Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists
|This page is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
No definition of list included!
I've just noticed that this guideline does not include a definition of what a list is. Neither does Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists.
Some articles are misnamed lists, and this guideline does not provide a way to differentiate between regular articles and list articles.
What is a list?
Also, while list is a type of article, what is a non-list article called? "Regular article"? "Prose article"? "Standard article"?
Just wonderin'. The Transhumanist 19:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I think that's kind of the point. They are all "articles", subject to all the criterion articles are subject to. A list is just a subset of article pages that have lists either embedded or stand alone. I think the shifting goal of trying to make all stand alone list pages have prose, including introductions, has blurred the that line quite a bit. While that may sound like a "I'll know it when I see it argument", your above proposal is honestly the first time I've run across any confusion. And even there, I think it's clear that Glossary of British ordnance terms is more accurate than list. If you have proposal for a definition beyond "articles composed of one or more embedded lists, or series of items formatted into a list", I'd love to read it. But I'm not much motivated to "pin it down" so to speak. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 06:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- Exactly right. A "list article" is simply an article where the information is presented in listified format as opposed to one where the information is presented in some other format (such as prose sentence/paragraph format, or poetic riming couplets). Blueboar (talk) 14:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Many editors have been directed here by a vigilante, erythrophobic editor with administrator privileges after he/she deleted their entries claiming that this page forbids adding people/places/etc. to a list with an interwiki link only (or with an interwiki link plus any number of links to solid bios that this editor deems not reliable sources). I have not been able to find a hint of this in this guideline, but it may be several links away if it exists. For a recent example, in this editor's mind debatably notable and poorly-referenced Elmira Antommarchi, Hugo Jamioy Juagibioy and Oscar Perdomo Gamboa belong in the List of Colombian writers while the unquestionably notable and well-referenced Julio Flórez, Aurelio Arturo, Candelario Obeso and Arnoldo Palacios do not. The latter two he/she specifically deleted, leaving an irrational message at a poor new editor's talk page. The current version of this alphabetical list is a more or less random subset of Category:Colombian writers and basically adds no value to wikipedia, though I'm getting the impression that for some this result is their inscrutable goal.
Can we add to the guideline that the addition of entries with interwiki links to referenced foreign-language articles is encouraged? Even the most devout monoglot can use google translate these days to confirm notability. There are numerous advantages expanding lists this way, not the least of which is adding notable and quickly accessible information to the English wikipedia. Afasmit (talk) 05:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Article titles for lists of works
See current proposals at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Proposals. Please discuss there, not here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)