline. Can the guideline be modified so as to recognize that some redlinks are good because they inform editors. (I believe there has been at least two Signpost editorial that have argued similarly.) - kosboot (talk) 01:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Redlinking can be good... but NOT redlinking is also good... as an unlinked name can indicate that the person listed is not considered notable enough for a stand alone article. Remember that a lot of people are note worthy... but not Notable. They should be mentioned in Wikipedia, but only within the context of a broader, related article. They just don’t merit having an entire article devoted to them.

So... when deciding whether to redlink a name in a list, seriously ask yourself if there are enough sources that talk about the person in some depth... sources that could support an article about that person. In other words, is it realistic that an article will be written about that person or not? Blueboar (talk) 02:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the response User:Blueboar. A specific example that I have in mind is List of music theorists. Every person on this list has entries in the leading music encyclopedias or other reliable reference sources. But a particular editor IronGuard has deleted all those redlinks (they have subsequently been restored). I've seen other lists where this person has done similarly. When I've tried to suggest the rationale above, the editor merely cites the guideline. Being that they seem unable to think outside the box, I figure maybe make the box more open to possibilities (since, based on the Signposts editorials, I'm far from the only one who believes that retaining redlinks is a good thing). - kosboot (talk) 17:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

If it is likely that these people would indeed eventually have an article, then I would say it is appropriate to redlink their names. That said, nothing says they MUST be redlinked... and if an editor strongly disagrees, my advice is always to "let the wookie win" (in other words, don't waste your time arguing about it.) Instead, choose a few of the names (I would suggest five), start articles about them, and then link to those articles (at that poi9nt they would be bluelinks). Hopefully this will show the nay-sayer that all the names should be linked, and they will back down. Blueboar (talk) 19:21, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

IronGargoyle is indeed a notorious erythrophobe, who seems to have made it his mission to rid all lists of the color red and in doing so has stepped on many a toe. Unsourced entries or those with expired links are easy prey, but he/she considers interlanguage links (even those with external sources themselves) insufficient and has arbitrary and uninformed ideas of what a good reference would be. Such activities are useful for pruning slapdash lists with non-notable entries, but are very frustrating when you've worked extensively to catalogue and annotate the most notable representatives of a particular subject. Often, the remaining blue-link-only list is better represented by the category page, though the category page will contain many non-notable people (the idea that a blue link means sufficient notability is beyond naïve). It is hard to battle such editors, since it takes no thought or work to delete entries, while you can spend much effort to find reliable sources for each, which then can be dismissed capriciously as insufficient. My experience is that creating a couple of pages to show they can be blue-linked won't help the remaining unlinked or red-linked entries, and it simply is too much to ask for every list maker to create pages for every item in a large list.

It would be helpful if there is a link to a page like this to defend oneself in the edit summary. Perhaps this page could spell out more specifically that a carefully created and maintained list can (and almost should) have unlinked and/or red linked entries, when they are sourced or have interlanguage links. The criteria for the source or link should only be that it makes it clear that the person either is worthy to be in the list or is notable enough for a stand-alone article sometimes in the future. Afasmit (talk) 04:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

That's a really good explanation and proposal, Afasmit! I'll think of some wording and post it on this talk page to solicit comments. - kosboot (talk) 16:26, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

So, this is apparently a Wikipedia guideline, yet it provides examples of "what to do" which are maintenance tagged and out of date. It provides advice which is also out of date. We need some people to get together and work on fixing this. I'm happy to volunteer, but it'd be best if there were others involved too. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I will help ....will look over some recent Rfc's. We should make sure Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists#Stand-alone list articles is also updated.--Moxy (talk) 23:02, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Updating examples is something we should do on all policy and guideline pages. Blueboar (talk) 23:51, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

What advice is out of date?

The example in this article at Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists#General_formats_of_list_articles shows List of business theorists and List of bicycle brands and manufacturing companies which do not. The bicycle list keeps having new ones added all the time. List of cat breeds is in the article as an example, and no references to that, and some items on it don't even have a Wikipedia article. The List of theological demons don't have any references anywhere in the article. I figure since its common sense, you don't need a reference for every single thing. Lists of deities, List of legendary creatures (A) and all other such list linked to at Lists of legendary creatures, List of colors: A–F, same way. Is it Original Research to list anything in a list article like these without a reference for every single list item? Dream Focus 22:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Personally, assuming that it is just a list of blue-linked terms, if the membership on the list is easily deduced from checking the lede para or infobox of the blue-linked article, it shouldn't need to be sourced. So for example, a list of cat breeds, a list of colors, etc. It's an "obvious" membership that sourcing would be wasting time as long as the blue-linked article is properly sourced. Non-blue-linked terms must be sourced. And in lists where the membership is something that requires more digging (such as "List of people from X"), those should be sourced since the membership is not obvious. --Masem (t) 22:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Someone at the AFD for Swamp monster keeps arguing nonstop that anything listed without a reference is Original Research. That's a list article, and has been for most of its long life on Wikipedia, but doesn't have "list of" in its name yet. Anyway, I think this guideline article should have in its rules specific information about this to avoid future pointless arguments. Dream Focus 22:07, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

There, I don't think falls into the "free pass" of my considerations. I see Will-o-wisp on there, and while I can see the lede on its page talks about it being seen over bogs, that I don't think makes it obviously a "swamp monster", and thus inclusion without a source is OR. --Masem (t) 23:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

The lede says "especially over bogs, swamps, or marshes". The lights are caused by swamp gas, they found in swamps, and many see them as monsters. Dream Focus 23:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article for monster says as its lede sentence "A monster is a creature that produces fear or physical harm by its appearance or its actions." If sources don't specifically call it a "monster", but devil's, evil spirits, and whatnot, would that matter? Dream Focus 23:44, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes it does for purposes of WP:V, and avoiding the weak SYNTH claim. It does seem you have a source, so you can justify it on the list, but it is not crystal-clear obvious fact that can get away without sourcing. --Masem (t) 23:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Determining that something is a monster and combining that with a fact that it can be found in swamps in order to call it a "swamp monster" is not a weak SYNTH claim, if that's what you're referring to. It's a pretty textbook SYNTH problem. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

It says in the opening sentence a swamp monster is a monster that lives in a swamp. Could call the article list of monsters that live in a swamp, but it just sounds better to say list of swamp monsters. Is t here anything that could be called a swamp monster that was not a monster that lived in a swamp? Dream Focus 02:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid the answer is soon becoming "yes", every item needs an inline citation. We have a sudden move at WP:DOY to reference each and every entry for days of the year contents, including events and birth/death dates. That's regardless of the fact the each item has to be a blue link to a sub-article. So while what Masem asserts is currently true in a few areas of Wikipedia, it soon won't be so the best course of action (which realistically has always been the case) is to reference every article as if no other article existed. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

If there is no possible reason to bother with such nonsense, it best to agree to change this page to say so. See if anyone has a legitimate argument not to. When you have list articles so long they have to be broken into separate lists, realistically no one is ever going to bother referencing that many things. Dream Focus 22:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

When I wrote WP:LISTVERIFY years ago....the intent was to refect the consensus that statements of facts be sources as with any other page (like so and so kill 20 people )....not list of wiki links. That said should a tomato be sourced as a fruit is a list of fruit or is the article enough? In my view a list it's self as a list should be sourced as something we should list. I have seen a sources used in a lead that covers a list.--Moxy (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

No, sorry, times have changed. Lists are (rightly) expected to standalone. I don't think we need to cite that a tomato is a fruit, but perhaps we do for the benefit of our readers. Reliance on sourcing in linked articles is no longer deemed acceptable. The sooner this is accepted, the better. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Generally agree with Masem/TRM. Ideally every entry has a source, but as long as the sources are easily accessible in the subjects' own articles, they don't need to be removed. That said, this doesn't actually look to get at the main OR issues in that AfD. As far as I can tell (and I've not yet read through the whole AfD yet, so apologies if I have this wrong), it's not that editors are calling something OR simply because they refuse to acknowledge sources in linked pages, but because it looks like you (or others) are calling things "swamp monsters" because sources call them a monster and associate them with swamps. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:51, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

... but as long as the sources are easily accessible in the subjects' own articles, they don't need to be removed. ... - I note your wording, i.e. they're not removed, they just sit there unreferenced, as opposed to all the rest of the content which is referenced..... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:54, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree.....what I am saying is I have seen lists of wiki links source by one book in the lead or chart table header that justifies inclusion of said item over sources beside every wikilink like List of French forts in North America.--Moxy (talk) 22:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

If a single source provides proper referencing for inclusion of each item on the list, then great, that's fine; there just should be a clear way to indicate that (like a lede sentence, "The following is a list of French forts in North America, as documented by in (reference work name)".) That works even if you have two main reference works that you combine to get the full list. If you have to agglomerate sources beyond a couple, then each line probably should be referenced separately even if you are using the same reference over and over again. --Masem (t) 23:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

they're not removed, they just sit there unreferenced, as opposed to all the rest of the content which is referenced..... - there are lots of things that sit undone on Wikipedia until someone does them. Doesn't mean it's good or desirable, but also doesn't mean we should remove them unless local consensus determines a citation is an inclusion criterion. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• Rhododendrites, there are multiple reasons given, and this is just one argument I found odd so wanted a clear answer. The Rambling Man, in years past, I worked on a number of list articles where if someone didn't like it and couldn't delete it, they just went and erased all things without references. Dream Focus 23:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
• There is a fundamental reason why we SHOULD repeat a citation on lists, and NOT rely on a linked article to provide the citation: Wikipedia articles change. The linked article is not set in stone, and may get completely rewritten at some point... and in the process of a rewrite, the information (and citation) may end up being omitted. That means that the information at the list no longer appears at the linked article. And neither does the citation verifying it. However, if we cite information in every article where it appears (including lists) a rewrite in one does not effect the verifiability at the other. Repeating citations wherever the information appears is always the safer option. Blueboar (talk) 23:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• i go back and forth on this.

however, the notion that "the refs are in the blue-linked article" is horrible. It flies in the face of WP:USERGENERATED - Wikipedia articles are not reliable - and that is true whether you try to cite a WP article a ref or try to "cite" with a blue link. Please don't make that argument.

On top of that, every article needs to be able to stand on its own, as pages get split out all the time.

That said, many times inclusion is blue sky to any regular person (not experts) obvious, and asking for a source is just pedantic.

But if it isn't blue sky obvious, then yes it should be sourced and that should be triple true about living people per BLP. Jytdog (talk) 03:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Likening this practice to "citing" a Wikipedia article is misleading. Nobody advocates for citing a Wikipedia article. It's citing a source that has already been cited. A lead of an article doesn't "cite" the rest of the article when it omits a citation, a DYK hook doesn't "cite" the article it links to when it omits a citation, ditto TFA/ITN. There are many ways we defer to the sources included in an article without copying them over. In many cases, it would be a good idea to do so, but that nobody has done so doesn't mean it's not verified -- it just means someone needs to do the maintenance. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

There is no functional difference between putting the WP article in a ref, and (Wikilinking it and saying "it is supported in the other article"} - the latter is lazy bullshit. If the ref is actually there, cite it here. I have had the discussion many times, and at least half the time, there was no ref there. The person was just spouting bullshit (less work to yammer on a talk page then to actually bring a ref, even from another WP article). But functionally, there is no difference between the two, in non-blue sky cases. There are lots of blue sky cases. There was some fuss over a list of orchestras a while back, and people demanding citations got silly. the Chicago Symphony Orchestra is obviously an orchestra.

Whether any person on List of Satanists should be there, should be completely driven by citations in that list article, tho. That is what I mean. Jytdog (talk) 05:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

And there's no functional difference with the same practice in DYK or the other venues I listed above. I agree that it's lazy bullshit to see a ref and not copy it when adding a list entry. Only slightly less lazy bullshit to refuse to scan the article for a cited statement before removing it. But yes, list of Satanists is a rather obvious one in which citations would be needed in the list no matter what... and yet oddly, we wouldn't need them if the same subjects were featured on the main page. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I was at List of Fender amplifier users, and added Why this list sucks big wet rocks to the Talk page, then realized the comments probably belong somewhere more specific to the actual problem. So, here follows.

The worst sin is the traffic flow. I'd wager that the great majority of users who swing by this page do so ONLY to edit something — paste in their fave performer, tweak links to other WP articles, or (rarely) remove non-notables or other erroneous data. Few (if any) page visitors drop by to scan through the heap, which has been carefully alphabetized for no particular reason.

The final downfall of almost all lists stems from their utter uselessness as a work of reference. Let's say that Maná was touring the area, and I wanted to write a puff piece. Recalling that Sergio Vallín sometimes played an unusual Fender guitar, I consider adding a comment about this. Where then do I turn? Obviously: first to Sergio Vallín then, if that's a wash, Maná, and finally over to the various non-WP sources (official sites, fan sites, the Fender site) — in NO CASE do I think it would be a good idea to dredge through a Wikipedia list only to possibly come up with what is probably some piece of random guesswork by a tone-deaf teenage non-musician.

In sum, the ONLY actual utility of most WP lists is to give fans a place to show off their useless knowledge in a manner that doesn't clog up an actual ARTICLE. The primary reason to maintain lists at all is much the same as calling Roto-Rooter to keep your toilet drain clear.

I must note an overlooked circumstance in which something like List of Fender amplifier users could be interesting. That would be to order the random scrapheap NOT by surname of "user," but rather by model of amplifier, information I could actually consider including in a published article or academic piece. For instance, as I noted in Talk:Guitar amplifier, a very popular guitar amp in the '60s was in fact the Fender Bassman, and so culturally significant for noting how pop-music guitarists from Don Rich to Mike Bloomfield to Michael Monarch seemed to be seeking toward a specific sound.

Finally, entries for lists of commercial products such as this would benefit HUGELY from demanding that dates of first production and last production (the years, at least) be noted. Certainly there must be similar info that would improve other lists in like manner.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 17:33, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your insight. Of course any list could be improved, there is no deadline here and most things are incomplete, but if you have specific suggestions for the improvement of lists, feel free to impart them at the relevant places. This, as a central discussion over standalone lists, is not an appropriate place to start debating specific data which could (or could not) improve specific lists. Cheers though, appreciate your input. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:14, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I ran across an embedded list at Space marine#Appearances in fiction, which appears to be an indiscriminate list of every mention of a space marine in any sort of fictional work or game. This isn't strictly a pop-culture list, since, up to this point in Earth's history, all space marines are fictional. Does this list need to be trimmed back, if so, how? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 01:16, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

(While I realize that this guideline is primarily about stand-alone lists, embedded lists are generally required to meet the same standards. - BilCat (talk) 01:19, 18 October 2018 (UTC))

This WP:LISTPEOPLE text fails to correctly describe WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E, and the struck words should be deleted:

If the person is famous for a specific event, the notability requirement need not be met. If a person in a list does not have a Wikipedia article about them, a citation (or link to another article) must be provided to: a) establish their membership in the list's group; and b) establish their notability on either BLP1E or BIO1E.

If someone meets all the narrow criteria of BLP1E or WP:BIO1E, then they have already met the first condition of LISTPEOPLE, the are, strictly speaking, notable. It's incorrect to call these exceptions to LISTPEOPLE, or imply a non-notable person could be added to a list by citing BLP1E and BIO1E.

BLP1E and BIO1E are additional hurdles to writing separate articles about people known only for one event. BLP1E and BIO1E only apply to people who have received significant coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources, yet we still prefer not to write a bio about them if they only played a minor role in the event, and they wouldn't notable at all if not for that one event, in spite of the brief media spotlight they had on them.

Obviously, the Stand-alone lists guideline should allow non-notable names to appear on lists about notable events, but BLP1E and BIO1E don't enter into it at all. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Alternatively, maybe what LISTPEOPLE is trying to say is

People who meet the notability requiement, but only because of their connection to single event which they did not play a significant role in, still meet these list guidelines even if WP:BLP1E or WP:BIO1E would discourage creating a separate article about them.

I would probably prefer to keep the wordage at a minimum and move it to a footnote:

A person is typically included in a list of people only if all the following requirements are met:

• The person meets the Wikipedia notability requirement.^[1]
• The person's membership in the list's group is [...]

--Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:46, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lists#Overly long list items

Gist: Add brief advice about what to do about excessively large items in lists, to either WP:Manual of Style/Lists or WP:Summary style.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:26, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

There is a proposed amendment to WP:LISTPEOPLE (Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Lists of people) at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Proposed amendment to WP:LISTPEOPLE regarding the inclusion of lists of non-notable victims in articles about tragic events. Cunard (talk) 08:14, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of HD DVD releases (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Masters of Cinema releases (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Criterion Collection DVD and Blu-ray releases
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Criterion Collection LaserDisc releases
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Eclipse releases

--woodensuperman 15:41, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of terrorist incidents#RfC: List criteria. – Levivich 17:38, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

After discussions spread over the last couple of years, we have finally updated Wikipedia:External links#Links in lists with some new advice about how to format external links in some stand-alone lists. This format is not mandatory, but it may be helpful in some cases. Please feel free to try it out in pages that you think are appropriate, and leave feedback on the guideline's talk page. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:07, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Set index articles#Can lists of lists be SIAs? JalenFolf asked "... would it also be feasible to create a footer template indicating lists of lists that works in a similar fashion as the set index footer?" I think that would be a good idea, and would be glad to do it. The template ((List of lists)) would display something like:

This article includes a list of related lists.
If an internal link incorrectly led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended list or article.

The template would by default add the page to Category:Lists of lists, and would take category and sort key positional parameters in the same way as Template:Set index article.

Are there any problems with this, or improvements that should be made? Aymatth2 (talk) 22:29, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support per my comments on the linked discussion; why this wasn't done before is beyond me. Jalen Folf (talk) 22:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Would the benefit of this just be helping to correct mistargeted links via the message "If an internal link incorrectly led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended list or article."? Is this a common issue for "List of lists" articles? I do think in some cases this could be a red flag that the page should actually be classified as a DAB. Coincidentally, I just posted a wall of text at WT:DAB specifically on certain classes of 'lists of lists' that should, IMO, be reclassified as DABs. Colin M (talk) 23:48, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Replacing [[Category:Lists of lists]] by ((List of lists)) is consistent with putting ((disambiguation)) in a DAB or ((Set index article)) in an SIA. The template renders the category plus a standard warning message with a link to the guideline. The immediate (minor) value is the message and the link to the guideline, but the longer term value is providing a place to add code related to lists of lists: the template could be enhanced to render maintenance categories. E.g. does the list of lists have a corresponding category? Aymatth2 (talk) 02:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the code for ((disambiguation)) and ((sia)), it seems like they don't really do anything beyond rendering the message box (and adding the dab/sia categories). I do think there could be some value in showing this message, but I also think it's not a free win. I see two costs:

1. Adding indirection/complexity to the process of adding/removing categories. i.e. a reader sees that an article is in Category:Lists of lists and thinks it shouldn't be, they go to edit the source looking for [[Category:Lists of lists]] so they can delete it, but they can't find it. Using templates to add cats also doesn't play well with hotcat.
2. Adding more visual elements that compete with actual article content for attention.

I'm leaning against the idea just because I think lists of lists seem much less likely to attract mistargeted links than dab pages or SIAs. Think of SIA articles like Albion Road, Typhoon Billie or Rattlesnake Mountain - these are very similar to DABs in the sense that the vast majority of the time someone wikilinks to them, they meant to link something else. I don't think there are many LoLs that are comparable (and I think the few that are should probably be reclassified as DABs - but we'll see how that discussion goes). Colin M (talk) 02:57, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Both the above arguments also apply to DABs or SIAs. It should be obvious that if a page shows in Category: Disambiguation pages with no (−) (±) symbols, and when you edit it all you see is ((Disambiguation)), then removing the template will remove the category. The visual elements at the foot of DAB and SIA pages do not seem distracting to me. It just shows that they are a bit different from normal pages, as are lists of lists.

I interpret WP:LISTOFLISTS: "Lists of lists should also be available as alphabetical categories" as meaning each LoL should have a corresponding category. The article "Lists of Ruritanian villages" should be the main article for "Category:Lists of Ruritanian villages", and each list of Ruritanian villages should be in that category. The template could help with that. That is,

• Accept an optional "|listcat=" parameter
• If not provided, use the list of lists name as the "listcat" value
• Check that Category:listcat exists, complain if it does not, render it if it exists.

So the template puts the list of lists into Category:Lists of lists (or a subcategory) and into Category:Lists of Ruritanian villages| . It may also put it into one or more hidden maintenance categories. I see value in that. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I get it now - thank you for clarifying. Yeah, I see value in that as well. But again, I also see some danger in added complexity/cognitive overhead. Re It should be obvious..., it's worth keeping in mind:

• Different editors have different levels of comfort and familiarity with the source editor, wikitext, templates etc. What about editors who mostly use the visual editor?
• Rather than seeing ((Disambiguation)) or ((Set index)), they might instead see ((dab)) or ((sia)).
• For some reason I often see the ((Set index)) template placed away from the categories, in some other random section. Which is confusing for our hypothetical editor in this scenario, but also generally suggests that editors who are applying these templates in the first place are making errors that they wouldn't otherwise make with plain category tags.

Anyways, not strongly opposed (or for) at this point, just playing devil's advocate. Colin M (talk) 23:10, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

The concern about added complexity is valid and should be raised for any change. It should be acceptable in this case because it is consistent with the related DAB and SIA pages, and list of lists will mostly only be started by experienced editors.

The placement question is interesting. The first time I started an SIA I put the ((set index article)) tag at the top, because I wanted it to be very clear that it was that kind of list. Another editor moved it down. Some tags, like ((unreferenced)), are usually put at the top while others, like ((stub)), are usually put at the bottom. I am not sure if there is any particular principle here, or just convention. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:32, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

A separate question is whether all the lists of lists (LoLs?) are correctly classified, or should be DABs or SIAs. That should be discussed at Disambiguation pages for composite titles... . I will try to contribute to that discussion there. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Since there were no strong objections, I have started a first version of ((List of lists)). It needs careful testing before being rolled out. I see no urgency: we have lived without it for a long time. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

While I'm still not totally sold on this overall endeavour, I want to tip my hat to you for creating Category:Short lists of lists and having the template automatically apply it. It seems like a potentially very useful tracking category. These LoLs have some interesting characteristics that set them apart from others. In many cases, they're obviously the result of a large stand-alone list article that was split into a few sub-pages for size considerations. Many of them are also good candidates for recategorizing as DABs. Colin M (talk) 19:17, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

The area is a bit of a mess. As a first pass, I am trying to break Category:Lists of lists into smaller subcategories, which I think will help. Some of the lists of lists may belong in more than one subcategory. The template generates three maintenance categories:

• Category:Short lists of lists, which may well be DAB candidates
• Category:Lists of lists with no matching category‎, which may also be DAB candidates - or a matching category is needed
• Category:Lists of lists with listcat specified‎, which generally mean the category name is not the same as the list name, which may also be questionable.

I thing Wikipedia:Lists of lists is needed to document and discuss LoL issues. I can start it ... Aymatth2 (talk) 19:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done @Aymatth2: you're right. I went ahead and created Wikipedia:Lists of lists. It's in a very rough and incomplete state, but it's at least a starting point, and a place where we can discuss the finer points of LoLs without spamming WT:SAL. Bold contributions very much welcome! Colin M (talk) 21:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

The essay Wikipedia:Lists of lists tries to give advice on lists of lists. It was started a month ago by User:Colin M, and User:Aymatth2 added material, in part in response to comments on its talk page. The essay seems to have settled down, and does not seem controversial. This is a fairly obscure topic, but the essay may be some help in discussions about lists of lists. Would there be any objection to adding a pointer to it at the end of Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Lists of lists, e.g.

See also Wikipedia:Lists of lists for an informal essay on content, purpose, naming etc. of lists of lists.

Comments? Aymatth2 (talk) 19:08, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

What are the naming conventions for lists? If there's going to be more than one "List of List"? When should we create a "list of list" and when should we avoid it? Although "List of..." i consider actual Wikipedia content (example: List of Star Wars films, List of Final Fantasy video games, and List of Kingdom Hearts media. However, i find Disambiguation, Outlines, and Indexes, are for navigational purposes only. So with that mindset Should we call "List of lists" something else? This is why i believe we should have separate classifications for navigation lists and informational ones.

To me, calling it a "list of lists" is a literal list of articles that their primary topic is a lists (Santa's List, Schindler's List, Bucket Lists). Then there are also list of lists like List of One Piece episodes that resembles what you provided.Blue Pumpkin Pie ^{Chat Contribs} 19:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I think the essay covers most of those points:

• The recommended name form is "Lists of X", although "List of X" is quite common, and other forms may be used, like List of composers by nationality (a hybrid) or even Chronological lists of classical composers.
• A list of lists is useful if it groups related lists, helps navigation and gives more structure/information than would be possible with a category. Otherwise, it should not be created.
• The purpose usually is mainly navigational, but lists of lists often give some information about list entries, and may give extensive information. I think it would be hard to distinguish between navigation lists and informational ones, or to prevent navigational ones adding information.
• The term "list of lists" has been around a long time to mean articles that are mainly lists of other list articles. I suppose there could be a list of articles like Santa's List, Schindler's List, Bucket list etc., but it would be vulnerable to deletion proposals.

The essay can certainly be improved. The question is whether it should be linked from here to make it more visible. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Well we already do distinguish them with Indexes, Disambiguations, and Outlines. All replacement for the word "List". Why can't we call these list of lists such as indexes?Blue Pumpkin Pie ^{Chat Contribs} 20:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

We could rename Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Lists of lists to Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Indexes of lists and rename Category:Lists of lists to Category:Indexes of lists, but then we would have about 1,200 articles with names like Lists of American Jews that should be moved to the new category and to names like Index of lists of American Jews. It seems like a lot of work, and a separate discussion. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:21, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Indexes, as described in WP:INDEXES, are articles that alphabetically list all articles related to some broad topic. They are conceptually quite different from an article that lists list articles that share some common domain. Disambiguation pages and outlines are also disjoint from lists of lists. Colin M (talk) 22:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Since there were no objections, I have added the pointer. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:30, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

As an FYI, I'm involved in a discussion at Talk:List of cultural references to the September 11 attacks#Sources needed regarding whether items in standalone lists require citations. We're also discussing what the inclusion criteria should be for this list. I would welcome additional input. Thanks! DonIago (talk) 15:24, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

A lists requirements should be discussed between users/editors of the list, and agreed upon. Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists has a section labeled Selection criteria, which states "Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed (for example, lists of unusual things or terrorist incidents), it is especially important that inclusion be based on reliable sources given with inline citations for each item." The subparagraph for the section, Common selection criteria gives examples of common selection criteria, but one of the important take-aways is that it is indicating that each list can have or develop it's own criteria, which should be agreed upon by the list users. One example of a series of lists developing their own criteria is the List of <year> albums, for example, List of 2019 albums, which states in the lead paragraph the criteria to be included in the list, "The following is a list of albums released in 2019. The albums should be notable which is defined as significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject." These lists require in-line citations for each entry because many album articles are badly created by fans and are actually not notable, so just having an article is not sufficient to be included on the list, or the album itself may not have an article yet, but can be proven to be notable, so can be included in the list. The determination of whether the list required citations was the basis of many discussions over several years among list users and among outside observers who had no interest in the list, but looked at the list with other considerations in mind.

In general I would suggest that any list user who is considering the requirements for citations in stand-alone lists start with discussing the need in the talk page of the list, or be bold and either add or remove the citations depending on the desire and see if anyone objects enough to revert, and if so, discuss (Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle), which is one optional method formalized by Wikipedia.

In the specific case of your query, it sounds as if you are already on the talk page discussing the need for citations, and you are reaching out to this Stand-alone list project page to see if there is anything in the list or a consensus among the observers of this project page to swing discussions one way or the other. I believe you will need to just work it out among your list users. Mburrell (talk) 17:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

A discussion came up on Talk:List of photographers concerning the way we include lists of women by occupation as compared with lists of people by occupation. With categories, we avoid having "male" be the "null gender" by requiring that, for example, a person in "Spanish women novelists" is also in "Spanish novelists". I was surprised not to find a corresponding guideline for list articles. Unlike categories, it does bring up concerns about duplicate content. So while List of Japanese photographers does not currently include many of the people listed at List of Japanese women photographers, copying the latter into the former would make the latter a fork. Is that a concern? Surprised not to have come across this question before... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I added the content from Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists § Titles to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (lists), since there was a consensus on the Talk page. I added the ((bad summary)) cleanup box because the #Titles section should now be revised so it is a summary of the information now on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (lists). I'm still learning the best way to format everything and use the markup editor so I'm pretty tired and have probably already made some mistakes in the merging. I don't think I have the energy to write up a summary right now so I wanted to leave some sort of comment so that people are aware of what happened. WhirlWithoutEnd (talk) 04:11, 7 December 2020 (UTC)