Talk:Listicle

Literature Low‑importance

	Literature portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Journalism Low‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

collaborative lists

Added collaborative public lists.--Darrelljon (talk) 13:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free content review

A review of non-free images in the article has begun; you are welcome to participate at WP:Non-free content review#Listicle. RJaguar3 | u | t 03:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology

"It has also been suggested that the word evokes "popsicle", emphasising the fun but "not too nutritious" nature of the listicle." - I had always assumed that the word was meant to evoke "testicle", reflecting the fact that most of these non-articles are complete bollocks. It certainly shares more letters. Has no-one else sufficiently independent to provide verifiability pointed this out? --87.224.68.42 (talk) 15:09, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between a serious critic's list and a listicle. To suggest that Sir John Lubbock's book list was a listicle is ludicrous. The listicle is a 21st Century phenomenon. GnatFriend (talk) 21:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]