Gavin.collins (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 437: | Line 437: | ||
:::::::: List Topics should demonstrate notability, ie. Ernest Hemingway should be notable. List inclusion criteria should be discriminate: ie. Books or major works by Ernest Hemingway. List entries need to be verifiable against inclusion criteria. List entries are not burdened with individual notability unless that is explicit in the inclusion criteria. There is no blanket application of notability to content, only topics. Content has to be verifiable, not notable. Gavin's assertion of OR in the context of bibliopgraphies is absolutely inconsistent with encyclopedic practice!--[[User:Mike Cline|Mike Cline]] ([[User talk:Mike Cline|talk]]) 14:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC) |
:::::::: List Topics should demonstrate notability, ie. Ernest Hemingway should be notable. List inclusion criteria should be discriminate: ie. Books or major works by Ernest Hemingway. List entries need to be verifiable against inclusion criteria. List entries are not burdened with individual notability unless that is explicit in the inclusion criteria. There is no blanket application of notability to content, only topics. Content has to be verifiable, not notable. Gavin's assertion of OR in the context of bibliopgraphies is absolutely inconsistent with encyclopedic practice!--[[User:Mike Cline|Mike Cline]] ([[User talk:Mike Cline|talk]]) 14:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC) |
||
::::::::Gavin, you're good at repeating yourself but bad at advancing your arguments or actually responding to the points people have made and the questions they have raised. I hope it's at least clear to you that your interpretations of these policies and guidelines is a minority one, though you try to phrase them as abstract fact. You also keep sliding between complaining about a hypothetical list not satisfying GNG and being OR, clearly not the same things, and this among other things has made it impossible to keep a discussion with you focused. This is really becoming tendentious on your part. You're not convincing anyone and you're not saying anything new, despite the various ways we have tried to address your comments and explain our own. So I think continuing this with you is a waste of time; I urge everyone else to move on as well. '''[[User:Postdlf|postdlf]]''' (''[[User talk:Postdlf|talk]]'') 15:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC) |
:::::::::Gavin, you're good at repeating yourself but bad at advancing your arguments or actually responding to the points people have made and the questions they have raised. I hope it's at least clear to you that your interpretations of these policies and guidelines is a minority one, though you try to phrase them as abstract fact. You also keep sliding between complaining about a hypothetical list not satisfying GNG and being OR, clearly not the same things, and this among other things has made it impossible to keep a discussion with you focused. This is really becoming tendentious on your part. You're not convincing anyone and you're not saying anything new, despite the various ways we have tried to address your comments and explain our own. So I think continuing this with you is a waste of time; I urge everyone else to move on as well. '''[[User:Postdlf|postdlf]]''' (''[[User talk:Postdlf|talk]]'') 15:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC) |
||
::{{outdent}} |
|||
:I think it is intuative that a list is a source of coverage just like any other source, and pretending that it is OK to make up a source of coverage in the absence of a published source is not going to work. Even if Postdlf wants to ignore this distiction as the minority view, he still has a problem with how to distinguish between lists that are original research, and those that are not. This is an important distinction, for my guess is that ''every single list that has ever been deleted was original research''. |
|||
:For all intents and purposes, a list is no different from any other source of coverage, whereas Masem and Mike's views (which are an exemption from [[WP:NOT#OR]] in all but name) is that "List of Hemingway books featuring bullfights" would qualify for inclusion (as bullfighting is a notable theme in his works), regardless of weight or notability, or even if the list had been published before. --[[User:Gavin.collins|Gavin Collins]] ([[User talk:Gavin.collins#top|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Gavin.collins|contribs)]] 15:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== Summarizing (again) == |
== Summarizing (again) == |
Revision as of 15:12, 13 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✍
- Stefan (Talk)
- Sandman888 (Talk)
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)
- I don't see any reason Mike can't state what he thinks is the outcome or where he thinks things are headed; it's not like he's trying to close the discussion. If I were the closing admin I'd see this "summary" as quite helpful, particularly because people are commenting where Mike has them wrong which clarifies their positions. I am clearer about Gavin's position from this than I might have been from merely reading the !votes and comments on the project page.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 17:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- Should position A be written into WP:SAL? Sandman888 (talk) 09:40, 7 September 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)
- The problem is, if a list does not have any evidence that it is notable, then there is no verifiable evidence that is encyclopaedic in any way. Baring in mind that lists are little more than bare bone articles, one would have to question why an encyclopaedia needs so many of them if a few sentences of commentary will do a better job. Lists for lists sake is not the way forward, and the List of Masonic buildings: since it has not been published outside of Wikipedia, one can only guess what rationale there is for creating in Wikipedia. Maybe the creators of such a list are seeking academic recognition for their work? Who knows! At least with notability, you know where you stand. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 00:05, 7 September 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)
- FWIW - I majored in pure math, and while you're right in essence, the analogy you try to draw from that is fallacious. Article content is likewise a set. If we titled all our articles 'Article about X' it would be apparent that the distinction you are trying to draw does not really exist. We don't so title non-list articles, because to do so would be linguistically dumb. ‒ Jaymax✍ 12:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- I suppose a mathemation could extend set theory to non-list articles too, except it would not be as clear what the equivalent of a singular list item in a non-list article. The analogy is good in the sense that it serves to identify the defintion of list to be the list topic. Looking at all the other ways a list topic can be defined, they seem to imply the defintion does not need to be sourced in anyway, which raises my suspicion as to their validity. I don't think there is any other way to define how a list topic is compiled, or to identify what makes two simialr lists different, I think the analogy that a list is a simple example of a set is good for now. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- FWIW - I majored in pure math, and while you're right in essence, the analogy you try to draw from that is fallacious. Article content is likewise a set. If we titled all our articles 'Article about X' it would be apparent that the distinction you are trying to draw does not really exist. We don't so title non-list articles, because to do so would be linguistically dumb. ‒ Jaymax✍ 12:15, 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:
The continued references to mathematical Set theory are not useful in this discussion. As interesting as it might be as an analogy in a list related discussion, it is absolutely irrelevant to any change the WP list related guidelines. Our current practice is based on the consensus that list style articles are indeed encyclopedic and those guidelines have resulted in 1000s of good lists that meet those guidelines and remain in the encyclopedia by consensus of the community. None of that consensus nor our guidelines relative to lists has anything do with Set theory. I trust we don't go a path of policy development based on mathematical or any other theoretical construct. This is an encyclopedia. Our guidelines need to encourage and support the creation and improvement of good encyclopedic content regardless of the format it takes.--Mike Cline (talk) 20:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- I totally agree - it's of academic interest to a math geek, but is not useful. All I can say in response to Gavin's "definition does not need to be sourced in anyway, which raises my suspicion as to their validity." is that for any article, the scope of the article is not sourced, only the topic. An article is "Collection of info about X", where X is the topic. All a list article is, is a constriction of 'info about X' to where the 'info' is of subtype 'instance of'. ‒ Jaymax✍ 22:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- I agree entirely, becasue this restriction is what makes a list topic distinctive in its own right. I think set theory is a useful analogy in this regard, wheras what is a "good" or "bad" list is just a matter of (unsububstantiated) opinion. I think it is convenient to presume that list topics do not have a definition, yet such a definition is required by WP:Source list. This is not a new concept by any means; it is just one that some editors would like to brush it under the carpet because they would rather not have to go to the effort of finding a reliable source to provide evidence of notability.
- Standing back from our discussions for a moment, you would think that list are the centre of the earth when it comes to encyclopaedic articles. But I think their importance is highly over rated, in the sense that a few sentences from a reliable secondary source is as good as or much better than a list that provides no context to the reader. If list topics are so useful or valuable as has been claimed, then I don't understand why there is such strong resistance to sourcing article topics. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 23:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- Gavin, I re-read WP:Source list. Firstly, your comment wanders from the need for a definition, to reliable source, to notability. It is not clear to me what exactly you are saying. I cannot see where the MoS section you linked comes anywhere close to stating that a definition of the list is required other than "discussed on the talk page in order to attain consensus". It states list items must be sourced (just like all content). Indeed, the title at that link is listed items.
- As for the importance of lists - it is only, perhaps, because you are determined that the definition be RS (and perhaps N) [despite, I would say, both consensus otherwise, and strong logical argument that doing so would cause lists to be treated differently to regular articles] - that this has become so major.
- I do think list guidelines etc are due some tweaking to make things clearer and easier - but I am of the opinion that it is what you are striving for that would require a significant change to existing policy. ‒ Jaymax✍ 00:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think your reading of the guideline is too restrictive. If a list has to contain a definition, then that is list content as well, and that too has to be sourced. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 05:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- Um, no - list definition != list content, emphatically so when the section heading is list items. The guideline section you linked is quite clear, and does not come anywhere near saying what you are suggesting. ‒ Jaymax✍ 06:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- Let me quote it to you, just to be clear: Lists, whether they are embedded lists or stand-alone lists, are encyclopedic content as are paragraphs and articles, and they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies such as Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view, and others. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 06:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yah, I read it. It's talking about list items. Taking stuff out of context doesn't help you demonstrate that your argument holds up - rather the reverse. ‒ Jaymax✍ 06:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- Moving this here from project page 'cos doesn't belong there, and doesn't deserve a new section or anything...
- I just went through Wikipedia:NOTINHERITED a few times, because I see Gavin relying on it often. I want to point out that, as worded, it doesn't really apply to this debate at all. It deals with whether notability of X falls through to AN INSTANCE of X, or ACROSS distinct instances of X, whereas what we are discussing here is whether notability of X applies to a list (complete, or of discriminated examples) of instances of X, which is quite different. ‒ Jaymax✍ 07:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Moving this here from project page 'cos doesn't belong there, and doesn't deserve a new section or anything...
- Yah, I read it. It's talking about list items. Taking stuff out of context doesn't help you demonstrate that your argument holds up - rather the reverse. ‒ Jaymax✍ 06:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- Let me quote it to you, just to be clear: Lists, whether they are embedded lists or stand-alone lists, are encyclopedic content as are paragraphs and articles, and they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies such as Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view, and others. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 06:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- Um, no - list definition != list content, emphatically so when the section heading is list items. The guideline section you linked is quite clear, and does not come anywhere near saying what you are suggesting. ‒ Jaymax✍ 06:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think your reading of the guideline is too restrictive. If a list has to contain a definition, then that is list content as well, and that too has to be sourced. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 05:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- To be fair, there are some lists which both are notable as lists, and where the list makes up such a significant amount of the article that it could be considered a list article, List of air carriers banned in the European Union is an example. However, these are the exception rather than the rule. On the other hand, an article can be about a list without containing the list, and that would not be a list article. An example is one of my articles: Register for Governmental Approval of Financial Obligations where the frequent updates made to the registry made me prefer to just link to the external (official) website for it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- Exactly. Wikipedia is not simply a mirror site for lists. There has to be some evidence of notability. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 23:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Side discussion
I think a fair question to ask at this point is if there is anyone else that agrees with Gavin's position that may be reading this? Right now, Gavin's view seems like an extreme minority position, and if we are spending all this time to try to satisfy one view when consensus is somewhere far away, something is very wrong here. If there are more people that are interpreting list articles in the same way Gavin is, then yes, we need to work on that more so that we can find that consensus. However, I am just not seeing that being the case right now. --MASEM (t) 13:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- That is not a fair question, it is simply an Ad hominem circumstantial attack and is out of order. The subject of this discussion is Jaymax's proposal, but if you want to launch personal attacks against me, please direct them to me at my talk page. Consider this a warning. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- It is a completely fair question: if you're the solitary standout against Jaymax's proposal (which seems everyone else is cool with to build consensus on), and you're demanding we bring the consensus to you, that's improper consensus-building and tedentious editing, and we need to move on so we can all get back to editing the actual work. But if there are others that agree with your position, but having spoken up yet, then we need their input to know that we need to find a way to reconcile these positions. --MASEM (t) 13:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- Consider this a second warning Masem. The discussion is not about me in fairness. We can discuss this point at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts if you continue to attack me personally. Please take this to my talk page or cease as a matter of courtesy. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think everyone needs to calm down. Masem said IF you're the solitary standout, you would be in a minority position. If you're not, you're not. So let's see if anyone speaks up. Consensus is not the same as unanimity and sometimes we have to move on despite one person's viewpoint. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- Consider this a second warning Masem. The discussion is not about me in fairness. We can discuss this point at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts if you continue to attack me personally. Please take this to my talk page or cease as a matter of courtesy. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- I have to ask Masem to clarify what he means by "Gavin's position"?... Gavin has taken positions on a number of issues discussed on this page, some of which I agree with, and some of which I disagree with. Blueboar (talk) 22:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- It is a completely fair question: if you're the solitary standout against Jaymax's proposal (which seems everyone else is cool with to build consensus on), and you're demanding we bring the consensus to you, that's improper consensus-building and tedentious editing, and we need to move on so we can all get back to editing the actual work. But if there are others that agree with your position, but having spoken up yet, then we need their input to know that we need to find a way to reconcile these positions. --MASEM (t) 13:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Examples of implementation
I'm not aware of the practical implications of policy discussions, but this is something that's been discussed before. On the AfD of this list, there where general agreement that the topic was non-notable, but the list nevertheless should be kept. Should that then be deleted according to the new consensus? Sandman888 (talk) 08:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how I would have voted before this debate, but after thinking about lists a lot of late, I would have def voted delete, because the topic X is not notable. The content rightly belongs in the List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation article - and the correct article being poorly formatted should never be an excuse to retain. Thanks for presenting this case - it raised some interesting thoughts. ‒ Jaymax✍ 10:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
List length and WP:SIZE
Cut'n'paste from discussion at, Wikipedia talk:Notability.
- Intriguingly (well to me, anyway) WP:SIZE and WP:SPLIT is the one area where I can see some sense in real special handling for lists - Take for example List of Nobel laureates. This list would be improved (better for the encyclopaedia) with the addition of a short summary and perhaps even a pic for each laureate. However, that could well push it over a reasonable size limit. The notability of the topic is clear, the value of the list is clear, the encyclopaedic improvement from additional content and context for each entry is clear - but perhaps the list would then require splitting into different articles on an arbitrary basis (by year? by discipline? by surname?). It would be a wrong to force notable, lengthy and useful lists to be less encyclopaedic due to mechanical size constraints. ‒ Jaymax✍ 18:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
The point being that if List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation was formatted per List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Princeton University it would almost certainly go well over size, even though it would be better for the encyclopaedia - which would force arbitrary breaks (affiliations A-F, G-O, P-Z or whatever). Now compare that with an in-article list (non-list-article), that is a good, useful, encyclopaedic list, that grows to the point where it pushes the article over length. It makes sense to fork out the list into a new article, for purely technical reasons. So while the technical (and usability) constraints of WP:SIZE add value to a 'prose-based' article - forcing (eg) careful consideration of which significant sub-topic is the most notable so it can be spun out, or (via consensus) where there might be unnecessary bulk of little encyclopaedic value in an article; the same cannot readily be applied to lists. If the consensus has determined what makes for good encyclopaedic content (items, and item data eg: narrative, photos) in a list, and the list gets to big - then what?
Of course, if a list "list of X" is a valid article if the topic X is notable (per consensus I think), then the issue goes away - but there is scope for us to explicitly recognise that in WP:SIZE (in currently acknowledges "Two exceptions are lists and articles summarizing certain fields." but that is not quite the same as acknowledging that "prose facts about X" and "list of instances of X" might well belong in separate articles for size reasons, or that "list of instances of X" might itself need multiple articles to do the encyclopaedia justice. ‒ Jaymax✍ 07:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
{note to MediaWiki devs - dynamically user sortable and groupable giant tables when you can; thanks} ‒ Jaymax✍ 07:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- One solution that I know has been done is what we did at 2010 in downloadable songs for the Rock Band series (and yes, this has been through an AFD wringer too, to demonstrate the appropriateness of the list); note there are 3 other similar lists for 2007-2009. There is also Complete list of downloadable songs for the Rock Band series, which includes all 4 lists through transclusion and clearly is far beyond SIZE (and generally warned indirectly to the reader that it will be large to avoid "OMG ITS HUGE" comments. We chose a format that captured the basic details for each song (possible a problem with the Princeton Nobel alum list), and then set a default sort and list break criteria on the same metric, that being the year of release. In the Nobel case, I would certainly say that default-sort by year and splitting by year by quarter centuries would allow for a format like the Princeton version to be used.
- But another comment there: I see at least three different ways the Nobels are presented. A short list that just gives years and names across all 5 awards (List of Nobel laureates); a version similar to the Princeton one but specific for each award (List of Nobel laureates in Chemistry) but then you have all these other weird cross-categorizations, like List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation, List of Nobel laureates by country List of Nobel laureates by country per capita, etc. At some point this is excessive list making just because the list can be made, as most of these can be evaluated if there was a master list with all the details on it ala the Princton format. (it would also eliminate the need for the Princeton list as a separate article as long as sortable tables were used). You would still have a very large list and would need sublists and transclusion to make it work effectively for some readers, but its very possible to do it. --MASEM (t) 13:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- I like the tenor of Masem's point above in this regard. Indeed, complex subjects with lots of relevant elements do lend themselves to all sorts of lists that slice and dice the subject. Purely from a practical, usefulness measure, lists about Nobel laureates make perfect sense when organized by field, by university, and by county. If I were a high school or college student researching something about the Nobel Prize, these breakdowns might be very useful. The last list mentioned--List of Nobel laureates by country per capita begins to stretch on the basis of practicality (for the most part, because the prime discriminator--population is so volatile.) Indeed all the elements in these lists could be combined in a sortable list that would allow the reader to selected the relevant relationship elements they need. Yes, today WP:SIZE is still a constraint. What I really like about Masem's comments is this. He's not talking about these lists as good or bad, but instead is talking about ways that we can improve WP content. All the content in these lists is good content, we just need to find more creative ways to encourage the compilation of this good content into better articles and lists. What isn't required, and should be discouraged, are guideline and policy efforts that discourage that creativity and inclusion of good content for the sake of preventing (something that rarely happens anyway) the occasional flawed list or poor content. Our policies should encourage good content and good articles, while maintaining the minimum necessary mechanisms necessary to cleanup the marginal stuff.--Mike Cline (talk) 14:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- I see WP:SIZE as connected to the notability guideline and the guideline on summary style. Wikipedia is not paper, but there's only so many kilobytes and articles you can have before you screw up the noise-to-signal ratio. You have to prioritize. And if you spin something out or divide an article into two, you have to prove that it's notable in order to justify having more coverage. Otherwise you're adding to the noise instead of the signal. There's no absolute limit to the number of articles or lists we can have, but there is a limit in terms of quality. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- The way I see WP:N, WP:SS, and WP:SIZE is to imagine that WP is capable of being an infinitely large book allowing for articles to grow to as many pages as needed to be comprehensive. It is still trying to be a reference book, so signal-to-noise is very important; thus we would still only have topics that are notable, and a notable topic cannot be filled with minutae like trivial pop culture references. What is "comprehensive" does need to be a consensus-based discussion as otherwise you make walled gardens (as we had in the past with fiction, and likely how we have now with many topics on mathematics). But the point is this - as long as a list or table would be considered part of a comprehensive article of any size in a printed reference work, there is zero reason why it should be exclude from Wikipedia the electronic version. Furthermore, it is necessary to understand the electronic version will have things that can't be done easily in print; thus the need to understand where SIZE, SS, and Notability need to overlap and interact. Same is true with large lists; within a printed version it's easy to cross-categorize the large list, but not the same w/in the electronic version. So we have to come to some means to implement such lists to make them appropriate reference sources without diluting the information. So a question to always ask would be "how would this be done in print" or even "would this be done in print"?, leading to question why we have a list of Nobel Laureates by capita - I cannot see that being part of a Nobel article in a printed work. --MASEM (t) 16:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- I don't have much to add that I didn't already say. But I also see a relationship between WP:SIZE and WP:IINFO. A discriminate list would probably fit within 100kb. Many (but not all) lists that are more than that are likely something inherently unmanageable like list of virgins. (Although even list of Japanese virgins would be an issue.) Shooterwalker (talk) 22:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'm certainly not trying to discount our avoidance of being indiscriminate. Would you expect "List of virgins" to appear in any printed reference work? That's an easy first pass to say if we're just including a list just because we can. (that is why, in part, notability does come into play in this evaluation - if there's no aspect of the list that is notable - the list itself, its definition, its main topic, or any of its entries) why are we including it? --MASEM (t) 23:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- I don't understand why you are ignoring WP:AVOIDSPLIT. You just can't dump a load of non-notable stuff in a list. Instead it should be summarised. After all Wikipedia is not a list of everything that existed or exists. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 23:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Please tell me exactly what language of this: Editors are cautioned to not immediately split articles if the new article would meet neither the general notability criterion nor the specific notability criteria for their topic. Instead, editors are encouraged to work on further developing the main article first, locating coverage that applies both to the main topic and the subtopic. Through this process, it may become evident that subtopics or groups of subtopics can demonstrate their own notability and help justifying splitting off into their own article. If information can be trimmed, merged, or removed, these steps should be undertaken first before the new article is created. bars the creation of non-notable list articles that would otherwise be included in a larger article if SIZE was not a problem. "AVOIDSPLIT" does not say "Never split", it says "avoid splitting without trying other options". --MASEM (t) 00:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, a guideline that explicitly puts the burden on the splitter to improve the main article would be welcomed. The lists of "list of nobel laureates X" has become something of a joke, but any of the sub-list are surprisingly resistant to deletion. Should that be added/made more clear at NOTSPLIT? Sandman888 (talk) 09:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- Please tell me exactly what language of this: Editors are cautioned to not immediately split articles if the new article would meet neither the general notability criterion nor the specific notability criteria for their topic. Instead, editors are encouraged to work on further developing the main article first, locating coverage that applies both to the main topic and the subtopic. Through this process, it may become evident that subtopics or groups of subtopics can demonstrate their own notability and help justifying splitting off into their own article. If information can be trimmed, merged, or removed, these steps should be undertaken first before the new article is created. bars the creation of non-notable list articles that would otherwise be included in a larger article if SIZE was not a problem. "AVOIDSPLIT" does not say "Never split", it says "avoid splitting without trying other options". --MASEM (t) 00:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- I don't understand why you are ignoring WP:AVOIDSPLIT. You just can't dump a load of non-notable stuff in a list. Instead it should be summarised. After all Wikipedia is not a list of everything that existed or exists. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 23:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'm certainly not trying to discount our avoidance of being indiscriminate. Would you expect "List of virgins" to appear in any printed reference work? That's an easy first pass to say if we're just including a list just because we can. (that is why, in part, notability does come into play in this evaluation - if there's no aspect of the list that is notable - the list itself, its definition, its main topic, or any of its entries) why are we including it? --MASEM (t) 23:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- I don't have much to add that I didn't already say. But I also see a relationship between WP:SIZE and WP:IINFO. A discriminate list would probably fit within 100kb. Many (but not all) lists that are more than that are likely something inherently unmanageable like list of virgins. (Although even list of Japanese virgins would be an issue.) Shooterwalker (talk) 22:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- The way I see WP:N, WP:SS, and WP:SIZE is to imagine that WP is capable of being an infinitely large book allowing for articles to grow to as many pages as needed to be comprehensive. It is still trying to be a reference book, so signal-to-noise is very important; thus we would still only have topics that are notable, and a notable topic cannot be filled with minutae like trivial pop culture references. What is "comprehensive" does need to be a consensus-based discussion as otherwise you make walled gardens (as we had in the past with fiction, and likely how we have now with many topics on mathematics). But the point is this - as long as a list or table would be considered part of a comprehensive article of any size in a printed reference work, there is zero reason why it should be exclude from Wikipedia the electronic version. Furthermore, it is necessary to understand the electronic version will have things that can't be done easily in print; thus the need to understand where SIZE, SS, and Notability need to overlap and interact. Same is true with large lists; within a printed version it's easy to cross-categorize the large list, but not the same w/in the electronic version. So we have to come to some means to implement such lists to make them appropriate reference sources without diluting the information. So a question to always ask would be "how would this be done in print" or even "would this be done in print"?, leading to question why we have a list of Nobel Laureates by capita - I cannot see that being part of a Nobel article in a printed work. --MASEM (t) 16:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- I see WP:SIZE as connected to the notability guideline and the guideline on summary style. Wikipedia is not paper, but there's only so many kilobytes and articles you can have before you screw up the noise-to-signal ratio. You have to prioritize. And if you spin something out or divide an article into two, you have to prove that it's notable in order to justify having more coverage. Otherwise you're adding to the noise instead of the signal. There's no absolute limit to the number of articles or lists we can have, but there is a limit in terms of quality. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Summarising the discussion
Is it about time to close this discussion? I think an uninvolved admin should be able to look through the main page and draw out some principles, even if there are outstanding issues that have no consensus. Then we can discuss a next step. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think that the most contributors to the RFC believe that the inclusion of lists is a matter of editorial discretion & judgement:
- Based on the premise that editors should decide which lists are useful to the reader;
- Editors know when comprehensive coverage of a general topic at detailed level is needed;
- Readers need navigational lists, list summaries (outlines) and lists of lists;
- Lists with a clear focus and a defined scope are needed by the reader.
- Although these views are entirely reasonable, it is difficult to reconcile the idea that editors should have greater discretion over creating lists articles than non-list articles, given the prohibition on original (primary) research. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Given that notability on Wikipedia itself is a form of original research (we don't seek sources that assert the statement that "X is notable", but instead that there are sources that describe X in-depth, and the original research coming from when we consider there to be enough sources to claim that), it is difficult to see the problem here. Editor must engage in a minimal amount of original research in assembling articles and content, and that's the application being used here. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- I understand what you are saying Masem... but I have to disagree with how you say it... establishing notability is a form of research, yes ... but it is not Original research as Wikipedia uses that phrase. Blueboar (talk) 17:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- But neither is saying "these elements form a list that is part of a notable topic". That is, there is WP:OR that applies strictly to content to prevent people from inserting their own questionable expertize, and then there is "original research" that is necessary for collecting sources and grouping information into cohesive topics and information; all of our policies and guidelines for building the encyclopedia are this type of acceptable original research. The point is this: what Gavin is trying to assert above - that it is "original research" on assembling a list article where "List of X" itself is not a notable topic - doesn't jive with how WP:OR is used normally. --MASEM (t) 21:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- "Original research" refers to facts and statements which are unsupported by sourcing, not the way we choose to write articles. Apart from direct quotations, everything on Wikipedia is original whether they are prose articles or lists; that is a requirement to avoid running afoul of copyright law. These original articles should be well-founded in sourcing, so that the article's content can be verified. An original article based on research is not the same as original research. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- But neither is saying "these elements form a list that is part of a notable topic". That is, there is WP:OR that applies strictly to content to prevent people from inserting their own questionable expertize, and then there is "original research" that is necessary for collecting sources and grouping information into cohesive topics and information; all of our policies and guidelines for building the encyclopedia are this type of acceptable original research. The point is this: what Gavin is trying to assert above - that it is "original research" on assembling a list article where "List of X" itself is not a notable topic - doesn't jive with how WP:OR is used normally. --MASEM (t) 21:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- I understand what you are saying Masem... but I have to disagree with how you say it... establishing notability is a form of research, yes ... but it is not Original research as Wikipedia uses that phrase. Blueboar (talk) 17:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for acknowledging that consensus is somewhere looser than your preferred position. I know it's looser than mine too. But I don't think that people are arguing to make it totally discretionary. There's a lot of consensus to avoid totally original topics for lists like "list of fictional characters with the name john". I really do think we should get an independent admin to close the discussion rather than arguing about what the consensus is. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think a more correct statement is that the consensus in the RFC is looser than is permitted by Wikipedia core content policies. For this reason, I don't believe that list inclusion based on what editors think are useful to the reader is a feasible proposition within the context of Wikipedia's existing framework of policies and guidelines.
- The problem as I see it is that if a list has not been published, then it is not verfiable. Going back to what Blueboar said earlier, the issue being discussed here is the inclusion of list articles in Wikipedia, not the inclusion of individual items within a list. It is difficult to understand how any list that has not been published by a reliable source is in anyway compatible with core content policy. The idea that editors' personal ideas for list topics, editors' interpretations as to what the reader wants, or editorial opinions as to what is useful do not have a place in Wikipedia.
- Regardless of whether Masem thinks an list is or is not original research, it is impossible to prove it is not original research if it has not been published. Herein lies a difficult problem. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- As long as there are reliable sources to show that elements of a list meet its definition (either per element or the list overall), it is far from the type of Original Research that we disallow. As Sjakkalle points out, the choice of a list's definition is not the same type of Original Research as unsupported claims of list membership; and in fact the type of "original research" that we need to engage in in the first place to summarize sources for the work. Of course, the definitions could be poor themselves, involving inappropriate cross-categorizations, overly indiscriminate and broad membership, or overly trivial and excessively narrow membership, but those are problems that other policies/guidelines (specifically WP:NOT) deal with, and not itself an issue with being Original Research. --MASEM (t) 12:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- Pure OR like List of Presidents with facial hair or List of fictional characters who can manipulate fire would still get deleted. There's a middle ground that you're not seeing that appears to have a consensus. But once again, it's best to leave this to an independent admin. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- If you're certain that's "Pure OR", then you might like to take List of United states presidents with facial hair during their tenure to AFD. But you might want to look at sources, like the sources named on the page and others before you incorrectly assert that none exist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- Wow. I'll just leave that one alone. But my overall principle still stands. You can't just make up a set of things with your own criteria. If a third-party has talked about a group of things that all meet some criteria, that's different. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- If you're certain that's "Pure OR", then you might like to take List of United states presidents with facial hair during their tenure to AFD. But you might want to look at sources, like the sources named on the page and others before you incorrectly assert that none exist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- Given that notability on Wikipedia itself is a form of original research (we don't seek sources that assert the statement that "X is notable", but instead that there are sources that describe X in-depth, and the original research coming from when we consider there to be enough sources to claim that), it is difficult to see the problem here. Editor must engage in a minimal amount of original research in assembling articles and content, and that's the application being used here. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think that the most contributors to the RFC believe that the inclusion of lists is a matter of editorial discretion & judgement:
SW – things are a bit slow in this discussion, so here is a question re WP:Madeup. Take notable subject X. There is a robust article on X in WP. There are a great many books written about various aspects of X. There are way too many books to include them all in a further reading section of the article on X. So if an editor created a standalone list article entitled Bibliography of X with clear inclusion criteria that list entries must be books about the subject of X would you consider the list as a WP:Madeup topic if either of these conditions existed:
- No reliable source has ever published or commented on a Bibliography of X as a standalone reference (not a bibliography at the end of a reference).
- Reliable sources on the subject of X or elements of X contain Bibliographies listing books relative to the subject of the source, but not necessarily all inclusive of X.
To rephrase the question another way. When would a Bibliography of X be considered a madeup topic when it contained a list of books clearly related to the otherwise notable subject of X? --Mike Cline (talk) 20:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- This is a tough issue and really getting too specific to be useful at this point. I think this is really more of a question for WP:NOT. The closest thing I can see for that is something like list of songs in Rock Band. It's not a list I'm crazy about. But it's well done and there's enough community practice around it that I'm willing to let it work itself out. I'd feel the same way about creating bibliography articles on Wikipedia -- every guideline tells me it's a bad idea, but if the community practice is a good one, then maybe you can make some sense of it. ... at this point I would prefer to focus on high level issues. Like, do lists have to be notable, and what kinds of stuff would a third-party have to cover. In the long run, we could start to work out specific exceptions or clarifications. But only in the long run. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- Re: the Rock Band list, a few traits pop out to me as relevant to why it's appropriate for Wikipedia. First, Rock Band is indisputably a notable game. We would not suffer a list of songs featured in a non-notable video game. I don't give a whit about the subject matter (I don't play video games at all), but dislike is obviously not relevant. Second, Rock Band is a game that is about playing music; therefore the songs that are played are unquestionably relevant, and integral, to the notable article topic. Third, there is a finite number of songs featured in Rock Band; the list you link to is only for the 58 songs featured on the game disc itself. Fourth, a supermajority of the songs are themselves notable (I presume by the bluelinks), and all but a few are by notable bands. Fifth, whether a song was included on the game disc is verifiable and NPOV, so there is no controversy over a song's inclusion in the list. Not all of those points are necessary in my view for this list to be valid (and some additional arguments for its validity were made in its AFD and a related AFD), but the list's inclusion on Wikipedia should be unquestionable given all of those points together. postdlf (talk) 21:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- Postdlf's statement above - well-stated - is a good reason to make sure we distance ourselves from WP:IDONTLIKEIT-type arguments. We are looking to build soemthing more than a basic encyclopedia, personal dislike or preference for a topic should not come into play as long as the end approach is something that can be held consistent across all topic fields. Hence why the language that seems to be emerging from this RFC seems completely appropriate for most situations. --MASEM (t) 21:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- Re: the Rock Band list, a few traits pop out to me as relevant to why it's appropriate for Wikipedia. First, Rock Band is indisputably a notable game. We would not suffer a list of songs featured in a non-notable video game. I don't give a whit about the subject matter (I don't play video games at all), but dislike is obviously not relevant. Second, Rock Band is a game that is about playing music; therefore the songs that are played are unquestionably relevant, and integral, to the notable article topic. Third, there is a finite number of songs featured in Rock Band; the list you link to is only for the 58 songs featured on the game disc itself. Fourth, a supermajority of the songs are themselves notable (I presume by the bluelinks), and all but a few are by notable bands. Fifth, whether a song was included on the game disc is verifiable and NPOV, so there is no controversy over a song's inclusion in the list. Not all of those points are necessary in my view for this list to be valid (and some additional arguments for its validity were made in its AFD and a related AFD), but the list's inclusion on Wikipedia should be unquestionable given all of those points together. postdlf (talk) 21:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- You said above [bibliographies]]...every guideline tells me it's a bad idea. I interpret that to mean in a broad sense that even of a list topic is notable, there is clear and discriminate inclusion criteria, and list entries can be verified against that criteria, there are still some broad list topics that are unsuitable (and would always be unsuitable) for WP. Where would we spell out that policy? Where would we say A list of people associated with a notable topic is OK, but a list of books about the same topic is not. A list of events associated with a notable topic is OK but a list of organizations related to that topic is not? I think is extremely unproductive to try and legislate against one kind of list and allow others. If the list topic is notable, inclusion criteria is clear and discriminate and entries are verifiable against that discriminate criteria, then it shouldn't matter what the list is about--events, people, books, music, organizations, et. al. and our guidelines should be clear on that.--Mike Cline (talk) 20:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- The only other criteria I would add to Mike's clear points is, "is this list now stand-alone due to SIZE/summary style issues?" to the equation. If its a small list that can fit in a small article, regardless of notability or other facts, it probably should be included in the larger article. --MASEM (t) 20:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- A list of books about X should be uncontroversial if it only includes books that are notable and/or by notable authors, and if it's verifiable and NPOV that X is the subject matter. List of books about Israel should qualify (though appropriate for sublist organization). List of books supporting the Israeli occupation of the West Bank probably not. postdlf (talk) 21:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with you 100% because the list topic: Supporting the Israeli Occupation of the West Bank is POV and probably not notable as a topic in its own right. Whereas a Bibliography of the Israeli Occupation if the West Bank is fine because Israeli Occupation of the West Bank is a notable topic.--Mike Cline (talk) 21:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- I imagine there probably is significant RS coverage of support for the West Bank occupation as a (meta)topic; notability isn't the question there. I would imagine such a list would be more of a problem because of the intractability of determining whether a given book supports or doesn't support something, when given as a binary statement of fact. Such a list would probably become bogged down in POV editing wars regarding the argued position of one author or another. But the subject of a book, regardless of any opinions therein, should be much easier to determine in most instance, and we'd have library classifications at a minimum to guide us. postdlf (talk) 21:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with you 100% because the list topic: Supporting the Israeli Occupation of the West Bank is POV and probably not notable as a topic in its own right. Whereas a Bibliography of the Israeli Occupation if the West Bank is fine because Israeli Occupation of the West Bank is a notable topic.--Mike Cline (talk) 21:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Bibliography of X is original research if it has not been published before. If it has not been published by a reliable source, it is just not reliable. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- How would your opined principle apply to a "further reading" section within an article? Or to an editor's decision that X, Y and Z sources all pertain to article A, and information from those three sources should be used to expand A, and not article B? postdlf (talk) 21:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- Gavin - Please explain if it has not been published before in the context of bibliographies. You've repeated this published before statement a great many times in this discussion. Most scholarly works on subject X contain comprehensive bibliographies. Do those Bibliographies of X meet your been published before standard? Or, does your standard require that someone has published a complete work, entitled: Bibliography of X and clearly defined that bibliography as a list of books about X? An either/or answer is sufficient. --Mike Cline (talk) 21:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- Like I said, it's not going to be a productive discussion to talk about exceptions where we create lists of things that have NOT been covered by third-parties. We need to clarify the overall rule first, and let the exceptions fall into place over time. Why did we get started on this when we're still trying to figure out some basic stuff? Shooterwalker (talk) 22:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- SW - I don't think we are talking about exceptions here. The basic debate is and has always been: does the notability burden fall on List of X or List of X. The above discussion is just a rehash of that in the context of bibliographies. There are four key elements of a standalone list:
- List Title (conveys the contents of the list within the constraints of our naming conventions)
- List topic (bears the burden of notability if such a burden is required by the nature of the list (navigational only list exempted))
- List Inclusion criteria in lead - establishes the criteria to verify for list entries and further establishes the list topic. (No one is contending as I can tell that inclusion criteria should not be discriminate.)
- List entries - individual pieces of content that must be verifiable against the lead's inclusion criteria.
- The only real issue as I see it, is what is the list topic? List of X or List of X. The majority as I see it believes it is X. The only question that remains is what specific changes need to be made (if any) to WP:SAL and/or WP:N to codify that position.--Mike Cline (talk) 22:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- We've probably talked about that to death too. At this point it's a matter of finding someone who will close the discussion. We can open a sequel to this discussion if we want to develop it further. But I'm comfortable codifying whatever we got here, even if it's high level and wishy washy. Further changes can always happen a few months down the line through the WP:BRD process. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- Concur and request made: Here--Mike Cline (talk) 22:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot for trying to move the process forward. I backed you up. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- Concur and request made: Here--Mike Cline (talk) 22:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- We've probably talked about that to death too. At this point it's a matter of finding someone who will close the discussion. We can open a sequel to this discussion if we want to develop it further. But I'm comfortable codifying whatever we got here, even if it's high level and wishy washy. Further changes can always happen a few months down the line through the WP:BRD process. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- SW - I don't think we are talking about exceptions here. The basic debate is and has always been: does the notability burden fall on List of X or List of X. The above discussion is just a rehash of that in the context of bibliographies. There are four key elements of a standalone list:
- In answer to Postdlf, a "further reading" section within an article can be added because Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content. But putting such a list in a separate stand alone article means that it has to meet the notability guideline.
- In the real world, an academic might put together a list of works by an author or composer, e.g. Köchel catalogue. But if a Wikipedian does the same, that is original (primary) research. The point of making this distinction is two fold: the list topic (or the idea for the list) needs to be attributable so someone other than a Wikipeidian, and the content of the list should be taken from a reliable source. If a list does not meet WP:BURDEN, then there is no rationale for inclusion, and its content is not reliable.
- This why many madeup lists like List of Masonic buildings are so problematical. The editors who created it can't agree on what the inclusion criteria are (should it include Masonic hospitals?), as the idea for the list (the list topic) does not come from a reliable source. Nor can they agree on which items should go in the list because its content does not come from a reliable source; instead the editors add items based on categorisation, which is a purely subjective metric for inclusion.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- Neither my question, nor your original comment above, had anything to do with notability. This is only about what constitutes original research and what is "reliable" as you put it, and you haven't addressed my questions other than to restate your opinion.
Lets say I find three separate books at the library, all of which are biographies of Joe Schmoe that would satisfy all reliable source requirements. No single source has ever compiled information from those three books, or ever even listed them together. I then use those three biographies to A) write a single article about Joe Schmoe, and list those three books in a "references" or "bibliography" section within that article; or B) discover that there is already a Joe Schmoe article, and merely add those three books to the "further reading" section rather than use them to expand the article; or C) include the books in a Bibliography of Joe Schmoe or List of books about Joe Schmoe. Please explain why you think A and B are reliable acts and not original research, but C is unreliable and original research. Because I don't understand at all why A, B, and C would involve different kinds of editorial judgment; all involve determining that the books are about the same Joe Schmoe and no more. postdlf (talk) 12:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- Postdlf knows that A and B are usually added to existing article topics (space allowing) in accordance with WP:NNC. Such lists are subject to content policy such as WP:V, so even if they are included in an article, such lists cannot be made up. If we look at a real list article, such Ernest Hemingway bibliography, we can see for ourselves the problems associated with original research: it contains works by Hemingway himself and (unbelievably) film and television adaptations of his works by other authors. The only reliably sourced list (within the list) is the "Posthumous works", is are taken from a reliable source. The underlying presumption is source of the list is verfiable and notable, but alas that is not always the case in practise.
- Can Postdlf give an example of list he has himself compiled? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- Notability is a red herring in this case; the question is, from an original research standpoint, why A, B, and C are different in your mind? The way you are describing what you being is inappropriate original research is what is used in the construction of every wikipedia article as we are creating summaries of topics that have never been published before - which of course is an impossible position to try to compromise with. --MASEM (t) 17:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- Notability is never a red herring; while WP:NNC does not directly limit article content of notable topics, there are other content policies that do. The reliability, size and context provided by the coverage in a list is important in relation to the principle of due weight and other content policies. If the content of a list is not significant, there is no good reason for inclusion within an article. A good example is the List of Heroes characters: its content is not worthy of inclusion within the the Heroes (TV series), because it is primarly original research that goes into needless detail; why Masem believes such a poor list should be included in Wikipedia is highly questionable.
- For standalone lists, notability is highly important. I would suggest to you that Ernest Hemingway bibliography could be a notable list topic, but it has not been fully sourced at this time. In its current state, it is based on original research of sub-standard quality and needs to be improved. This is why notability is so important for lists: content derived from the creative efforts of Wikipedia editors is not a good as content derived from reliable sources, even though we must assume good faith in our editors. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Gavin, I've said it before: I agree that List of Heroes characters is presently a very poorly-written list because it is endlessly detailed. But there is a huge difference between a poorly written list and an improper list for Wikipedia. The former can be fixed; the latter cannot. We should not be letting lists that have writing and other content problems be part of the discussion about the inclusion of lists.
- The question that is still being asked of you that you are side-stepping is this: is there any difference, considering only the original research standpoint, of a bibliography assembled from various sources, placed within the context of an article and the same, placed as a standalone list? Your statements suggest "yes", which is completely counter-intuitive to how we use "original research" (not Original Research) as goo editors and researchers to assemble sources in the most comprehensive manner even if we introduce overarching aspects that were not original spelled out in the sources - standard editing practice. --MASEM (t) 12:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- That was not what I was saying; I was refering to where WP:NNC is relevant. Simply put, if a list is original research, then it should not be placed within an article, nor should it be the subject of its own standalone list article - I think we are all agree on this. Likewise, if a list is not taken from a reliable source, then it should not be given the same weight as coverage from a reliable source in accordance with WP:WEIGHT.
- Where I think where there may be a misunderstanding is to what extent is original research is tolerated as proxy for a reliable source. Going back to the list Ernest Hemingway#Selected list of works, we know this list is unreliable (it has not been sourced and is incomplete), but it is tolerated with the context of this article as a proxy for a list that could be sourced. However, if it was a rubbish list ("List of Hemingway books featuring bullfights"), then it would not be tolerated at all.
- From the persective of WP:NOT#OR, Ernest Hemingway bibliography is more problematical. The author worked as a journalist, so a lot more of his material was published than this list suggests. I put it to you that amateur lists like this might be good by school homeowrk standards, but I think they are barely tolerable elsewhere because they are not taken from a reliable source such as this.
- Once again I put it to you that if you believe lists do not have to verfiable or notable, then you should put forward a proposal to have them exempted from content policy. If you continue to advocate that made up lists comply with content policy, then we will never reach a shared understanding of what the incluison criteria for lists are.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- That arguement is baseless. There is no change in how content should be treated as "original research" between being embedded in a larger article or in its own standalone article. If it is "bad" Original Research that is used to push excessive POV and synthesis, it shouldn't be tolerated period, embedded, standalone, or otherwise. If it is "accepted" original research used to group common aspects of a topic in the act of summarizing and writing about them, then it shouldn't matter how its presented, the only issue becoming a question is if the stand-alone version really needs to be stand-alone (which has nothing to do with original research at all). --MASEM (t) 14:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Notability is a red herring in this case; the question is, from an original research standpoint, why A, B, and C are different in your mind? The way you are describing what you being is inappropriate original research is what is used in the construction of every wikipedia article as we are creating summaries of topics that have never been published before - which of course is an impossible position to try to compromise with. --MASEM (t) 17:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- Neither my question, nor your original comment above, had anything to do with notability. This is only about what constitutes original research and what is "reliable" as you put it, and you haven't addressed my questions other than to restate your opinion.
- List Topics should demonstrate notability, ie. Ernest Hemingway should be notable. List inclusion criteria should be discriminate: ie. Books or major works by Ernest Hemingway. List entries need to be verifiable against inclusion criteria. List entries are not burdened with individual notability unless that is explicit in the inclusion criteria. There is no blanket application of notability to content, only topics. Content has to be verifiable, not notable. Gavin's assertion of OR in the context of bibliopgraphies is absolutely inconsistent with encyclopedic practice!--Mike Cline (talk) 14:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Gavin, you're good at repeating yourself but bad at advancing your arguments or actually responding to the points people have made and the questions they have raised. I hope it's at least clear to you that your interpretations of these policies and guidelines is a minority one, though you try to phrase them as abstract fact. You also keep sliding between complaining about a hypothetical list not satisfying GNG and being OR, clearly not the same things, and this among other things has made it impossible to keep a discussion with you focused. This is really becoming tendentious on your part. You're not convincing anyone and you're not saying anything new, despite the various ways we have tried to address your comments and explain our own. So I think continuing this with you is a waste of time; I urge everyone else to move on as well. postdlf (talk) 15:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- List Topics should demonstrate notability, ie. Ernest Hemingway should be notable. List inclusion criteria should be discriminate: ie. Books or major works by Ernest Hemingway. List entries need to be verifiable against inclusion criteria. List entries are not burdened with individual notability unless that is explicit in the inclusion criteria. There is no blanket application of notability to content, only topics. Content has to be verifiable, not notable. Gavin's assertion of OR in the context of bibliopgraphies is absolutely inconsistent with encyclopedic practice!--Mike Cline (talk) 14:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think it is intuative that a list is a source of coverage just like any other source, and pretending that it is OK to make up a source of coverage in the absence of a published source is not going to work. Even if Postdlf wants to ignore this distiction as the minority view, he still has a problem with how to distinguish between lists that are original research, and those that are not. This is an important distinction, for my guess is that every single list that has ever been deleted was original research.
- For all intents and purposes, a list is no different from any other source of coverage, whereas Masem and Mike's views (which are an exemption from WP:NOT#OR in all but name) is that "List of Hemingway books featuring bullfights" would qualify for inclusion (as bullfighting is a notable theme in his works), regardless of weight or notability, or even if the list had been published before. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Summarizing (again)
May I suggest that we re-boot the summarization. Rehashing where we disagree is not going to move us forward. Let's try to identify the things we do agree on. Blueboar (talk) 13:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with that. :) Shooterwalker (talk) 16:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- I agree as well. So we are agreeing to agree. But what are those points of agreement?
- I agree that List topics (List of X) should be notable. I agree that list inclusion criteria should be discriminate in the context of the list topic. I agree that list entries should be verifiable against the inclusion criteria. I agree that the List Title should convey (within the contraints of our naming conventions) the idea that the list is an enumeration of logical things relative to the list topic X.--Mike Cline (talk) 14:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)