Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This page is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Manual of Style
WikiProject icon This page falls within the scope of WikiProject Manual of Style, a drive to identify and address contradictions and redundancies, improve language, and coordinate the pages that form the MoS guidelines.
WikiProject Lists (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

List article vs a regular article[edit]

How do we define when something is a list-article vs. a regular-article? From what I can tell, a list article is defined in the first sentence of the MOS:

articles the main components of which are one or more embedded lists

"Main components" is vague.. does it mean a mathematical count of words, screen real-estate.. or is it a conceptual idea where the primary purpose or focus of the article is about the list proper. For example, Charles Dickens bibliography would be considered a list-article since it is primarily an article designed to contain a list of works. However even though Robert Louis Stevenson contains lists, it is not a list-article because the primary purpose of the article is a bio of the author, the lists being ancillary to that. Is this a correct understanding of the MOS? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

A "list article" is one where the primary purpose (or focus) of the article is to list things. Blueboar (talk) 16:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

List articles have moved on substantially since this original (and clearly unclear(!)) part of the MOS was written. Where a main article can't be substantiated, maintained or be moved beyond a stub, it makes sense to keep the topic self-contained as a list article with more prose than was traditionally accepted as expected in a standalone list which previously went along the lines of "This is a list of..." followed by a list.... We've progressed from there, particularly now we represent WIkipedia on the main page and want to do so professionally, not being held back by people pointing at specific sentences in particular guidelines in the MOS which aren't helpful, constraining the approach back to that followed in the mid 2000s. By the way, Robert Louis Stevenson's bibliography section is a good candidate for a standalone list, thanks for noting that. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

So you're saying the MOS has been out of date since the mid 2000s .. 8 years or so? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:37, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm saying the FLC process has improved and encouraged editors to consider our audience and create (if required) standalone lists which encompass most, if not all the pertinent issues that a pointless stub main article would cover. Yes, some of the MOS regarding lists needs close examination. What now? You point me at more rules or do we get a chance to create excellent articles, albeit under the name of "lists"? I really have to get back to improving WIkipedia, not holding it all for your interpretation of a few parts of a few sentences in a guideline. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
It's shocking that you're so involved with Featured List but apparently don't seem to care too much about the MOS. There is good reason not to enshrine articles as lists that are not lists. It cripples the article and makes it difficult for future editors to get on with expanding the prose section into a full fledged encyclopedia article. They are forced to do battle by submitting a Featured Review and wait weeks for consensus to develop while arguing arcane rules -- something only 0.01% of the Wikipedia community would ever do. If something is a stub now that is OK because we are not under a time limit, someone will come along later and fill it out. But you make this decision that it will always be a stub and so freeze it as such as a Featured List making it extremely difficult for others to work on it in the future. The Orange Prize is a good example of that. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Not shocking in the slightest. Trying to edit the MOS is like trying to reverse time. It's seems that it's something mere mortal editors can't achieve without a trip to the moon and back. So please, don't be "shocked", no need at all, I'd hate to think of your stress levels rising because of that. We never freeze a main article, try look at List of FLCL episodes which, just a few days back, was demoted and merged back into its main article. Please get your facts straight. Orange Prize is the worst example, you've infringed the rules of attribution and we have a copy-and-paste main article stub which is basically redundant because all the pertinent information is held in the winners list. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Sounds like a disregard and disdain for the consensus established by the MOS. Your approach is authoritarian and top down management, basically deciding ahead of time for future editors that the article will always be a stub and they will have to prove it otherwise by going through the pain of a FLRC before they can make any major changes to the article. It's an impediment to improving Wikipedia by adding unnecessary levels of bureaucracy on certain articles we already know will and can be expanded. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Your impeding decent quality articles, all be them lists, by picking and choosing your application of sentences in the MOS. You created a "main article" of the Orange Prize, ironically by copying and pasting the majority of the existing featured list. Bravo. And now what? Nothing, that's what, it's gone nowhere at all, other than to create two articles describing (in almost identical terms) the same thing. You must be so proud. So now centralise this discussion please, RFC it, and stop forum shopping. We're getting nowhere since we clearly have different agendas, mine to focus on giving the reader a complete and comprehensive experience, yours to wikilawyer in order to create stubs and by default remove information from one place to arbitrarily place it somewhere else, hence creating two worse articles. Once again, bravo, expert, bravo. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like this is a dispute that got heated before it even arrived here. Anyway, I had a discussion about this topic a while ago at Wikipedia talk:FLCR#Difference between a list and an article? Reading it might provide some insight. Basically, I don't think it is useful to make a bright line distinction between list articles and non-list articles. Why would we? I also have to agree absolutely with TRM on the state of list related guidelines. They're totally outdated. In practice we have moved on, but any attempt at trying to shape the guidelines up seems to end in frustration and banging one's head against the nearest wall. Goodraise 20:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Right, in that discussion you said "there is no such distinction between stand-alone lists and normal articles. In practice, we leave it to the reviewers at WP:FAC." That is exactly what is happening, there is an ongoing discussion in a FACFLC whether that article should be considered a list or not. The discussion is rules-based and specific to the characteristics of that article. The Rambling Man however doesn't believe that should be happening, he thinks we need to start a separate RFC etc.. - but I agree with you Goodraise, it's very simple we just decide the issue in the FACFLC, it's not complicated. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC) (edit: fixed FAC -> FLC typo after TRM's comment below - GC)
(a) this isn't a FAC discussion, Goodraise was simply noting that some FACs have lists (as you have done), the article under review right now is an FLC (b) the discussion shouldn't be "rules-based" at all, perhaps that's where it's all fallen down (per Goodraise's "bright line" note) (c) I have become so sick of your forum shopping that the RFC seemed the only way out because your position affects more than just a single FLC (not " we just decide the issue in the FAC [sic], it's not complicated") it affects many and I'd hate to trudge through this same long grass every single time you choose to pop into every literary award FLC to object on the same grounds, and point out how we are abusing MOS. By the way, I'm done with this debate entirely. I'll leave it for you and others to work out what best serves our readers, a stub main article and crap list, or a featured and fully comprehensive list. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
The decision is decided during the FLC based on the merits of the individual article. You're trying to make this into a Platonic final decision for all articles and that will never happen because every article is different, any such RFC is doomed to fail from the start. You have to go through this process for each FLC and article because they are all different. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 22:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Entries from the beginning of time and/or anywhere in the world[edit]

I added a statement to the guideline list selection criteria, "Does the membership criteria address relevant Five Ws and one H, including should the list of X entries be from the beginning of time and/or anywhere in the world?" That came from my commenting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Game of the Year, where you can see my effort to apply the Five Ws and one H to the selection criteria query. From that, I saw that the list selection criteria appeared to be missing a few probing questions whose answers are considered basic in information-gathering per Five Ws and one H. However, in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Game of the Year list situation, the How and Why part of the Five Ws and one H were not needed. They actually might not be needed for a selection criteria in a different list either. I don't know the answer to that. To be safe, I posted the above statement to the guideline. Blueboar edited it,[1] noting "I think I get what you are trying to say, but it is not clear. let's discuss on talk page." I agree that what I posted is in the ballpark, but the wording is not as clear as what it should be. What Blueboar kept might be good enough. In short, take a look at Five Ws and one H and see whether any other Five Ws and one H would provide a query that editors should ask themselves when trying to determine how to word a list selection criteria. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Notable list entries can be from different nations, and even different time periods. That's not relevant. List of Roman emperors covers over a thousand years. Dream Focus 13:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • True, but in other situations, it may help editors to figure out what should and should not be added to a list based on a list selection criteria specifying a particular geography or particular period. It does not require list to be limited to a geographic region or period in history. It is just one more question whose answer can be used in formulating the wording for a list selection criteria to help instruct editors as to what information should be gathered for the list. The listed query would not affect something like List of Roman emperors, whose membership criteria is anyone having the title of Roman Emperor from the beginning of time (well, beginning of the Roman Empire) and anywhere in the world (mostly Rome, but I think Caligula had planned to move to Egypt if my scholarly research via watching a TV show is correct.).-- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Nonsense. No possible reason to have it, and potentially something someone would quote in an AFD thinking that justifies deleting something they don't like. Location and time period are never a valid reason to exclude something. If a list gets too long, you can divide it by time periods, or nationality, or whatnot. Dream Focus 14:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
It really depends on what the topic of the specific list is... some are (and should be) more open ended in scope, others are (and should be) more limited in scope. The scope of a specific list is an issue that should be decided by common sense and consensus of editors, on a list by list basis. A "one size fits all" approach is not going to work... and it is not something we can codify it in the guideline. Blueboar (talk) 14:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Non-English wp article -- sufficient support for entry on English wp list of people?[edit]

Question. Sometimes lists of people lack any wp article on the English wp. And lack any RS refs.

The only "ref" given is to a non-English language wikipedia article. Is that sufficient, for the name to remain on the list on the English wikipedia? (I note, for example, that what is notable in a foreign language wp may not be notable in the English wp).

Or should the name be removed?

Or does it depend ... do we have to look at the foreign language wikipedia article, translate it, and evaluate the ref(s) in that article before deciding whether to delete the name in the English wp list of people?

Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Notability isn't language dependent, so that isn't an issue. Sourcing something to a wiki isn't acceptable, though. It's one of those cases where I'd take a quick peek at the foreign wiki (maybe with Google translate) and, if it appeared to be a decent article, I'd tag the entry. If the foreign wiki article looked to be trash, I'd probably remove the entry.—Kww(talk) 23:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
The sourcing standard for lists is exactly the same as for non-list articles. Does this involve a contentious claim about a living person? If so, remove the entry immediately. If not, then pretend it's not a list, but a plain old sentence. So instead of this:
List of people who attended Oxford College
  • Alice Expert

(or whatever the subject of your list is), you have this:

Alice Expert attended Oxford College.

Would you accept this claim in a relevant article without a source? If so, then accept it for the list. If not, then do not accept it for the list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Here is the difference. To be on a wp list, the subject has to both: a) fit the list (e.g., in your example, for a list of people from Oxford, have attended Oxford; so for that, your explanation suffices) ..., but b) also be notable by our standards. If the subject has a wp article in the English wp, the subject is presumptively notable (or it can be demonstrated by independent refs). If the subject only has a wp article on a non-English wp, however--since the non-English wp has different standards as to notability, I am questioning whether that suffices to assert notability. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Elements of a list don't have to be notable, and the existence of a blue link is meaningless. It's the sources inside the Wikipedia article that demonstrate whether inclusion in the list is reasonable or not. Best practice would be to find the source from inside the article that demonstrates that it should be in the list, and carry that reference to the list article. That same approach works for foreign-language Wikis as well: if a reliable foreign-language source shows that the entry should be included, there's nothing at all wrong with sourcing the entry exclusively to the foreign-language source.—Kww(talk) 03:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Kww... mostly right, but not completely... some list articles do require that all the elements be notable while others do not. So the question of whether the specific person Epeefleshe is talking about needs to be notable to be included in a list here on WP.en depends on the specific list he/she is talking about. However, you are absolutely correct in noting that a source that is cited in a non-english version of WP might very well be reliable for supporting the inclusion of the person in the list on this version of WP. WP.en does not require our sources to be in English. So I definitely would advise examining the sources at the other wp. Blueboar (talk) 03:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
A few lists actually require bluelinks, because they'd otherwise be absolutely enormous. But while any given list could have a bluelinks-only rule or a notable-people-only rule, the English Wikipedia as a whole has no such requirement. Otherwise, lists like List of minor characters in Peanuts would be impossible. Notable-subjects-only is just one of the three main systems for list selection criteria. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Lists of places?[edit]

The examples of good things to make lists about didn't include lists of places, only events and people, which I find odd: what about lists of canyons, waterfalls, universities, digs for Precambrian fossil sites--and things: Precambrian fossils? tropical woods? dyes?

Any comments? Monado (talk) 00:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The lists mentioned at the end of that section are giving specific guidance on how to make lists that "Some Wikipedians feel [are] topics / unsuitable by virtue of the nature of the topic". I don't think we want to lest all possible topics for appropriate lists. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 18:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

References in Lists[edit]

It appears that a general interpretation of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (stand-alone lists)#Citing sources is that information from blue linked articles does not need a citation but red linked info does. The Featured List criteria requires it all to be referenced even those exempt by WP:MINREF. Can we make Citing sources clearer on this point (one way or the other) and then perhaps align the featured list criteria to agree, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 10:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how you can make that interpretation. Which line(s) of the MOS suggest any blue linked articles don't need a citation? That would exempt all lists from any citations whatsoever which is nonsensical. Take List of Baileys Women's Prize for Fiction winners for instance. Everything in that article is blue-linked, so are you suggesting you could interpret the MOS to say it needs not one citation in the list? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Clearly we are not on the same wavelength, the article which this problem started was List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft which just uses a summary from the article, the winners list in your example is actually new information put together which is not actually included as a whole in any of the related articles so could be challenged. MilborneOne (talk) 11:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Where does the MOS make this distinction please? (And I don't agree with your distinction anyway, each of the laureate's articles would contain the information summarised in the list...) The Rambling Man (talk) 11:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
It doesnt which is why we cant agree and my original request above from some clarity. Side issue but the first entry in the example list for 1996 none of the other books short listed for the prize are mentioned in either the book or the authors articles so really new information that could be challenged rather than a summary. MilborneOne (talk) 11:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Simply untrue. Julia Blackburn mentions "1996 Orange Prize, shortlist, The Book of Colour", Pagan Kennedy mentions "Spinsters (1995) (shortlisted for 1996 Orange Prize)", The Hundred Secret Senses mentions "It was shortlisted for the 1996 Orange Prize for Fiction.", Amy Tan mentions "Nominated for the Orange Prize", Marianne Wiggins mentions "Eveless Eden ... Shortlisted for 1996 Orange Prize." ..... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
None of those include others shortlisted for the prize or who won, so really new information and not a summary. MilborneOne (talk) 12:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Not getting anywhere with this really. Are you seriously content that the aviation list in question is 100% dependent on subarticles for references? Even though it contains material that "can be challenged" (and has been)? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes as it is a summary of the article not new information. MilborneOne (talk) 12:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Ok, so it should be called a summary, not a list. I've challenged the information in the list, which means I'm entitled to get citations. If you just want a summary article then call it a summary. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:15, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Can we stick to the point and not bring irrelevant battles here? What puzzles me in the literary prize example is that, although each individual entrant may be blue-linked, there is no reference to show that the list is complete, or even exists elsewhere in complete form. There are two "external links" which one hopes would supply the missing information, but they are not presented specifically as references. As I read the MOS, if there are no quotations, challenges or contentious material then yes, one may be able to get away without inline citations. In the literary example, one might agree that at least one of the external links can be used as a general Reference. OTOH the Featured List criteria do appear to demand on-the-spot citation. Is there one rule for humdrum lists and another for featured lists? Must indirectly referenced lists be demoted to "summaries"? Does a citation attack change the status of a list and demand endless copying across of inline cites from the linked articles, simply because it has taken place? I can well see why MilborneOne would like a reality check on this whole issue. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Picking just one item from your statement, what would you consider material that one could "challenge"? Could it be the number of deaths? Could it be the circumstances of a crash? Or are we simply going to sidestep the issue here and say "see the specific articles, hoping them to have the material referenced...." I'd be interested in your ideas. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I would expect that all the content in the entry (row) could be validated, at the very least by either going to any general references or by following through on the linked article. The list needs to be both readable and verifiable, but we should not sacrifice too much readability for the sake of easy referencing. For example obscure paper documents such as rare books can provide suitable references. Verifying these is a pain, especially if they are in a foreign language, but, like any academic verifying the references in a research paper, one has to either make the effort or take them on faith. I would suggest that following a verification chain from one article to another to... [whatever] comes under the same banner. So yes, in this instance I'd like to see the burden on the challenger - otherwise we hit two issues: the endless cloning of citations and the mischievious sceptic citation-bombing the table (to be clear, this is not a sideswipe, I do not include you among the mischievious, and it is good to be a sceptic). But I am not an expert on policy, so maybe there are some out there that contradict me. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Statements should be sourced where they appear (list or not). Stats and/or information can change in parent articles without sub articles being updated - thus sources should be in all locations so editors can see why there may be a discrepancy between articles - like one is simple updated with new info - but both have sources for the different claims - one old and one new. This is very relevant to music article on sales.Moxy (talk) 17:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Quite. The idea that we rely on sub-articles to reference material is absurd. In the case of the aviation project, this is usually okay because they do a good job of referencing their articles, but it can't be relied upon. As Moxy says, "statements should be sourced where they appear". And in fact, having looked through several list articles which use the aviation project approach, it's become increasingly obvious that a reader may not even know which article to click on to find these citations. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
If that is the prevailing consensus so be it, but as I and I suspect plenty of others dont understand it I go back to my original request which is the wording needs to be clarified to make all of this clear as most lists on wikipedia are not referenced because a lot of editors have taken a different view of what are the same words, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
So I'll ask you again: "Which line(s) of the MOS suggest any blue linked articles don't need a citation?" It's down to your interpretation that this issue exists. Is there a mention of summary articles in MOS that precludes inline references for items which could be challenged (e.g. number of deaths, manner of crash etc)? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
add this - we need to be clear. No matter where a statement is as per WP:BURDEN QUOTE = "The citation must clearly support the material as presented in the article'." List are articles - thus subject to all the same verifiability - this means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source - not have to guess where the sources are or spend lots of time on verifying info when all we need is a simply source where the info appears.Moxy (talk) 18:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
This: "Stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines for articles, including verifiability and citing sources. This means statements should be sourced where they appear, they must provide inline citations if they contain any of the four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations. [para break] When an inline citation is not required by a sourcing policy..." So if a blue link does not fall foul of the four kinds, then it does not (necessarily) need a citation. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:25, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
And your definition of a claim that may be challenged is....? Could it be "number of deaths in an accident"? Could it be "cause of accident"? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I take it you don't mean "May be successfully challenged". Any claim /can/ obviously be challenged, but mischievious or "the sky isn't blue" challenges are worthless. So for example I would expect that both the claims you mention can be sensibly challenged. But whether the challenge stands up to scrutiny is another matter. Also, challenging a hundred factoids with a general tag is one thing, tag-bombing all hundred is another. When a claim is challenged, how solid or specific does that challenge have to be before it can not be summarily reviewed and dismissed as dealt with by another editor? Opinions will likely differ wildly. Does WP:BRD apply to challenges or should the challenge stand while it is discussed and consensus built? Do generic tags and specific bombs differ in this? What if consensus cannot be reached? This is the kind of thing I would like to see some more clarity on. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
You didn't answer my question about the items I suggested which many may seem to be challenged. It's daft for us to rely on subarticles for references, and not good for our readers either. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
We have had many discussions at WT:V over what constitutes a "legitimate" challenge and "obvious" information... and consensus always comes down to this: Yes, if someone challenges the unsourced "obvious" statement that "The sky is blue" (or "Paris is the capitol of France") you actually do have to give a citation. It may seem silly to do so, it may be annoying that someone made you do so... but push comes to shove, you do have to supply a citation if someone else asks for one. One final comment... it is far easier (and much less stressful) to just slap in a citation when requested than it is to argue about whether the citation is needed. When it comes to "obvious" information, I have found that if you simply supply the citation (without arguing), and then go back and ask the challenger whether the citation is really needed, they often back down and say "nah... you can take it out again if you want to." Blueboar (talk) 13:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man. What part of "So for example I would expect that both the claims you mention can be sensibly challenged." does not answer your question?
@Blueboar: If this issue is discussed so often with the same consensus each time, has it not led to the adoption of a policy or guideline? I can only find WP:MINREF which I quoted above and a couple of opinion essays: WP:BLUE would appear to be an end-to-end contradiction of what you say, while in WP:NOTBLUE the only justification which might be relevant is your suggestion that it is easier to cite than to argue. But a table full of factoids needs dozens, maybe hundreds of citations to be fully referenced. Set this precedent for one table and all those endless other tables need the same treatment. A true editorial nightmare. Discussing till the cows come home so that we can update the guidelines is really not such a burden in comparison. (I can only thank you for your patience with me).
So, to take one of my questions which I think is key to the dispute which triggered this discussion and directly follows on from The Rambling Man's line of questioning, are challenges exempt from WP:BRD?
— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The established practice for such lists is that references are not required iff the article linked to corroborates the claim. Mjroots (talk) 10:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Not sure where you think this practice was "established". It certainly wasn't established in any of the numerous guideline/policy page discussions that have been held on the issue. There is a solid consensus that if information appears in both a regular article and a list, it should be cited in both places. It's why the guideline states: Stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines for articles, including verifiability and citing sources. This means statements should be sourced where they appear. Blueboar (talk) 12:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I confess I am unsure where all this solid consensus appears. That "where they appear" was only added on the 7th July, after this debate began - hardly a solid consensus (I think I had better revert it, moving the goalposts during a discussion does not seem ethical to me). Above I linked what precedent I could find, primarily other quotes from that same guideline - which if you read it in full appears to contradict that later edit and support the established practice claimed by Mjroots. Here is its second paragraph in full: "When an inline citation is not required by a sourcing policy and editors choose to name more sources than strictly required, then either general references or inline citations may be used. It is generally expected that obviously appropriate material, such as the inclusion of Apple in the List of fruits, will not be supported by any type of reference." Please note that "it is generally expected." Can anybody provide sources to a solid consensus against that style guidance? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
The point is that the list in question (List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft) relies entirely on the articles linked within to provide sources. Some of those simply don't. Although perhaps some of the sub-articles to those target articles may... where does it stop? Is there a good reason not to reference claims in the articles where the claims are made? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Using a blue-link as a reference is the same as using as the source in an inline citation. We forbid the latter, and, by extension, we forbid the former. There's nothing so onerous about inline citations that we shouldn't mandate the existence of an inline citation to justify that the item meets the list's inclusion criteria. —Kww(talk) 17:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man. Where a linked claim is not backed up by the linked article, the MOS is currently clear that it needs referencing in the list. I am not aware that this is under dispute, so I do not think that it can as you suggest be "the point in question". Mjroots answered the "where does it stop?" issue, writing just above here; "references are not required iff the article linked to corroborates the claim." I would not argue with that, though I would appreciate a corroborating link (sic). The "good reason not to" issue is here confined to the stand-alone lists under discussion, and not more broadly to articles in general as your question is worded. I offered one answer above when I pointed out the impracticality of referencing every darned factoid on every darned list of everything on Wikipedia. We have started going round in circles here.
So just one level of linkage then, you're saying if the subarticle isn't referencing the claim in the superarticle, it needs to be fixed, right? So how do I tag one of these "list" articles if the subarticle it depends on for referencing doesn't reference the claim? Because that's what I'm trying to do. And why should we make our readers go through hoops to find a reference? And what happens if the subarticle reference goes dead or isn't valid? Seems like this is a convenience for editors and not for our audience. Cheers, The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
@Kww. Nobody is proposing to use blue links as references, merely that blue links do not need referencing as long as the linked article corroborates the claim. That is a very different thing. Also, you say that inline citations are not a burden. See my repeated point above to The Rambling Man that lists are more open to interminable and onerous referencing. If you disagree with my point, where would the brakes be applied? That is, at what point in a tabulated list containing perhaps many hundreds of factoids could we say, "this factoid does not need referencing"? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
We're not referencing "factoids" we're referencing fact. We have thousands of featured lists where "challengeable" facts are referenced within the list and are in no way dependent on sub-articles (which may have no pedigree whatsoever). The Rambling Man (talk) 18:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
"Blue links do not need referencing as long as the linked article corroborates the claim" is using the blue link as a reference, Steelpillow.—Kww(talk) 18:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I have reverted your removal of the clarification that was added - as concessus is clear and the fact it simple represents a long standing founding principle of verification. So lets us try to be very clear here as this is getting a bit tedious. Statement of facts need sources no matter where they are - as do list that put things and or people in to classification lists like Canadian American. If there is a list like Outline of Canada yes there is no need for a source as its simply a list of articles with no Statements of facts.Moxy (talk) 19:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks to all for your clarifications. For the most part you have shown great patience with this issue, and I am sure I am not the only one who appreciates that. I guess the FLC is a separate discussion. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
The one thing I'd add on the FLC side is that most of the arguments for not having to have inline cites in a list is typically based on have no DEADLINE - that things will get fixed in this. When you take a list to FLC (a point of quality control), any arguments about "no deadline" are thrown out the window - what the MOS requires needs to be done, otherwise you'll fail the FLC. So it's not so much FLC directly itself, just when the "no deadline" arguments for not doing something because null and void. --MASEM (t) 13:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
I think there does need to be clarity between what the MOS expects at the end of the day when one is considering the list for FLC, and what the list may be as it is developed per NODEADLINE. Clearly, end of the day, sourcing needs to be there, either as by-entry inline cites or overall catchall references, irregardless of the topic. But it is inappropriate, per WP:V, to remove a blue link that is not inline-cited where there is a reference on the linked page to support inclusion, since it is simply a matter of moving the reference across. That said, it is reasonable that the more contentious the topic of the list, the stronger need to demand the cite right then and there instead of waiting for FLC cleanup. While the additional Moxy re-added above is correct in light of consensus, one has to remember this is a MOS, describing the ideal style and one that one should be directed towards during editing but by no means a requirement for a sub-FLC list. --MASEM (t) 19:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm not so sure. This isn't about FLC, it's about how massive lists can have not one single reference. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
We have to distinguish between what the MOS should be doing - telling editors how we eventually want articles to look (per DEADLINE) - and what our other policies specifically on sourcing require. The MOS should be silent on the issue of a list absent any references outside of the fact that that list doesn't meet the MOS guidelines. On the other hand, a list absent references is a WP:V problem, within the scope that WP:V requires that sources have been clearly identified. The MOS here can ask (and a reasonable request that I don't disagree with) that each entry in a list include an inline cite to justify inclusion, but it is unable to ask anything on the removal of unsourced entries. That is advice for elsewhere, for certain, just not one to put into the MOS. That might be where the confrontation is here. --MASEM (t) 19:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
There's no confusion. Lists which rely on articles to substantiate the verifiability of claims are lacking. Who knows what the articles linked to are like, and, as I've discovered, many don't have references. What's the problem with referencing claims in each article to enable them to stand alone? In fact, some articles I've seen lately have become redirects to other articles. This won't be reflected in the superlist so how many clicks do we expect our readers to perform to actually get to the reference? (Again, this is nothing to do with FLC, just purely about WP:V) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
But, importantly, this is the MOS, not policy. WP:V only demands that sources have been located and identified. Thus, just because a blue-link entry does not have a citation is not a reason to remove the entry. Again, don't get me wrong, the absolutely right way to build a list is to source every entry as you go along, and cleaning up a list is to bring in those references from the blue links to the list so there's no question. And there will be cases where the linked articles are redirects, or lack the right sourcing to justify the claim, justifying the removal of the blue link. The point is that the MOS can't surpass WP:V's allowance of "known but not included sources" while the list is being improved; only at the point where the MOS compliance is checked (primarily FLC for lists) is where these sources must be in place appropriately. --MASEM (t) 20:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
But, most importantly, this misses the point. A reader wishes to read the source of the claim. He/she finds there is no reference. So he/she clicks on the "target article", and then has to search around to find the reference he/she was originally searching for. The article has obfuscated the original claim, it's confusing, where's the source to the claim I read one page ago? How the hell does that help our readers? This is all about lazy editing, pure and simple. Reference the facts where the facts are claimed. How difficult is that? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Interesting point but as has been said above even featured lists introduce new facts without sourcing hence the request for clarity. MilborneOne (talk) 20:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Not at all. Let me make it clear to you. This is nothing to do with featured lists. "A reader wishes to read the source of the claim. He/she finds there is no reference. So he/she clicks on the "target article", and then has to search around to find the reference he/she was originally searching for. The article has obfuscated the original claim, it's confusing, where's the source to the claim I read one page ago? How the hell does that help our readers? This is all about lazy editing, pure and simple. Reference the facts where the facts are claimed. How difficult is that?". Incidentally, if you find any featured list which needs more references, please let me know, or submit it to WP:FLRC. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Agree 100 percent - WP:V is a founding principle that applies to all that we do when it comes to content in article/lists/categories. We are here to facilitate free knowledge and to try to do so in the most assessable way possible. We do not do things because they are easier for our editors - in fact we do the opposite - everything is for our readers. If people do not find it fun to sources facts - best to move on to a part of the project they find enjoyable. To quote WP:FIVE PILLARS "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or a living person. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong." Moxy (talk) 20:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I'll stress a point that has been made clear at WP:V - a fact is considered sourced for WP:V's purposes if there is a specific reference (not just hand-waving at Google, but a named, possibly linked source) in an "obvious" place related to the article. That related place could be at the talk page, it could be at an AFD discussion, or any other discussion page directly tied to the article. This could mean that the source is bury in archives or the like, but for purposes of WP:V, it is considered verified. Yes, it is completely stupid not to move that source into the article, and of course the more contentious the fact, the more important it is to source it, but editors have been reprimanded for removing content where there is such a source not on the article page but on the talk pages. That's an issue with WP:V, one that I've seen fought against and failed to make a stronger requirement for inclusion, primarily that it is considreed part of cleanup to move such sources into the article. As long as that logic holds at WP:V, that logic has to hold here. If we can change that logic at WP:V, great, but I'm not seeing that happen any time soon given the certain groups that strongly back the current approach. --MASEM (t) 20:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Actually, that seems to be the hardfought position of about three editors. I've never figured out their motivation.—Kww(talk) 20:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't agree with that viewpoint of those limited editors but as that seems to be the only way to grease things at WP:N (following the same logic at WP:V) it's reasonably fair within DEADLINE. But that said, pushing on the point that some lists will have criteria that are contentious can require inline sourcing for list items on additions to the list. In other words, I'd less worry about fighting the issue on "List of people from New York" and more on "List of people that support LGBT", where I can say that claim requires a clear RS that permits inclusion, regardless if the source is buried on the person's WP article page. --MASEM (t) 21:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Best to speak in ideals rather then exceptions. Lets try and keep it simple for our editors and readers. We should be saying - got a source use it when possible in the article by the statement to facilitate readers expansion of knowledge through sources. Agree with all you said above Masem - just think we should think of our readers at all times and when doing so assume what is common knowledge to some is not to others, thus easy verification would be the ideal situation. Its great that some other article or talk page history may have the verification but this does not help our readers verify for themselves. Wikimedia Foundation mission statement "The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.Moxy (talk) 21:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I would love to make it "if you don't have an inline source, it can be removed" as general advice, but I've had to deal with the types of editors that KWW alludes to above that would fight against this approach tooth and nail, and found it is better to manage the middle ground which involves that we are in no rush to complete articles per DEADLINE, as long as specific sourcing has been identifies. --MASEM (t) 21:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I see your point clearly now - I agree - no rush for removal unless there is contentious material as per Wikipedia:Libel. Moxy (talk) 23:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I want to correct something Masem said above... "WP:V only demands that sources have been located and identified"... not quite... WP:V also demands that a source actually be provided if the material is challenged or likely to be challenged. That's is an important part of understanding the DEADLINE process. While we are free to add unsourced information (and even free to create entire articles/lists with no sources), the second someone requests a source, we now have a BURDEN to provide one... and if we don't, the information can be removed. How quickly it gets removed depends on the nature of the information, but it does have to be provided within a reasonable time never the less.
More importantly, we have to provide a source where it is requested, and not wave our hand to some other page. Why?... because while the information may currently be cited on some other page, there is no guarantee that the information will remain cited on some other page. Remember that Wikipedia is a fluid medium. The other page (the one we are waving at) may end up being edited (or even completely re-written). It may end up in a state that no longer supports (or even discusses) the information in the list/article we are concerned about. Blueboar (talk) 14:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
It does come back to how contentious the fact is to demand a source. "John Q Smith is gay" is absolutely 100% going to need a source to even be included in an article. "John Q Smith was born in New York", not so much particularly if the fact is "common knowledge" or documented elsewhere. Which is why I say that if a list is one that veers into a area where sources needs to be provided due to the contentiousness of the information to be offered, that can be made a condition for inclusion, irregardless of what those that shout DEADLINE may refute. But this should be made clear on the list's talk page or on the page's edit notice or in invisible comments that consensus has determined sourcing is required for inclusion. --MASEM (t) 14:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
(e/c) That's precisely the issue I'm pursuing, the fact that we should not be relying on references (or external links in a lot cases) in "target articles" to verify claims. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Selection criteria[edit]

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lists#Selection criteria. --Marc Kupper|talk 20:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Glossaries and Timelines[edit]

Recently some users have been submitting glossaries and timelines to AFD, and I am concerned about the implications because according to the WP:GLOSSARIES proposal and LIST, glossaries and timelines are articles that aide in comprehension of a notable subject. Some editors have taken this to mean that the glossary or timeline itself must meet GNG/N to be included. This seems to conflict with LISTN which states, "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." If the topic on which the things are about is notable, shouldn't a timeline or glossary of terms likely be included. As for the individual articles themselves, they range in amount of work needing to be done, but Timelines of Gundam and List of Macross Frontier terminology, but AFD is not clean up. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:GLOSSARIES is just a proposed guideline, until it's approved, it remains an essay. And LISTN speaks for itself, if not all the entries in the list need be notable, "the grouping or set" (ie what binds the entries together, the ordering logic or the topic behind the list) needs to be.Folken de Fanel (talk) 08:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

What is a red link, and what is not an acceptable red link[edit]

My vantage point comes from a recent spree of cleaning up red links. They're saying "red links are acceptable". I'm thinking "3RR". Ha!

WP:CSC says:

Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia. Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future. This standard prevents Wikipedia from becoming an indiscriminate list, and prevents individual lists from being too large to be useful to readers. Many of the best lists on Wikipedia reflect this type of discernment.

But then it also says

"Creation guide" lists—lists devoted to a large number of redlinked (unwritten) articles—don't belong in the main namespace.

The discrepancy arises from another kind of list article, the subject outline. I'm thinking there are two kinds of red links, and there is another kind of judgement involved in the other kind of red link that is scoping subjects, and this is the essence of red links: a red link found in an article that is reflecting a missing item in a hierarchical subject outline contains that "acceptable" essence, whereas the red link in other stand-alone lists contains little more than redness. Sometimes the redness is not very acceptable.

There is in fact significant occurrence of "unacceptable" red links. And they're being supported by the sentence I struck out. Supporting them as "acceptable" goes against the Category:Wikipedia red link cleanup because the context of this section of the style manual is the same as the context of the cleanup template, which is that of stand-alone lists. Of course the cleanup template could be applied to red links that are not in stand alone lists. But this almost never happens (in the category). Subject outlines don't tolerate red links in themselves for long.

The discrepancy supports edit warring over cleanup templates. I hope to achieve a better, overall understanding, hence the length. (Sorry. You can get the gist from the one paragraph in bold lettering.) While the MoS keeps the struck-out text in that place, it will muck up 3RR queues.

The judgment on red link inclusion can be simplified: when it comes to red/blue links reducing readability, the judgment, esp. when there is an aging red-link cleanup template, is against overlinking (stale red links). I don't think "acceptable" is the right word because it implies that there was a reason found in a debate for accepting red links, and to accept that. But there is no reasoning left to do for any kinds of red linking. There are two kinds of red links, one inarguably unacceptable, and one inarguably acceptable (as I will show). In neither case would "acceptable" be the right word unless there was a reason for the acceptance, unless the reason came from a judgment, where "judgement" in our context means a non-trivial hearing, such as in 3RR or AfD resolutions of "acceptableness". Red links in a stand-alone list is a trivial matter that should not be heard in 3RR battles involving a red-link cleanup template. I don't see much of a battle against my unwording that sentence. I've thought it through to close the case here and now. Here it is.

Although tradition does without them, there are now two reasons for red links, 1) as an editor prerogative, timing the arrival of new articles on the wiki, and 2) as a subject outline indicator, scoping the content in an article. The former is not necessarily acceptable after a time, and the latter is what is here found to be an acceptable use of a red link as the semi-permanent establishment of a subject outline in competition with other encyclopedias.

The unacceptable kind of red link is from an over-zealous editor making too numerous decrees, and is so "not acceptable" that there will always exist the corresponding cleanup template. Too much zeal lands in 3RR. Where every item in a list is bonified as an article, saying there "this black text should be blue, so I'll make it red to indicate that" carries little truck. Think about that. There could be seen no red links if the same editor (who knew both of the subject, and the subject inside and out) would just create the article. This type of red linking is tag-team editing, which is fine when the team plays well, but not if if the "team" is in a multiple-personality disorder. Although this is rarely ever an unacceptable kind of red link, neither is it acceptable at all times, so I struck it out in the rewording above. When it is no longer "acceptable" for red links to remain overlinking a list article, there is no debate. There is no "acceptable compromise" arising from a hearing except to say "pick one or two to be red, not all of them". Editor prerogatives lose by WP:NOT and the admin fiat from an aging cleanup template decree. (Nor do I expect to see too much debate concerning the other kind of red link. It will stay red, in one form or another, until it is in another form, red.) "Acceptable" sounds as if negotiations were had. They weren't really had. There really are none to be had, and there are no debates about negotiability, there is only inarguability, as I am proving. Overlinking red link is fair game for removal of the redness in the "link", returning it to black, which is a black "link" equivalence, by virtue of being on a stand-alone list. In the 3RR game, where 100% removal results in 100% restoral (of the overlinking of red links), the game ends in the loss of 100% red-not-black links every time, hands down. Even if exceptions are made for a few articles, those articles might sit with a cleanup tag, which is hardly acceptable because, well it's not well, because WP is not an anarchy.

If "this is a notable subject the encyclopedia needs" is information that both a list and a red link signify, why even one red link on the stand-along list? If none exist in the stand-alone list, then what are red links for? I believe an application of red links was found that contains more intelligence, and that is the intelligence implicit in a wikifiable subject outline. That subject outline is somewhere else, just as is the cite of a list item, red or black, is somewhere else when not yet existent in the references section. The subject outline is more widely available because publishable on Wikipedia proper, and thus has more potential intelligence than what appears to be haphazard "timing prerogatives" or random "timing prerogatives" or just general pushiness to the readership. A red link that is scoping a subject is just awesome to the general audience, highly acceptable, while "hearing" editor A telling editor B "time to edit red snow" for timing reasons is hardly acceptable (but not unacceptable), being almost a violation of WP:Self reference. Seeing 100% red links where seeing 100% black "links" would be entirely equivalent to the reader, carries for me no good reason, is not in good standing, misunderstands red links, and lapses on the readership-orientation mandates of Wikipedia. When "ownership" will overproduce redlinks then defend overlinking, then may those not rightly be 100% undone via the counter-fiat of an aging cleanup template? Or else which random red links might be left by a cleanup from an outsider? None. A few left might be chosen by an insider-defender, if any, but any wholesale defense carries little truck.

It is worth noting that the subject outline, if it is documented, does not tolerate red links well in itself, but it expects the corresponding link in the article are red, thus bringing the map to the adventurer, and finding best use of red link. An acceptable use of red links is where they can represent subject outlines. You don't touch such red links, like you don't touch category trees— unless "you da man" who specializes in that. There exist young MediaWiki wikies with copious red link in the articulation. The "hierarchical subject outline" kind of red link is not even stylistically limitable. There is no style guide debate possible that would precisely limit, as a definite percentage of such prose, any creative red linking: there are no limits to subjects (and thus their discussions concerning their relevance). It can be 1%, 10%, 20%! and no cleanup template could suggest its dating. That is the "acceptable" kind of red link, whose acceptance is remains largely unquestioned until a better organization arrives. This other kind of red link is acceptable because desirable as a no-pressure "to do" that is based more on knowledge and less on opinions about how to be hasty.

The term "acceptable" was used probably because a specific number cannot be found for red links in a stand alone list. Thus the exceptions that are the red links in the stand-alone lists are "temporarily acceptable". This is understood, but not stated clearly enough in the MoS. Such red links are acceptable only until they become "unacceptable", when holds are barred on them. The number of stylistically acceptable red links on stand alone lists might depend on the number of team members, hotness of the article subject, etc. Reorganizing a list article's red linked list items would shift red links from one list item to another. Many of the worst lists on Wikipedia are overlinked with red links, producing lists that are too red "to be useful to readers". Because such lists are 100% blue linkable, all black "links" are red in theory. Thus such lists need not contain red links, except when an editor is guiding other editors at the expense of the readers. "The best lists on Wikipedia", for example, Timeline of ancient history need display no red link, and so the struck sentence was problematic in its context because Timeline of ancient history is a list article that would probably not "accept" red links.

Because overlinked red link articles seem pushy and religious, sporting, and political, the wording that they are "acceptable" seems a red herring. It implies a debate was won for red links as "editor timing prerogatives". It wasn't: they are barely tolerated because not best practice. It is esp. not debatable when the cleanup templates appear. Yet they will debate and debate thinking "all's fair in love and war", and they'd be right.... Hey, let's take away that sentence I pointed out, and leave the other one ruling that "a large number" of red links don't belong. — CpiralCpiral 00:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

A red link should be weighed via its likely claims to N/GNG as redlinks either become stand alone articles or are directed to pieces of other articles. Any number of red links is acceptable given that the coverage is missing, but do not make a list of red links in namespace because that is useless to the readers of Wikipedia. Such a list however is part of WP:MISSING. Roehm's Avengers, notable but absent, but weighing the topic shows it should definitely remain a red link until someone creates the page. Your example of "Timeline of ancient history" is a dangerous because it advises removal by coverage omission. Wikipedia is not a print encyclopedia, and those red links can be fixed at any time. It is rare for someone to insert a missing entry once a page is made, let alone spread it out across all relevant mentions, relinked the de-linked material or even removed mentions. I say no, red links are fine even at FA articles because they will likely become blue links and have an expectation to do so. Assuming the target subject is N/GNG, red links are important for building the encyclopedia and will improve accessibility as soon as someone takes the initiative. Also, we may have 4.3+ million articles, but anyone working in non-Angelo centric fields knows that English Wikipedia's coverage of notable monuments, art, people, vehicles, and all facets of their history are poorly documented, but are nonetheless important subjects. A red link says to an editor "make me", whereas black text is self dismissive. From the point of a reader, and purely a reader, it matters not because the missing information simply isn't there, at best a reader may search outside Wikipedia for the term because the presence of the link conifers that the subject is worthy of an article. Red links remaining red links is fine, but the real danger is in de-linking those links or omitting subjects presumed by others to be notable. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
It would be dangerous to "not grow", to not charge ahead, on with wiki, and the red links that grow wiki. I dismiss not growth by making red links plain, I dismiss red because red itself impoverishes plain text dismissively. An expert might decide over a red item on the same list that a black item is going to be their contribution. There is no debating "cleanup red links" tags, or "creation guideline" abuses at 3RR; I think abuses will be remedied at 3RR quickly if I would revert to plain text three times, and have them warn the abusers not to continue reverting to red links. (I'm not doing that, because it is wikilawyering. I'm following the rules and talking and reasoning on the discussion page.) I'm not against growth by advertizing the "weight of a topic" on a stand-alone lists, I'm simply for cleanup tags and for "tough love" levied on over-zealous editors.
What I'm really doing by asking this guide's authorship to consider rewording (besides addressing a discrepancy) is advocating for more awareness of those red links that serve to provide Wikipedia containment tasks, that are more organizational to Wikipedia than organizational to the worlds missing articles. I advocate not because I'm worried about the existence of Wikipedia articles, but because alongside my admonishing the guide for the enabling of the abuse of red link "quantity imperatives" there comes the important additional reason I'm here: to advocate for the rethinking of red links in a way that has less to do with physical growth (N, V, or RS), and more to do with subject outlines as a healthy exercise in quality competition with other encyclopedias, and thus here to have one world of red see the other world of red, and thus understand red usage better. (There are two kinds of valid red links, one for shaping the subject space of articles, and one for adding new articles. The subject scoping aspect of red links are not yet clear at Wikipedia: Red links.)— CpiralCpiral 07:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Just as users should not insert red links unless they are reasonably certain we can have an article on that specific topic, you should not remove a red link unless you are reasonably certain we CANNOT have an article on that specific topic. Mass removal of redlinks is, in nearly all cases, destructive editing. The main exceptions are, of course, AfD cleanup, spam, and if they were recently mass-inserted in a similarly haphazard manner. --erachima talk 07:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

You bring up an excellent point, being right on about indiscriminate actions. No subject-outline type of red link should be removed. All stand-alone type of red links should be removed. How to tell the difference? It's not easy. All the ones on the standalone list are notable, so can be made not-red because those are already notable and creatable. What if a red link was serving to signify both that an article need creation now/next, and that it was a list item on a subject outline? (It is both kind of red link.) I point a bot-like creature to the list and clean it up, being neither the surgeon to discern any inclusion policy nor subject-matter expert to discern scope/size of an articulation. I am a hapless, 3RR-savy gnome knowing nothing about the subject-outline or the topic. I am only following orders. Assume a red-links cleanup template as a general guide to there. Have I done something wrong? Yes. Is there anything I can do about it? No. Is there anything Wikipedia can do about it? Must they stop cleaning up abused red links? Must gnomes not be there, but only elsewhere? Must only discernment reign over red links? I can only hope that most of the red links were "article creation guidelines", which are being tagged there with support from here saying they are unacceptable in mainspace.
Then the cleanup is reverted (along with the removed cleanup tag), saying "red links are acceptable". They don't understand the cleanup template, and just ignore it. They read this guide, saying "red links are acceptable" in stand-alone lists, where actually they carry no information except that their exists an editor with delusions about article creation timelines.
But here is my specific point. This section of the guide deals with stand-alone lists whose every item is a notable article. Starting from that, add a simple red-link cleanup tag. Does the guide support that? No. As it reads, even cleanups of stand-alone lists are not allowed because "red links are acceptable [in stand-alone lists]", whereas "creation guides" are not. I want to remove that discrepency. — CpiralCpiral 20:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Removing or unlinking the redlinks from a specific list is not necessarily disruptive... but going on a crusade, removing redlinks from lots of disassociated articles (essentially to make a point) is. Whether red-links are kept, de-linked or removed entirely must be judged on a list by list basis... because so much depends on the topic of the specific list.
That said, I have found that in general, a list that contains lots of redlinks is a sign that the list itself is problematic. It probably means that the list is focused on a non-notable aspect of some other topic, and should be merged into another article (or re-merged back into the parent article if it was a spin-off). Blueboar (talk) 12:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
You are onto something I may have forgotten when you say how so much depends on the specific list and the specific topic's history—that the admin placing the cleanup tag is using this guide to decide? Because if the description of the topic as you describe it is not described clearly enough at WP:RL, the guide to the initial placement of the cleanup tag, based on messy style, may be mislead.
Since the list we're talking about here in this part of the style guide cannot contain non-notable items, I thought it would be very easy to suggest that red links are not acceptable when the cleanup tag has matured, but of course It's more complex that that. If a list is seen as "problematic" because it has red links on it, and if those red links are are not notable topics (i.e. virtual articles), but merely "non-notable subjects for another topic" as you say, then, (and here it gets tricky to understand), your type of red-link description, that is subject-focused (folding and unfolding from articles) is acceptable (as a complex style issue) indefinitely, as subject-outline representatives, and a cleanup tag may be removed by the knowledgeable defender for the reason that the list appeared to be an article creation guide, but was actually true red link, which are misunderstood. You seem to be describing the true red link, the ones that appear as "non-notable subjects for another topic" make for quality, not quantity, the ones that forge a real encyclopedia out of a list of indiscriminate subjects.
The other complexity, as pointed out above by erichima, simple "article creation guidelines" imperatives, can muck up a perfectly good set of subject-oriented red links, the kind you describe, by mixing creation guidelines into them, the kind that are not to be kept in mainspace or confused with true red links.
Blueboar, I'm here only to try to stop the self-contradictory red link guidance, and will probably go to WP:RL next to get to the root of the problem. The complexities here that allow the discrepancy to exist could very well be the cause of both cleanup-templates on stand-alone lists (virtually all of the cleanup tags), plus be the cause of the revert of the cleanup, i.e. that the discrepancy incites 3RR war, e.g. when a eight-mos-old cleanup tag is guiding the hapless wikignome straight to an edit war. Editors who ignore the cleanup tags don't understand that there their red means nothing, they think red is saying something, and that it is "acceptable"; they just don't understand.— CpiralCpiral 20:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I have a sincere question for you. Why do you find it difficult to read a list where each item contains one red link? I can understand that in prose, many red links quickly lead to overlinking. But at lists, each entry is self-contained and separate from items above and below. I think that the red links at each entry in the list should be interpreted on their own merits, independent of other entries; this way, the percentage of red links in the whole list doesn't matter much. But as you seem to strongly disagree with this position, could you please elaborate on why you don't find this reasoning compelling, and why it bothers you so much to have red links at many items in the list?
Apart, I believe appropriate here to gently remind you that Wikipedia rules are not rigid nor universal; it doesn't make much sense to infer one interpretation of written rules and apply it everywhere, because Wikipedia rules are not made to be used consistently. It's OK to apply a rule one way at some articles, and exactly the opposite way at others; it really depends of who do you find interested in supporting each article or topic. This is fine, and Wikipedia rules are designed to support that loose interpretation and the possibility to be ignored at any time if editors agree to do so (this is the meaning of WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY and WP:CONSENSUS policy).
So, the best approach to get others to agree with you, or to explain why they disagree, is to explain the benefits that you think will be achieved by following (or not following) the rules at each particular case. You won't get too far if you simply elaborate on why you think your interpretation of the rules is consistent, as others may simply disagree with that interpretation or rather think that it doesn't improve the article being discussed (and thus can be ignored). Diego (talk) 22:54, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm trying to expose conceptually an improved red link, so on purpose, and yes with difficulty I try to see them differently. The reason I take the stance of the devil's advocate is because I believe the MoS and WP:Red link need improvement. They seem to be setting up edit wars. There is something missing, and I aim to find it and make it part of a more solid guideline to refer to. What I can say for sure is there may very well be something wrong around redundancy when "article creation guidelines" use red links in stand alone lists. I'm also sure that the principles of notability and reliability are banter around red linking that can better become well defined aspects of red links, and not red links themselves, as those principles are being used to fully define the red link. The red link is yet ill defined, and so its style is ill-defined. — CpiralCpiral 19:07, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Honestly Cpiral, I'm sensing a general lack of clue here, and with the way you write you'll probably not win many people over if you're dragged off to one of the Drama pages to argue the point. So, again, when in doubt, don't delink stuff. --erachima talk 04:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I have doubt, and I have stopped delinking for now until my numerous clues (noted elsewhere) are demystified and the doubt is removed, thank you. — CpiralCpiral 19:07, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

"Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria"[edit]

One of the common selection criteria mentioned is "Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria", with an explanation, "These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles: for example, List of minor characters in Dilbert or List of paracetamol brand names." Better examples may be needed, as the first contains at least two entries that meet notability criteria, and the second isn't a stand-alone list. I also suggest removing "most or" as that contradicts the criterion. Peter James (talk) 16:59, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Please note that List of minor characters in Dilbert is a section within the broader List of Dilbert characters article... and NOT a stand alone list. Blueboar (talk) 02:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I think this section needs additional clarification. If all of the items in a list 'do not warrant independent articles', why does the list necessarily warrant an article? As the section is specifically discussing notability in relation to the list, I believe WP:LISTN is relevant, and that this section could more clearly align with the inclusion criterea discussed there.Dialectric (talk) 05:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
it is used a lot for "list of minor characters in X" type of articles, but your question about the "why does the list warrant an article?" still stands - and the answer is probably "because there are lots of fanboys" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:41, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Which is not a good enough reason. Maybe we should not have lists that include entries that don't meet our notability criteria. This seems to give pretty free reign for list creation. Dougweller (talk) 16:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
I do think this needs to be addressed, and apart from appeasing a certain subset of wikipedia users, still can't understand the rationale for applying a lower standard of notability to these lists. Not to canvas, but for example's sake, I'm currently participating in an afd for several "everything is not notable" list articles related to a relatively low-importance computer game, and experienced editors are arguing that wikipedia policies support keeping such lists, while the fictional element AFD archive shows that in the absence of clear guidelines, past results for such lists have been all over the place. Dialectric (talk) 18:47, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Lists of companies and organizations[edit]

No need for notability? So anyone can add their company to a list if it's relevant? If this is so, we can't stop people from advertising their company on lists (with presumably a link to their company to prove it exists). Dougweller (talk) 17:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The approach I'd like to see is: (1) If there isn't a reliable source to support the claim that a particular non-notable organization is a member of the set, then remove it. (2a) If a source can be found, then it is OK to include that organization in that list. (2b) However, if the list is too broad to be useful it may not itself be encyclopedic/notable and can be AfD'd for a variety of reasons. For example, given the right sources quite a few non-notable organizations would be eligible as members of List of unimportant small businesses in Suffolk – but the list itself probably wouldn't survive AfD. Does that work for you? - Pointillist (talk) 18:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Not really as it doesn't stop people using these lists to promote their company, no matter how small it is. Dougweller (talk) 16:45, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, if there is a reliable independent source that shows the small company is genuinely a member of the set that the list describes, I think that should be sufficient. It's a sort of nano-notability. Of course, the list itself can still be challenged. - Pointillist (talk) 09:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
At the risk of repeating myself, that allows anyone to promote their own one man company as long as they've managed to get someone to write about it in their local paper. And how about a list of some form of media? Would any website be able to include itself, as it obviously exists. For instance, if we had a list of online news media. Seriously, such lists could theoretically have at least hundreds of thousands of entries of companies nobody outside their immediate vicinity ever heard of. Dougweller (talk) 13:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
What is being left out of the discussion is the issue of context. Let's take the example of PepsiCo... it owns lots of other companies. Many are notable in their own right, but others are not. Now, our article on PepsiCo might well include a section that lists of all companies that are owned by PepsiCo ... both the notable and the non-notable. I hope everyone would agree that it might be appropriate to include such a list... in the context of that article.
However, let's suppose that the PepsiCo article was getting overly long... we might decide to split that section off into a daugher article entitled List of companies owned by PepsiCo. Now things get trickier. We have to decide if it is appropriate to include the non-notable companies in this new context?
There is an argument for saying that we should not... When we create a List of X article, the title always assumes an omitted word: the word "notable". In other words, the title "List of X" is assumed to contain the word "notable" even if that word is omitted. List of X is assumed to actually be List of (''notable'') X. Thus, as soon as you remove the section on "Companies owned by PepsiCo" and present it in its own article, you are actually creating a List of ''notable'' companies owned by PepsiCo... and the non-notable companies should be left out.
There is, however, a counter argument... the argument that in a split-off daughter article (list or not), the notability of the parent article (PepsiCo) is transferred to the daughter list. Personally, I don't think this is valid a valid argument (Notability is not inherited)... but it is one that is made.
Of course there is yet another possibility... if it can be established that "X" is a notable attribute in its own right, then there is an argument to say that anything that falls into that group should be listed. So... if it can be established that being owned by PepsiCo is a notable attribute for a smaller company to have (note I said "if") then any company with that attribute should be listed. In this case, the key is to establish the notability of the attribute. The list would need to have at least a few paragraphs of text that talk about why being owned by PepsiCo is notable in its own right.
As I said... it's a tricky thing... and it all depends on context. Blueboar (talk)
I see various lists where there are constant attempts to add companies without articles & where other editors remove them - I do myself at times. That seems to be standard practice, and I think the guidelines should reflect that. Dougweller (talk) 19:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't disagree ... the tricky part is figuring out what to say. The appropriateness of keeping/removing non-notable items in a list really depends on the topic of the specific list, and the context in which that list appears. In some lists, it is highly appropriate to limit inclusion to notable items... in other lists it highly appropriate to be more flexible and allow non-notable items. The hard part is figuring out which is which. Blueboar (talk) 19:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

We need to be more strict on our criteria[edit]

A lot of list articles are being made despite that their better off as categories. And this is mainly pertaining to fiction such as List of fictional Jews or List of LGBT characters in film, animation, written fiction, video games, television and radio, List of multimedia franchises

Now just to assure anyone who has bad-faith, I'm no nazi and I definitely fall in LGBT. But to me, these type of lists seem to just be there for fan readers who want to look up these characters. To me, its like trying to list every book out there. For example: LGBT fictional characters also fall into LGBT genre, such as yaoi and yuri (japanese genres for gay and lesbian). So it seems to defeat the purpose of making such a list if its already a genre. The LGBT wikiproject had made it so that their inclusion is by series that have articles on them. In which seems to me like their trying to put a loophoole.

I personally have don't any specific interests in jews, so personally I don't see what merits it is to have a list of fictional jewish characters. Its like looking for list of fictional catholics, list of fictional wiccans. Etc.

Shouldn't we find ways to make the criteria more strict.Lucia Black (talk) 18:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe it is well-settled (though of course consensus can change), for many years now, that lists and categories -- though they can be very similar or even close to identical -- serve different purposes, have different characteristics, and have different capabilities when it comes to referencing, etc. (whether those are availed of or not, in any particular case). As to the list of fictional Jews, over 55,000 people found it of interest in the past 90 days it would seem -- so while you personally may not find it of interest (I could say that of much of the project), others have a different view. No doubt what interests you will not always be of interest to all others, either. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
What those lists need are solid introductions... a paragraph or two, to establish that the concept of a fictional TV/Radio character being Jewish (or LBGT, or whatever) is notable in the first place. This would be true for similar lists... any "List of X in Y" article needs to establish that the connection between X and Y is notable. Once that is done, then we can populate the list with Xs that are verifiably in Y. Blueboar (talk) 14:36, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Lists of names[edit]

It mentions reliable sources, but shouldn't we specify that those sources must be referenced in the list? Too often it seems to be assumed that a linked article is sufficient. Dougweller (talk) 18:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I sympathize, but since we don't require sources for adding people to categories I doubt that lists are going to be policed any better, at least in the short term. What we really need is a "global" named reference space so it is easy to cite the same source across different articles and languages. - Pointillist (talk) 18:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
See: WP:Stand-alone lists#Citing_sources... This MOS already specifies that list articles need inline sources, and that simply linking to an article is not sufficient.
That said, if the information is sourced at the linked article, then the fact that the list is not being properly sourced is an [[easy problem to fix... Just copy the source from the linked article and paste it into the list. More to the point, since it is such an easy problem to fix... don't just complain and and then sit back waiting for someone else to fix it... fix it (or at least some of it) yourself. Blueboar (talk) 14:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
That seems reasonable and I often do it - often finding it isn't sourced or even in the linked article. Dougweller (talk) 16:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Sadly there are hundreds of lists which adopt this approach, I think it's even written somewhere in MOS that this is somehow acceptable, that a list can simply rely on linked articles for references, for example List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft. Worse still is that nuggets of info from the linked articles are then added to the list article, often incorrectly, and it renders the verifiability of the list useless. As Blueboar has suggested, you could fix it yourself, but in a list with hundreds if not thousands of entries, that's a huge ask. We should be changing the guidance (wherever it is) that suggests having zero references because you can rely on the fact that Wikipedia has an article about it to reference each and every time. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Yup... or at least we need to initiate a joint centralized discussion to resolve the conflict... we should not have two guidelines giving contradictory guidance. Blueboar (talk) 22:50, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I've been told that 'way back in the day, we actually prohibited citations in list articles. So the fact that they're largely uncited might well be a legacy from that. Also, a lot of lists have pretty BLUE information, or information that can be easily verified from a single source (e.g., "List of Fancy Important Award winners in 2013"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
For any list involving living persons, where inclusion might be contentious, existing WP:BLP policy makes referencing compulsory. There really isn't any wiggle-room here - a blue link isn't a reference, and WP:BLP states that " Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:37, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The conventional practice of the Wikipedia community, as reflected in the overwhelming majority of our thousands of lists of people including these and these, is that blue links are commonly accepted. I'm in favor of the deletion of all non-blue-linked/no-independent-RS-ref entries. Those are deleted often, but always some creep back in, especially to the less-viewed list articles. Epeefleche (talk) 18:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

Could the selection criteria for lists be amended to address the plethora of extremely minor film awards in WP:FILM list articles? 17:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Some standalone movie / actor / director "list of awards and nominations" articles are filled with what might be reasonably considered trivial, insignificant awards by regional film-critics groups and film clubs. Issues of WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:UNDUE were brushed aside when an editor pointed to WP:CSC to support including every film award and nomination by every related entity with a Wikipedia article.
This has led to the likes of the North Texas Film Critics Association being given equal weight with the Academy Awards, the Golden Globe Awards, the Screen Actors Guild Awards, etc. This seems as if it goes against the purpose of WP:CSC, which, in its words, "prevents Wikipedia from becoming an indiscriminate list, and prevents individual lists from being too large to be useful to readers."
This hard-line adherence means, some editors at the discussion argue, that we are required to list such arguably very minor awards as
One editor at the previous discussion suggested we could push to delete the related articles, but a) an entity may meet minimum standards of notability even though everything it says and does might not, and b) this isn't necessarily possible.
Given that the world of film and TV generate an inordinate amount of "awards" that, say, the electronics and corporate worlds do not, would it be sensible to consider amending WP:CSC with some reasonable guidelines to prevent the clutter of such awards and nominations? Chlotrudis alone had 67 last year. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd be interested in this debate if you can draw a line between "film awards" (with Wikipedia articles) and "film awards" (which are "extremely minor" but still have Wikipedia articles). How do you intend to do that on a case-by-case basis? Which awards are you proposing to categorise as "extremely minor"? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Right now we're just seeing if the community wants the guideline amended. How comes later, and would be the result of consensus discussions by many editors. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
      • Sounds like a waste of time if you don't have a proposal on how it would be implemented. Good luck with that. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
        • Thanks for the useful comment. Myself, I prefer to work collaboratively with other editors, coming up with ideas together rather than trying to ram my own ideas down anyone's throat. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
          • What a helpful approach, I don't recall ramming anything down anyone's throat. Nice touch. The point is that obviously there are differences of opinion on major and minor film awards. That's fundamental. But you aren't proposing a solution at all. If you haven't got a proposal, it's a waste of time. Sorry if that's upsetting. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
            • Not upsetting, jus confusing. I don't understand the point of anyone saying, "I disagree with your approach, so therefore it's a waste of time." Seems to me the only person wasting time is someone who comes in with no constructive comments but just wants to rag on someone else. Seems like it would be less a waste of such a person's time to not spend any time commenting on something they don't want to comment on. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
              • The point I'm making is that, fine, rail against "minor" awards, no-one will argue with that, but unless you have a proposal to deal with them, this is a waste of time. If an award is notable enough for Wikipedia to have an article about it, why shouldn't it be included in an article? You need to have some kind of criteria to "draw a line" below Oscars and above Razzies or whatever. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
                • That's one way of doing things. Being step-by-step is another. Saying your way is valid and my way is not is simply your opinion. You're entitled to your opinion. But deliberately trying to sabotage another editor simply for wanting to conduct a discussion in a way you don't like? I don't see the point, and it seems bullying for no reason. If you don't want to be part of a discussion, no one's forcing you to. But if other editors choose to be, how does that harm or otherwise affect you? --Tenebrae (talk) 19:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
                  • Heh, there's no "deliberate sabotage", I'm asking for some answers, proposals on what you suggest, how to distinguish between awards and "minor awards". You haven't told us how you'll do that, so your proposal is somewhat limited. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
                    • Then it must be accidental sabotage, since you're not discussing the pro or con of making a change but saying I don't even have the right to ask the question because you, personally, don't approve of the question. Any guideline / policy change is a serious undertaking, and should be done with care, step-by-step. If editors don't believe there's a need for change, then there's no sense in having some people debate the details and specifics while others debate whether we should even do it in the first place. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
                    • Nope, you don't get it. This is an obvious discussion, of course we don't want to litter Wikipedia articles with "minor" awards, but you have to have a proposal that delineates between "minor" and "acceptable" awards. If an article has a Wikipedia article and you declare it "minor", you have to be able to argue against its inclusion in other articles, or the award's article's deletion. Simple. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
                      • I've explained it twice, and you still don't understand that your way is jumping ahead and skipping an important step. What's your endgame besides haranguing for the sake of it, since you don't have anything better to do and no constructive comments to make? Do you want me to say, "Oh, you're right. How dare I ask a question that The Rambling Man doesn't approve of. Why, I guess I should take it down and never darken his door again." Is that it? Because I'm not sure what your purpose is to just complain over and over, "Oh, what a stupid question." Why are you even here? --Tenebrae (talk) 21:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
                        • If this line of conversation isn't likely to achieve anything productive, the best thing for both of you to do drop the stick and move on. You'll thank yourself later for being the bigger man. BOZ (talk) 01:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
The question being presented is: Could the selection criteria for lists be amended to address the plethora of extremely minor film awards in WP:FILM list articles?... and I think the answer to that question is: Yes, of course the criteria could be amended.
Now, the next question is: "Should the selection criteria be amended?" My opinion on that is... Maybe, Maybe not.
To answer that question, we really do need to see a more specific proposal outlining what changes to the selection criteria you would like to see made. Blueboar (talk) 14:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate Blueboar's constructive, analytical approach. Let me step and ask this: Have many of my fellow editors worked with project managers at major media corporations? When I did, we didn't make major changes to, say, the company's website without first ascertaining that there really was a need to make the change. It would have been premature to suggest "solutions" if a problem didn't exist.
The consensus here may be that we want to keep every piddling little "award" that has a related Wikipedia page — two editors at the talk-page discussion cited about do. If so, then there's no need to spend time and energy on "solutions." Albert Einstein, I'm told, said that if he had one hour to save the world he would spend 55 minutes defining the problem and five minutes finding the solution. That's why this is two-step process. Disagree with my approach if you will, but are you gonna disagree with Einstein (and every project manager I've ever worked with)? I say this last sentence tongue-in-cheek. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment what Blueboar said. What's the proposal (as I asked)? What's a "minor" and what's a "major" award and how does it apply to specific types of movie? Will there be an "approved" list somewhere? Will the "extremely minor" awards be nominated for deletion? Is there any harm in film articles having a comprehensive award listing, or sub-page to do so? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
OK... WP:CSC point #1 notes that it is common practice to limit the inclusion criteria of a list to items that are deemed notable enough for their own articles. Given this, I would agree that should a specific award be deemed not notable enough to rate its own stand alone Wikipedia article, then that specific award should probably not be included in a list of awards a movie has won. This does not address the sub-question of whether a given award is notable enough for its own article (or not)... that is a separate question. Blueboar (talk) 14:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
The RfC question isn't really about whether a given award (or, more often, the governing group) should have its own article or not — the notability bar is low enough to acknowledge that the Phoenix, Arizona, film-critics group exists and gets enough Google hits to warrant an encyclopedia entry. But when the critics themselves include amateur, retiree movie fans, non-notable bloggers, and non-professional penny-shopper writers, the question is: Should we amend CSC in regards to film awards, to limit those lists further, so as to "[prevent] Wikipedia from becoming an indiscriminate list, and ... individual lists from being too large to be useful to readers."
I have several ideas how to do this, but before we put the cart before the horse, let's see if there's even any impetus to amend CSC for film awards. The community may not even want to. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Members of the community, which includes The Rambling Man, are trying to figure out if they have an impetus to amend CSC by asking first if there is even a reasonable ability to do so. Blueboar suggested there were two questions being asked, "Could we" and "Should we". They concluded that "Yes" was the answer to "Could we". But Rambling Man, myself, and possibly others disagree and feel that if we can't even suggest a "Could we" proposal, then it may be unnecessary to ask the community if they should. We are considering these two questions simultaneously even if that conflicts with Tenebrae's preferred way of assessing the situation. If you would like to help us with our decision process, please provide possible solutions. The only proposal I see listed was a cut-off if the award itself, not the group awarding it, is notable enough to have its own page. I would imagine this bar is too high and would exclude some widely recognizable awards. As of right now, I am against going forward simply becasue I can't think of any workable solutions to even debate. But that is just my own personal incredulity and I generally like the idea of excluding minor awards. So help sway me and tell me about some workable solutions. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 22:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
While I'm wary of putting the cart before the horse, some of us at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Laundry list of awards have been discussing some ideas preliminarily of how at least to address WP:UNDUE in standalone-list articles. So that's a start, though I think the idea there is that this is a larger discussion than just one for WikiProject Film editors. Certainly, the more the merrier, so I hope you come by.
And — again though I'm hesitant to propose suggestions when we're not even sure there's a problem that need addressing — one step we might take is to not include regional film-critics' nominations, but just the awards. That would certainly cut down on the clutter. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Navigation break[edit]

That sounds like a start. How do you determine a film-critic is regional? Dkriegls (talk to me!) 09:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, if a small independent film has just nominations from a regional film critic, are those allowable? How small is small? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I would use the well-established example of Regional theater in the United States, which defines it (as does the Regional Theatre Tony Award) as theater outside New York City. I'd imagine with film it'd be, for the same reason of being outside the major production centers, critics groups outside both New York City and Los Angeles. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I am novice to this, but aren't many of the major film awards outside major production centers, like Sun Dance and Cannes? And again, I know you think this is moving past the initial point, but I am still trying to see if there is even a viable way to separate the two categories which doesn't resort to original research on our part. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 05:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Those are film festivals. Whole other discussion. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
What about films that aren't made in the US? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Not sure I follow. Foreign films like The Wind Rises are reviewed by US critics and given awards by regional critics. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
What about regional critics from regions outside the US, how are they categorised? What's a "minor" award from these regions? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I've never yet seen a non-US film-critics group listed in a film article other than perhaps the London Film Critics' Circle. Anything else is such a rare occurrence as to be negligible and easily handled on a case-by-case basis. I'm also not seeing that things like the Manchester Film Critics Society or the Swansea Film Critics Society even exist. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
So are all members of Category:Film critics associations going to be categorised into regional/non-regional or major/minor? Would it depend on the type of film they're reviewing? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Not sure of the need to mess with Category:Film critics associations. I guess we could, but that seems another discussion. And at this point, I don't think we're using the terms major/minor, but regional and whatever the right word for non-regional would be. Not sure how "the type of film" has any pertinence here — is there a reason to treat dramas differently than comedies, or animated films differently than live-action? --Tenebrae (talk) 17:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I also have to ask: Maybe I'm a little slow on the uptake, but these recent questions seem so unusual, I get the feeling you're pulling my leg. That wouldn't be constructive. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
(e/c) No, I'm asking you to explain how you intend this to be implemented across the globe, from minor independent movies in the UK to major blockbusters in the US to long-running Bollywood movies in India. It's quite straight forward. And I linked the category because it would be instructive to see how you personally categorise them. For instance, are the Evening Standard British Film Awards regional? Minor? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I just don't understand how anyone could ask if the London Evening Standard could be considered a regional paper.
And I don't understand how anyone would think that any awards group, whether the Academy Awards or the North Carolina Film Critics Awards, draws a distinction between "minor independent movies in the UK [and] major blockbusters in the US". (Incidentally, is there such a thing as a "minor" blockbuster?) You seem to be needling me with nonsensical questions. How about just writing "Oppose" and stop hijacking a discussion about something you clearly have a bug up your bonnet about? --Tenebrae (talk) 20:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Well because London is a region in the UK, in fact, it's a very small region indeed. I didn't ask if it was a regional paper in any case (although actually, you'd be hard pressed to buy the newspaper outside London, did you even look at our own article, where it states that the Standard is a "Regional free daily newspaper"!!!), I asked if the awards from this organisation would be considered minor or not. Regional or not. Clearly the answer to you original proposal is "yes, they could", but you seem to have no definition of how it would work at all. Never mind. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Again with the needling: Yes, and New York City is "a region" as well. That doesn't make Broadway "regional theater." Geez. And we've been through this putting-the-cart-before-the-horse discussion before: You don't "solve" problems if there isn't a problem to solve. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
You asked "I just don't understand how anyone could ask if the London Evening Standard could be considered a regional paper. ". Because it is' a regional paper. Funnily enough, the only decent proposal I've read is that from TriiipleThreat below. If an award is notable enough for a Wikipedia article, there shouldn't be any reason for it to be excluded on grounds of WP:OR or WP:POV. If awards are considered non-notable, trivial even, that should be demonstrated at AFD. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Comment: From what I can tell a large part of the problem is the number of film awards that have there own articles, which do not meet our own notabilty guidelines. These are poorly sourced articles and the few references they do have tend to be first party sources publishing information about themselves, not WP:THIRDPARTY sources as recommended. If we can eliminate these, I feel editors will feel less inclined to include them.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

If you truly believe that, WP:AFD is that way ---> The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
That's fine, and that's not mutually exclusive. We can work on that and on this both. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree, just thought that one hand might wash the other.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
This makes sense - just like lists of people from X generally are limited to persons with standalone articles, a list of awards limited to notable awards (or the organizations that make those awards) makes sense, and if that means trimming barely/non-notable award articles, so be it. --MASEM (t) 21:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
In fact, TriiipleThreat and MASEM — in the best tradition of collaboration and idea cross-seeding — have inspired an idea that may address the barely/non-notable issue: Why not, instead of separate articles for the Phoenix Film Critics and the Oklahoma City Film Critics, etc., just make a list article: "List of regional film-critics groups" or "List of American regional film-critics groups"? That we're we're acknowledging they exist, and footnotes will link to them — and we're free of the constraint of CSC, which only says that standalone lists should include entities with their own articles. We solve the issue of trivial laundry lists without having to adapt/amend CSC. What do other editors think? Should we scrap this RfC and start a new one, with this proposal, at WP:FILM? --Tenebrae (talk) 16:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Sound fine to me.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Same here, seems to be reasonable. --MASEM (t) 17:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
So is the plan to assess each "regional" critic organisation on its merits to determine whether it's still worthy of an article? You can't just "redirect" all these organisations to a list, en masse. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
To answer your question: Yes, via discussion and consensus at WP:FILM. Though, as before, first we'll see if there's a WP:FILM consensus whether to do so at all. As I've continually tried to impress upon you, no professional project manager starts soliciting "solutions" without first determining there is even a problem that needs solving.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Your impressions are fabulous, and every project manager I know gets paid to do whatever they do, generally ineffectively, so forgive me for not bothering to follow that analogy up in any way at all. I think all you've established in this discussion is that you and a couple of others think perhaps that some of the minor film award organisations shouldn't have an article, so you need to head to AFD to sort that out. That was pretty obvious from the outset, perhaps you need a "consultant" rather than a "project manager", i.e. someone who advises on what to do, rather than someone who prevaricates and thinks simply of the budget. We don't need PMs here, just people who actually do things. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
We're all entitled to our opinions. Whatever your opinion on project management, it is just that, and objectively speaking, countless corporations use project management as a standard tool. No major construction project occurs without a project manager, so if you'd prefer that the Freedom Tower, say, had gone up without one, well, you'd be in a very small minority. Some editors prefer to do things methodically and carefully, collecting others' opinions and not just our own, rather than rushing something through. There is no deadline. And this RfC has only been up just over a week; there's still time for other editors to add their counsel and ideas. No one's twisting your arm to do anything. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

So as I said earlier, looking forward to your multiple AFDs and merge proposals to get these articles all reduced to nothing, after all, that really benefits the whole encyclopedia just because you don't like the odd "regional" award on a film article. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

You not only miss the point, you see the very opposite of the point. The whole reason I'm asking the community if it thinks these trivial awards don't belong is because my opinion alone isn't important. There's no use to put everyone through a debate on solutions if the community says there's no problem to solve. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • WP:CSC is a list of common selection criteria (emphasis added). It is not a list of obligatory selection criteria or a list of criteria that are always appropriate. It is not the right place for "do not include X in a list, ever". That should go somewhere else. James500 (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
So conversely, you're saying WP:CSC doesn't require us to "include X include in a list, always"? That'd certainly cut through the red tape. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Clearly. But you wouldn't really be able to justifiably remove those added, particularly if they have a Wikipedia article (thus demonstrating Wikipedia notability), unless you had local consensus for each and every film to do so. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
No, because each Project can adapt guidelines as makes sense for each Project — the same criteria apply to each film in the Project. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Advice_pages: WikiProjects do not get to make their own guidelines. They can write their own essays, but they can't require the editors at any page they claim to be within their scope to follow the WikiProject's (often excellent) advice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
But each film would have a different set of criteria, as I noted above. You'd probably limit films like Titanic to Oscars, Globes, BAFTAs etc, but you might prefer to include London International Festival of Science Fiction awards to films like Primer. There'd be no stopping anyone adding any award to any article, particularly if it had an article on Wikipedia. Unless you had local consensus to direct precisely what awards are allowed on what film articles, for every film article. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:36, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Why would we arbitrarily limit awards based on no criteria? "Films like Titanic", meaning what? Films about ships? James Cameron films? Films that gross half-a-billion dollars? I can't help but think you're deliberately playing games and deliberately having fun at the expense of constructive when you make some of the seemingly random comment you make. You oppose this... fine. But making fun of the RfC isn't constructive in the least. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
No, clearly I mean films which attract the top-ranking awards, such as Oscars, BAFTAs etc, the regional awards aren't so relevant for these kind of films. However, smaller productions which absolutely depend on regional recognition should be allowed to have those awards and nominations noted. So, the question is, how do you decide which films get to list which awards and nominations? You're really not being constructive at all (I don't even understand what " fun at the expense of constructive when" or "make some of the seemingly random comment you make" mean), and while I'm certain you can read and understand English, perhaps I need to spell things out more clearer for you (as a President of the US once said). Please let me know what you don't understand about what I've written. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
I did. You say something like "films which attract the top-ranking awards", and that's no sort of objective criterion. That's completely subjective and after-the-fact. Who would seriously suggest such a vague and amorphous standard? So of course it sounds like you're making fun. And it certainly feels like harassment over something with which you disagree — so so you hijack the conversation with these inanities in order to kill it. You won't say your piece and move on, but you keep returning and returning with evident glee over your power to torpedo something you don't like. However, I believe experienced Wikipedia editors have seen that type of thing before and will see through your tactics. For myself, I can only keep faith in the process and see what an admin says after we hit 30 days.
On a separate note, Wikipedia is most certainly not here to shill for films that "depend on regional recognition." Promoting movies is not in our purview. Our job is to give people pertinent and relevant information of significance, not a laundry list of indiscriminate, undue-weight trivia. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
So you haven't answered the question. Is each film going to have a list of awards/nominations that should be allowed on their page? How do you anticipate it will work, given the two examples I suggested. There are no inanities beyond those of your own construction. There's no making fun, just serious questions over how you would implement this. There's no "suggestion" of any "amorphous" standards, just two examples of works you would need to categorise, and I'd like to see how you can do that. Your "laundry list" argument is fine, but if an article is notable enough for a Wikipedia article, how do you decide whether it should or shouldn't be linked from another article? That's the crux, you have no substantial answer, and that's why this lightweight, ill-advised proposal will fail. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I've already answered, but in short, your saying that "films like Titanic should be treated differently based on no specific reason" is inane. But here we have the crux of the matter: If you really believed this was "a lightweight, ill-advised proposal," then you simply would have commented and gone on to other things. But you're clearly worried that other editors will agree with this proposal that you dislike and it will pass — otherwise you wouldn't be spending so much time trying to sabotage it. That's fine. Keep up the harangue. I believe in this system, and I believe the question deserves a fair hearing. You don't. I get it. And so just as you'll keep trying to sabotage the process, I'll just have to keep fighting to keep the process alive to let other editors have their say.

Oh, and I noticed you didn't respond to my point that we are not here to help support and promote movies you happen to like. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

So, no answers then. Okay. Generally speaking when writing proposals, you should be prepared to answer questions about them. But not in your case. I'm not here to support/promote anything other than the idea that your proposal is flawed from the outset, and given you couldn't answer the simplest of questions, I'm not surprised by the large amount of support I've had to my edits here! Keep digging, refusing to answer the questions, you'll get everything you deserve. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Sigh. I've answered questions. You don't like some answers, you don't understand others, you rant against project managers, you advocate having filmmakers use Wikipedia movie articles to help support and promote their movie. ("Smaller productions which absolutely depend on regional recognition....")
Look, I understand. We run into editors like you on Wikipedia from time and time, and I genuinely don't believe they can help themselves. This becomes the focal point of their lives, and they obsess and turn everything into a win-or-lose proposition — even something as innocuous as a Request for Comment to solicit opinions from editors whether there even is a problem that needs solving.
I'd only ask that you not lie: I have answered your questions many, many times, right from your very first one. I've even tried to do so when your questions were blatantly ridiculous and clearly attempts to bait me into losing my temper. But I can't get angry with editors like you. Any kind of bullying, as everyone knows, is an attempt to have control when one feels helpless. You don't like this idea, and instead of simply saying so, you're so afraid that others will like it that you can't risk that lack of control, and so you keep haranguing.
I think outright lying crosses a line, and saying I haven't answered questions when anyone reading this thread can see, objectively, that I have, is something for which I'd ask admin intervention. But anything else you might say or do in your efforts to derail discussion, well, you're going to do it and I can't stop you. I will just keep responding in the hopes that other editors will see through the smokescreen.
Oh, and at least two editors have suggested ways of addressing the issue of excessive "awards," which acknowledges that those two, at least, believe there's an issue here that needs solving. So whether it's true you've had support or not, my proposition has had support as well. I'm not even sure you have a position, other than, "I don't like the question and so no one should be allowed to discuss it." --Tenebrae (talk) 16:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Keep digging, you're doing your cause no end of bad. You need answer a couple of simple questions, which awards and nominations would you allow on Titanic and which awards and nominations would you allow on Primer? And how would you go about defining how to apply those rules to all the other film articles? I'm so sorry that this isn't going your way, you seem to need some kind of affirmation that what you're doing is worthwhile, I'm certain it is, but you're just going about it all wrong. Hence the numerous editors who have thanked me for attempting to correct your ever-wobbling course through this. I'm afraid claiming I don't wish to discuss this is abundantly incorrect since I'm discussing it and have been for some time. I've done nothing to "derail" anything but ask questions you continually refuse to answer. Look, I understand, I run into editors like you on Wikipedia from time to time, and I genuinely believe you can help yourself. This has become your focal point, your obsession, and you need to continually battle to maintain an untenable position. All I'll say is good luck, a last plea for you to answer the questions, and God speed. Meanwhile I'll get on with actively improving Wikipedia. Cheers! (By the way, please feel free, encouraged even, to take up your own threat of "admin intervention", I can't wait to see what that will result in...) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I was certainly expecting some kind of snarky response, though not parody in particular. Like I said, you've spent most of your time poking fun at me, at my question and even, for some reason, at project managers, for which you seem to have particular disdain. For example, your suggestion that Titanic and Primer should have different standards in terms of what awards to list. It's like you're just saying random things to throw wrenches into the works. You know as well as anyone, I'm sure, that there's nothing inherently different between Titanic, Primer or any other movie that has any bearing whatsoever on what awards are listed. I give this answer — that the question is bereft of logic — you don't like my answer, and you accuse me of not answering.
No one's wobbling. I've asked the same thing from the start: Is there a problem with an overflow of trivial awards in film articles? That's simple: Yes or no. If enough editors say yes, then we can work on solutions. If enough editors say no, then OK, there's no problem, no need to discuss it further.
You don't like a two-pronged approach, which is common in corporate, scientific and scholastic settings, fields I gather you've either no or bad experience with. So rather than say yes or no, you say, "I don't like the question, and you're stupid for asking it, and you're wasting my time, etc. etc." And so because I'm asking a question in a way The Rambling Man doesn't approve of, he's going to keep haranguing because he can't help himself.
I've answered your questions. You don't like the answers. That's not the same as me not answering them. "Last plea"? Ha, ha! No, you'll be doing this all month till the RfC runs its course — since if you don't and other editors can discuss this without your constant bombardment, there's a chance people may actually say, Yes, there's too much clutter. And you can't have that. So ... speak with you soon. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I see you now resort to name-calling, well that's a mature development. Sadly though, it still appears that despite your plea, your proposal is still flawed, and you still refuse to answer the fundamental question of what criteria you are proposing to downselect particular awards for particular films. Which is the question many of us have been asking right from the start. The Rambling Man (talk) 03:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose including an arbitrary limit of what can be reported about a film. Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER, and WP:INDISCRIMINATE is not synonymous with "I don't like it" - a "list of all artistic awards that a film has (verifiably) won" is a finite, well defined list; when the list is too long for a single article, it can be split to other articles. It's certainly worrisome that the proposal doesn't include a criterion for what should not be allowed, which would allow a blank cheque for any later discussion to decide where to cut with an arbitrary or subjective criterion. There also seems to be a WP:BIAS problem with the proposal and previous discussions of "minor awards" being US-centric, and not taking into consideration what effect it would have on films from other countries. Diego (talk) 07:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
    • This will sound odd, but I thank you, Diego. This is exactly the kind of response I was hoping to get: A reasoned "Oppose" or "Accept", rather than a childish series of diatribes. I can see you understood the simple question being asked. Thank you. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:07, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
      • More name calling? Really, I had expected better, but then again, perhaps not. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
        • Tenebrae, there is no need for name calling, no matter haw sarcastic the Rambling man gets. The Rambling man and myself both asked for workable proposals so that the conversation wouldn't get dragged out...which it now has. You can claim that your way of doing things is the best way, but this conversation is not evidence of that no matter who you blame. More importantly, there is no Wikipedia policy that says we can't ask for realistic proposals before we judge if the problem is worth addressing. I hope we can step away from the dead horse and offer some workable solutions. Cheers Dkriegls (talk to me!) 08:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree, although I suspect that my suggestions for appropriate exclusion criteria may differ greatly from the initial proposal. I don't think focusing on "major" and "minor" is terribly helpful. I prefer more particular exclusion criteria such as:

  1. Awards given by vendors (construed broadly) that promote products they transact in. If McDonalds names the Big Mac "America's Favorite Hamburger," we recognize that it's a promotional gesture. When Pathmark names a "Cheese of the Month", it's not seen as a legitimate award.
  2. "Awards" that simply recognize sales/rental figures, which should be addressed, if appropriate, within relevant text.
  3. "Awards" from periodicals, critics, bloggers, etc, which are the equivalent of traditional year's best lists (as well as associated idiosyncratic "award categories"). There's no need to give special prominence to such assessments simply because they're styled awards. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Okay, that proposal seems like an actual start. My first question would be, do any of these awards even meet WP:Notability? If not, then their inclusion should already be suspect and at the discretion of individual page editors. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 08:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Navigation break 2[edit]

To respond to User:Dkriegls, WP:CSC suggests we include in a standalone-list article any entity that has a Wikipedia page. As James500 and another editor pointed out above, this is an MOS guideline, not a policy, and can be adapted. In practical terms, I gather, this means editors can reach consensus at particular projects, for example, adapting the guideline to whatever works better in particular circumstances.

I would think that this answers the actual RfC question: "Could we adapt the guideline?" Whether that's the final consensus here or not (it's possible some editors might disagree and feel no change or adaptation should ever occur, though that seems unlikely), then the second step would be how. That's a whole other discussion and one that I, at least, don't want to pursue after what's gone on here.

However, there is a discussion (not an RfC) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Laundry lists of awards that's not about excluding the trivial and insignificant awards but, in a compromise, grouping them in order to better contextualize them. My good colleague Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, for example, might want to port over his suggestions there and join the discussion on grouping. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

What I meant was the word "common" implies that WP:CSC is for discretionary criteria. Compulsory criteria should go in WP:LSC (which is the block of text immediately before CSC) or elsewhere. James500 (talk) 02:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm in complete agreement with you on that. I don't think what we're saying is mutually exclusive: A consensus can limit, but it has to do so in objective, quantifiable ways.--Tenebrae (talk) 02:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Editors at a WikiProjects do not get to tell non-participant editors what to do, even in terms of "adapting a MOS guideline". Editors at an article are expected to adapt guidelines all the time.
I basically don't see the need for any change and therefore oppose dealing with film awards specifically. The three most common list-selection criteria are described; there is nothing that says you cannot use a different one. All that is actually required is that the list-selection criteria either be obvious from the title, or that it be explained in the lead. This means that a "List of businesses in the World Trade Centers" ought to include all of them, or it ought to explain how you decided which ones to include. Similarly, "List of awards won by Big Film" either ought to include all of them, or it ought to explain how you decided which ones to include ("Big Film won 23 international, national, and major regional awards in the year of its release. It additionally won dozens of minor awards that are not included here"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
That doesn't sound different from what we're saying — and, personally, I love the phrasing of your parenthetical sentences. I'd just say that I do see that various Projects having specific MOS guidelines, since there's no one-size-fits-all solution that works for, say, toy articles and paleontology articles. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

There is an RfC regarding this issue at WP:FILM. Lapadite (talk) 22:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC).

@The Rambling Man, BOZ, Blueboar, Dkriegls, TriiipleThreat, Masem, and James500: Notifying editors that participated in this discussion. Lapadite (talk) 08:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Why are lists of lists exempt?[edit]

The very top of this guideline says:

Being articles, stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability, no original research, neutral point of view, and what Wikipedia is not, as well as the notability guidelines.

Then here is the entirety of the section "Lists of lists":

Wikipedia has many list of lists articles. On lists of lists, nonexistent lists should not be included. That is, all the links in a "lists of lists" should be active (blue, not red). Lists of lists should also be available as alphabetical categories. Put lists that have actual content in one of the subcategories under Category:Lists.

I can't seem to find anything that says lists of lists should be held to a different standard. Since they're in the article namespace and not a disambiguation page, don't all lists of lists have to satisfy (among other things) notability as stated at the top? (Demonstrating that the set of lists is talked about as a group -- the lists talked about as a group -- in reliable secondary sources?) Is this an exception to notability is not inherited? Maybe I'm just not searching correctly for the right page explaining this... --— Rhododendrites talk |  14:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

you're really not gonna like List_of_lists_of_lists then. Once you go beyond a list I consider it navigational only, purpose being to organize information, so per IAR no need for an independent source that has a list of lists of X or even a list of list of lists.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Mind you, the navigation should be a natural grouping, not random associations that show no organization, but I agree at list-of-lists, notability /stand-alone requirements aren't needed to be shown. --MASEM (t) 17:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
@Obiwankenobi: Lists of lists of woah there, you know what they say about recursion don't you? "First you curse, then you curse again." Face-smile.svg davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I have suggested this before, but perhaps it is time to suggest it again. We need to more clearly differentiate between "Informational lists" (pages that are intended to convey information - which I think we all agree are articles that happen to take a listified format, and thus subject to all the policies and guidelines that affect other articles), and "Navigational lists" (pages that do not convey information and are there purely to help readers find articles). To my mind the best way to differentiate these two kinds of pages is to use two different words to describe them. My suggestion is that the purely Navigational lists be renamed... replacing the word "List" and using the words "Index" ... to give an example: Index of bio articles (hockey players) or Index of articles about US National Parks. Blueboar (talk) 14:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Hmm....that is an intriguing idea. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 18:10, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Such navigational lists would probably fall under the same idea as WP:Outlines, though with different structures. There might be a way to build out "navigational pages" that would include outlines, lists of lists, glossaries, and the like. --MASEM (t) 20:53, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I like that. Would it be too much to just treat lists of lists as outlines? Naming them as such and just moving them all? I know there are slight structural differences, but I don't think they need be identical to fit under the same banner. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 06:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure if trying to merge them all into a single term is appropriate (that is, renaming "outlines" as navigational pages") though a page that describes navigation pages should explain that these are generally exemption from things like notability, etc. due to being navigation aids, but they still still be reasonably sensible navigational pages that make common sense. --MASEM (t) 14:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I like the idea of making the distinction clearer by referring to a navigational list as "index." Using "outlines" doesn't seem to make as much sense because of the presumption of hierarchical organization, but the inverse could be true (the outlines could be considered indexes, which are occasionally hierarchical).
But back to my original question, I'm finding it hard to accept that, as put by Masem above, notability /stand-alone requirements aren't needed to be shown as long as the navigational list is a natural grouping. Who then decides what's a natural grouping? What policies do still apply? Maybe it would help me to understand if anyone knew of good examples of Lists of lists that were deleted via AfD? --— Rhododendrites talk |  14:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
It would really need to be a judgement call if someone questioned it, and thus determined by consensus. A "List of lists of people" that would include all "List of people from X" is natural, and makes sense. A "List of lists of topics that start with the letter M" is not. --MASEM (t) 14:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
or... to tie what Massem said into my concept: Index of lists of people from Minnesota is a natural grouping... Index of lists of topics that start with the letter M would not be. Blueboar (talk) 16:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Oregon example[edit]

I know a portal is a different animal, but I included it here because it does seem to cover a lot of the same ground. If the proposal in the section below is implemented, the Lists... article would be renamed to Index... but in this case both exist...and an outline. How do outlines fit in? --— Rhododendrites talk |  19:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Deletions of notability list[edit]

SimonLyall has now twice in short order -- despite my discussing it on his talk page -- deleted an embedded list of notable people in a city. The list included only individuals who have wp articles. SimonLyall deleted the entire list. Both times.

Including a Prime Minister, and an Olympic champion/World champion.

On his absurd assertion that "The people listed are pretty minor".

I opened up discussion on his talk page, and shared that "calling a Prime Minister and an Olympic athlete non-notable is absurd". But he yet again deleted them. And -- having deleted the Prime Minister and Olympic champion/World champion twice -- referred to those he deleted as "some random ones out of the hat, certainly not ones that would normally be ranked towards the top".

I'm bringing conversation here, as he seems not to be familiar with the concept of such embedded lists, and perhaps input from readers of this page would be helpful. And discussion with him on his talk page has failed, as despite my pointing out the above, and the commonness of such lists, he has continued to engage in edit-warring deletions.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

My problem is not with the list existence. The problem was you created it and populated it with 5 random Aucklanders who had articles. Auckland has about a quarter of New Zealand's population. So a quarter of all Prime Minister and NZ Olympic Champion's come from there. You also added Ricki-Lee Coulter ,Colin Kay and Margaret Urlich all three who rank well down the list in their respective fields. I suggested this be taken to the articles talk page where if needed a better list can be created and you want to move it here.
This seems to be very much a case of a drive-by crappy edit expecting others to clean up your mess. If that is the case then let us do so and go away. Otherwise how about participating in a discussion of who would be the best people to have in the list in Talk:Auckland - SimonLyall (talk) 08:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Despite my explaining myself in two edit summaries, as well as in talk page discussion, you continued to delete the Prime Minister. And the Olympic champion/World champion. On the absurd assertions that your deletions were appropriate because the people you were deletion are "pretty minor". And "random ones." That's obviously absurd, and your edit-warring to continue deleting them on that basis is not acceptable.
As to the others, this page reflects our notability policy for lists of people. See WP:LISTPEOPLE. A person may be included in a list of people if all the requirements in WP:LISTPEOPLE are met.
But in any event -- that has nothing to do with your tendentious deletion of a Prime Minister, twice. And your deletion of an Olympic champion/World champion, twice.Epeefleche (talk) 08:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Please do not insert half-truths into this discussion. I reverted your edit exact twice. No "continued to delete" like you stated. Both times I suggested taking the discussion to the articles talk page and you just added it back (although at least the second time you added it back you removed some of the minor people from the list). Your list now consists of exactly 2 people. One is is the current Prime Minister and one of three NZ Prime Minister from Auckland while the other is an Olympic Sailing Champion would would rank below at least two other NZ Olympic sailing Champions. Like I said I have no problem with the list just the lack of thought that went into populating it. As for the idea of added every Aucklander with an aritcle, there are at least 400, probably a lot more. I am also not impressed that 2 reverts gets me a warning on my talk page about Disruptive editing and you start invoking Wikipedia's blocking policy.
Anyway, I'm going to refrain from editing further tonight, there are plenty of others who can clean up your edits and I'm sure we will sort of a list of people without your "help" - SimonLyall (talk)
Even after I left two explanatory edit summaries, and an explanatory paragraph on our talkpage, you continued to delete the Prime Minister, the Olympic & World Champion, etc. Your explanations were that your deletions were warranted because these people were "pretty minor". Absurd. Furthermore, you seem not to have read WP:LISTPEOPLE -- all the people you deleted, including those two, meet the criteria. You don't get to delete an Olympic and World Champion from the list because you believe there are two sailors who are even more notable.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
For this kind of list you need to establish who is considered to be "from Auckland" and you have to establish notability. The first is usually pretty broad, but though there are exceptions, it doesn't seem like SimonLyall is debating that these people should be considered "from Auckland." So since notability is satisfied by the existence of a Wikipedia article, inclusion seems appropriate. As long as those are both agreed upon, there is no "let's figure out who's most important" beyond that. If the section becomes so large that it's unwieldy, as category:People from Auckland suggests would be the case, then create a separate page. Regardless of how big it is in relation to New Zealand, there are much larger cities that list notable people. The first one that comes to mind is List of people from New York City. There is no requirement that if you're going to start listing people, you must list all people or else the section is to be removed. In fact Wikipedia typically works in exactly the opposite way. There are policies, however, on WP:CIVILITY and assuming good faith, which makes comments like This seems to be very much a case of a drive-by crappy edit expecting others to clean up your mess. If that is the case then let us do so and go away (etc.) concerning. Regardless, Epeefleche, beyond saying that a stand-alone list is an acceptable solution, I don't know how appropriate this talk page is for this discussion. If it continues to be an issue and you can't resolve it on the article talk page or each other's user talk pages, you should probably take it to one of the noticeboards. --— Rhododendrites talk |  15:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Naming of articles about an actor's roles and awards[edit]

Please refer to an RfC at Category talk:Filmographies#Naming of articles about an actor's roles and awards, which refers to this guideline (specifically WP:NCLIST). sroc 💬 14:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Lists of lists (again)[edit]

I would like to continue discussion of the "list of lists" issue... To be clear, I am talking about purely navigational pages such as Lists of academic journals and Lists of magazines. The purpose of these pages is not to list academic journals or magazines... but to aid readers in finding other list articles that do. In this, it mirrors the associated category pages (such as Category:Academic journals)
I have proposed before that we adopt the term "Index" for such pages.... to distinguish them from actual "List" articles. Such a distinction would (I think) avoid confusion over whether (and how) our various policies apply. Adopting a different term for such pages would better distinguish purely navigational space (dab, category, index) from informational space (articles and lists). It would better allow us to clarify which "rules" apply to what types of pages.
I was tempted to do a trial balloon and propose an RM, but I thought it would be better to hold some discussion on the basic conceptual idea first. Comments and thoughts? Blueboar (talk) 12:52, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

  • seems reasonable to me. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Point of clarification that also extends somewhat from the previous thread on this: is the reason these purely navigational lists are allowed (those which do not need to demonstrate notability) simply because the Category system is too inflexible? (That if we had as much control over the way a category page is displayed, lists of lists wouldn't be necessary?) Regardless, as far as changes to the way things are currently, this proposal makes sense. --— Rhododendrites talk |  14:41, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I think the category system is inflexible and often has many holes, but both are not intended or supposed to be mutually-exclusive ways of looking up the information. For larger or broader indexes, an article typically is better and more friendly than a bunch of nested categories. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Note... my suggestion would not affect category pages at all. Nor would it change the content and lay out of the navigational pages under discussion. The suggestion is simply to use a different word when we describe navigational pages that are in listified format... to better distinguish such navigational pages from informational lists (ie articles that happen to be in a listified format). If we adopt the word "Index" for the navigational pages and reserve "List" for informational pages, WP:SAL (and other policies and guidelines) can better clarify which "rules" apply to each type of page. Blueboar (talk) 11:54, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
It's been a week without apparent objection. Next step to the village pump? --— Rhododendrites talk |  19:06, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
I think so... then (if there are still no objections) a few well chosen RMs to float as test cases. Blueboar (talk) 19:09, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Only just saw this now for some odd reason. I forget the finer points of our last discussion on this (like whether I agreed with it or not). So, here's my current thoughts of objection: First, while you used an obvious example, how do we define this new index "group" in a concrete way where anyone who wants to violate citation rules doesn't just label their list an "Index"? Where is the line that isn't gray, given that all lists serve the dual purpose of navigation? Are there Lists of Lists that aren't Index's? Are there Index's that aren't lists of lists? Second, what rules are we trying to get around and why? I think we would need to be pretty clear about this and not appear to be special pleading for separate policy where current work arounds already do the trick. One of the reasons categories have such a distinct difference is to not blur the lines of where policy differences end and begin. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 05:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
The distinction is that an Index would not convey any information that needs to be cited... the the only fact that would be presented in an Index would be "Wikipeida has an article on this" (which does not need to be cited). If any other fact is introduced, the page becomes a "List" and citation rules apply. Blueboar (talk) 12:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I can support this idea, as long as it doesn't conflict with our well-developed system of "Index of..." articles (see Portal:Contents/Indexes for the top level), which are not lists of lists. They tend to be in the form "Index of X-related articles" or "Index of articles about X", so lists of lists could maybe be "Index of lists of X" or "Index of X-related lists".  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  12:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes... exactly right. Blueboar (talk) 12:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I think SMcCandlish's proposed names of "Index of lists of X" or "Index of X-related lists" addresses my concerns. As well as Blueboar's comment. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 18:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:CSC (Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists#Common selection criteria)[edit]

I recently edited the second point in the section on Common selection criteria (my additon in bold)

  • 2. Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles: for example, List of minor characters in Dilbert or List of paracetamol brand names. (Note that this is not applicable for living people. - See WP:LISTPEOPLE.) Such lists are best placed within the context of an article on their "parent" topic. Resist creating a stand-alone list unless the parent article is overly long.

My addition has been reverted by Dkriegls with the comment: "That's just simply not consensus. There are a lot of categorical reasons to create stand alones that have nothing to do with length."
Based upon previous discussions, I think my addition likely does have consensus. However it was a bold edit, and as such I respect Dkriegls right to revert it... the next step (in accordance with WP:BRD) is to discuss and find out whether it has consensus or not.
My intent was not to disallow stand alone lists where every entry in the list fails notability... but to discourage them. I feel that best practice is to place such lists within the context of their parent articles whenever possible. Please discuss so we can determine consensus. Blueboar (talk) 13:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I may have been tired and cranky when I read that. It was more the tone that rubbed me wrong and I was thinking of the plethora of scientific and mathematic lists that fall under that stand alone of non-notable items category. But I read what you said and I now see and agree with your point. I added it back with a softer tone. Check it out and let me know what you think. Feel free to be bold with your thoughts. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 19:51, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
No worries... I didn't take your revert personally. And tone is important. Your revised version works for me. Hopefully a few others will agree as well and we can establish a true consensus (my feeling is that two can reach agreement, but you need at least three to form a consensus). Blueboar (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

"List of" vs. "Chronological list of"[edit]

There is a discussion about the naming of lists at Talk:List of French classical composers (chronological), requesting a move to Chronological list of French classical composers. Please feel free to participate. Dekimasuよ! 21:49, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Citing list entries[edit]

I'm in an argument with a veteran editor over whether list entries need to be cited.

Let's assume that I have some (currently non-existent) article that passes notability (this is not a notability issue). In that article I have a subsection for otherwise credible reasons (this is not a disagreement over the credibility of a subsection name!) "US Presidents under six feet tall." Let us say (for instance) that Jimmy Carter is in that list. I maintain that there should be a footnote substantiating that Jimmy Carter is, indeed, under six feet. The other editor believes that a) Everyone knows that, and/or b) they can go to Jimmy Carter's article and find that out, or (his last argument) c) That he and several other editors are watching that article. There is no chance that anyone will make a false entry. The "good guys" will enforce that.

IMO, the article (with list) should be maintained in a WP:STANDALONE fashion so that any editor can verify, without otherwise leaving the article for yet another article (which may or may not contain Carter's height, reliably sourced); that we should not have to depend on any particularly subset of editors for any article. (I monitor many articles where I am the only experienced editor. Other contributors are often of good faith, but wrong!)

Using reliable sites to establish that an item belongs in a list should be stated somewhere clearly and echo-ed in sub-policy and Project articles so this problem does not persist. And yes, "apple is a fruit" is allowable without citation. But the problem with making that exception is that there are no contrary statements to offset it! Does the Higgs Boson totally exist in our four-dimensional universe or not? That is not obvious. Nor is it obvious that Hermann Witganager should be in the list of longest serving mayors of Ostend-um-Rhine. Even if he is notable. I am not really sure he ever was mayor there, in fact! Let us spare watching editors and clearly make brighter lines here. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 21:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The short answer is that information needs to be cited wherever it appears. The longer answer is this: yes, you would need to provide a citation to verify that "Jimmy Carter" belongs in the list of "US Presidents under six feet tall"... even if the bio article Jimmy Carter already contains a citation for that information. The reason why is simple... the bio article might end up being re-written at some point, and the information about his height (along with the citation) could end up on the editorial cutting floor... being omitted in the course of the re-write. When information appears in some other article, we can't count on it remaining in that article. So it has to be cited in both articles, just in case.
As for the "this is obvious" or "everyone knows this" argument... that is not actually a valid reason to exempt a statement from WP:V. It is true that statements such as "Apple is a fruit" or "Paris is the capital of France" do not need to be cited... but the reason we don't require them to be cited isn't that "everyone knows this" or "this is obviously true"... the reason we exempt them is that such statements are obviously verifiable (there are thousands of sources that do so), and so that actually providing a citation to a source is silly.
That said... If you already know that "Jimmy Carter's height" is currently mentioned and cited in the Jimmy Carter article... don't be a dick about WP:BURDEN and insist that the other editor do all the work to copy the citation to "US Presidents under six feet tall"... just copy and paste the citation yourself. Doing the work yourself will take you all of two minutes... while trying to force the other guy to do it will take hours (Yes, technically it was his responsibility, but the reality is that it's a waist of your time to point this out). Blueboar (talk) 15:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
The situation at Kos is not exactly similar to Jimmy Carter's height. Unlike the height issue, which can indeed be removed from an article, this list concerns people associated with Kos. Since for most of these figures that means Kos is their birthplace, the information cannot end up in the cutting room floor as it is central to their bios. It is also easily verifiable, all one has to do is check the early life section of the bios to verify that. I actually had to add a source for one Koan who was actually missing an RS for her birthplace, but I did it at her article, not at the island's page. There are also two articles that have "of Kos" in their common names. The list is also not long, so verification is not tedious. In cases such as this it helps keep the list clean by avoiding citation clutter on every entry of the list, especially with citations which have little to do with the island itself but rather with the individuals involved. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 08:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
If you are going to list notable people from Kos at the Kos article, the information still needs to be cited at the Kos article. I have Fixed the Problem (it took me all of five minutes to copy and paste the sources). Blueboar (talk) 13:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, there are three other editors at the article, two at the talkpage and one in the article history who don't think this is an improvement. I find such reference use unnecessarily pedantic. It also clutters the article references with references largely unrelated to the main topic. But I've said that before. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 17:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Blueboar. This seems to be covered by WP:NLIST. Student7 (talk) 01:56, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Student7, do you (or did you) have any concern that these entries might be incorrect? It's not clear whether you were concerned about the content itself ("Maybe this doesn't belong on this list") or only about its presentation ("Wikipedia looks more respectable with citations"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Both. See, for example List of Haitians. This is energetically maintained by a prolific editor, who may have missed the fact that some of the people on the list are Haitian-Americans who have never been to Haiti. They cannot be easily confirmed without a citation, which would clear the matter up immediately. (He has purged the list of citations and {{cn}}s)! I need my ducks in order before taking him on).
Nor can a researcher be assured of Haitian ancestry. Are we just saying this? These people BTW, are often not terrifically well-known, another problem which I cannot solve outside of politicians and soldiers. In other words, they might belong on some provincial list, because they are not known outside of Haiti or have scant fame in the States, as well. But the basic fact of birth (in this case) needs to be proved first before moving on to the "Is s/he famous enough to be known outside of Haiti?" question.
For "watchers/reviewers", these need to be hammered out, one at a time. I have had great success over the years without having to personally research each person popping up on a list. WP:BURDEN. I flag it, and erase it after three months or so. Phoneys don't generally show up twice. I am really not interested in most of these people personally. I don't want to, nor should I be required to be an expert on a "list" just because I am trying to maintain its viability to readers. IMO.
I am not trying to play killjoy to newbies and if someone insists, I will look up one or two. But looking up everyone on this Haitian list (which had some citations for awhile) is beyond me.
Can we determine whether WP:NLIST is a real guide or simply a piece of verbosity which can be ignored? Student7 (talk) 00:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Lists of notable X[edit]

WP:BLP requires appropriate sourcing for any claims regarding an individual, especially when they may be of a contentious or private nature. But it does not specifically address the question of where the sourcing should go when deciding whether an individual belongs on a list of notable individuals satisfying certain criteria where the requirement is for a blue-linked article. This has led to some question whether it's appropriate to add an individual to a list based on a claim not made in the main article. For example, in List of hackers, where clearly there could be a negative connotation to being called a hacker, there's been a question whether to add serious computer scientists including Marvin Minsky, L Peter Deutsch and John McCarthy under the broad definition of Hacker (term) that includes "A community of enthusiast computer programmers and systems designers", even though their articles do not identify them as hackers and certainly no one believes these are "People committed to circumvention of computer security" or who engage in "unauthorized remote computer break-ins".

It seems to me, and I think it's been a common practice, just never explicit, that the right place to vet most sources and claims about an individual who's notable and has a blue-linked article is there at the article itself in the plain light of day in front of all the other editors most familiar with the subject, not in a separate list. This is why we don't generally clutter most lists of notable X with references when a blue-linked article is required. These are basically navigation lists, not where we check the claims except just to verify that the article is there and makes the claim. Consequently, I added this paragraph to the WP:LISTPEOPLE section with the edit comment, "When it's a list of notable X and a blue-linked article is required, the article should identify the individual as meeting the selection criteria. That's the place for any needed sources."

Where the requirement is for an existing article to demonstrate notability, that existing article should identify the individual as meeting the selection criteria. That article is also where any sources needed to support the claim would normally go. New claims about the subject should not be made by including someone in a list that are not made in the blue-linked article, even if sourced. If you have a new source that supports a new claim that would support inclusion in a list, that claim and source should first be added to the main article, where other editors familiar with the subject will more likely see it and can vet both the claim and the source under WP:BLP.

AndyTheGrump has reverted me with the edit comment, "per WP:BLP policy, inclusion in a list requires a source - in the list." But I believe he's wrong. While it is absolutely clear that WP:BLP requires sources, it does not state at WP:BLPCAT or anywhere else on the page where the sources should go. I do not believe that WP:BLP anticipates new claims being made about an individual by adding them to a possibly notorious list if those claims aren't already made in their WP:BLP if there is one or that you should be able to get around this by adding a source to the list where it likely won't get the same scrutiny. Msnicki (talk) 18:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree with Andy's reversion here. A BLP claim needs to be on the page on which any statement is made. If the BLP statement happens to be on 5 or 6 pages, it needs to be cited on 5 or 6 pages. We cannot rely on sourcing from a different page to back up any claim, but especially when it concerns a BLP. – SchroCat (talk) 18:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Sources go in the relevant articles (and a list is an article). Where else would they go? And while I agree that anything that validates inclusion in a list should probably be included in the biography as well, that doesn't alter the fact that unsourced lists can and do frequently contain blatant violations of WP:BLP policy - and the claim that 'it is sourced in the biography' is not only dubious per policy (we don't cite our articles as sources), but frequently impossible to verify, since the source for the claim isn't named. And why the heck shouldn't we insist that the very thing that merits inclusion on a list should be cited where the reader can find it? We are supposed to be writing for the benefit of readers, not the convenience of list-compilers too lazy to actually provide a citation when they are adding someone to a list? If they are adding a name, they must be working from a source (or at least, they darned well should be) and are in the best position to get it right. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree more with Msnicki. AndyTheGrump's edit summary, per WP:BLP policy, inclusion in a list requires a source - in the list (as in, a source being mandatory for any living person added to any list) is not something I understand to extend from WP:BLP.
In general, the specifics of whether a description/term X should apply to a person is best hashed out at the article for the person. A person should not be added to a list of X if it has not been determined to be appropriate at the article. But there is no broad requirement that the sources which verify inclusion of a person on a list must be at the list, as far as I know. It's nice when a list is well sourced, and local consensus can produce an inclusion criteria dictating sourcing as a requirement, but I don't think it's a necessary extension of WP:BLP.
That said, I'm more sympathetic to extending WP:BLP to those lists (stemming from WP:BLPCAT), where inclusion could potentially harm someone's reputation or otherwise cast a negative light on the person, but I still think that's better handled per local consensus as those lists tend to have a good amount of gray area.
What about navboxes and other templates which list people? They appear in other articles and include people's names. Require sources there too?
I'll also add that this is a grayish area that doesn't need to be a huge problem. If someone adds a person to a list, and the person's inclusion in the list is sourced at the person's article, then someone who wants a source on the list can just go fetch the source from the article. Likewise, when the editor adding the name to the list is asked for a source, he or she can just go fetch the source from the article, too. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
No, no, no! That goes completely counter to the point of lists, to our unbreakable BLP policy and to WP:CIRC. - SchroCat (talk) 19:59, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
"someone who wants a source on the list can just go fetch the source from the article". If it was ever there in the first place. And if it hasn't been removed in the meantime (sources get removed from articles for all sorts of reasons, including perfectly reasonable ones). Effectively, an unsourced entry on a list is nothing but an assertion that at some point in history there might have been a source validating inclusion. If the person adding the name to the list understood policy at all - after all, why should anyone assume that adding a new name to a list requires a source if there is no evidence that any of the other entries are sourced? No, someone adding a name to a list can 'just' do what is expected of them in any other context on Wikipedia - provide explicit sourcing. If they can't be bothered to perform this elementary task they have no business editing in the first place. We are writing for the benefit of readers, not the convenience of contributors, and we have an obligation to ensure that material concerning living persons is properly sourced. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
It surely shouldn't be just an assertion about history. It seems to me that if the WP:BLP changes and no longer makes a claim that might qualify the individual for inclusion on a list of notable X, they should be removed from the list. We should decide questions of whether someone really is an X, whatever X is, at the subject's WP:BLP, not at a possibly notorious or only tangentially-related list where the claim is unlikely to receive the same scrutiny it would at the BLP, e.g., that even it seems reliably sourced, that other sources agree. Msnicki (talk) 20:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
f it was ever there in the first place. And if it hasn't been removed in the meantime (sources get removed from articles for all sorts of reasons, including perfectly reasonable ones). Effectively, an unsourced entry on a list is nothing but an assertion that at some point in history there might have been a source validating inclusion. -- This is precisely the same as if someone adds content to an article with a source and then someone else removes the source. A statement in a BLP article is nothing but an assertion that at some point in history there might have been a source validating the statement. In such a case, as with the list article, the statement/list item should then be removed. If there's no source, there's no source. But the premise here is that there is a source at the article. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Personally, I'm less concerned with what 'should' happen than with what frequently does. Which is that people get put on lists with no source at all. Though if the level of scrutiny you are advocating was carried out on the BLP talk page, one would think that little extra effort would be involved in actually citing the source where the reader can find it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
If the list is a topic that is even potentially contentious (like being a hacker, white- or black-hat), as compared to a rather mundane fact (like being born from a specific country), then it should be sourced to be included in the list, even if the blue-linked article has this clearly cited as well. At worst, we're reusing a reference from the blue-linked list to do that. --MASEM (t) 21:31, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
How is relying on the source being in the linked article not a form of using one of our articles as a source? Dougweller (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
It begs the question, which is why if for "List of X" where X is a potentially contentious claim, the source should be on the list (as well as duplicated in the article, obviously) - we should not be asking readers to search for this in the person's article if the claim is made on the list page and not sourced. Something less problematic like birth nationality, which is not contentious, that's different, but certainly would be preferable to include the source on the list page. --MASEM (t) 21:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
If the BLP must state the qualifying criteria for the subject to be included, else they should be removed, the list becomes merely navigational, like a dab page. Msnicki (talk) 21:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
And what if sources disagree? I think you invite the case where an individual gets added to a list based on a single reliable source when in fact other sources disagree or where an individual is added to a list claiming they are "known for" something when in fact that's completely WP:UNDUE weight on something that might be true but not what they are really known for. For the specific case of lists of notable X that also require blue-linked BLPs, I think questions of whether someone really is an X should be decided at the BLP. You shouldn't be able to add someone to a list, especially a notorious or perhaps obscure list, even if you do have a source, if their BLP doesn't also clearly make the same claim, preferably right in the lede paragraph. If nothing else, to do otherwise invites forum shopping. If you have a claim about a living person, you should be able to make it stick at their BLP or not at all. Msnicki (talk) 21:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
If we're including BLP on a list of X where there is wide disagreement on whether a specific person qualifies as X, then the list absolutely needs to have a very hard inclusion requirement to eliminate disagreed cases - or potentially the list itself is bad. An example I could think of would be a list of LGBT persons. Allowing any random source to justify inclusion is brewing for trouble, while on the other hand if we narrow that list to self-identified LGBT persons, that would be far different. We'd still need a source or two to make that clear, obviously. --MASEM (t) 21:59, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Verifiability is a bright line, core criteria for Wikipedia. If we want to say something in an article (and that includes list articles) it must be verifiable. More over, if there is any question, the verifiability must actually be demonstrated by providing an in-line citation to a reliable source (see WP:BURDEN). Every article (even a list) must stand on its own in terms of sourcing. Facts must be supported in every article in which the fact appears... list articles are no exception. So, if List of notable Xs includes person Y as an X, then that entry needs to be sourced, and it needs to be sourced in List of notable Xs (not just at the bio article). This is especially important in cases where BLP might apply.
That said...WP:V also states that "verifiability does not guarantee inclusion" in an article... We have other policies that also apply, and those too can affect inclusion. For example, if there is only one source that says person Y is an X... and lots of sources disagree and say that say Y is not an X... then WP:UNDUE WEIGHT would apply. We would omit person Y from List of notable Xs, because including him would give undue weight to a minority view point... even though the one source appears to verify that view point. Blueboar (talk) 22:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
So what do you say to the editor who adds a name to a notorious list based on a reliable source supporting a claim that is not made (or perhaps contested) in the BLP? Are saying you think the debate should happen at list article, out of view of the editors working on the BLP? And what if the list and the BLP now disagree over whether someone really is an X, each based on some number of RS? That would be okay? Msnicki (talk) 22:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I would say that that issue is in no way going to be addressed by removing/not requiring sources in list articles. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
At the moment, there is no debate - the name just gets added to the list, unsourced. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
And incidentally, it is worth bearing in mind that the MoS is a guideline, whereas WP:BLP is policy - and accordingly we cant have a guideline which contradicts it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I do note within the mos we have the language "Stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines for articles, including verifiability and citing sources. This means statements should be sourced where they appear, they must provide inline citations if they contain any of the four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations." So any "List of people that are X" where X is a potentially contentious thing about BLP means that we must have inline sources per both this MOS and BLP. --MASEM (t) 02:29, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

any "List of people that are X" where X is a potentially contentious thing about BLP means that we must have inline sources per both this MOS and BLP -- Yes, but that's not where this thread started. It started with an edit summary: per WP:BLP policy, inclusion in a list requires a source - in the list. That's broader than inclusion in a list where inclusion is potentially contentious. Nobody's arguing against verifiability, because verifiability explicitly does not mean the same thing as every statement having an inline citation. If we're talking about a subject that is not contentious -- say, list of clarinetists -- and we know the fact that a person is a clarinetists is verifiable because it's verified by a reliable source at the person's article, there's no verifiability concern. Now, if someone challenges someone's inclusion on the list, then a citation can be demanded there as with anything else. But it is not the case that, across the board "inclusion in a list requires a source - in the list". — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I would say that no-one is doing the encyclopaedia any favours in adding any unsupported information (saying someone is a clarinetist is way off "the sky is blue" level that doesn't need a source), but that goes doubly for BLP, where policy does require all statements to be supported. That needs to be done on the page where an assertion is made, and not just relied upon an unconnected page that may change over time. - SchroCat (talk) 02:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Keep in mind that BLP does not require a source for every fact made about a BLP, but absolutely requires it in the case of a contentious claim. That John Q Smith is a clarinetist is likely not contentious, but John Q Smith being a hacker (which has both positive and negative meanings, and as used in the OP example, a case of someone that would not professionally call themselves a hacker but does the work that is equivalent to a hacker) - that's a contentious claim and per BLP would require a source at the list. Another way to look at it: if the inclusion on the list is based on the fact not being contentious, then I should be able to verify that fact with almost no effort by looking at the blue-linked article. If it requires me to read between the lines or get into details, then it probably should be cited at the list article. --MASEM (t) 03:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
And I would go further. If inclusion on the list is based on a fact that might be contentious, then it absolutely should always be easy to verify it with almost no effort by looking at the blue-linked article. If that's not the case, I don't think you should add the individual to the list even if you do have a source because it should be obvious there might be other sources that disagree or a case of undue weight. In either event, the place to hash this out should be the BLP itself where the claim and the source can be fully vetted. As it is, most lists of notable X do not have sources no matter how notorious, so arguing they should all be sourced is pointless. They aren't and that's not likely to change. To the contrary, in those few cases where an entry is sourced, it's been my experience that the sourcing is rarely of the quality that would stand up in the BLP and it's offered only because the BLP does not make the claim. It's a way of sneaking things in. All I'm proposing is the simple, workable rule that if you'd like to add someone to a list of notable X that requires blue-linked articles, the BLP should clearly state they are indeed an X. Msnicki (talk) 03:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
You are essentially saying that 'crap exists, so we may as well stick to that level, because its too difficult to do anything else'. That's just not good enough. If you add information about a LP to any page it needs to be reliably sourced. That's the bottom line, and trying to justify not adding a source is just bollocks – and lazy bollocks, I'm afraid. Make a claim on a page, source it on the page: it's not difficult, and is part of a fairly simple, but very strong policy. - SchroCat (talk) 03:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Exactly - it is a lazy habit that predated BLP and while BLP's in place a while, we haven't really cleaned up messes that existed before. BLP lists really should have a source for every entry until there's clearly no contentious evaluation of inclusion (such as by birth place). --MASEM (t) 03:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Don't be silly. This has nothing with laziness or WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. The question is this: Do you think you should be able to add someone to a list of notable X, possibly making a contentious claim that the individual is an X, even if the BLP does not say that, just so long as you have a source? I don't think so. You both appear to think this would be okay; it would be helpful if you could clarify your position. Msnicki (talk) 04:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
There is nothing silly about this, and I wonder why you continue to push an unpushable point. WP:BLP is bloody simple: if add something about an LP you need to provide a good reliable source to back it up. If you don't, it'll get ripped out. If you continue to add the same, you'll face censure. I'm not sure which bit of this silliness you are failing to understand, but this thread is going past the point of being constructive now. – SchroCat (talk) 04:17, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
A complete non-answer to my question. Do you think you should be able to add a person to a list, in effect making a claim about them that isn't made in their BLP, just so long as you have an RS? A simple yes or no will do fine. Msnicki (talk) 04:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes! If you have a WP:Reliable source that supports a contentious claim that is important enough for the BLP page, then the issue is not with the list page, but with the BLP page and why it is being kept off. The mere fact that we are debating the issue of list level inline citations yet again (I stopped counting at 10) is all the evidence you need that list inclusion in general is contentious enough to require inline citation at the list level. In contrast to your proposal, there are lots of reasons why a well supported fact about an individual might be notable for the list in question, but not for the BLP of the living person. For instance, the people of Eureka, California are quite proud of the fact that Ulysses S. Grant served at Fort Humboldt two years before the town incorporated around it. Celebrated with a town statue and all. It is a well supported and WP:notable event in the town's history, but a minor one in the life of the president and not included on his BLP. Having edited thousands of these pages, I can assure you I come across more than a few instances like this. I've been on both sides of debates about whether these events are WP:Notable enough for inclusions on lists. Trying to create a mandate for only including materiel also found in a BLP, would simply be creating editorial pain where no reason for creating such pain is apparent...because we already have rather broad consensus for inline citation at the list level. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 04:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Here's another great example. Winning the highly un-glorious Ig Nobel prize. Not exactly a WP:Notable event for a BLP. But completely WP:Notable for list inclusion. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 04:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
That's not an example at all. (a) It's not a list of notable X. (b) It doesn't require a blue-linked article for inclusion. (c) It's more than just a list of names, it's an actual article with descriptions of each award. (d) While some of the entries do have sources and/or blue-links, many have neither. (You'll probably want to get right on that.) (e) It's not likely to be contentious since we can presume the Ig Noble prize was either awarded or not awarded and it's unlikely that sources would disagree. Msnicki (talk) 05:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
"It's more than just a list of names". So your proposed recommendation is limited to lists of just names? That seems randomly convenient for you to add at this point in the discussion. Are you aware that there is also a long standing consensus that lists of just names are to be avoided whenever possible? Prose explaining the person's connection to the list is always preferred to no prose at all. If you disagree, please explain how you think Wikipedia treats lists-with-just-names differently from lists-with-more-then-just-names. Because the only difference I'm aware of is that the first should be given a tag encouraging editors to expand it? Dkriegls (talk to me!) 08:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
"It's not likely to be contentious since we can presume the Ig Noble prize was either awarded or not awarded" and yet the talk page is littered with small debates about the reason the person was given the award or if the award misrepresented their work and that Wikipedia shouldn't repeat the misrepresentation. If the editors of this list were following the well established policy of inline citations for every BLP list entry, it would make their work easier. Like the editors at this List of people who have been pied. They cited every entry, editors at the various BLP's did not find this event to be notable enough for their BLP, and yet, no debate on the talk page; because every entry is well cited. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 08:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Blah, blah, blah. It's still not a list of notable X that requires a blue-linked article for inclusion. Msnicki (talk) 09:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
RE: "Do you think you should be able to add someone to a list of notable X, possibly making a contentious claim that the individual is an X, even if the BLP does not say that, just so long as you have a source?" Yes... if you have a reliable source, it passes WP:BURDEN. The claim is verifiable, and the person may be added in good faith.
However, that does not mean the entry will remain in the list. Inclusion can still be challenged on other grounds. Verifiability is simply the first test that must be met for inclusion on a list... but it isn't the only test. Blueboar (talk) 14:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
"It's still not a list of notable X that requires a blue-linked article". Well, I already provided that for you with Ulysses S. Grant and List of people from Eureka, California. So you may want to ease up on the flippant "Blah, blah, blah" comments and instead take more time to fully read what other editors have written. Since you seem to think your proposed policy should only be about notable people lists, lets refer to the Notable people section of the WikiProject Cities/US Guideline. "A fast and easy way to establish this is if they already have an article written about them on Wikipedia, since it would have never been approved, or would have been deleted, if they did not meet notability requirements. This is not the sole rationale for inclusion, since some people who might meet notable standards may not have an article". So we have both people who are included in such lists that do not warrant their own BLP and people like Ulysses S. Grant who's relationship to the list is notable for the list, but not for his own BLP. Those are two exceptions to your proposed policy that I find with some regularity. The "Lists of people" section on the Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists page is guidance for all lists of people, not just your ever changing subset of lists of people. Please take some time to appreciate that you are asking for a change to a long standing consensus on in-line verifiable policy; not on an actual policy page, but on a manual of style page. In-line citation at the presentation of the content has been a long standing wp:policy. WP:CIRCULAR specifically discourages what you are suggesting: "Content from a Wikipedia article is not considered reliable unless it is backed up by citing reliable sources. Confirm that these sources support the content, then use them directly." e.g., don't cite the article and thus indirectly its editors as proof of verification, but use the verification itself directly at the source of the claim. You are essentially asking us to cite the credibility of editors on a different wikipedia page as proof of verification of a claim on these lists. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 18:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Very well, let us consider your "example" of Ulysses S. Grant and List of people from Eureka, California. There are three big problems with your example. First, Grant is a not a living person and hasn't been almost 130 years. He is not covered by BLP. Second, so far as I know, no one assume that if you lived in Eureka, that you are probably a criminal. It is not like being called a hacker. Third, the pièce de résistance, have you looked carefully enough at your example to have even clicked "Edit"? When I did, this is what I found it said:
<!-- Note:
· Only people who already have a Wikipedia article may appear here. This establishes notability.
· The article must mention how they are associated with Eureka, California, whether born, raised, or residing.
· The fact of their association should have a reliable source cited.
· Alphabetical by last name please.
· All others will be deleted.
Clearly, I am not the only person who thinks it's not unreasonable that if you have a list of notable X that requires blue-linked articles, that the linked article should state whatever claim is required for inclusion on the list and provide a reliable source for the claim. Msnicki (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
The issue that you claim to be trying to fix is not in any way shape or form going to be ameliorated by the rule change that you are suggesting. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:21, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
The list of people from Eureka, CA, is not the type of list that absolutely needs sources; the original example, List of hackers is one that is a contentious claim, because there are people that 3rd parties might claim are hackers but the actually people would deny it. This is where sourcing is needed to include. --MASEM (t) 01:26, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't know about that... I would want a citation to verify that someone was from Eureka. It's hardly a "Paris is the Capital of France" type statement that is so easily verifiable that we wave citation.
Let me give another example... look at our List of Freemasons articles... The inclusion criteria for those articles is two fold: 1) the person must be notable to qualify for the list. That is a requirement which is satisfied by the fact that the person has a Wikipedia article. Second, the person must be a Freemason to qualify for the list. THAT is a claim that requires verification, and can only be satisfied by supplying a citation to a reliable source that supports the fact that the person is a Freemason. If either of these two criteria are not met, we remove the person from the list (if added).
Now... in many cases, the fact that a person belongs to a Masonic Lodge is a very trivial thing to mention in the main Bio article. Indeed the editors of the bio article may well decide that it is simply too trivial to bother mentioning. Yet we would not remove the person from the List of Freemasons simply because the editors at the main bio article thought it too trivial to mention in the bio article. Blueboar (talk) 01:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, in considering a place of birth, this is universally a piece of information found in an infobox or in the bio section for any person. (I would be hard pressed to find an example of a person of modern-enough times (19th century onward) lacking any details of where they were born). The article should have that verification via source, but it is near universally that this is known and included. As such, a blue-link on a list would be sufficient. But your example, such as being a Freemason, or being a hacker, those are things that may or may not be listed in the bio article. Or even something like a person being a (self-stated) supporter of LGBT rights, that might be in the article but buried. To meet WP:V we should be considering how much effort the V part is met. Birthplace - a jump to the article should reveal it on the top of the page. Freemason/hacker/LGBT supporter, that's not universally going to be the case, so the source should be right there on the list to avoid any WP:V-based ambiguity. --MASEM (t) 02:17, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
I give you Barack Obama as merely example where even well sourced birth places are "controversial" .-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
It's not that it is "controversial" but that on the blue linked article, I don't have to "work" to find a source to support the claim because (in this case) it's sourced in the first + second sentences of the body, and not buried; this is because bio articles universally start with "So and so was born on DATE at LOCATION". On other categories, membership of the class may not be something directly mentioned, and that's where a source on the list is needed. --MASEM (t) 18:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Some comments. (1) Doesn't pretty much everyone know how to use Ctrl-F? If you'd like to find where the bio says someone was a hacker/Freemason/LGBT supporter, don't you think most people know how to do a search? It's not like they actually have to read the whole article to find it.
(2) Suppose we had a List of U.S. Presidents born outside the U.S.. Would it be okay to add Obama so long as I have what I claim is an RS? How about if I have two of them? Or maybe three. How many would you like? My real question is, do you think we should debate the claim and the sources there at the list or is that forum shopping? Shouldn't we settle basic questions of what we will report about an individual in one place, at his BLP?
(3) Re: what about claims that might be "too trivial" for the bio, it seems to me this argument assumes the unlikely; the more likely reason we wouldn't report something is because the sourcing isn't that good. Setting aside that it has not been my experience that WP fails to report stuff because the topic is too trivial, if it's too trivial to report that someone was an X, then maybe he really wasn't that much of an X after all. Most of these lists of notable X introduce themselves as lists of people known for something. If the claim isn't important enough make it into their bio, it doesn't sound to me like they were really known for it.
(4) Are you more amenable if any ambiguity is removed to state clearly that claims require sources everywhere they're made but merely that, in addition, if you make a claim about an individual with a blue-linked BLP by adding them to a list, that the claim must also appear in the BLP? Msnicki (talk) 18:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit break[edit]

Msnicki, that note is my edit, not someone agreeing with you. As has been explained to you multiple times now, not all blue links are BLPs. Nor even biographies of dead people. People involved in a single notable event may have links to all types of articles that aren't biographies. Most importantly, that note specifically says "The fact of their association should have a reliable source cited." I've never cited BLP as cause against your proposal, hence my reference. I've only cited in-line citation at the source guidelines. There is no consensus on requiring citations anywhere but at the source of the claim. Hence WP:CIRCULAR. If you can find one I would love to read it. Until then, this is the wrong venue for you to be trying to change longstanding consensus on policy. You should being trying this on a policy page, not an MoS page. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 03:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, not all blue links are BLPs, nor even biographies. But in your List of people from Eureka, California example, the ones of concern certainly are biographies. I call your attention to the excerpt from that list which I quoted above, which states, Only people who already have a Wikipedia article may appear here. This establishes notability. Msnicki (talk) 04:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
The text I wrote? With the expressed understanding that I followed it with "The fact of their association should have a reliable source cited." In that, entry on the list must be cited at the list where the claim is made. I can assure you that I posted that on a lot of these pages and yet let stand names that do not yet have BLPs but do have citations establishing notability. I don't make policy no matter what I do to discourage frivolous edits to these pages. Citing me won't help your cause. See Nancy Utley from List of people from Glen Ellyn, Illinois. Most editors on this thread clearly aren't siding with your proposal. Instead of wasting everyone's time with this, why don't you focus on something you can change. What is it about the hacker list that you find unnerving? Let us help you change that at the page level. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 06:56, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate that you intended that statement to indicate that the citation should appear there on the list. But realistically, the statement is ambiguous on where the source is supposed to appear. I read it to be an elaboration on the previous sentence and to mean that the article that makes the claim of a connection should have a reliable source, that you were depending on the editors at that article to sort out the issue, if there was one, the same way you depended on them to sort out any question of notability. (You certainly are claiming these are notable people but you're also certainly not demanding sources for that.)
I'm not sure I understand your objection based my suggesting the change here, not on a policy page. Arguably, I suppose it could be ignored if it's only a style issue, which if you think it's a silly rule, you might like. Why would this be a permissible rule only if it's policy, making exceptions nearly impossible?
Is your objection that you think I'm arguing against also providing sources in the list? It's true that I do happen to think they're pretty much unnecessary if the bio clearly makes the claim with proper sourcing, especially for those lists of notable X (e.g., List of programmers, List of fashion designers) that offer little more than a navigational list of names. But the language I proposed doesn't actually say that and I'm willing to concede the point that strictly speaking, yes, our policy does ask for sources every time a claim is made. Would you be more amenable if any ambiguity were removed, clarifying merely that both the article and the list should make the same claim with sources? Msnicki (talk) 17:37, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
You're the first of many editors who've read my note and told me it was ambiguous. Perhaps because the others were more likely to assume the pre-eminence of our in-line citation policy. I'm always up for suggestions to improve it. The ultimate goal is not to prevent red linked names of wp:notables with good citations from being added to these types of lists. Since I started adding it, spam edits of "Sam: town's local drunk" have decreased drastically.
If you are dropping the in-line citation objection and simply sticking to the need for better vetting of who and who-is-not a Hacker, then let's take it to the hacking page. I suggest making a note like I did that says something like "calling someone a Hacker is possibly a contentious claim and required a WP:Verifiable source. Additionally, the editors on the BLP page of the individual in question should be informed of their inclusion on this list. Please put this on their biography's talk page (canned take page edit). Also, please consider adding this claim to their biography". You patrolling that page is will probably achieve the similar ends. I also encourage you to expand the list with a good lead that describes hackers (maybe differentiating white and black hats) and maybe a little about what makes each entry qualify as a hacker. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 06:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I am confused about where this is going/coming from.
I think we want cites for lists of NN people. e.g. The First Violinists for the Chicago Philharmonic have been 1) Joe Doakes 1879-1883 (cite), 2) Mary Smith 1883-1907 (cite), etc. Should one of these be notable, my understanding is that a cite is still required. Each Wikipedia article is stand alone. We cannot use the alleged notability of Mary Smith (linked) to provide us with information which must be contained in this article, not the article on Mary Smith which may be deleted at some point. The link is there to help readers, not to provide a lame indirect citation for lazy editors. The reason is potentially circular citation. If I don't understand the arguments, I apologize. Student7 (talk) 15:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Notice: RFC at WikiProject Film[edit]

There is a discussion at WT:FILM#RfC: Do list items need their own WP article in order to be sourced in list articles? which directly concerns this page, in particular § Selection criteria. User:Lapadite77 previously mentioned this discussion at the bottom of a section above, but I figured there ought to be a more prominent notice here. — (talk) 21:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

List of political parties in X[edit]

Consider List of political parties in India: divided into national (6), state (51) and registered unrecognised (1709). What would be our inclusion criteria for the registered unrecognised parties? Do we include all 1709 irrespective of notability (WP:LISTCOMPANY)? That would mean a really lengthy list, possibly going beyond the limit of 32K mentioned in WP:CSC (currently, article shows 23K and it's tagged as incomplete since it barely mentions only around 20 of the 1709). Can we apply the 1st selection criteria where every entry should meet the notability guideline? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

This is more a content question than a notability question. The governing policy is WP:UNDUE. What we need to discuss is how much weight should we give minority (and fringe) political parties in these list articles? My opinion is that mere existence of a party is not enough for inclusion. Certainly extremely fringe parties (parties that the media do not even mention in passing) should be omitted. At the other end, certainly parities that win parliamentary or congressional seats should be included. However, that leaves open the question of where to draw the line between these extremes. At what point should we include a political party on the list. That is a bit trickier to determine. It really depends on the amount (and depth) of coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the party. (that said, I would lean towards inclusion in "iffy" cases) Blueboar (talk) 11:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, this clears it up a bit. Me and two other editors agreed that we should somehow limit this but couldn't think of a clear place to draw the line: Talk:List of political parties in India#Relevance of registered unrecognised parties list. I've tried comparing with other country lists like this but couldn't find any consistency followed, in any case nowhere was such a high number dealt with. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 12:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Are bands considered "people"?[edit]

In List of people from Knoxville, Tennessee#Music, there are several bands and other musical groups listed there. This seems somewhat problematic to me, as not al members of bands or groups may be from a given locale, especially if the band has had a lot of turnover. Has this issue been dealt with before?, and is there a guideline for it? If not, should bands/groups be listed under "Lists of people from" lists? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 14:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:LISTPEOPLE and WP:CSC suggest those lists should include only people who are notable, so not only should a band typically not be included, but it also shouldn't name a person but link to a band article (except in exceedingly rare circumstances of established independent notability but no stand-alone article). So, for example, Phillip Everly and Don Everly are clearly notable but we cover them together. I'd probably include them individually in such a list. That avoids messy scenarios where even when the band name sounds like it refers to specific people, it can change (see The Allman Brothers Band). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Required(?) selection criteria[edit]

It’s always been my understanding that § Selection criteria denotes rules, and § Common selection criteria gives a partial list of examples of following those rules. Can other editors confirm or deny this? And if my understanding is wrong, then it’s just confusingly presented, so can we get a consensus to edit the section to make it more clear? Thanks. — (talk) 19:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

The "Common selection criteria" is clearly written to be example rules, not rules that apply universally. --MASEM (t) 19:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't frame it as an "example" but rather the standard/typical/"common" ways the rules are applied. But not "required", no. There are times that it makes sense for a list to use another inclusion criteria, but there should be a good reason for it. "Examples" makes it sound like there are a bunch of other ways to generally interpret/apply the rules that are no more or less in line with consensus than the CSC, which is not the case. What's written here isn't arbitrary, after all -- it grew out of WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, WP:N, WP:MOS, etc. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:17, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites: WP:N contains WP:NNC… did you mean WP:WEIGHT? If so, fair enough. — (talk) 21:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
No, I did mean WP:N. The relationship is that whether or not a subject has an article is, as articulated by WP:CSC, connected to whether or not it should appear in a stand-alone list. But WP:WEIGHT is relevant, too, of course, since an existing article presumably cites reliable sources -- sources which establish weight in relation to a redlink that comes with no sources. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

It is important to remember that all our rules have occasional exceptions... and that WP:Ignore all rules is actually a Policy. There are many "shoulds" to Wikipedia... there are very few "musts". Blueboar (talk) 22:22, 25 May 2015 (UTC)