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.

Wikipedia_talk:Embedded_list#Merge_Triva_sections SilkTork *SilkyTalk 08:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Most_wanted_articles#Lists has been updated from the 2007-09-08 data dump. --Sapphic 17:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

As Will Beback points out above, "Wikipedia has scores of embedded lists that include a criterion, implicitly or explicitly, of notability. "Notable residents", "notable alumni", or "notable contributors" are typical examples. My feeling with these is that they should mostly be limited to links to existing articles because those have proven notability."

I also see someone saying above "List of notable organ transplant donors and recipients has potential to be a featured list".

There's a convention here that "The name or title of the list should simply be List of _ _ (for example list of Xs). Do not use a title like: Xs, famous Xs, listing of important Xs, list of notable Xs, nor list of all Xs." However, in lists which select notable people from a much larger group, I have found it very useful, as it helps to exclude the non-notable. Without 'notable' in the title, I find these lists can need regular cleanup because inexperienced users constantly add non-notable people to them.

I would make these points -

1. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't believe the WP:MOSLIST convention amounts to a strict rule that 'notable' must always be removed from a name, and
2. This convention seems to me to make best sense for lists in which the word 'notable' can be inferred, such as List of Presidents of the United States.

We have a user whose edits consist largely of removing the word 'notable' from lists all over Wikipedia, stating if anyone objects that he is correct. I have discussed it with him here and here.

Can other people please give this matter some thought? Is there room for 'notable' in the name of a list, or am I wrong and it should always be expunged? Xn4 23:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a very simple and sensible solution. Leave "notable" (or whatever) out of the title, but include it in the lede where appropriate. This should cover all bases within existing policy. Dhaluza 01:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

That does seem sensible. Separately, I'm not too keen on the word "notable" for this purpose, although I don't have a better suggestion.--Father Goose 06:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that in some lists 'notable' isn't needed. For example: List of Presidents of the United States where ‘notable’ is unnecessary. To have a "List of notable Presidents of the United States" would imply that only some would be on the list.

For other lists I feel that 'notable' is needed in the title, especially for places such as ‘List of people from X’, otherwise all and sundry could be included. With 'notable' in the title, it implies which people are to be included on the list.

However, if 'notable' is not going be in the title, then 'notable' should, as Dhaluza suggested, be used in the introduction. Perhaps the WP:MOSLIST guidelines could make it a requirement to reflect this. -- Cwb61 (talk) 22:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I found that some users already started to remove "notable" from every list they can find. One thousand wrong edits do not make things right (quality not quantity people!). That's why it should be necessary to talk things over. Before such arbitary and hasty changes are made, I believe that people should use common sense. In other words, there is no blanket rule on this issue. I agree with the "notable Presidents" example (that seems pretty obvious) but there ARE cases where notable is necessary in the title in order to accurately represent its content. For example, lists of "notable alumni" should retain "notable" in the title (see: WP:NOTABLE_ALUMNI) because there is a prerequisite of people having notability in order to be added. So, before such changes are made, there might be a need for some discussion on individual talk pages. aNubiSIII ^{(T / C)} 16:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

If that's the case, then the list guideline WP:MOSLIST needs to be changed: the reason for guidelines is to save editors the trouble of having to discuss every individual change before making it. You err in stating that the removal of "notable" is wrong, arbitrary and hasty: it is perfectly consistent with the guideline. If the guideline needs to be changed, could someone please suggest revised wording? UnitedStatesian 16:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

MOSLIST is fine. The word "notable" is redundant in a title. All WP lists should contain notable people only. The wording in MOSLIST is longstanding. That there are some lists that go against the guideline is not a reason to change it. Colin°^Talk 16:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. "Notable" is implicit in almost every list title. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Notable is implicit in most, but not all lists. Sometimes it is better to have a complete list rather than a partial list of notables, especially when the number is manageable, or the notability criteria problematic. For example, a list of Henry VIII's six wives might be better as a complete list, rather than trying to decide which ones were notable or not. So the lead should specify whether the list is complete, or just a partial list of notables. Dhaluza 01:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Then it sounds like we have consensus: "Notable" should not be in the title, but the lead/introduction should use the word notable where appropriate, as well as indicating whether the list is complete or incomplete. Since WP:MOSLIST says this, no changes need to be made to that guideline. Am I on target/have I missed anything? UnitedStatesian 16:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I have posted a request for a peer review for the list article List of films that received the Golden Film, in case you are interested. Your help would be appreciated. – Ilse@ 14:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Since it looks like Today's featured list proposal is going to pass, I am here to recrute people to help get this going and help decide who should be in charge of it. Any suggestions? -- The Placebo Effect (talk) 06:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Index Lists, a complex issue which I've tried to summarize. It concerns unsourced pages in mainspace like List of timelines, List of basic mathematics topics, and List of film topics. Its scope is currently a few hundred pages, and potentially a few thousand pages. Feedback would be appreciated. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

What is the guidelines on notability for a list? I've looked at WP:N and WP:List and many various talk pages and archives from it, but can't find any conclusion from discussions. I'm dealing with an Afd here WP:Articles for deletion/Westlife songlist, does the list inherited it's notability from the articles listed on the list, or is there some other requirement? ChessCreator (talk) 19:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The guidance on the issue of what kind of lists are "notable" is, sadly, unresolved, and at the present time, handled arbitrarily.--Father Goose (talk) 22:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Hola,

I'm surprised to not find any guidance, so this might be an easily answered question. Are list pages ever just lists of external links? List of Crohn's disease organizations worldwide is my original concern and consists of solely external links, but there's a couple others. WP:L says "The items on these lists include (but are only rarely exclusively) links to articles in a particular subject area..." implying only internal links. Is it obvious so it doesn't need to be mentioned or are list articles of ELs inappropriate? WLU (talk) 22:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I see from the talk page that you have tried citing WP:NOT#LINK. That is sufficient and more than enough to justify an AfD. I think WP:L didn't think it necessary to repeat policy. External links should only appear in the References and (in moderation) External Links sections. Colin°^Talk 23:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been referred to List of Systems Biology Research Groups at Talk:Microfluidics, with a similar problem (and a disagreement over ELs again, with a suggested solution of 'lets move them to a separate page). If lists are meant to be exclusively internal links, I'd say it should be more explicit on the page. If mixed lists or lists of solely external links are appropriate, then I'd say this should also be mentioned. Anywhere else I should bring this up to get more comments? WLU (talk) 17:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I would argue that WP:N should be taken into account here. If it's a list of external links that would themselves be deserving of articles (which, in this case, should be ok -- any research group that publishes in well regarded, peer reviewed journals should meet WP:N) then it's fine. If it's a list of entirely things that don't meet this criteria, then it should be deleted. In other words, take it on a case by case basis, with notability in mind. Don't just delete simply because it's a list of links.--Cubic Hour (talk) 20:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:N "only pertain[s] to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles". In other words, it will help you decide if the subject of those links could be an article on WP or not. If you create articles for those topics then you can create a standalone list that links the articles together. WLU - you could try the talk pages of WP:NOT or WP:EL but I'd suggest you just go straight for AfD and see what happens. Colin°^Talk 20:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

My reply to Cubic Hour would be create the articles first, then create the list. You might find that WP:PROF and WP:CORP has a more stringent level of notability for professors and companies than just publishing in peer-reviewed journals. The problem isn't that it's a list of links, it's that it's a list of external links which aren't necessarily sufficiently notable to require their own wikipages. CH, my apologies, but the page will be my test-case for the notability of external lists. I'll alert you when the AFD is posted so you can defend the page, but you may want to review WP:ATA, CORP, N and PROF, and WP:AFD. I think it's deletable, Colin thinks its deletable, but you don't. Let's get some input from other editors and see what they say. This could very well be a test case for a large variety of articles that list solely external links. Colin - I'm going to avoid the List of CD orgs because of my history with Io. Depending on the outcome of the AFD I may follow-up on it, I may ask someone else to. WLU (talk) 22:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

<undent>Listed, sorry for being curt, I've got to run. Posted this one by accident, but it's older so if gets wiped then the others are likely to fall too. And none of us have a stake in it, so hopefully more neutral. WLU (talk) 22:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I have seen that you have cooked a plan to delete this List of Systems Biology Research Groups. Now I have moved this article out of the Wikipedia mainspace into the WikiProject Systems space, because I consider these list of great importance for the development of the project. I guess this is the third or forth time I have this discussion. You seemed only to be interested in applying the rules. We have a job to do to explain about systems science. These lists are unique in the world as Wikipedia and Wikicommons is. Why should you want to frustrate our efforts. -- Mdd (talk) 23:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said at Talk:List of Crohn's disease organizations worldwide, these lists of external links could only be retained as encyclopedia articles, if a paragraph is written about each organization. Plus an article intro-paragraph. See Wikipedia:Featured list criteria for the ideal end-result.

Meanwhile, moving them to project-space is a good idea. -- Quiddity (talk) 00:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Which I'm OK with, but should they then be linked to other mainspace articles? Also, section below for comment, which basically makes my comment here redundant. WLU (talk) 00:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

In part as a test case, I nominated List of Systems Biology Research Groups, now Wikipedia:WikiProject Systems/List of Systems Biology Research Groups, for deletion here. Other discussions took place at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Lists#Lists_of_solely_external_links.3F and Talk:Microfluidics#External_Links and Talk:List of Crohn's disease organizations worldwide. I've found a couple of lists that are purely external links, and I'm not sure that they're appropriate per WP:LIST - I'm inclined to think they're a violation of WP:NOT#LINKS since they're mostly not notable enough to have their own wikipedia page and I think lists are supposed to be solely article links. I can see it being a valid resource for Wikipedia:WikiProject Systems but don't think it should be linked to mainspace if that's the case. So, I'm wondering about comments on the article and AFD specifically, but also about the presence of external-only lists in general. Comments? WLU (talk) 00:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for inviting me here in this discussion. I wasn't aware of any of the current discussion untill the list was nominated for deletion. As I said in other comments, this lists are very important for the WikiProject Systems. And it is a good thing to try to find some solutions for the problems here. I am more the willing to invest time an resources to come up with a solution. In the past year this is maybe the 4th time this has come up. I will proceed this tomorrow. -- Mdd (talk) 00:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

comments pasted from User talk:Neil#AFD question WLU (talk) 15:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I just saw this note. I believe that User:Dhartung's close of the AfD by endorsing the move of the list to project space was incorrect. If this were my issue I'd start by asking Dhartung to undo his close. If he declined, I'd take it to DRV. One of the benefits of an AfD is there can be a wide-ranging discussion of the future of the page, and it might be possible to convert it into a real article. Plus, there is no carte-blanche for lists of links to exist in Wikipedia space; the AfD voters could consider that issue as well. EdJohnston (talk) 02:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm unsure what the problem is - I think moving lists that are inappropriate as an article of their own in their current condition but could be a valuable resource to help create and improve other articles is entirely appropriate, and I don't think it's done enough. Neıl ☎ 11:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I was the guy that moved the article to the WikiProject Systems space. I wonder what you ment with the remark: no carte-blanche for lists of links to exist in Wikipedia space.

In my perception there are different Wikipedia spaces:

• The Wikipedia article talkspace
• The Wikipedia:Community space under the Wikipedia:Community Portal
• The Wikipedia:WikiProject spaces: the subpages behind the Wikipedia:WikiProjects
• and the userpages and all the sub user pages: with I call the "userspace".

These spaces have differnt objectives an different rules. It is not so much that I want to have a carte-blanche, or that I want to bend the rules. But these lists are of some importance to the operation of WikiProjects. I would like to keep them on way or another. If you want to change all this. I would like to participate in the discussion and explain my point of view.

You allready stated that those list could be a valuable resource to help create and improve other articles. This is waht really is happening. I will go into the more technical details on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists page. -- Mdd (talk) 13:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Note it was User:EdJohnston, not I, who said there's no carte-blanche for lists of links to exist in Wikipedia space. As I said, if they have a viable use in improving articles, I think it's fine for them to exist in Wikipedia space. Neıl ☎ 13:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent)So there is general support for lists external links only being moved out of mainspace into a wikiproject (unless I'm mis-understanding Neil). In this case, I don't think that the lists should be linked to mainspace articles, otherwise it looks to me like a way of avoiding [{WP:N]], the WP:MOS and other policies and guidelines - project lists are resources that can be used to expand pages, not as a content fork. User:Quiddity in the above section says that a list of external links is OK so long as expanded (in my mind a good example being the second box in Wikipedia:Embedded list#Lists within articles or List of 30 Rock episodes). WLU (talk) 15:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't go as far as to say "general support". The case is being made that this list is to aid Wikipedians (not readers) in creating articles. If that is the case then they are fine, though I can't understand how such a list achieves that goal. I agree with WLU that you must request the redirect is killed and you must remove all links to it from article space (talk page links are fine). Otherwise, it just looks like a way to hide from policy. I'm disappointed that this move killed the AfD. It should have been moved after the AfD, if at all. I suggest another list of external links be AfD'd. I really think that is the way to bring policy experts into the discussion. There is too much X says this and Y says that. X and Y could be talking rubbish and their opinion might be irrelevant. Colin°^Talk 15:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Colin, particularly on his statement about the list being of aid to wikipedians, not to readers. There's basically 2 options - leave the page as is (in wikiproject space, unlinked to any articles) delete the redirect and nominate another list of ELs only for deletion, or return the page to its original location in mainspace and re-nominate it for deletion. Which would almost certainly result in the list being projectified anyway but would provide precedent. I'm inclined to go with the former. WLU (talk) 16:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Quiddity said, I meant that there needs to be some sort of encyclopedic content - a paragraph about each organization, then the external links would be the reference for the paragraph. External links are simply not allowed within the article text (except as basic inline references[1] which'll eventually get converted anyway). Note that I don't endorse this standard, I'm just parroting it. (I've seen many potentially useful articles, such as Color tool get gutted because of WP:EL violations. It's a complicated set of issues). Hope that helps. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

A question

Could somebody short explain?

• This discussion seems to focuss on the fact that the listing is nothing more then a bunch of external links. And what to do with it.

Now I update the Systems biology list a little.

• What I see is an overview of the world of systems biology institutes
• and an overview of what Wikipedia is offering about this
• such a list is complementary next to the systems biology article
• And the Wikipedia community can help expand this overview

Why should you frustrate this attempt. What is wrong with these overviews? -- Mdd (talk) 21:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The lead definitely helps, but right now the list basically lists any group working in that area. Quiddity's comment above is that each entry should have a short paragraph discussing the notable aspects of it. Notability applies for articles, not really entries in articles. The point is it should be an overview, as you said, not a list - just a list gives no indication why the entries are important/present. A raw list doesn't tell the reader much. WP:CORP might have some ideas on how to expand each mini-entry, but I'd suggest using it for suggestions and not for it's notability criteria. Ideally every entry should be a jumping off point for a stand-alone article rather than just a link in a list. Of course, this is assuming you want to move it back to mainspace, if you're just using it as a source for the wikiproject then it doesnt' really matter. WLU (talk) 23:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

My personal opinion is now the list is fine, the links in the text are to other wiki pages and the external links are all in the reference or external links section. Maybe not everyone will agree, but it's appears encyclopedic to me, not a simple 'spam like' list of external links it was a few days ago. SunCreator (talk) 23:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd tentatively agree, but would be happier if there were more labs with their own wikipages. But definitely a huge improvement, and now I have to look for another test case :( WLU (talk) 01:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Why are you looking for another test case? I'm sure you are attempting to be helpful but make sure your reason is not to make a point WP:POINT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SunCreator (talk • contribs) 23:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope, not a point, to see what the general opinion is of lists comprised purely of ELs, and accordingly if any adjustments should/not be made to the various guidelines. They seem to imply that lists should be only internal links but there's not much clarity on it. Were I making a point I'd nominate the systems bio list but I'm satisfied that one is OK. WLU (talk) 10:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I personally don't like any external links in the text. It's okay sometimes if they are the cited reference, but then it's perferred they are marked up accordingly and moved to the notes/reference section. In a list is it much worse, this is because lists are a useful navigation tool (see WP:LISTS#Purposes_of_lists, and navigation is lost if you click a link and leave wikipedia. SunCreator (talk) 11:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Given that it has been a while since this discussion and the lists in question (companies by country) do not appear to be going anywhere I thought I would try and establish a set of guidelines that will hopefully address a lot of the concerns raised in previous AFDs. This is the first step in having the project improve these lists by ensuring a minimum quality standard and establishing consistency across all. I'd appreciate if interested members of this WikiProject would review the draft guidelines I've put together, make edits as you see fit and discuss any major changes on the talk page. Thanks for your help! - Richc80 (talk) 00:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I have a proposal here about extending the scope of PseudoBot to cut down on the subset of list vandalism that involves the addition of non-notable entries to lists and list sections. Currently the scope of the bot is the date pages (such as August 7), where there is consensus that a link is required. It has been suggested in the discussion that some lists of people might be a candidate for such treatment, however this would mean that policy would have to require articles to exist for all links in these lists. The comment made was I don't see that as a big ask: all that the policy is saying is "create a stub first". - I'm inclined to support this, but I'd like to know the opinion of WikiProject Lists? Pseudomonas_(talk) 21:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Followup - I've made a Bot proposal - feel free to comment there. Pseudomonas_(talk) 22:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 20:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

We have been talking on WP:VG about the best usage of List-Class recently, and when I saw someone at Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment#Question re: list class bring it up, I responded there. I would like a WP-wide standardization of List-Class (just the class itself) and FL to contain lists like List of Square Enix games and to not reasonably contain "lists" like Characters of Kingdom Hearts. Basically, I think there is much confounding of a "list" and a "list-class article". Please comment at Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment#Question re: list class. Thanks! JohnnyMrNinja 17:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

This template is currently being discussed at WP:TfD. See discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 August 5. Regards. PC78 (talk) 15:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

There is currently an ongoing discussion on suitable items to include in the List of special forces units and what references are appropriate. Interested editors are invited to participate in this discussion. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)