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'm looking for a little help for some code on my user page. I'm building a multi-column list of pages I've created, found here. Problem is, each column is not the same number of items, and the columns are floating to the center instead of alining to the top. I'm not even sure if this is an appropriate question for this talk page, but I figured I would give it a shoot. Cheers and thanks for reading Dkriegls (talk) 07:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I figured it out. Thanks for anyone how took a minute. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 01:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

There is a whole category, Category:Lists of eponyms, in which almost all of the lists fail to demonstrate that they satisfy the notability criteria for stand-alone lists. That is, there must be reliable sources that discuss the list as a list. The only list that does establish notability is List of medical eponyms with Nazi associations. I have tagged all the rest with ((Notability|list)). However, some of the lists may be notable. Can anyone locate the appropriate references? RockMagnetist (talk) 18:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

This would fall under "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y")", given that eponyms as a whole are a notable group. Navigation lists like these rarely provide "undo weight" to the subject and thus are tolerated for their navigation purposes. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 20:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, see WP:LISTPURP, for example. WP:NLIST WP:LISTN, by its own terms, is not an absolute requirement for all lists, but instead only one way of analyzing them that doesn't work for all kinds. I've always thought that section caused more problems than it solved. postdlf (talk) 21:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I presume you mean WP:LISTN, not WP:NLIST? RockMagnetist (talk) 21:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Although both arguments make sense, there must be some limit to their applicability. For example, List of places named after Saint Joseph had 98 hits in the last 30 days and is linked to 2 articles. Clearly there is not a burning need for its services to navigation. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, on Talk:List of places named after Saint Joseph, User:History2007 disagrees with you. Though I'm not sure I agree with their reasoning.

Hit rate has never been a measure of inclusion on Wikipedia (as far as I know), but 98 hits in a month sound to me like 98 people found the list worth clicking to.

As far as a limit, it's taken on a case by case basis, hence no consensus on application. You could try to initiate some deletion efforts on a few of the lists you think are most egregious, but I don't think you will get very far, given that there is a WikiProject full of editors interested in categories and groupings of names. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 22:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

There used to be categories for many of the shared place names, but per WP:OCAT#SHAREDNAMES they were deleted at CFD in favor of lists, the proliferation of which do not pose the same problem as with a flood of category tags on one article. I think there's little reason to fret over such lists unless they are unencyclopedic: is it documenting a shared fact that you would typically note in an article, or is it one you wouldn't even bother to note in any of the articles? If it's the former, then it's probably a valid index of notable topics by encyclopedic facts in common; if it's the latter, then the list might be trivia or indiscriminate. The origin of a place name is always going to be noted in that place article, if verifiable, and it's encyclopedic information in the other direction too, of documenting what notable places were named after someone or something. postdlf (talk) 23:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I like your laid-back approach and hope that administators would be equally laid back if there was an AfD. I have seen some very well-developed lists get deleted; for example, Bibliography of sociology had some bizarre twists in its history. I have no interest in starting any AfD's myself; I see the tagging as more of a helpful warning. Ironically, I contacted WikiProject Anthroponymy at the same time as I contacted you, but have heard nothing from them yet. RockMagnetist (talk) 00:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Input is requested in a discussion regarding the criteria for an embedded list of "notable" people at Talk:San_Diego_State_Aztecs_men's_basketball#Notable_players.—Bagumba (talk) 01:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to create some consensus on what a "List of people from..." page should look like. The List of people from Park Ridge, Illinois has had the most editor input and is the only such list of a US city which is fully cited. It was previously nominated for featured list, but the conclusion was to bring it to Wikipedia:Peer review instead.

The current peer review can be found here, and all are encouraged to say their piece, as a successful featured list is likely to be used as a standard reference for such lists. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 23:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

In view of the fact that this project permits a list to be assessed |class=stub (as stated at Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists#Assessment), please comment at Wikipedia talk:Stub/Archive 14#Can lists be stubs? --Redrose64 (talk) 15:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I nominated Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of songs recorded by Leona Lewis/archive2 over a month ago and it hasn't had many comments from reviewers and editors. One of the reviewers hasn't been online for over a week, and another hasn't responded to some comments I have replied. I was advised to leave a note on the list's wikiproject's asking for anyone who may have some time to spare to review the list and leave comments. A vote on whether or not you feel the article is worthy of FL status would also be appreciated so that the FLC can make some progress. Thanks. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 23:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

There is a discussion regarding the naming of list articles as it applies to songs at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs. Interested parties may like to have a look and comment. This is message is posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

An article that falls under the scope of this project, List of 2000s Christian Songs number ones, has been nominated for featured list. Interested members can review and comment here. Toa Nidhiki05 21:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Would anyone from the Wikiproject like to leave any comments which they feel concerns them or would cast a vote in support or opposition based on your findings, I would much appreciate it. The list has garnered several good (and resolved) reviews, but no votes have been cast. Thanks. AARON• ^TALK 12:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, a number of us have reached consensus at Talk:Index_of_literary_terms#Solution:_Major_Overhaul to convert the article Index of literary terms (a list of words) into a table (with blank fields). However the list is so long, it really needs help with automated scripting. It should be easy to do with the right data formatting tools. Is there a place or resource to ask for scripting help? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Rjensen (talk · contribs) and I disagree on what selection criteria are acceptable for a list. In Bibliography of American Civil War Confederate Unit histories, his selection criterion is:

The books included here deal with Confederate regiments and other military units, are published by reputable presses,^[1] and are generally available through inter-library loan. More details on each book are available at Worldcat, the worldwide online catalog.

He argues at Talk:Bibliography of American Civil War Union military unit histories that there is no need to provide citations for individual entries because "every reader can just go to google books or amazon books or worldcat and get all the details on each title. there is no rule that says they ach have to be drawn from a published book--this is the internet age!"

I would be interested in hearing other views on this matter. The discussion began at Talk:Bibliography of the American Civil War and has migrated to Talk:Bibliography of American Civil War Confederate Unit histories. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

So your view is that the list should not include any publications that are not already included in established bibliographies external to Wikipedia, just to filter out the insignificant? You're not asking for an independent citation to verify the existence or content of the publication itself, correct? postdlf (talk)

Correct. I suggested a few possible selection criteria at Talk:Bibliography of the American Civil War. Unless the list has selection criteria that can be verified with reliable sources, it is WP:OR. RockMagnetist (talk) 22:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think your suggested criteria are unreasonable, but it's not OR simply to say "this is a publication about subject X" (which is all your're saying when you include an entry in a bibliography), as that's verifiable from the publication itself. Just to play Devil's Advocate, why isn't it sufficient to require that each entry itself satisfy WP:RS? postdlf (talk) 22:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

This is a small subset of the estimated total of 60,000 publications on the Civil War. In recent AfD's, the main argument used by Rjensen against charges that the lists are WP:INDISCRIMINATE is that a few editors chose them. That's what I am claiming is OR. RockMagnetist (talk) 22:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

OR and indiscriminate are two different things. I'd drop the OR claim as it's just distracting; indiscriminate is a valid concern, however. postdlf (talk) 22:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Rjensen argues that they are not indiscriminate because some editors chose them. Also, the list is well organized and doesn't look indiscriminate. However, if the editors are doing the deciding and not the author of a reliable source, it's OR. I remember this issue came up in a multiple AfD of scientific bibliographies.

Bibliography of sociology also presents a subset of a large body of work, and reliable citations are provided to demonstrate that many of the entries satisfy the selection criteria. I don't think that every entry has to be sourced right away, but it should be clear how to verify the choices. RockMagnetist (talk) 23:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Is it really that different from the decisions Wikipedia editors make regarding what facts should or shouldn't be included in ordinary subject articles? postdlf (talk) 00:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

If there isn't a difference, why do we have list selection criteria? RockMagnetist (talk) 01:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes it's just "in this list of X, these are the examples of X that have or we think merit articles." But yeah, you're right that it's generally agreed to be a problem if a list isn't limited to notable entries to not have some kind of meaningful threshold for inclusion if the list is open ended. postdlf (talk) 03:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd like your opinions on the future of the various Forbes lists. –Mabeenot (talk) 15:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm interested in taking List of awards and nominations received by Game of Thrones to Featured List but have only met with failure doing so before on a different list. Can someone with more experience have a look and tell me if it would be acceptable to nominate it or advise where I can improve it? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 04:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Your input is requested at Talk:List of Puerto Ricans regarding how should the list of Puerto Ricans be split.

We are trying to determine if List of Puerto Ricans should be split or not, and if split, how should we split it. The article is over 100 kB big in wikitext alone, and includes several pictures as well when rendered in HTML. Please state your opinion at Talk:List of Puerto Ricans. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 05:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Your input is requested at Talk:List of people who have been called a polymath regarding how should the list of people who have been called a polymath be formatted and what should it include.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The "New articles" section of this page doesn't seem particularly well-maintained; some of the articles have been deleted, some have been on the list for years, and the whole thing seems to be entirely dependent on the article's creator being aware of this Project's existence. Would the good folk here be amenable to replacing that section with a new article feed, which would automatically keep track of new list articles? DoctorKubla (talk) 15:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I've set up a feed at User:AlexNewArtBot/ListsSearchResult using these rules. It's not perfect; it's entirely reliant on categories and templates, which new article creators don't always use, but it's better than nothing. Anyone who wants to refine the ruleset is welcome to do so. If no-one objects, I'll replace this page's "New articles" section with a link to the feed. DoctorKubla (talk) 15:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

There's an ongoing discussion here that may be of interest to participants to this project. --Randykitty (talk) 12:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The life of Emile Zola is listed as the first biopic to win best picture, but The Great Ziegfeld won the previous year. It's a biopic about Florenz Ziegfeld. It contains musical numbers, but the story is the man's life24.147.137.161 (talk) 02:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

You didn't say what list you're talking about. Generally for a detail like this it's better to just comment on the talk page for the list. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Best_Picture_milestones 24.147.137.161 (talk) 22:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I have created and populated a Category:Wikipedia lists. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I cannot find anything about explicit referencing of standalone lists. I think WP:CITE is sufficient but should we draw up a guideline? I have had a few cases where editors have said there should be refs for individual lists entries. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

A guideline might be a good idea, because it can be difficult to decide whether to add inline citations. In most lists, they aren't needed; but when people start to invoke policies like OR, INDISCRIMINATE or POV, it's time to consider them. One way to deal with such challenges is to choose appropriate selection criteria and then provide a few inline citations to show that some entries satisfy the criteria. If there is argument over whether particular entries belong in the list, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(stand-alone_lists)#Citing_sources and MINREF are also relevant . RockMagnetist (talk) 05:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Do you want to wade into this little discussion? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

There is a request for approval for a bot that will automatically create an index list for each category in Category:Protected areas by year of establishment. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I wondered whether you wished to add [[1]] to the concerns of this project group? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 10:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a particular concern about List of alcoholic beverages? RockMagnetist (talk) 16:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

If you're just wondering whether it is in the scope of our project, the answer is yes. I have added a banner. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Dan Savage bibliography

List Peer Review for Dan Savage bibliography

Please see discussion, at Wikipedia:Peer review/Dan Savage bibliography/archive2. — Cirt (talk) 00:10, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Proposal for a day of 67th Tony Awards nominee DYK hooks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

(Moved to Talk:Miss Dominican Republic 1983#Mistake.) –Quiddity (talk) 21:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, is there someone expert in List policy, who could evaluate what I'm guessing is a basic, vanilla List policy issue of disagreement at Talk:List of Internet chess servers? (I don't know the policy enough to have a confident voice about it, so opened an RfC some time ago there after two ProjChess editors felt 'yeah' and one non-ProjChess editor felt 'nay', but the response to RfC was practically non-existent. I still feel this is probably a piece of cake for someone who knows List policy well and is practiced in applying it. So could that someone please help resolve at that page?) Thank you! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The list header was changed after my Q, to "[...] list of notable internet chess servers", which by definition requires all items in the list to be notable. But my Q was re the original header ("List of Internet chess servers"), and whether or not members in such a list are required to be notable under policy governing list articles (as per the Talk page debate there). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no policy that dictates what can be included in any given list. The relevant guideline is WP:LSC, which basically says that selection criteria should be decided on a case-by-case basis. I can't tell you what's right for this article; if there are so many Internet chess servers that a comprehensive list would be huge and unnavigable, then it makes sense to restrict it to notable servers only, but I don't know whether that's the case. Seems to me you need to have a broader discussion about the list's selection criteria, rather than getting bogged down in specifically discussing Chess.com's inclusion. DoctorKubla (talk) 06:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

A list at List of countries by intentional homicide rate#united states is supposed to be a copy/paste from this source. However, I've noticed that certain items don't match, which I assume is human error and/or wikientropy. Since the source provides the data in CSV, I would imagine there is some procedure for populating the article's list automagically so it is always error-free. I'm not finding any mention of this in the List/Table documentation though. Perhaps someone here at the aptly named WikiProject Lists could help? Krushia (talk) 14:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

It might have been noticed by people that I have been adding (probably hundreds by now) of articles to the 'workload' of this WikiProject, even though I'm not 'formally' a member or anything. This is from 'assessment' cleanup on my part, specifically running through the of 'unassessed articles' categories....at the moment, I'm specifically looking at 'regional' ones and 'assigning and classing as list' the articles that are named "(year) in (country)" and "List of....". I'm not doing it with AWB, I'm 'manually' adding all the appropriate categories, but I've actually 'requested' a 'bot run' to add this project as "class=list, importance=unknown" to every article with a name starting with 'list of'....there are a /lot/ missing from this project. Hopefully this is within the 'set' of 'obviously helpful things'. :)

• This would, I think, specifically help with catching 'errors' in the 'classification' of articles....I've added this project to articles, and filled the 'missing' classes in as list on quite a few articles that were in 'list' subcategories. It's not 'uncommon' for the....whatever it's called, it's optional, 'description of the article's assessment' displayed under the article title to not display as 'list-class', even after purges, dummy and null edits, until I manually 'added and removed' the top level 'lists' category.

This is a bug.....somewhere. Revent (talk) 22:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

In preparation for Wiki Loves Monuments, where the UK will be taking part in 2013 for the first time a whole load of lists are being generated for the relevant sites (all Grade I and Grade II* listed buildings in England & A & B in other coutries). As I've got some experience with lists of this sort I (along with others) have been asked to help. See Listed buildings in the United Kingdom for the scale of the task. Some of the (mostly GI) already have lists and some are FL which are going to be dealt with last as the "standard format" may be an issue. To enable people to upload photos easily for inclusion in WLM standard list headers and rows have been created eg Template:EH listed building header and Template:EH listed building row (with similar for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland). Lists are being generated by a script from spreadsheets provided by the regulatory bodies - but they need a lot of clean up and manual wikilinking, adding pics etc. I am focusing on Grade II* listed buildings in Somerset and its 7 sub lists covering 1000+ entries (as GI are all done). I have got furthest with Grade II* listed buildings in North Somerset and Grade II* listed buildings in Sedgemoor. They are not ready for FL yet - too many redlinks & missing photos (which is the idea of WLM) but could someone take a look at the tables and see if there are any glaring problems before I and others work on the hundreds of other lists going through this process?— Rod ^talk 10:26, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the list code you're using, but it is odd to see the "Completed" column justified "up" while the rest of the columns are justified "center". Also, what does the asterisk after Grade II* mean? If it's part of the official label, perhaps it should be noted as so. Because I was looking for an asterisk explanation at the bottom of the list. Other than that, things look in order. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 05:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Being discussed at Village pump, looking for more opinions. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 23:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

There is a discussion on lists of flags at WT:NOT that I think members of this WikiProject may have experience and perspective towards. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 22:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Golden Rooster Award for Best Director is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Golden Rooster Award for Best Director until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

The templates ((inclusion)), ((famous)) and ((famous players)) have been nominated for deletion. Someone not using his real name (talk) 15:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The RfC process does not seem to have a tag for lists, but project members may wish to comment on an RFC related to list content requirements:

• [[2]]. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The List of Romanian words of possible Dacian origin article has been proposed for deletion. It is similar to the articles under Category:Lists of English words, particularly List of English words from indigenous languages of the Americas and Category:Lists of English words of Celtic origin, and could act as a precedent. Your opinions are welcomed.--Codrin.B (talk) 14:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Dear Codrinb, how could the deletion of this article serve as precedent for deleting the other lists mentioned above? The title of the above lists does not contain weasel word and these lists are based on peer-reviewed reliable sources. Borsoka (talk) 16:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

1. Dan Savage bibliography
2. Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Dan Savage bibliography/archive1

I've gone ahead and nominated Dan Savage bibliography for WP:FLC consideration, the discussion page is at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Dan Savage bibliography/archive1. — Cirt (talk) 12:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I've recently created the page List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!.

Additional help with research, secondary source suggestions, and quality improvement ideas would be appreciated, at Talk:List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 17:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Please note that Life sciences, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by Theo's Little Bot at 01:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

• Wikipedia:Peer review/List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!/archive1

I've started a list peer review for List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!, feedback to further along the quality improvement process would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Peer review/List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!/archive1. — Cirt (talk) 19:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

1. List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!
2. Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!/archive1

I've started a Featured List nomination for List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!.

Participation would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!/archive1.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 15:26, 13 March 2014 (UTC)