User talk:Erachima/Inclusion (stand-alone lists)

Preliminary comments

This draft of a notability-equivalent guideline for stand-alone lists is the result of my reading a ridiculous number of list AfDs (something like 800) and the opinions on the current notability RFC, and attempts to express current consensus on what lists are and are not presently permitted, as well as how they are usually judged. Also, I believe the section clarifying the stance with regard to fictional lists is necessary due to the current lack of a WP:FICT and that they are the primary concern people have with the list exemption proposal at the RFC.

The page is only a rough outline right now, so I assume it's missing elements and needs various clarifications. Feel free to propose additions, wording changes, etc. --erachima talk 10:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Other types of possible fiction lists:

• Lists of serialized media - season articles.
• Lists of fictional concepts - Planets in Stargate, Starships in Stargate, Technology in Stargate.

I am just naming them but have no strong opinion about them one way or another, exept to say that long-running life-action serial works with a big geek following usually have real-world production/conception info that could theoretically be added, but rarely is because in-universe details are so much more exciting to keep track of. It is also possible to limit lists of fictional concepts to recurring elements, which automatically limits the depth of in-universe details. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Season articles are a type of episode list, I think they're sufficiently covered. You're right that the second case is probably worth noting. --erachima talk 15:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I like this, I think there's some potential merging or cross-correlation with my suggested Inclusion Guideline, in that the points about what make a good list can be used to outline what are good topics for inclusion in sub-inclusion guidelines. I would try to avoid starting from FICT and working outwards, instead thinking more global and then having FICT elements fit into that, only so that this doesn't attempt to customize lists for fiction-uses only (see, for example discussion of professional sports players or any named village/town in any country). --MASEM 18:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

This idea behind Erachima's proposal is not new, and follows on from Masem's proposal to make the article inclusion criteria of the General notability guideline (GNG) less restrictive for certain subject areas such as fiction [1]. At the heart of this proposal is the view that lists can be used as a dumping ground for topics that do not qualify for their own article under WP:N by placing the topics, or groups of topics (sometimes known as "aggegates") in lists, e.g. List of New Order Jedi characters.

This proposal is very similar to the inclusion criteria which Masem is proposing follows on the heals of the proposal at WP:FICT#Fictional elements as part of a larger topic to provide exemption from WP:N for topics of unproven notability. What they have in comon is that topics of unproven notability such as fictional characters or television episodes would be allowed to be the subject of lists, provided that it could be demonstrated that the topic inherited from a topic of proven notability. However, this proposal was flawed because notability cannot be inherited/presumed/acknowledgedin the absence of reliable secondary sources.

Even if notability could be inherited, the proposal does not provide any workable rules as to how inhertited notability actually works other than the statement that a list must be "Related to a notable topic", which means that the list's scope should be integrally tied to an existing Wikipedia article on a notable subject. Since every article in Wikipedia is in some way tied to related topics, it is hard to understand which articles could actually fail this criteria. The achilles heal of this prosoal is that could not prevent content forks other than having to rely on "expert opinion", which would mean relying on editors opinions about a topic's notability, rather than on relying on evidence. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this idea is not new. How could it be? Its whole intent is to be a codification of existing consensus with regard to list inclusion, as judged by review of AfDs and the current RfC on Wikipedia:Notability. Aside from that point, however, I'm afraid you are entirely mistaken. This proposal is not aimed primarily at fictional topics, it does not seek to weaken any existing policy, and does not reflect my personal opinion on how things should be, but rather is my reading of how things are. So, Gavin, while you are welcome to point out any disconnects you see between this proposal and the current editorial practice that it attempts to reflect, I would prefer that you refrain from making fallacious insinuations about my intent in writing it. --erachima talk 20:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• I am not so sure you can blame me if for arguing against this proposal, on the basis that I am making "fallacious insinuations". There is a disconnect between the consensus view of what lists are, and what you are proposing. In some ways your proposal reflects the current consensus: that lists are appendicies to articles on notable topics. However, the purpose to which you are proposing to use lists is very different from consensus: using them as a dumping ground for non-notable topics, which is a way of circumventing WP:N.
  If there was some other inclusion criteria that could be proposed that would prevent content forks, then I might view this as a positive proposal. However, since you are not proposing alternative inclusion criteria to WP:N for lists, I view this proposal as attempt to obtain special treatment for fictional topics. The inclusion criteria for lists that you are proposing, namely a list must be "Related to a notable topic", is a classic example of a truism.
  The problem I have with this proposal is that a topic such as Tekli would fail WP:N if it were to have its own stand alone article, as it is basically a content fork of a more notable topic. Your proposal suggests Tekli should feature in a list of similar topics, but fails to recognise that the List of New Order Jedi characters is still a content fork from a more notable subject. I oppose your proposal because there are no limitations on the number of content forks that could be created using the inclusion criteria a list must be "Related to a notable topic". --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

You are aware that these lists and spinout articles are specifically excluded from being called "content forks", per WP:SS? --MASEM 12:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• I see nowhere in WP:SS that says that at all. To go back to the point of my objection, I don't see that it says anywhere in WP:SS that content forks are allowed just because they are contained in lists. In fact WP:SS says that "Editors are cautioned to not immediately split articles if the new article would meet neither the general notability criterion nor the specific notability criteria for their topic".
  To go back to my example, you can see how easy it is to create content forks if ignore WP:N. The article The New Jedi Order is itself a content fork; it should actually be renamed List of New Jedi Order Books, which is not a notable topic per se, nor are the books themselves notable that are listed in it. This is the critical problem with this proposal; it gives rise to enless content forks.--Gavin Collins (talk) 13:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Quoting verbatim from WP:POVFORK, under the section "Article spinouts": Summary style articles, with sub-articles giving greater detail, are not content forking, provided that all the sub-articles, and the summary conform to Neutral Point of View.. --MASEM 13:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• That assumes that the subject of the spinout is notable. If the spinout does not meet GNG, then it is likely to be a content fork. Your reading of the guideline is too narrow by assuming that WP:POVFORK is providing an exemption from WP:N for spinouts, which it is not. The subject of our discussion is a spinout article that fails WP:N; it is these type of articles (or lists, agrregates etc.) where the opportunity for content forks is at its greatest. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• There is no mention of notability in POVFORK, egro it is a red herring here. Content that is split appropriately per WP:SS is not what POVFORK deals with. Now, WP:SS does caution against but does not restrict non-notable spinouts, and thus the goal is to try to make sure that when such spinouts exist, they have consensus, either as the general approach has been approved as a whole, or on an individual basis. --MASEM 15:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• What is clear is that there is no mention of any exemption from the General notability guideline for spinoffs. Again, you are reading too much into WP:POVFORK, in that you are assuming it sanctions a class of article called spinoffs that can be used as a dumping ground for non-notable articles. Just because the guideline does not mention notability, it is not plausible that this is meant to be interpreted as an exemption from WP:N. If an article is split, it is split into one or more articles. Spinouts are articles, just like any other. --Gavin Collins (talk) 01:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Gavin, no offense intended, but your claim that lists fall under WP:POVFORK is something that you have completely made up. It has no precedent within existing policy. It has no acceptance as a deletion argument. As such, your argument that lists are content forks cannot be given any weight within this WP:GUIDELINE proposal, because it is not a significant opinion within the community. If you wish to spread the opinion and possibly get it incorporated into future guideline revisions, I suggest that you write an WP:ESSAY or push for it directly via the submission of AfDs on that ground. But whatever, I didn't ask you here to explain the policy-generation process. I asked you here because I thought you wanted to help keep trivial lists out of Wikipedia. If list inclusion is to be done consistently rather than by AfD dice-roll, we need a documented standard of what is accepted.

You may wish to notice that there is no consensus that notability applies to lists, which means that the inclusion of lists is now specifically governed by nothing whatsoever. We need a guideline to replace N for lists, and we need it a week ago. This problem is what's prompted me to write this proposal, and I've done my genuine best to do it objectively and keep it apart from my personal opinions. I've even gone as far as doping it what I would normally consider unacceptably towards content removal, with the demand that individual entries be sourceably significant to the subject. If you do indeed wish to help keep out trivial lists like you claim, then please get down from your anti-fiction podium and help write me a guideline proposal that reflects actual consensus. I personally notified you of this proposal draft because I'd hoped you would be willing to do the same as me, and we'd be able to work together to push a proposal through. It seems I was mistaken, and that you are not willing to put aside your personal campaign. As such, I'll simply have to ignore your repetition of previously discredited arguments and bring it before the community. I am truly sorry. --erachima talk 08:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)