Gavin.collins (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 302: | Line 302: | ||
::::''The alternative viewpoint, as I understand it, is more positive: that articles compiled by editors are useful, e.g. homemade articles can be useful for an encyclopaedia.'' |
::::''The alternative viewpoint, as I understand it, is more positive: that articles compiled by editors are useful, e.g. homemade articles can be useful for an encyclopaedia.'' |
||
:::I am convinced that the correct analogy (broadly) is to compare a singular list item is to a single fact (or para or aspect) in an article, and that it doesn't make sense to view the entire list in the context you present. (again, I'm focussed on editor compiled lists here; and in no way limiting that just to navigation lists) ‒ [[User Talk:Jaymax|Jaymax✍]] 10:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC) |
:::I am convinced that the correct analogy (broadly) is to compare a singular list item is to a single fact (or para or aspect) in an article, and that it doesn't make sense to view the entire list in the context you present. (again, I'm focussed on editor compiled lists here; and in no way limiting that just to navigation lists) ‒ [[User Talk:Jaymax|Jaymax✍]] 10:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC) |
||
::::The problem with this analogy is that it conflicts with generally accepted [[Set theory]], which I believe you would have been taught when you first entered secondary school. If a list can be likened to a [[Set (mathematics)|mathematical set]], then a list is an topic in its own right, i.e. it is more than just the sum of its singular list items. Like sets, the subject of list is determined by its defintion that determines which items are included in it. --[[User:Gavin.collins|Gavin Collins]] ([[User talk:Gavin.collins#top|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Gavin.collins|contribs)]] 11:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 11:15, 2 September 2010
Timeline for RFC
Any plans to close this RFC once the discussion has run its course? We should also think about the next logical step. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think the "what next" is the more important issue. When we have that, then we can see whether the discussion has "run its course" and close. Blueboar (talk) 15:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- The idea I had in creating this is determine a language and a target for that language to be added to either existing p/g or a new one , whatever is best needed, to meet the consensus view of how lists are to be handled. When we have a reasonably good idea of what this language and target will be, we'll need to engage that target's talk page as well, such that we close this RFC and then add the language appropriately. We should be aware that if there's no obvious consensus, we need to then close this before it gets too far down the drain. --MASEM (t) 15:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
If I were uninvolved
If I were summarizing and closing this discussion as an uninvolved Admin (which I am not) I would do so as follows.
Summary of consensus on the following points: (This summary is generalized, the points are not intended to be proposed policy or guideline statements and there is an understanding that a great many scenarios and permutations were contained in the discussion that must be taken into account when actual policy is written. The summary points also include a brief assessment as to where policy change might be required to implement them.)
- Any notability burden put on a list should be placed on the List Topic (as described in the lead with discriminate inclusion criteria) not the List Title with notability determined by coverage of the topic in reliable sources. WP:GNG and [[WP:V--Mike Cline (talk) 20:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)]].
- State of consensus: ~75%+ of discussion participants support this general position
- Policy implication: WP:SAL could be modified to strengthen and explain policy relative to this position.
- As a point of policy, lists are complementary to categories and the coverage of any given topic by both a list and category is permitted. Lists and categories on the same topic may indeed by duplicative and one or the other may not be appropriate for the encyclopedia, but duplicative lists and categories are dealt with on a case by case basis.)
- List style articles may be titled List of …. or any other appropriate title that conveys the list topic in a concise manner and is consistent with WP:Article titles.
- State of consensus: ~90%+ of discussion participants support this general position.
- Policy implication: WP:SAL probably could be reworded to make List of … just another of many alternatives for list style articles.
- Purely (or mostly) navigational lists should not be separated from the article space (i.e. religated to the Project space).
- State of consensus: ~90% of discussion participants support this general position.
No change in policy required. Policy implication: Some changes to WP:SAL may be necessary to clarify the allowance for the unique nature of purely navigational lists in the article space.
--Mike Cline (talk) 19:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Cline (talk • contribs) 19:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)oops
- Mike, I think that's a fair summary of the current state. I think that the "topic vs title" issue could be generalized to all articles (not merely lists). WP:N might benefit from a sentence like "Do not assume that the exact, quoted phrase used for the current article title is always the subject of the article."
- Also, I'm not sure that 'separated from the article space' is the clearest way to express this point to people who haven't been following this (but I don't have a good suggestion offhand). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- As far as the "separating" navigational lists from article space idea goes... you can omit that from the summary completely ... if you need to, consider it "Withdrawn". I raised it as an idea... and it is obvious no one liked it. No harm, no foul... and no need to even discuss it further.
- More trouble than its worth to withdraw. It was a valid position that just didn't get any traction, no harm, no foul. No follow-on is required anyway.--Mike Cline (talk) 20:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Something that I think still needs resolution is the distinction between topic notability and content notability... that notable items do not always mean a notable topic and vise versa. Blueboar (talk) 19:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think I know what you are saying, but I would contend two things: 1) notability in itself is a vague notion. Since we determine notability by coverage of something in reliable sources, its really sourcing that's important. 2) I think the collective notability of list entries around a discriminate inclusion criteria make the List Topic defacto notable. That thought is just a vague as notability as a concept is and probably very difficult to turn into a coherent, useable policy. But that said, its still all about sourcing, one way or the other. If an editor can't find reliable sources covering a list topic or the general locus of list entries, then the list probably is flawed in some way or the other. We need to write policy that allows for the maximum amount of lists, with good, well sourced content, that will make this encyclopedia a better product. The poor lists can be weeded out by diligent editors, but policy should encourage and support good lists.--Mike Cline (talk) 20:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- No Notability is for articles only, period. Content is explicitly exempt from N per WP:NNC. It still must meet V and BURDEN, but notability of article contents is a conversation that doesn't need to happen, ever, anywhere, period. Jclemens (talk) 15:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- As far as the "separating" navigational lists from article space idea goes... you can omit that from the summary completely ... if you need to, consider it "Withdrawn". I raised it as an idea... and it is obvious no one liked it. No harm, no foul... and no need to even discuss it further.
- I personally believe the "list of Xs" versus "Xs" debate is off topic, and too vague to really tell us anything. I'd almost agree with it in principle, and I'd almost agree about the title thing. But so what? "Virgin" (X) is notable, but we don't have "list of virgins". So it's never been a simple question of whether the overall topic is notable, but whether it's appropriate for a list. We run into the same problem for other weird lists. We have a list of tallest buildings, but it's inappropriate to have an article about "tallest building". And what's the topic for list of Sixth Feet Under deaths that makes it patently obvious the third-parties say the show is about death, and yet most reasonable Wikipedians wouldn't dare create a list of deaths? It's possible you've identified a principle where people agree, but what does it mean in practice? Shooterwalker (talk) 19:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- The above was an attempt to summarize the broad set of issues raised in this RFC and their current state of consensus, not to raise and/or summarize what is most likely the thousands of permutations of relationships between articles, lists, their titles and topics. For every rule, there will be a million exceptions, and for every exception, dozens of rules will be violated. We need to keep this at a high enough level of abstraction to allow reasoned decision making, unencumbered by every possible permutation of its implementation.--Mike Cline (talk) 20:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think - before we get too far off what should be on the RFC page - is that the notability of "List of X" vs X is important that we can justify such lists. This point is important to justify or nullify a large number of lists on WP. But that's half the picture. Now we have to consider the other aspect of selecting lists, that being in consideration of indiscriminate coverage and other metrics as outlined at WP:SAL. Your example of "List of Six Feet Under deaths" would be the type that would technically pass the notability barrier (Six Feet Under being notable) but not the indiscriminate consideration. Should we bring this up in the RFC? Or is SAL sufficient in addition to the points Mike brings up above, to account for most cases? --MASEM (t) 20:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, sorry this is just rehashing the RFC on the talk page. I really don't think the principle that we verify "Xs" and not "list of Xs" helps us much, because I think it's just meaningless semantics. But it does help, in principle, to know that a list can resemble a category and there's nothing inherently wrong with that. It also helps to know that there's a consensus that not every category warrants a complementary list, and not every article warrants a complementary stand-alone list. The issue is when they do, and when they don't. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- It may seem like a meaningless semantic, but there are people involved in this discussion on the RFC that are insisting and aren't going to stay quiet until we've found a way that "every article topic is notable". Well, as Mike summarizes, we've got language to get to that point. Now we can talk more other practical issues. --MASEM (t) 20:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, sorry this is just rehashing the RFC on the talk page. I really don't think the principle that we verify "Xs" and not "list of Xs" helps us much, because I think it's just meaningless semantics. But it does help, in principle, to know that a list can resemble a category and there's nothing inherently wrong with that. It also helps to know that there's a consensus that not every category warrants a complementary list, and not every article warrants a complementary stand-alone list. The issue is when they do, and when they don't. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- If anyone here hasn't already seen it, I'd like to re-suggest that you take a (long) look through User:Quiddity/Navigational pages RfC. It covers many of the same issues examined here, and presents all the proposed-solutions I've previously encountered. I've been following many of the arguments since late 2005, when a few of us who had helped with the Main Page redesign, overhauled Wikipedia:Category schemes (random 2005 diff), so more context is available, if wanted. All thoughts/questions welcome. Here, there, anywhere. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that Mike's summary is fair and accurate. However, I would suggest that some sort of policy implication is needed in regards to "navigational lists in articlespace". I've elaborated on that at the talkpage for the RfC in my userspace. HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Good catch, I tweaked my summary a bit.--Mike Cline (talk) 20:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think this "uninvolved" summary is too one sided to be credible. It is foolish to believe that a tweak or two to WP:SAL is all that is needed to legitimise these proposals. The reality is that lists would have to be exempted from WP:N, WP:NOT would also have to amended to exempt lists as well. There is an element of wishful thinking that there are no alternatives to what is being proposed, and I think these need to be summarised as well. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see this summary as biased. Most of the other suggests (such that "List of X" has to be a notable topic) clearly don't have consensus, so they are rabbit holes we can avoid to arrive at the answer. As to whether WP:N or WP:NOT needs to be changed, we can figure that out based on the exact wording change at WP:SAL, if necessary. As it stands, I don't think we have to touch WP:N or WP:NOT to make this summary work. --MASEM (t) 22:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Gavin, as I've encouraged you in the past, your views are important but must be stated concisely in the context of the discussion. If you believe the summary above does not reflect the consensus on the issues in the RFC, then please provide us your summary of the consensus as you see it and the policy implications that consensus might drive. In this case we know what your position is and that's not what this thread about, it's about what we've determined from this RFC todate on the major issues. If you have a different summary than the one above please lay it out. We may have missed something. I know I did in my first pass.--Mike Cline (talk) 23:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- To give you one example, my understanding is that is the term List Topic is still disputed, and therefore there is fundamental disagreement about where the burden put on a list to demonstrate notability lies. I think this issue has to be resolved first. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 04:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Using the following definitions as established at the beginning of the RFC for clarity here is a quick assessment of the various positions discussed in this RFC about this distinction (apologies upfront if I’ve misread or missed anyone’s position):
Positions
- Position A: List of X or List of X and Y where X or X and Y represents the list topic as described by the lead and inclusion criteria in the lead. Any notability burden is placed on the List Topic.
- Position B: List of X or List of X and Y where List of X and List of X and Y represent the list title. Any notability burden is place on the List Title.
Those generally or explicitly supporting Position A
- Cyclopiatalk
- Jclemens (talk)
- Cybercobra
- Polaron | Talk
- Davewild (talk) 18:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- Sandstein
- Blueboar (talk)
- Sjakkalle (Check!)
- RJC Talk
- WhatamIdoing (talk
- postdlf (talk)
- MASEM (t)
- Orlady (talk)
- WF
- Alzarian16 (talk)
- Mike Cline (talk)
- ALR (talk)
- Slrubenstein | Talk
- ‒ Jaymax✍
Those generally or explicitly supporting Position B
- ThemFrom
- Zunaid
- Shooterwalker (talk)
- Gavin Collins (talk
- Active Banana (but even so, that would leave us with articles like List of fictional doctors)
Now, since the two positions are fundamentally opposed and in no way could an either/or policy be crafted that imposed both positions on an editor, it was my view of the discussion that the greater consensus was with Position A: The List Topic is X or X and Y not the List Title. We completely understand that you and a few others do not agree with that construct. There are two avenues we could take from this point on: 1) Proceed with ensuring List related policies reflect the consensus Position A. or 2) Discuss this simple (List Topic/List Title), but fundamentally opposed (it’s one or the other) construct for the next year using every conceivable example and eventually get back to where we are today. I personally don’t think the current state of consensus on this is going to change much. If you believe otherwise, please provide your summary of the current state of consensus for this RFC so that we can get on with editing.--Mike Cline (talk) 07:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- You place me in the correct group as far as where the burden of notability lies... However... I believe that a list's Title should reflect the list's Topic, and the Title should inform the reader what Topic is. The two concepts are closely intertwined. To me, the far more important distinction is the distinction between the Topic and the Content of the list.... the notability of the topic vs. the notability of the items listed. Blueboar (talk) 12:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed, and that's an editorial decision that takes into count our naming convention policy: WP:Article titles.--Mike Cline (talk) 12:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- I guess I'm still not sure what this gets us. Were people really insisting that "Delete: sorry, you have these perfectly good third-party sources talking about Green Bats of Japan, but we couldn't find a source about a List of Green Bats of Japan"? Shooterwalker (talk) 13:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Absolutely, that's why its an issue.--Mike Cline (talk) 13:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Wow, I had no idea. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- A more realistic example of how notability affects list articles is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Worst Britons, currently at AfD. Aside from POV concerns, there are also concerns that the list isn't notable in itself (that is, that this particular "list of worst Britains" hasn't received significant attention). ThemFromSpace 20:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Wow, I had no idea. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Absolutely, that's why its an issue.--Mike Cline (talk) 13:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- I guess I'm still not sure what this gets us. Were people really insisting that "Delete: sorry, you have these perfectly good third-party sources talking about Green Bats of Japan, but we couldn't find a source about a List of Green Bats of Japan"? Shooterwalker (talk) 13:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed, and that's an editorial decision that takes into count our naming convention policy: WP:Article titles.--Mike Cline (talk) 12:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- It's a bit inappropriate to presume which of those one might end up in, although the title should reflect the topic. My main interest is that there is evidence to support the assertions; a statement of the topic notability and a clear articulation of inclusion criteria.
- ALR (talk) 12:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Apologies for reading the tea leaves wrong on your position. I agree with your 2nd sentence as well and suspect that consensus on that point is near 100% except for those pesky navigational lists.--Mike Cline (talk) 12:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I believe Position B is mistated. The difference of opinion is based on the the following:
- Position B: List of X or List of X and Y where the defintion of List of X and the definition of List of X and Y represents the List Topic as described by the lead and inclusion criteria in the lead, or by the list's title if a defintion is not explicitly described. Any notability burden is placed on the List Topic.
I think we are misunderstanding each other here, and this may be related to whether a list can be described as being or about X or whether described as being a particular set of X.
The confusion is probably related to the nature of definitions, which can be both descriptive ("This list is about...X") or stipulative ("This list contains...all known X"), but either way, the defintion needs to be the subject of at least one reliable source to justify inclusion. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Gavin, I'm not really following you here - do you refer to the definition of the list or definition of the topic or the definition of the criteria? ‒ Jaymax✍ 00:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Mike, I think you are far too involved to even be speculating as to this RfC's outcome. The RfC has only lasted about a week, while they provisionally run for four weeks. Don't insert your own personal opinion in the form of a summary and let an uninvolved admin do this work in a few weeks. Stick to the discussion on the RfC for now. After the discussion period is finished (this is still listed on CENT so it will likely gain more participation) we can decide how to move forward. ThemFromSpace 20:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
suggested next step. work on WP:LISTOUTCOMES
It might be easier to work on a guideline if we were all working from the same evidence. I think a lot of us have different experiences with lists, and we can all think of a few AFDs that confirm our point of view, but might not have seen other AFDs that are trickier to explain. Some of the most useful discussions came about when we tried to explain why some types of lists are always kept, and some types of lists are always deleted. The most useless discussions were when we re-opened individual AFDs, and got bogged down in arguing about which way a borderline case should have gone.
I suggest that people create a page of WP:LISTOUTCOMES from recent AFDs (within the past few years). Maybe offer a deadline of 2 weeks or even a month just to gather and organize a pile of AFDs. We will see entire categories of lists that are red, and entire categories of lists that are blue, and then we will all be able to work from the same experience to craft a guideline. (Even if our points of view will remain different.) Shooterwalker (talk) 14:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Not that its really necessary to do a big survey on lists to craft a guideline, I would suggest an alternative approach that would be much more positive. AfDs are required because editors created articles that were flawed in some aspect. We should not base our policies on experiences with flawed articles. Instead, I would survey the locus of all the really good lists--from navigational to significantly annotated content and build our policies based on the reasons they are good lists. Our policies need to encourage good lists and support the criteria that make them good. If that criteria is sound, then flawed lists can be easily dealt with by demanding editors.--Mike Cline (talk) 14:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- I would add this: we probably want to assert a few more things about lists beyond the notability issue that is close to resolution. (For example, "List of Y of X" where "Y of X" is not notable, but X is, as often the case in fiction coverage). We should try to come to a consensus on those additional points, but failing to do so, an OUTCOMES may be helpful to include as a backup. --MASEM (t) 15:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- I would support that approach. We can learn a lot by looking at Wikipedia:Featured lists in terms of what is appropriate. Ideally we would do both. Figure out the clear keeps, and the clear deletes, and build a guideline around those with room in the middle for interpretation. I think we should try to push this discussion as far as we can, of course. But I don't expect much more than an agreement in principle. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Which leads to a practical question from a driveby editor: will the lists be deleted or not? Does it make any sense to edit any list now? Don't share your personal expectations, say a firm verdict, then stick to it. East of Borschov 15:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- As far as those yet uninvolved in this discussion, nothing on how present list handling has changed, only better clarified. We are seeking further clarification but it is not expected to change what current practice is. Edit away per all other policies and guidelines. --MASEM (t) 16:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- I wouldn't expect a moratorium on creating OR deleting lists. Whatever this guideline comes to be, expect it to describe how things usually go, but sometimes don't due to slight jumps in ideological editors one way or another. I do think we could achieve a lot by listing outcomes. It becomes more obvious what's actually going on, and gets us away from personal opinions. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Which leads to a practical question from a driveby editor: will the lists be deleted or not? Does it make any sense to edit any list now? Don't share your personal expectations, say a firm verdict, then stick to it. East of Borschov 15:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Clarification: what is a list topic?
Rather than launch into a long rebuttal of of Mike Cline's views in the Clarification section of theo RFC. I think we need to discuss and agree upon what is a list topic.
I think we are all agreed that this RFC is about the inclusion of list articles in Wikipedia, not the inclusion of individual items within a list. I think we are also agreed that the list topic is not the same as the list title, for they are distinct elements of an article.
However, some misunderstanding has crept into the discussion, and I quote Mike:
- List Title: Metadata that provides a unique identifier within WP and concisely conveys the subject of list. List titles are constructed typically as: List of X (List of Lakes in Montana), …ography of X (Discography of Jane Doe), or noun of X (Birds of Foobahland) and other variations.
- List Subject: (or List Topic): What are the list contents all about? As the above titles suggest, the lists are about Lakes in Montana, the recordings of Jane Doe, the Birds in Foobahland, etc.
- List Lead: Prose that establishes both the subject of the list and inclusion criteria for list entries.
- List inclusion criteria: Specific, verifiable criteria that establishes the boundaries of list entries. Inclusion criteria are directly related to and expand understanding of the List subject.
I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding in Mike's understanding of what is the list topic, which can be summarised as "the List of lakes in Montana is about the lakes of Montana". The burden of notability falls on the whether the lakes are notable, rather than the defintion of what the list contains.
My understanding (which could also be mistaken, in fairness) is that a list topic is the defintion or inclusion criteria for the list, e.g. "the List of lakes in Montana is about a defined set of lakes in Montana". The burden of notability falls on the list defintion, rather than the lakes themselves.
At this point, I have to ask, is this what Mike meant to say, or have I misunderstood? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think this is purposely twisting Mike's language to fit your opinion. Further, based on Mike's summary, it would seem that most would also agree with his language of what a list topic is. You could try to argue it further (on the RFC page) but I don't think you're going to change anyone's minds about it. --MASEM (t) 12:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Should this be moved to the main page? I think it needs broader discussion. Blueboar (talk) 12:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- As for my opinion... With these examples there are actually two topics... a general topic and a specific topic. The general topics are "lakes", "birds" and "Jane Doe" ... the specific topics are "lakes that are located in Montana", "birds that are found in Foobahland" and "songs that have been recorded by Jane Doe". We need to establish that both the general and the specific topics are notable. Now... I believe that if there is an existing "main article" about the general topic (where, presumably, we have established notability), there is no need to re-establish the notability of the general topic at the list article. If we can not establish that the general topic is notable, then it will be impossible to establish that the specific topic is notable (Lack-of-notability is inherited). However, even if the general topic is notable, we still need to establish that the specific topic is notable. If we can not establish this, then we have two options... we can either delete the list entirely, or we can subsume it into the article on the "main topic" Blueboar (talk) 12:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- In answer to Masem, no misrepresentation of Mike's position is intended, and already admitted that my own views may be found to be entirely mistaken, or that I have misunderstood what Mike's positon is.
- I disagree with Blueboar that there is any requirement to find the general over-arching topic to be notable, for the simple reason is that a list can be notable in its own right, regardless of whether the general topic (say, "Lakes of Montana") even exists.
- Where I would agree is that that lists are sub-topics of a general topic, e.g. the "List of lakes in Montana" is a sub-topic of the general topic "Lakes of Montana". However, where I am in disagreement with Mike is whether or not there is any burden to provide evidence of notability for the sub-topic, and if so, how or what form should that evidence should take. I think these are important questions that, with hindsight, we should have agree upon before the RFC started. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- As for my opinion... With these examples there are actually two topics... a general topic and a specific topic. The general topics are "lakes", "birds" and "Jane Doe" ... the specific topics are "lakes that are located in Montana", "birds that are found in Foobahland" and "songs that have been recorded by Jane Doe". We need to establish that both the general and the specific topics are notable. Now... I believe that if there is an existing "main article" about the general topic (where, presumably, we have established notability), there is no need to re-establish the notability of the general topic at the list article. If we can not establish that the general topic is notable, then it will be impossible to establish that the specific topic is notable (Lack-of-notability is inherited). However, even if the general topic is notable, we still need to establish that the specific topic is notable. If we can not establish this, then we have two options... we can either delete the list entirely, or we can subsume it into the article on the "main topic" Blueboar (talk) 12:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Should this be moved to the main page? I think it needs broader discussion. Blueboar (talk) 12:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- In earnest, I really don't understand the difference between the two positions. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- My understanding is that under Mike's framework, it is not necessary to provide evidence of notablity for the sub-topic if they part of a notable category. In the example given above, some of the lakes in Montana are notable, e.g. Flathead Lake, therefore the List of lakes in Montana is deemed to be notable by default. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- A question for Mike... it sounds like you are saying that if all the items listed are notable, the topic is notable by default. Is this a correct representation of your view? Blueboar (talk) 15:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't believe this is what Mike is aiming for; Mike can clear that up himself, but I want to intercede before I think we go too far down the wrong path. We are considering how to judge the inclusion-worthiness of "List of X" and specifically what aspect needs to be shown notable. I do not believe Mike is arguing (as he has spelled out) that "List of X" is included because each element that falls into "List of X" is notable while neither "List of X" or "X" are notable topics. Instead, I believe he is saying that when the "X" itself is a notable topic, "List of X" is inclusion-worthy regardless of the notability of the elements within the list. So in the example List of Lakes of Montana, to be included, the topic "Lakes of Montana" as a whole should be notable.
- I note that this should not be taken to invalid cases where "List of X" is actually a notable topic. I will also note that we should also discuss at some point another possible means for list inclusion implied by Gavin/Blueboar in which each element of a list (navigational or otherwise) is notable but neither "List of X" or "X" is a notable topic on its own. There probably needs to be clarity to make sure it is a non-indiscriminate grouping and doesn't imply correlation without causation. But I believe that is a completely separate case from what Mike was discussing in the first point. --MASEM (t) 15:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- OK... Masem (and only Masem, please)... Do you see a difference between saying that the topic is "Lakes of Montana" and saying the topic is "lakes that are located in Montana"? Blueboar (talk) 15:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Out of context, there's no difference, they refer to the same things; but in context of Wikipedia, they are different. "Lakes of Montana" gives me the impression that the collection of lakes in Montana is the topic as a whole. The latter seems to suggest that we have a lakes and these are are put together simply because they share one equivalent feature: they all are in Montana. The former is preferred because, as it suggests a collective group with specific examples being listed below, then likely with a bit of research and the like, the geological history of the general grouping lakes, their ecology, impact on tourism/economy/environmental aspects, and other concepts can be discussed in the context of the grouping of Lakes of Montana. Of course, this is a blind assertion, it does really depend on the context of the list description text and what lakes are listed to make the proper judgement. --MASEM (t) 16:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- A question for Mike... it sounds like you are saying that if all the items listed are notable, the topic is notable by default. Is this a correct representation of your view? Blueboar (talk) 15:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- My understanding is that under Mike's framework, it is not necessary to provide evidence of notablity for the sub-topic if they part of a notable category. In the example given above, some of the lakes in Montana are notable, e.g. Flathead Lake, therefore the List of lakes in Montana is deemed to be notable by default. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
List of lakes in Montana breaks down this way:
- List title: List of lakes in Montana
- List topic: Lakes in Montana
- List inclusion criteria: Named (as named in USGS database) lakes in Montana by county (supported by reliable sources)
- List entries: List of lakes in county X (Similar inclusion criteria for each county list, except individual list entries are lake names. (each named lake in each county list is supported by a reliable source)
So where does the notability burden fall and how is it satisfied? Named lakes as a geographic feature (regardless of where they are) are considered notable Wikipedia:Notability (geography), and Montana as a state is notable. Therefore any list of notable things with a common characteristic (ie. named lakes in this case) in the state of Montana should satisfy the notability of the List Topic. The article is not about some List of … (I know of no source that has commented on the collective set of lakes in Montana as a set), the article is about lakes (their name, location and other data). The topic is modified by the state Montana and by Montana counties. The reason for that is merely article size. A list of 200 entries is about max for WP on the article size front. In Montana the number of named lakes exceed 2000, so a single list is not possible and the by county approach allows each county list to be linked to a related county article. From a purpose standpoint, these lists are both navigational, developmental, and informational. There is a distinction between the literal words of a List Title and the literal words of the List Topic. Notability burden should be on the topic not the title.--Mike Cline (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- AH... Mike brings up a very important point that we have not discussed before... the inherent notability of certain broad topic categories... in this case, the fact that geographic places (including both lakes and states) are considered notable by default. This does muddy the waters somewhat. Blueboar (talk) 16:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- No, because they are notable because generally they have been covered (documented) by a reliable source (in this case the USGS). They aren't notable because they just exist, they are notable because they are named and data has been accumulated on them by a reliable source.--Mike Cline (talk) 16:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- There must be hundreds of if not thousands of lakes in Montana that fit that criteria, but I would dispute their notability based on map data alone, but that is a seperate issue. I think what Mike is infering from the inclusion criteria he has described above is a variant on WP:NOTINHERITED based on category: if the category is notable, then the members of that category inherit that notability. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- I always thought the "inherent geographical notability" only applied to populated places. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- The notability of individual lakes is a completely separate discussion - maybe necessary to have but not here. For purposes of this discussion, I strongly recommend we start from the working principle that every USGS-listed lake in Montana is notable, and worry about the list of these as the issue. --MASEM (t) 17:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- There must be hundreds of if not thousands of lakes in Montana that fit that criteria, but I would dispute their notability based on map data alone, but that is a seperate issue. I think what Mike is infering from the inclusion criteria he has described above is a variant on WP:NOTINHERITED based on category: if the category is notable, then the members of that category inherit that notability. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- No, because they are notable because generally they have been covered (documented) by a reliable source (in this case the USGS). They aren't notable because they just exist, they are notable because they are named and data has been accumulated on them by a reliable source.--Mike Cline (talk) 16:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- AH... Mike brings up a very important point that we have not discussed before... the inherent notability of certain broad topic categories... in this case, the fact that geographic places (including both lakes and states) are considered notable by default. This does muddy the waters somewhat. Blueboar (talk) 16:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- I thought the purpose of this little sojurn was to clarify the distinction between list topic and list title and where the notability burden (if any) should fall. Based on the discussion, that's been accomplished.--Mike Cline (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think the problem is that you have identified the topic of a list to be the category it is is a member of, rather than the selection criteria for the list itself, i.e, a list is sub-set of a notable category, rather than a list is a set with its own in its own right. An analogy would be Matryoshka doll: just because the doll is notable, that does not mean one its components (the baby doll) is notable. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- I thought the purpose of this little sojurn was to clarify the distinction between list topic and list title and where the notability burden (if any) should fall. Based on the discussion, that's been accomplished.--Mike Cline (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Really. What's the difference between establishing the notability of "lakes in Montana" and establishing the notability of "list of lakes in Montana"? Either way, aren't we just looking for multiple, reliable third party sources that cover multiple lakes in Montana (as a group or as a series) in direct detail? I just don't get the difference.Shooterwalker (talk) 20:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- It is an important distinction since in past debates, editors opposing a particular list have stated to the effect: No reliable source has defined what a List of lakes in Montana looks like or contains so it must be a madeup topic or OR. The same type statement cannot be said of Lakes in Montana.--Mike Cline (talk) 21:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Let me try to explain the difference. The "Forbes' Index of the 100 richest people" (I probably have the title wrong... but I think you know what I mean) is an example of where a list is itself a notable topic. It is a well known published list. We might present that topic in paragraph form, or as a list... but either way, the topic of the Forbes Index is notable. As far as I am aware, there is no comparable published and notable "list of lakes in Montana". So the list itself is not a notable topic. However, the topic of "lakes that are in Montana" may well be considered notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, and one way to present such a topic is through a list. Blueboar (talk) 21:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- In the case of the Forbes List you could have two different articles (but they would require slightly different names to distinquish them): Forbes List of The 400 Richest Americans could be an article that explains the structure, compliation and history of the Forbes list. That article could include an embedded list that listed the current 400 list entries. If that embedded list was too large for the main article it could be broken out as a standalone list (copyvio considerations asided) entitled Current list of Forbes 400 Richest Americans. In the first case, the article is a normal article and the List itself must be notable WP:SAL wouldn't apply. In the second case, the list topic is the membership of the Forbes 400 list (clear inclusion criteria) and WP:SAL would apply.--Mike Cline (talk) 22:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Wow, okay, that's really enlightening. Then yes, I think it's ridiculous to demand that every list be a notable list in of itself, like the billboard 100. For most Wikipedia list articles, it would be sufficient to find a source that even for a couple good paragraphs covers a group or set or category of things. In other words, you verify the notability of the set/group/category of things, rather than verifying the notability of someone's special top 10. Is that what we've been arguing about all along? Shooterwalker (talk) 01:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- SW - Excellent encapsulation of the issue. Indeed that distinction between List Title and List Topic has been a sticking point. Have you ever thought about a job writing policy for WP?--Mike Cline (talk) 07:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks! Do they give out jobs for policy writers? Shooterwalker (talk) 14:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- SW - Excellent encapsulation of the issue. Indeed that distinction between List Title and List Topic has been a sticking point. Have you ever thought about a job writing policy for WP?--Mike Cline (talk) 07:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- Wow, okay, that's really enlightening. Then yes, I think it's ridiculous to demand that every list be a notable list in of itself, like the billboard 100. For most Wikipedia list articles, it would be sufficient to find a source that even for a couple good paragraphs covers a group or set or category of things. In other words, you verify the notability of the set/group/category of things, rather than verifying the notability of someone's special top 10. Is that what we've been arguing about all along? Shooterwalker (talk) 01:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- Notability has nothing to do with the title, only the topic. Why is it ridiculous to demand that every list topic be a notable list if we ask the same thing of every article topic? The scenario that Shooterwalker describes is based on WP:INHERITED, and although it sounds simple, it is actually difficult to justify, because this boils down to the idea that coverage in one article relates to another list. I think the coverage of the Forbes 400 is rather poor, and the coverage of List of members of the Forbes 400 (2008) is not great either, but a better example would be Sunday Times Rich List and Sunday Times Rich List 2008 indicates that the 2008 list (as well as all the other years) is a distinct and notable topic in its own right. The evidence of notability is weak, but the reader benefits from the context this provides.
- Going back to Mike's example, and I think this case list sums up the position regarding the relationship between the general over arching topic ("Lakes in Montana") and the list topic ("List of lakes in Montana"):
- In the case of the Forbes List you could have two different articles (but they would require slightly different names to distinquish them): Forbes List of The 400 Richest Americans could be an article that explains the structure, compliation and history of the Forbes list. That article could include an embedded list that listed the current 400 list entries. If that embedded list was too large for the main article it could be broken out as a standalone list (copyvio considerations asided) entitled Current list of Forbes 400 Richest Americans. In the first case, the article is a normal article and the List itself must be notable WP:SAL wouldn't apply. In the second case, the list topic is the membership of the Forbes 400 list (clear inclusion criteria) and WP:SAL would apply.--Mike Cline (talk) 22:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Let me try to explain the difference. The "Forbes' Index of the 100 richest people" (I probably have the title wrong... but I think you know what I mean) is an example of where a list is itself a notable topic. It is a well known published list. We might present that topic in paragraph form, or as a list... but either way, the topic of the Forbes Index is notable. As far as I am aware, there is no comparable published and notable "list of lakes in Montana". So the list itself is not a notable topic. However, the topic of "lakes that are in Montana" may well be considered notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, and one way to present such a topic is through a list. Blueboar (talk) 21:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- It is an important distinction since in past debates, editors opposing a particular list have stated to the effect: No reliable source has defined what a List of lakes in Montana looks like or contains so it must be a madeup topic or OR. The same type statement cannot be said of Lakes in Montana.--Mike Cline (talk) 21:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Case 1: "Lakes in Montana" is not notable, nor has a list of lakes ever been published, in which case it could never have been notable;
- Case 2: "Lakes in Montana" is notable, but a list of lakes has never been published, in which case it could never have been notable either;
- Case 3: "Lakes in Montana" is notable, and although a list of lakes in Montana has been published, there is no evidence that he list is notable;
- Case 4: "Lakes in Montana" is notable, and the list of lakes in Montana has not only been published, but it is also notable;
- Case 5: "Lakes in Montana" is not notable, but the list of lakes in Montana has been published, and it is also notable.
- I think "List of lakes in Montana" is a case 1 example at this time. There is evidence to suggest that Flathead Lake is notable, but that is a separate topic in its own right, even though it is a member of the same category. The key point is the notability means just that: each list has either been "noted" in accordance with WP:N or they have not. Notability is not deemed to be inherited, nor is it transferred just because it is a member of a particular category, or sub-category of multiple categories. An example of each case might be as follows:
- I think we have to move away from the idea that notability is collectively shared between topics in a category, because lists can be members of multiple categories. The list topic is not the list title, but it is not the list category either. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- This is tricky stuff and we're getting back into the area where people clearly disagree. But at least we've established that isn't not enough to verify individual list members (too cold), but that you don't need to WP:verify notability of a specific written list (too hot). We're somewhere in agreement that you verify notability of a set of things (just right), just that there's a lot of ambiguity in that which you've pointed out. I actually think this would be an excellent point for a guideline to start out. As vague as it is, it would bring just a little more sanity to list discussions where there are people who want to keep everything or delete everything. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think we have to move away from the idea that notability is collectively shared between topics in a category, because lists can be members of multiple categories. The list topic is not the list title, but it is not the list category either. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
The problem and magnitude of the problem
One of the pitfalls with examining isolated examples of data in an effort to propose new solutions to a perceived problem is that the isolated example may or may not demonstrate the problem in a way that makes a compelling case for one solution or another. In the case of this List RFC, what is the problem we are attempting to resolve my proposing some policy change? As I see it, one of the perceived problems is that some lists exist and/or are created that are indiscriminate, non-notable or both. Now no policy wording in WP is going to prevent the creation of indiscriminate, non-notable lists. If policy could prevent the creation of articles that don’t stand-up to our policies we would not need a deletion mechanism. On the other hand, policy should be written to encourage discriminate, notable lists while allowing for removal of indiscriminate, non-notable lists. One of the problems with changing policy is assessing the impact those changes might make the on class of articles it is intended to regulate. If we concede that WP contains some number of indiscriminate, non-notable lists is a reasonable statement of a perceived problem, then I believe asking the question What is the magnitude of the problem? is a reasonable request, before new policy is formulated. If there are two potholes in a 1000 miles of highway, you don’t need to hire 100 inspectors to search a 1000 miles of highway for potholes every day, you just need to fix the two potholes. If there are 1000s of potholes, the inspectors might be a reasonable solution.
So, to that end, I would suggest that the editors who hold the minority position in the discussion—that the burden of notability and discrimination falls on List of X and not X (a position that would require a written guideline change to enforce)--compile a list of WP standalone lists currently existing that would fail in their opinion the new notability burden and be removed from WP. To ensure the real magnitude of the problem is understood, this enumeration ought to represent at least 10% of our current lists and a broad range of subject matter. That seems that it would be a reasonable sample to judge the impact of a policy change of this nature and eliminate the vagaries of using isolated examples.--Mike Cline (talk) 11:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think it's dangerous to ask people to compile "bad lists" that should be deleted, just as much as it's dangerous to compile "bad deletions" that should have been kept. Talking about specific examples will just rehash what goes on at AFD. Talking about what "should have" been done will almost always lead to arguments.
- A more productive idea would start from the premise that the community is always right, and that the AFD process usually represents consensus with the exception of 10% of outliers. If we compiled 100+ AFDs and/or lists, we'd quickly see there are some lists that are almost always kept, and others that are almost always deleted. Then we could write a guideline that describes current practice. But we'd have to agree that current practice is basically fine, if only as a starting point. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- SW - Although I don't disagree with what you've said above, I do think you misconstrued the purpose of the request. A minority number of editors are proposing that we change the burden of notability for list topics to List of X instead of our current practice on X. If this change was adopted it would have a significant impact on the current lists in WP today. Reviewing AfD results would not give us any sense of that impact because most lists at AfD were either kept or deleted by evaluating the notability of X, not List of X. The list that is being requested above is not a list of Bad Lists as they exist under current guidelines, but instead of list of lists that would become Bad Lists if the focus of notability changed from X to List of X. That is the only way the impact of this radical change can be assessed.
- I will agree that evaluating AfD for the various reasons that lists under our current policies were either kept or deleted would help in crafting better list related policy wording that would encourage good lists and possibly deter bad lists. Unfortunately the radical List title vs List Topic proposal by Gavin and others hasn't been part of the AfD decision process (even though its been agrued in AfD debates many times).--Mike Cline (talk) 20:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- Its not a minority, Mike. Our existing guidelines on notability are clearly focused on topic, rather than category they belong to as you are suggesting. Most lists are kept or deleted in expectation that the topic is notable: there is no other metric for inclusion. Please drop the idea that list title has anything to do with notability, I think we are agreed it is not the case. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 00:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- People have the funniest way of agreeing. I think everyone understands that the list title isn't the issue. So let's focus on the next step. It's a combination of extracting whatever few abstract principles we can from this discussion, and moving onto some kind of WP:OUTCOMES for list to ground our next discussion. That way we won't argue about what common practice is. It will be in front of our face. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- SW - Unfortunately there is no agreement with Gavin's minority position that the List topic equates unequivocally to List of X not X. Whether we call it the list title or topic is irrelevant. One only has to follow Gavin's positions on the RFC page as well as on other policy pages to know that what Gavin means is: If the literal List of X isn't notable in its own right, it doesn't matter if X is in anyway notable or not. It is not only a gross misinterpretation of WP:NOTINHERITED but it is a completely unreasonable and untenable position given the current state of lists on WP. His is clearly a minority position if one reviews the locus of comments on the RFC page. Indeed we all would like to move on beyond this pothole.--Mike Cline (talk) 15:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- That seems like an odd position to take (and you're probably right that it's a minority position that shouldn't stop us from finding an overall consensus). But let me ask Gavin himself. Gavin, do you believe that every list in Wikipedia needs to be a real world list that has gotten wide attention in third party sources, like New York Times Medical School Rankings, The Billboard 100, or Nixon's Enemies List? Or is it enough that all Wikipedia lists focus on a class or a set that has been covered in third-party sources (as a class or a set, not just as individual separate entries)? Shooterwalker (talk) 15:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- Don't ask me for is it of no matter what I think. What do our policies and guidelines say on this issue, Shooterwalker? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 20:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- You're entitled to your opinion, and I guess that includes the right to withhold it. I guess we can summarize consensus on this issue, basd on what a few of us have read from this discussion There's a consensus that if multiple third-party sources discuss a set or group of things in direct detail, then that set or group is appropriate to be covered as a list on Wikipedia (assuming it meets other policies like WP:NOT). Shooterwalker (talk) 20:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- What you are describing is a notable over arching category, not a notable topic. Neither Wikipedia's content policies nor the notability guideline mention categories at all. The only mention of categories is in WP:NOTINHERITED, so there is no evidence that this view is the consensus by any strech of the imagination. For a topic to be notable, it has to have been "noted" in accordance with WP:N. Notability cannot be infered from membership of a category, as there is no verifable evidence to support such an inference. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- I always thought that the topic of a list is a group of things as an overall group (and not the individual members). Shooterwalker (talk) 01:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- What you are describing is a notable over arching category, not a notable topic. Neither Wikipedia's content policies nor the notability guideline mention categories at all. The only mention of categories is in WP:NOTINHERITED, so there is no evidence that this view is the consensus by any strech of the imagination. For a topic to be notable, it has to have been "noted" in accordance with WP:N. Notability cannot be infered from membership of a category, as there is no verifable evidence to support such an inference. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- You're entitled to your opinion, and I guess that includes the right to withhold it. I guess we can summarize consensus on this issue, basd on what a few of us have read from this discussion There's a consensus that if multiple third-party sources discuss a set or group of things in direct detail, then that set or group is appropriate to be covered as a list on Wikipedia (assuming it meets other policies like WP:NOT). Shooterwalker (talk) 20:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- Don't ask me for is it of no matter what I think. What do our policies and guidelines say on this issue, Shooterwalker? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 20:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- That seems like an odd position to take (and you're probably right that it's a minority position that shouldn't stop us from finding an overall consensus). But let me ask Gavin himself. Gavin, do you believe that every list in Wikipedia needs to be a real world list that has gotten wide attention in third party sources, like New York Times Medical School Rankings, The Billboard 100, or Nixon's Enemies List? Or is it enough that all Wikipedia lists focus on a class or a set that has been covered in third-party sources (as a class or a set, not just as individual separate entries)? Shooterwalker (talk) 15:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes... what I am suggesting is that the way to identify and evaluate this topic is to identify and evaluate what is common to the over all group and not the individual members of the group. Blueboar (talk) 16:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- That is correct: a list is a topic in its own right because it is a defined group of things, and is similar to a mathematical set in htis regard. A category, on the other hand, is not defined in terms of elements, but is defined in terms of characteristics. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- This distinction, while perhaps logically valid, is arcane and I don't think helpful - the people to whom any policy or guidelines apply are not going to draw the distinction. Furthermore, there is significant overlap, depending how the set is defined. When we are talking about list articles, there is (usually) no assumption that the list is 'complete' - what defines a list here is typically not the set of entries that make it up at any point, but the basis upon which entries are included - I think ‒ Jaymax✍ 01:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- I have to disagree because the difference between mainspace pages and navigational pages is clearly understood: just becasue a topic is a member of a Wikipedia category, that is not a valid rationale for inclusion as a standalone article or list. Categories are simply navigational aids: they were never intended to provide evidence that a topic is notable because it shares a common attribute with another topic. The argument that notability can be inherited through categorisation has been rebutted at WP:NOTINHERITED. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- This distinction, while perhaps logically valid, is arcane and I don't think helpful - the people to whom any policy or guidelines apply are not going to draw the distinction. Furthermore, there is significant overlap, depending how the set is defined. When we are talking about list articles, there is (usually) no assumption that the list is 'complete' - what defines a list here is typically not the set of entries that make it up at any point, but the basis upon which entries are included - I think ‒ Jaymax✍ 01:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- That is correct: a list is a topic in its own right because it is a defined group of things, and is similar to a mathematical set in htis regard. A category, on the other hand, is not defined in terms of elements, but is defined in terms of characteristics. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- SW - Unfortunately there is no agreement with Gavin's minority position that the List topic equates unequivocally to List of X not X. Whether we call it the list title or topic is irrelevant. One only has to follow Gavin's positions on the RFC page as well as on other policy pages to know that what Gavin means is: If the literal List of X isn't notable in its own right, it doesn't matter if X is in anyway notable or not. It is not only a gross misinterpretation of WP:NOTINHERITED but it is a completely unreasonable and untenable position given the current state of lists on WP. His is clearly a minority position if one reviews the locus of comments on the RFC page. Indeed we all would like to move on beyond this pothole.--Mike Cline (talk) 15:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- People have the funniest way of agreeing. I think everyone understands that the list title isn't the issue. So let's focus on the next step. It's a combination of extracting whatever few abstract principles we can from this discussion, and moving onto some kind of WP:OUTCOMES for list to ground our next discussion. That way we won't argue about what common practice is. It will be in front of our face. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- Its not a minority, Mike. Our existing guidelines on notability are clearly focused on topic, rather than category they belong to as you are suggesting. Most lists are kept or deleted in expectation that the topic is notable: there is no other metric for inclusion. Please drop the idea that list title has anything to do with notability, I think we are agreed it is not the case. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 00:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- I will agree that evaluating AfD for the various reasons that lists under our current policies were either kept or deleted would help in crafting better list related policy wording that would encourage good lists and possibly deter bad lists. Unfortunately the radical List title vs List Topic proposal by Gavin and others hasn't been part of the AfD decision process (even though its been agrued in AfD debates many times).--Mike Cline (talk) 20:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Throwing thought out there
This is a subject in which I am very interested - I've only just come back after an extended wikibreak, so it's going to take me some time to catch up. However, here are some random thoughts.
1) I am very much in the List of X must not require that the list or act of listing in and of itself must be notable. As a thought experiment, an article "List of lists of richest people" would be good for the encyclopaedia, (as would an article "rich lists") REGARDLESS of whether such a list of lists has achieved notability independently. This inherently means that the compilation of such a list will involve Original Research - in the same way that compiling an Article must involve OR. Of course, neither should ever present OR, content must be sourced.
2) I firmly believe that the significant bulk of rules/policy/guidelines for lists should apply equally to in-article lists and stand-alone lists. There may be need for some criteria that determines whether a list best sits in-article or stand-alone; but one of those criteria would have to be size - that simple fact (meh, my opinion) leads to an obvious conclusion - A good in-article list should be moveable to being a stand-alone list-article fork, just like any sub-topic that gets too big is.
3) Lists should be of the form "List of Discriminator X" - I'm not talking about titles per se here - but that the criteria for list inclusion is inherently part of the question. Let's take the three 'levels' here: we essentially have potential article 'topics' of LDX, DX, and X. It seems to me that Gavin et al feel LDX should be notable of itself, Mike et al feel it is sufficient for X to be notable. But the question of D is very important, and largely missing from the debate above. "List of Michigan Lakes over 1000 sq m" - So assume 'lakes of Michigan' is notable (in the sense of a non-listing article). A list of all of them is both pointless and unhelpful. Consensus seems to be that it is not required that the act of listing lakes in Michigan be itself notable. But, with the BEST INTERESTS OF WP in mind, I would argue that the discriminator 'over 1000 sq m' should be permissible to be arbitrary, and decided by consensus by the list article editors. Because no other option (that I can see) makes for a better encyclopaedia.
4) Really restating the above - you CAN'T IGNORE the inclusion criteria for list content in this discussion - because that goes straight to scope, and so to notability questions.
5) A useful discriminator in many cases is "List of notable X" - where each entry has it's own article, but "List of significant X" where the list-article editors develop the objective criteria for significance through consensus should be equally acceptable. Some would call that OR, to which I'd say nonsense - because no OR is being presented in the list beyond the regular (non-list) article process of deciding what is in or out through consensus - but by dint of it being a structured list, it is possible to achieve a documented consensus that doesn't need re-consideration for each new factoid someone wants to add.
Phew - done for now. ‒ Jaymax✍ 01:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- I would say the above is an excellent characterization of the way things are and ought to be. I have said many times in this RFC and in this essay Creating a better list that inclusion criteria for any list must be discriminate. Your points are right on!--Mike Cline (talk) 01:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- I see where Jaymax is coming from, I think what he is proposing is essentially an exemption for lists from WP:N. No editor has been brave enough to propose such an exemption in a clear and explicit fashion, and I think this is about as good an explanation as to why such an exemption is considered to be justifiable, and provide a rationale for unpublished lists and list without notability to be included in Wikipedia. If put your proposal for an exemption in this RFC, whilst at the same time explaining why that it represents a deptarture from Wikipedia's existing policies and guidelines in an explcit and honest way, then other editors will be able to comment on it in an honest way too. In contrast, the proposals of Masem, Blueboar and Mike Cline are not explictly claiming exemptions, and their proposals do not explain why an exemption is considered to be necessary. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree. I cannot read anything in Jaymax's proposal which would exempt lists from WP:N. Most people in the RFC are of the opinion that the topic that the list covers needs to be notable and that this topic is subject to the same notability criteria as anything else. The idea that the list itself must be notable is in the distinct minority. An article titled "List of X" is not about a list of X, it is a list about X. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- We have been through this already. Looking back at Case 5 (above), How can "List of X", be about X, if X does not exist as a topic? how come Nixon's Enemies is not a notable topic, yet Nixon's Enemies List is notable? I don't think anyone has seriously thought this through, and I am mystified as to how this idea that the list topic is subject to the same notability criteria as anything else, yet the list topic does not have to be notable - this seems to me to be a blatant contradiction. How can this contradiction be explained? If someone explain using the example of List of Masonic buildings as to why this list is deemed to be is notable if it has never been published nor commented on, bearing in mind that a the topic Masonic building has not either? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Apples and Kumquats - Neither Nixon's Enemies List nor Master list of Nixon's political opponents are list articles, they are just regular articles with the word List in their titles. Neither of these articles are governed by WP:SAL. And even though they contain embedded lists, they are indeed articles about real-world lists and not List articles. There is a distinct, clear and unequivocal distinction.--Mike Cline (talk) 12:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- I am not following Mike. If the topic of an article is a list...then it is not a list article...even if it has the word List in the title...and because the topic of the article is a real-world list...it is an article about a list...but not a list article. ???? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Apples and Kumquats - Neither Nixon's Enemies List nor Master list of Nixon's political opponents are list articles, they are just regular articles with the word List in their titles. Neither of these articles are governed by WP:SAL. And even though they contain embedded lists, they are indeed articles about real-world lists and not List articles. There is a distinct, clear and unequivocal distinction.--Mike Cline (talk) 12:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- We have been through this already. Looking back at Case 5 (above), How can "List of X", be about X, if X does not exist as a topic? how come Nixon's Enemies is not a notable topic, yet Nixon's Enemies List is notable? I don't think anyone has seriously thought this through, and I am mystified as to how this idea that the list topic is subject to the same notability criteria as anything else, yet the list topic does not have to be notable - this seems to me to be a blatant contradiction. How can this contradiction be explained? If someone explain using the example of List of Masonic buildings as to why this list is deemed to be is notable if it has never been published nor commented on, bearing in mind that a the topic Masonic building has not either? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- I would agree that Nixon's Enemies List is an article that happens to be about a list... but I think Master list of Nixon's political opponents is clearly a list article (ie an article that organizes its material in list format). It may or may not be a stand-alone list... but it is a list. Blueboar (talk) 13:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think you need to recognise that Nixon's Enemies List is a bona fide list article. Sure, it contains more coverage than your average list (List of Heroes characters being another example of a list plus extended coverage), but it is still a list article about a list topic. Look at the article yourself, and you will see that it is more or less comprised of three parts: the list defintion (the list was compiled in a memo to Nixon and subsequently published as part of the Senate hearings relating to his impeachment), the list itself, and commentary, criticism and analysis from reliable sources about the list (how and why it was compiled, its significance etc). It is no different from any other list, other than its list topic is the subject of richer variety of sources than your average barebone list. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Nixon's Enemies List is an article about a list, where the list itself takes up less than half the article. There is even a suggestion on the page to transwiki the list-section over to Wikisource, and if that happens there won't be a list there anymore.
- As a side issue, I find your tone: "I think you need to recognise that..." as rather arrogant. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Just because an article contains a list does not make it a list article. Is Periodic table a list article because it has the list of elements within it? Absolutely not. Same with Nixon's Enemies List - it happens to contain a list that is part of a notable topic. --MASEM (t) 14:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Just because an article contains a list does not make it a list article, but if it is about a list then it does. The Periodic table is indeed a list article, and I put it to you that like Nixon's Enemies List it contians three parts: a defintion (its structure), the list or table itself, and commentary about the table. The fact that the article may be shorter or longer than the List of Heroes characters does not negate this analysis. If the topic of an article is a list, then it is a list. I should add that list is simple form of table , so don't tell be me that it is not a list article for this reason. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Gavin, I believe your interpretation is far out of line from what consensus has been historically on list articles. (The question has been discussed at length between the Featured Article and Featured List areas in the last several years). Even if the list takes up the bulk of the article, it can still be considered an article and not a list (see Characters of Final Fantasy VIII). Neither Nixon's list or the Periodic Table would fall into the definition of list used by our featured content. (I will note we do have alternate versions of the Periodic Table, including Periodic table (standard) and Periodic table (large version) which are considered lists.) --MASEM (t) 15:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- It is not far out of line, how could it be? We know that a list is a type of article (both WP:LISTS and WP:SAL say so), so the distinction between a list article and an ordinary article is an artificial one - they are all mainspace pages. The only difference between a list topic and an article topic is that...one is about a list, and the other is not. This is common sense, not out of line. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- The distinction between an article and a list is not what it is about, which you are implying, it is about it's structure. That's a huge difference, and why one needs to look more than just the title to understand that, say, "Nixon's Enemies List" is formatted as an "article" article that happens to be about a list. --MASEM (t) 15:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- I consider "list articles" to be the articles where most of the content is organized in list form, rather than in paragraphs (prose form). Periodic table is about a classification of the elements, and consists mostly of prose and paragraphs about how it was devised and discussion of the various components in the table. Naturally, the table is in the article (as it is in any good encyclopedia), but it makes up only a small part of the article, so I would not consider the article as a list. At best, an article containing a list. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Format is of no significance. The focus of an article is its topic. The focus of a list article is the list topic. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- I consider "list articles" to be the articles where most of the content is organized in list form, rather than in paragraphs (prose form). Periodic table is about a classification of the elements, and consists mostly of prose and paragraphs about how it was devised and discussion of the various components in the table. Naturally, the table is in the article (as it is in any good encyclopedia), but it makes up only a small part of the article, so I would not consider the article as a list. At best, an article containing a list. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- The distinction between an article and a list is not what it is about, which you are implying, it is about it's structure. That's a huge difference, and why one needs to look more than just the title to understand that, say, "Nixon's Enemies List" is formatted as an "article" article that happens to be about a list. --MASEM (t) 15:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- It is not far out of line, how could it be? We know that a list is a type of article (both WP:LISTS and WP:SAL say so), so the distinction between a list article and an ordinary article is an artificial one - they are all mainspace pages. The only difference between a list topic and an article topic is that...one is about a list, and the other is not. This is common sense, not out of line. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Gavin, I believe your interpretation is far out of line from what consensus has been historically on list articles. (The question has been discussed at length between the Featured Article and Featured List areas in the last several years). Even if the list takes up the bulk of the article, it can still be considered an article and not a list (see Characters of Final Fantasy VIII). Neither Nixon's list or the Periodic Table would fall into the definition of list used by our featured content. (I will note we do have alternate versions of the Periodic Table, including Periodic table (standard) and Periodic table (large version) which are considered lists.) --MASEM (t) 15:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Just because an article contains a list does not make it a list article, but if it is about a list then it does. The Periodic table is indeed a list article, and I put it to you that like Nixon's Enemies List it contians three parts: a defintion (its structure), the list or table itself, and commentary about the table. The fact that the article may be shorter or longer than the List of Heroes characters does not negate this analysis. If the topic of an article is a list, then it is a list. I should add that list is simple form of table , so don't tell be me that it is not a list article for this reason. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think you need to recognise that Nixon's Enemies List is a bona fide list article. Sure, it contains more coverage than your average list (List of Heroes characters being another example of a list plus extended coverage), but it is still a list article about a list topic. Look at the article yourself, and you will see that it is more or less comprised of three parts: the list defintion (the list was compiled in a memo to Nixon and subsequently published as part of the Senate hearings relating to his impeachment), the list itself, and commentary, criticism and analysis from reliable sources about the list (how and why it was compiled, its significance etc). It is no different from any other list, other than its list topic is the subject of richer variety of sources than your average barebone list. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree. I cannot read anything in Jaymax's proposal which would exempt lists from WP:N. Most people in the RFC are of the opinion that the topic that the list covers needs to be notable and that this topic is subject to the same notability criteria as anything else. The idea that the list itself must be notable is in the distinct minority. An article titled "List of X" is not about a list of X, it is a list about X. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- I see where Jaymax is coming from, I think what he is proposing is essentially an exemption for lists from WP:N. No editor has been brave enough to propose such an exemption in a clear and explicit fashion, and I think this is about as good an explanation as to why such an exemption is considered to be justifiable, and provide a rationale for unpublished lists and list without notability to be included in Wikipedia. If put your proposal for an exemption in this RFC, whilst at the same time explaining why that it represents a deptarture from Wikipedia's existing policies and guidelines in an explcit and honest way, then other editors will be able to comment on it in an honest way too. In contrast, the proposals of Masem, Blueboar and Mike Cline are not explictly claiming exemptions, and their proposals do not explain why an exemption is considered to be necessary. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Gavin - An interesting interpretation that might be better understood if we applied your logic to a variety of articles that are clearly about lists. Here’s a two part question. Part 1 is a very simple question that requires a simple YES/NO answer. Any elaboration for part I isn’t required. Part 2 need only be answered if the answers to Part I aren’t consistently Yes or No.
Part I – The following five articles are clearly about Lists of some sort. Are these articles in your opinion, stand-alone lists (as you suggest above) and subject to the content guideline: WP:SAL – Yes/No?
- The Clements Checklist of Birds of the World
- Fortune 500
- Nikkei 225
- The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time
- Who's Who in Australia
Part II –If the answers to any of the five above are inconsistent (ie. some yes and some no), what are the distinguishing characteristics that make one or more of the articles a list article (subject to WP:SAL) and the others not subject to WP:SAL? This distinction, if it exists, will be important in crafting future guidelines relative to lists vs articles.--Mike Cline (talk) 18:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Mike, I think you are setting me up for a is a trick question here. Not all of the articles are about lists per se, so a simple yes or no is not appropriate.
- The Clements Checklist of Birds of the World is an article about a book;
- Fortune 500 is about the Fortune 5000 lists in general, i.e. it is an article about a category of list that is published every year (see Case 4 above);
- Nikkei 225 is a bit of a mess (see below);
- The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time is a list article;
- Who's Who in Australia is an article about a book.
- The article on the Nikkei 225 for all intents and purposes is a list article, but I am not sure it should be. My understanding is that, like all stock market indices, the membership of the list is reviewed regularly, and members may be dropped suddenly if they no longer meet the inclusion criteria. This article therefore has a problem: it is tying to be about a category of list (lets call it "Nikkei 225" in general, focused on the significance, history and development of this list category) whilst at the same time listing the components of the list for the year 2009/10 (lets call it "List of Nekkei 225 companies 2009/10"), so it is also contains a snapshot of the index at a particular point in time. The list for 2009/10 is embedded in the article, but I don't think it should be. The list should be split out if there is evidence that the 2009/10 list is notable, or dropped if it is not. Note that the contenst to the list should be listed in the Category:Nikkei 225, but for some reason that has not happened.
- I am not sure what you are trying to prove, if anything, but in each case a reliable source is need to tell us what the article is about (i.e. what is the topic) and a further sources are needed to provide evidence of notability in each case. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 18:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- No, reliable sources are not needed to tell us what any article is about. Editors choose what the (proposed) article is to be about. There are zero independent reliable sources that say "Wikipedia should have an article on this subject." There are zero independent reliable sources that say "Gavin thought he should be writing about the Heroninos Archive, but actually, I'm going to insist that the subject of the page he created be Predatory birds in fictional universes!"
- Editors, not sources, are the ones who say "(I believe that) Wikipedia should have an article on this subject." It happens that if sources don't exist for the subject, then the community will (usually) refuse to keep the article -- but this does not change the fact that it is the editor who takes the action of selecting the subject.
- Put another way: Sources are passive objects. Editors are not. Choosing a subject is an action, not a fact. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Part II of the question remains somewhat unanswered (notability of these lists is not part of the question). These are all articles about lists, but lists that take different forms. For:
- You claim they are merely articles about books and not list articles, therefore (I presume) WP:SAL doesn’t apply.
- For: The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time an article about a magazine story, you claim that the article is a stand-alone list article and (I presume) WP:SAL applies.
- For: Nikkei 225 an index of the top 225 stocks in the Toyko Stock Exchange and Fortune 500 a specific list published by Fortune magazine you waffle a bit. Are they standalone lists or are they articles?
- So you gave two No, one Yes and two maybes. What distinguishes The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time as a standalone list article from The Clements Checklist of Birds of the World and Who's Who in Australia for the purposes of applying WP:SAL. The only difference between these articles that I can discern is that two of the lists are in book format and one is in magazine format. None of the three actually include the subject list in the articles. The articles just discuss the contents of the list in general. Two of them included embedded lists of various highlights of the overall list. So I guess the burning question is when is an article about a List not a List article and not subject to WP:SAL?--Mike Cline (talk) 19:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Gavin, if you believe that format is irrelevant, then you've got a completely different definition of "list article" from everyone else. WP:LIST says: "List articles are encyclopedia pages consisting of a lead section followed by a list (which may or may not be divided by headings)." I don't think you'll find anyone else who believes that Periodic table is a "list article". If Periodic table were to obtain Featured status, it would be as a Featured Article, not as a Featured List.
- Format is key to determining whether an article is a "list article". -- Quiddity (talk) 02:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- Forgive me for being so ponderous, but there is a lot a mud being thrown at me, whilst at the same time there is no acknowledgement that what I am trying to explain to you about lists is either embedded in existing policies and guidelines, in third party sources (e.g. Set theory) or is just plain common sense. If we are to work towards a shared understanding of this issue, we need to acknowledgement that there is merit in each editors viewpoint.
- In answer to WhatamIdoing, of course editors have the discretion to create or delete articles, but there is no denying that a reliable source is needed to tell us what the article is about, for going back to WP:BURDEN which says "f no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." I think you will agree that this applies to lists as well.
- In answer to Mike, you are wrong about The Clements Checklist of Birds of the World and Who's Who in Australia: these are definitely articles about books. The fact that the books might contain lists suggests that they could be used a source for compiling lists, but the absence of a list in the article means that we can say they are definitely not list articles. Even though the books themselves contain lists or are about lists, these articles are about the books as publications. They are no different in this regard from, say, Encyclopaedia Britannica, whose content is effectively organised into a list or series of lists, but the subject of the article is the publication.
- In answer to Quiddity, to some extent format matters in the sense that a list is always going to be a tabulated column of elements, even if it is only one rather than multiple columns - all of the this is explained in WP:LIST and WP:SAL. The article on the Periodic table is very definitely about a list (arguably the most important list in history), but whether you want to categorise it a list or a non-list makes no difference to how we treat its content and its topic: they are both governed by Wikipedia's content policies and inclusion guidelines. Format is not relevant in the sense that, even if the prose exceeds the list by a multiple of say 100x, the focus of all that prose is still the list itself, its definition, history, development, and the commentary about its significance. To some extent, the Periodic table is knockout proof that list topics should not be treated any differently from topics that are not formatted in list form, and is also proof that the topic of a list article is the list, not how its elements are categorised.
- Stepping back from the detail a moment, I can see that there is a reluctance to recognise that a list is just one way to organise content around a topic, but that does not mean that the subject matter (the topic) or the content should be treated differently from any other article. Barebone lists contain very little in the way of content that can be used to define their subject matter, and some editors have seen this lack of content as reason to treat lists as if they are not bound by content policy or notability guidelines. If we can agree to dismiss this line of thinking, then I think we will find there is a way forward to reconcile our views. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- Forgive me for being so ponderous, but there is a lot a mud being thrown at me, whilst at the same time there is no acknowledgement that what I am trying to explain to you about lists is either embedded in existing policies and guidelines, in third party sources (e.g. Set theory) or is just plain common sense. If we are to work towards a shared understanding of this issue, we need to acknowledgement that there is merit in each editors viewpoint.
- Wow - I have not read all the above, I will later, but Gavin, you said: "I think you need to recognise that Nixon's Enemies List is a bona fide list article" - This is the CORE of this endless debate it seems to me. That article is not (to my and other's minds) a list article. So I posit a working definition: A list article is an article in which the primary content is a list compiled by wikipedia editors. To avoid a possible argument about OR, I mean this in the same sense that a non-list article is similarly compiled by wikipedia editors. ‒ Jaymax✍ 08:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- I see where you are coming from, but I suspect your working definiton does not apply in every case. For argument sake, lets set the scene and say a list has four components:
- a title;
- a defintion;
- the list itself;
- additional coverage, such as commentary, criticism and/or analysis.
- In the scenario which I think Jaymax has in mind when he wrote his working definiton relates to a barebone list, in which the defintion and commentary are minor components of the article. In this scenario, the list makes up the bulk of the article's content. I think this is what Jaymax had in mind when he says that a list is an article in which the "primary" content is a list.
- However, conisder this scenario: as the depth of coverage increases, then:
- the volume of content contained in the commentary section may, over time, exceed that volume of content contained in the original list;
- as the article develops, the article changes from being a barebone list to something more substantial;
- despite that fact that the article is now "primarily" made up of commentary, the subject matter has not changed: its subject matter is still the list.
- These are characteristics of lists that make it to FA status; they contain more commentary than a barebone list, but they are still list articles. A good example of this scenario List of Smithsonian museums, where the volume of commentary exceeds the volume of the list itself.
- So my response to Jaymax is to consider the followsing: it makes no difference whether the list is the "primary" content; the fact that other components of the list article are less than than or greatly exceeed the size of the list makes no difference to whether or not an article is a list article. I think Jaymax would recognise that commentary is important, and regardless of whether a list is the subject of a small volume of commentary, or even large volume of commentary (such as the Periodic table), that does not mean that its nature has changed in any way - the article is still about the list, and the topic of that list is provided by its defintion. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- I see where you are coming from, but I suspect your working definiton does not apply in every case. For argument sake, lets set the scene and say a list has four components:
- (edit conflict)
- Okay - for clarity, when I say compiled I do not in any sense mean replicating a list that is sourced (or potentially, a subset thereof - but I'd have to think about that more.
- It seems from the debate above that existing definitions of list in guidelines etc may not distinguish between lists that are compiled by editors, and those that are extracted from a singular master source. This (to my mind, and if true) is daft - there is blatant qualitative distinction, and it's hard to see how how any guideline could serve the encyclopaedia well without recognising the distinction. ‒ Jaymax✍ 09:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- I do see the distinction and I think this is the difficulty lies when it comes to reaching a shared view about list inclusion criteria given these two conflicting perspectives:
- I would argue that the qualative disctinction can be negative, i.e. lists that are compliled by editors without reference to a master source are effectively original (primary) research. Of course this cannont be proved, and herein lies the locus of the dispute, as whether or not a list has been madeup is a matter of opinion, not fact, and there are quite a variety of opinions on this issue.
- The alternative viewpoint, as I understand it, is more positive: that list compiled by editors is useful, e.g. homemade lists can be useful for navigation.
- In some ways I can undertand why navigational list are useful (see the more about this in the detauled discussion at WT:NOT#Linkfarm), but my reservations about primary (original) research lead me to disagree with this premise. To avoid WP:NOT#OR, I think there should be clear distinction between navigation pages (WP:CATEGORY) and mainspace content pages, in which case navigational lists have no rationale for inclusion. What ever view you have, I think you will see that this issue is yet another bone of contention, because a list can have a dual role (being both content and a navigational aid) and which takes priority is, again, a matter of opinon, not fact. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- I do see the distinction and I think this is the difficulty lies when it comes to reaching a shared view about list inclusion criteria given these two conflicting perspectives:
- (edit conflict)
- Gavin, I said in my bit at the top of this section that I thought guidelines for lists should (mostly) apply regardless of whether it is a list article or an embedded list. But a large part of this debate surrounds notability - what has the right to be an article. In the case of the Smithsonian Museums article, I would comfortably say that "Smithsonian Museums" would be at least an equally appropriate title, and I don't see it as a list article per se, because the primary content is not the list - it may have been once. The case of a list article gaining extra content until it is no longer a list article, is somewhat comparable to the case where a list in an article becomes so expansive that it is forked off into it's own list article. ‒ Jaymax✍ 10:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- I would disagree with you, becasue the scope of the topic "Smithsonian Museums" is already covered by the article Smithsonian Institution, which is the umbrella organisation (or over arching category) which the museums fall under. In my view, the list is a notable list topic in its own right, and as you can see from Smithsonian Institution#Smithsonian museums, the list is treated as sub-topic as you suggest. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- Gavin, I said in my bit at the top of this section that I thought guidelines for lists should (mostly) apply regardless of whether it is a list article or an embedded list. But a large part of this debate surrounds notability - what has the right to be an article. In the case of the Smithsonian Museums article, I would comfortably say that "Smithsonian Museums" would be at least an equally appropriate title, and I don't see it as a list article per se, because the primary content is not the list - it may have been once. The case of a list article gaining extra content until it is no longer a list article, is somewhat comparable to the case where a list in an article becomes so expansive that it is forked off into it's own list article. ‒ Jaymax✍ 10:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) the third - I'm gonna quit for a bit now.
- Gavin, replying to your subsequent comment, I'm going to paraphrase you somewhat liberally to hopefully make a point clear:
- articles that are compliled by editors without reference to a single master source are effectively original (primary) research. Of course this cannont be proved, and herein lies the locus of the dispute, as whether or not an article has been madeup is a matter of opinion, not fact, and there are quite a variety of opinions on this issue.
- The alternative viewpoint, as I understand it, is more positive: that articles compiled by editors are useful, e.g. homemade articles can be useful for an encyclopaedia.
- I am convinced that the correct analogy (broadly) is to compare a singular list item is to a single fact (or para or aspect) in an article, and that it doesn't make sense to view the entire list in the context you present. (again, I'm focussed on editor compiled lists here; and in no way limiting that just to navigation lists) ‒ Jaymax✍ 10:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- The problem with this analogy is that it conflicts with generally accepted Set theory, which I believe you would have been taught when you first entered secondary school. If a list can be likened to a mathematical set, then a list is an topic in its own right, i.e. it is more than just the sum of its singular list items. Like sets, the subject of list is determined by its defintion that determines which items are included in it. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- Gavin, replying to your subsequent comment, I'm going to paraphrase you somewhat liberally to hopefully make a point clear: