Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
  Main page   Members   Talk page  
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.
 

RfC regarding manners and causes of death.[edit]

Some of you may be interested in this question about the "Deaths in 20xx" pages. Some of you may not. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:38, September 28, 2015 (UTC)

Does the current text of WP:BIDIRECTIONAL have broad consensus[edit]

Pls see Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#WP:BIDIRECTIONAL navbox requirements. -- Moxy (talk)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of people by occupation[edit]

Lists of people by occupation is being discussed for deletion. Softlavender (talk) 09:02, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

RfC about inclusion of films in Bibliography of Donald Trump[edit]

RfC about inclusion of films in Bibliography of Donald Trump:

Discussion at Talk:Bibliography_of_Donald_Trump#RfC_about_inclusion_of_films_in_Bibliography_of_Donald_Trump. Sagecandor (talk) 04:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Considerations and proposals at Wikipedia talk:Recent years[edit]

The following considerations and proposals are discussed:

--George Ho (talk) 02:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

RfC discussion on May/June events at Talk:2017[edit]

There is an RfC discussion on which event that occurred in May/June 2017 to include or exclude (Talk:2017#RfC: Events in May and June 2017). Join in discussion. --George Ho (talk) 16:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

List of video game emulators[edit]

Discussions at Talk:List of video game emulators might benefit from input from independent editors from this project. Derek Andrews (talk) 20:15, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Redlinks on incomplete lists[edit]

Would someone please direct me to the policy stating that lists cannot have items either as red links with citations or as simple text with citations?

Various editors at various times have removed names from the articles List of people from Brampton and List of people from Mississauga, despite the bullet entries for those individuals being backed up with a reference to prominent reference works like Dictionary of Canadian Biography and The Canadian Encyclopedia. -- Zanimum (talk) 00:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

What did those editors say in their edit summaries, or when you asked them why they removed entries that had citations that supported notability? postdlf (talk) 01:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
The most relevant guideline is probably WP:LISTBIO (and maybe WP:CSC). Entries in lists of people should be notable. Most of the time the requirement is just that the person have their own article (presuming notability is established by the article, and that it would be deleted if not notable), but there's no strict policy that says as much. When there's disagreement, the inclusion criteria of a given list should be determined on the talk page of that list. Regardless, in addition to there being no article for the names in question, the links you've added may verify that the person is from Brampton/Mississauga but don't themselves establish notability. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Without knowing all the circumstances, I suspect it might have to do with the topic "List of people from Mississauga" -- i.e. is it important to have an exhaustive list of people from a particular locality? This is the case where I'd be inclined to create an article first, and then add entries to the list. Come to think of it, that would be my preference for any "list of people" topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies. Edit summaries? The most recent string of removals by Bakilas have no summary beyond the automatically generated section headers. The links have all been to Order of Canada citations or high quality reference works, which should establish notability and location at once.
My aim is certainly not for an exhaustive list, just those one should be able to make an easy case for. Here's the most recent batch of nixed folks, they've been moved to the talk page. While this still makes them accessible to Wikipedians.
In relevance to the topic in general, both a local news blog and a Canada 150 section of the local newspaper have run uncredited, edited reprints in the last month. (Some of the names and connections are hard to find, so it would be challenging for someone to assemble one of these by themselves.) -- Zanimum (talk) 14:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Do you really want List of people from Mississauga (or any other list for that matter) to have everybody from there? Why don't we open a phone book (remember those?) and add all the names from it. Sounds ridiculous? That's because it is. Only people with articles that assert notability and where the article supports their inclusion in the list belong in it. That should be for all lists. -- Alexf(talk) 15:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
To be fair, it doesn't sound like Zanimum intends to include everyone (he/she said as much -- "just those one should be able to make an easy [notability?] case for"). That said, that someone is listed in the Canadian Encyclopedia does not necessarily mean the person is notable. We need significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. It's very rare that would be satisfied by one source unless it points to something that satisfies a subject-specific criterion (which, in turn, indicates significant coverage should be available). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:44, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
To be clear, the post was not intended as a reply to Zanimum (I get it) but to the OP. I see many lists with more red-links (also count as advertisement) than real value. (see: List of cider brands). This has to be cleared and we must make sure all lists point to articles. The purpose of lists should be to make it easier to find articles, not to indiscriminately spam people and companies. -- Alexf(talk) 16:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by X[edit]

I would love to see some guidance on this genre, which in certain areas seems to acquire mythic proportions, serving only to proliferate the walled gardens in which K-pop blossoms. I've redirected a number of them, but was surprised to see that the list for Taylor Swift is a FL, with many of the entries being non-notable songs (and thus limited signage, to the albums), references consisting of CD booklets, and basically very little information. Drmies (talk) 17:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: They are titled X discography (Taylor Swift discography, The Beatles discography, etc.). For genre guidance, see the relevant music subproject. The Transhumanist 06:19, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
User:The Transhumanist, thanks, but List of songs recorded by Taylor Swift is not Taylor Swift discography. Drmies (talk) 14:23, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Types of mythological or fantastic beings in contemporary fiction[edit]

I'm no list expert, but the (basically) unsourced list Types of mythological or fantastic beings in contemporary fiction seems undeserving of existence to me.— TAnthonyTalk 00:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

List of museums in Ohio[edit]

Would someone from this WikiProject mind taking a look at List of museums in Ohio? It has quite of lot of entries and many of them are redlinks/no links without their own articles whose inclusion seems a bit iffy per WP:LSC. Someone was also embedding link into the article for pretty much every individual entry which is not really allowed per WP:EL#cite_note-7, WP:ELLIST and WP:NOTLINKFARM. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:04, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Thank you for taking the time to work on the list, and for looking into quality control matters more deeply.
A question you could ask yourself is "does this enhance the table?" If so, then see WP:IAR.
Linking to an official page of an article's subject is fine. In the case of a list, the focus of the article is its list items. ("List of" in the title isn't part of the subject, it simply designates the format the article is in -- the article isn't about a list, it is a list).
Since the editor added external links as an additional feature to the table, rather than in place of the terms' internal links, he did not violate WP:EL#cite_note-7 or WP:ELLIST. WP:LINKFARM pertains primarily to external links sections; a bloated list of external links at the end of an article tends to detract from the article. Tables are designed to present data for ease of lookup. Are website links useful data to include in the table? Or do they make the table worse? If so, how so?
Concerning notability, whether or not a list item has a corresponding article is irrelevant, as WP:LSC states that list items should be "supported by reliable sources", that is, fulfill WP:V and WP:N. Note that the scope of the list is local to Ohio. Are the museums listed notable in Ohio? Or at least in the counties, cities, or towns in which they are located?
Keep in mind that all of Wikipedia's rules have rationales behind them -- and those reasons don't cover every situation. Understanding the underlying reasons help to determine if a given rule fits the context of a design feature in question. All of our rules attempt to assist editors to make a better encyclopedia, with better articles. When the guidelines don't cover a specific type of situation, it is up to the editors on the front lines to figure out how to make the best articles (or tables) they can. If their solution works well, it may set the precedent for similar articles to follow.
I hope I've been of help. If you have further questions, feel free to ping me. Sincerely, The Transhumanist 07:53, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

List of incidents of violence against women[edit]

Dear Colleagues, I really see no value in a list of this nature. Surely this qualifies as WP:LISTCRUFT? Which incidents go on the list? What are the criteria? There must be literally millions of cases from around the world. If it boils down to cases that have been written about in the Wikipedia, then surely cataloguing these is best served with WP:categories, which work on the basis of existing pages. A list on the other hand is supposed to cover more than a mere listing of entries. As examples, please see here, here, here. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 13:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

The list's talk page or one of the listed WikiProjects on that talk page may be a better place to discuss your questions regarding the content of that particular list and its inclusion criteria. See also WP:NOTDUP re: your comment about categories; we don't have to choose one or the other, and if the inclusion criteria is loose that problem is if anything magnified with categories. postdlf (talk) 14:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
A brief skim of the first article you mention looks like a standard list-class used for organizing and indexing other WP articles. You are welcome to discuss inclusion criteria on that article's talk page. But according to WP:SAL, it is a well-structured list according to WP:CSC criterion 1 (although there are some redirects that may need to be cleaned up). Per WP:CLN, categories, lists and navigation boxes can all happily coexist. List-class articles can have some advantages over the other two, such as annotations and additional sourcing. I dislike the term listcruft; more often than not, it is simply used as a synonym for 'i don't like it'. --Mark viking (talk) 17:58, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

List of Confederate monuments and memorials – advice needed[edit]

Project members are asked to review List of Confederate monuments and memorials and the talk page. – S. Rich (talk) 05:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC)06:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguating ships[edit]

There is a discussion at WT:SHIPS#Ship Index pages - another try about disambiguating ship articles. One proposal is to use a list format for disambiguation. Members of this WP are welcome to voice their opinions. Mjroots (talk) 14:32, 10 November 2017 (UTC)