Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lists

Need for repeated wikilinking of same target

Looking through British Academy Television Awards 2011 I realized that the unlinking of target articles that have already been linked is counterproductive in a list of this kind. This being a list of awards sees the same articles listed many times in different categories where the shows or people have been nominated or won the award. I find it very cumbersome having to scroll back in order to find any given item wikilinked and find myself instead copying the title and pasting it directly into the search box. The MoS should address this problem in a constructive manner. __meco (talk) 12:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Listing of dependencies on country lists

[1] Should dependencies such as Puerto Rico, Hong Kong, Greenland, Bermuda be listed with their own sections? 116.48.173.15 (talk) 14:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

How to subdivide the list is entirely up to the editors at that list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason why they shouldn't? Is there any guideline on how countries should be arranged (e.g. into sections, or into rows in a table) on Wikipedia lists? 1.65.193.107 (talk) 13:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Should every single item on a list have a reference?

This has come up time and again. I would like the wording on this page to specifically answer this question to avoid problems. If no one actually sincerely doubts the entries on a list are accurate, should you be required to have a reference for it anyway? Most list articles don't have references for every entry in them, especially if the information on them can be easily verified in the Wikipedia articles they link to. I suggest the following change:

The verifiability policy states that if material is challenged or likely to be challenged, it is the responsibility of the editor who adds or restores the material to an article to cite sources for that material.

Obviously we don't have a reference to every single sentence and every single statement in every article there is. So no sense doing that to list articles either. I suggest we change this to:

If any information is sincerely doubted, then it can be challenged and removed. Consensus can be formed on the talk page of an article if something needs a reference to remain. Editors should never just remove something, simply because it doesn't have a reference.

Opinions please? Support or Oppose Dream Focus 20:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I suspect some rewording would be useful, but along a different tack than you've taken. A list entry is essentially the child of the inclusion or selection criteria laid out in the lead. That inclusion criteria defines the group or set that comprises the list. Individual entries should be verifiable as members of that set or group. Sometimes that membership is obvious, other times its not, but membership in the group or set is what must be verifiable. Just by way of examples: If one looks at Charles Dickens bibliography, membership in the group is clear, an entry must have been authored by Charles Dickens. Sourcing each entry to validate the fact that Dickens was indeed the author serves little purpose unless there is controversy over the authorship of a particular work. On the other hand, if one looks at Bibliography of the Lewis and Clark Expedition they will see that most entries are sourced to references that indeed verify the work is about Lewis and Clark. Unfortunately, we've don't talk about inclusion criteria in this MOS. Whatever wording is changed, it should be that entries in a list should be verifiable members of the group or set that the list is about. --Mike Cline (talk) 21:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Please see this discussion that recently concluded. Basically: it's up to editors to determine if the material is contentious enough per WP:V to include cites , or if just linking to the respective pages is sufficient. --MASEM (t) 21:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

If you don't change the guideline page itself, then nothing said on the talk page will convince some people. Dream Focus 22:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

This page is probably the wrong place to address it, since its focus is on how to write and format a decent list as part of an article. I suppose we ought to get back to the brief section on sourcing that we started talking about adding to WP:STANDALONE a while ago. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Redirected from Wikipedia:LIST). WP:LIST brings me to this page. Dream Focus 22:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I've just boldly drafted such a section for STANDALONE. Please read it and either make your own bold attempt to improve it, or leave a note on the talk page with suggestions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

[[2]] Good start, better than nothing. But not really going to be effective. My way isbetter, it specific, leaving no room to argue. And if I boldly change something, I'm certain someone seeing my name will automatically revert it. Dream Focus 00:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

See WP:BRD. The Transhumanist 11:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

*Comment It's pretty clear that our verifiability policy requires that every single item on a list have a reference, if challenged or likely to be challenged. Dlabtot (talk) 19:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure, but it's also pretty clear that many lists have items that aren't the least bit WP:LIKELY to be challenged. (I doubt that any of us could imagine a good-faith question about whether Apple should be included in the List of fruits, for example.) Some lists will have no items at all that are likely to be challenged. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Exactly so. Any Wikipedia content challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reference. Content not likely to be challenged does not - till it is challenged.

I would further add that a list item that consists of a link to a Wikipedia article relies on the verifibility of that linked article. Dlabtot (talk) 17:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Just for reference, look at the sourcing bibliographic entries section [3]] in WikiProject Bibliographies to see how that project approaches individual list entry sourcing. Its too verbose for a guideline, but does convey a comprehensive approach consistent with WP:V. --Mike Cline (talk) 10:54 pm, Yesterday (UTC+0)

I agree with Dlabtot Also, WhatamIdoing is not a reliable editor and it is a waste of time assuming good faith in that individual. Her reference list [4] about Da Costa's syndrome included number 7 by Oglesby Paul who described it as common in the first paragraph [5], and number 7, the Rare Diseases Database, which includes it on one of it's many lists [6]. Those two items are still on the current reference list for that topic three years later.

Another example of her abuse of lists can be seen where she places the ailment in the category of "Somatoform disorders" and yet number 5 from her reference list is a lecture by Paul Wood. The category of somatoform refers to imaginary symptoms and the link page includes Da Costa's syndrome in it's list [7], whereas Wood mentions the difficulty of distinguishing visceral from somatic symptoms and describes three good reasons why the left inframammary pain is not imaginary [8]

WhatamIdoing responds to challenges by arrogantly ignoring them or changing the subject so there needs to be an improvement in the means of ensuring the reliability of list entries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.141.67 (talk) 07:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

This is just Posturewriter (talk · contribs) engaging in WP:Block evasion; I suppose that someone ought to report it. His comments here are no worse than the extensive complaints about Wikipedia not permitting his POV pushing and original research that he's posted at his personal website. He is correct that I do not assume good faith when dealing with users who have been indefinitely blocked because of their bad behavior (documented, in this case, in an RFC and a request to ArbCom). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing: I am old enough to be your father and would like you to take responsibility for your actions, instead of acting like a child by changing the subject and rushing off to add comments to 20 other discussions in the hope that this one will be lost in the history of edits. You need to explain the irreconcilable contradictions in your references. You could start by telling this group of editors that you are too busy on other discussions to be able to actually read them. You might also like to explain who, outside of Wikipedia, is giving them to you, and telling you that they are relevant to your POV. If they are not 'giving them to you' then why haven't you read them, and why are you using them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.141.67 (talk) 02:37, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing is behaving in her typical devious way by ignoring this discussion, and contributing to many other talk pages. In one case she is even trying to give the false impression that she has the moral authority to give a 'big' thankyou to an editor for improving articles by providing reliable references, and adding that Wikipedia needs more people like that [9] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.141.67 (talk) 08:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing is still evading her responsiblity to account for the unreliable and contradictory nature of her choice of references, and yet is trying to give other groups the impression that her standards are good enough to give these instructions on 21-1-2012 . . . "Appropriate sources for encyclopedia articles are primarily on the subject in question and are authored or published in a way that gives you confidence that the material is accurate." [10]. It is a pity that she doesn't take her own advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.141.67 (talk) 06:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I've reported Posturewriter's block evasion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Block_evasion_by_Posturewriter, if anyone is interested in expressing an opinion there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Should every single item on a list have a reference? Yes and no. Like material in other articles, if a bit is contested it should be sourced and if sourcing is impossible the contested bit should be removed. Ideally every contestable bit of information should be sourced but we are a work in progress so material widely-understood to be sourceable would be acceptable to most editors. FL class articles are a bit different; I would expect every bit of information except the most obvious to be tied back somewhere to a source (although it may not need to be sourced in-line if the bulk of a list is derived from a single source). ThemFromSpace 19:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Should lists about people require the linking biography page to mention the subject's relationship to the list?

This issue is being debated for a single article here. The issue resolves around violating BLP, that if a biography doesn't mention a scientist's relationship to a very political issue, why should a list label them as such. Counter points seem to include issues of using Wikipedia biographies as a primary reference for BLP violation. I think this issue should be brought to the greater Wikipedia community, since all politically charged lists of people likely face similar issues. Dkriegls (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I think I agree with you, if you're suggesting that we make clearer that in lists which include people, BLP principles apply. —WFC— 07:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Kinda; essentially should BLP be fact checked against a person's biography page. If biography editors have decided this is not a notable position of said person, should it be a violation of BLP to add them to a list that suggests it is a notable position? Dkriegls (talk) 21:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

It depends: Is this something that the editors have properly discussed and made a conscious decision about, or just another case of the biography being WP:NOTDONE or even suffering from POV pushing? If the latter, then you should ignore the contents of the biography. If the former, then those editors' reasons should be made known to the editors at the list. Fundamentally, it's the job of the people at the list itself to decide what their criteria for including or excluding people are, not the job of the people at the biography. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't any issue of BLP be resolved at the biography page, not on some list? This is obviously most relevant to contentious issues where inclusion of said person on a list declares them in allegiance with a contentious issue. Lists are poor places to use prose to discuss the minutia of a person's position on the issue. Dkriegls (talk) 04:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

No, like any other content dispute, any BLP issue should be resolved at the actual page where the BLP issue exists.

Additionally, a well-written list can provide substantial information about why an entry was included. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)