WikiProject Lists | (Rated Project-class) | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Archives |
---|
1 (fair-use images, overhaul of criteria) |
Do you get mad if there is too much "article" and am I allowed to have sections within the "article" part of my FL?
The Article People get angry if there is too much list in an article. Do the List People get mad with too much article? It's definitely more "list" than it is "article". Yet, when I've got 10+ paragraphs, I would like to put sections into the text. I'm worried there will be no home for this little reptile! [1]TCO (talk) 06:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- If your article is mainly prose, it goes to WP:FAC and becomes a featured article. If its main component is a list or if lists make up a great deal of its size, it's sent to WP:FLC to become a featured list. We "list people" will usually just take whatever the "article people" find too "listy". So don't worry. Goodraise 06:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
How short is too short for a star?
three items? TCO (talk) 16:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, that would probably be too short. Is there no other article/list you can merge that into? List of U.S. state mammals, perhaps? Dabomb87 (talk) 20:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
It could go into mammals. You could put dogs into mammals too. Would be a huge article really. That thing is a mess now with how complex the table is (showing subspecialties). I think it's probably fine to leave as a separate article, but just say not star-worthy. TCO (talk) 03:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- I dunno, by my count 11 states have "marine mammals" (depending if you count the likes of CT's state mammal there) and it's not a SAL. What makes bats special? Staxringold talkcontribs 04:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I know of least two separate external "state symbol" sources who break it out that way. You could break out marine mammals. That mammal article is kind of a mess, so I wouldn't say status quo is the argument. Can see different ways to go. Dogs has it's own list, also. TCO (talk) 04:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Difference between a list and an article?
I'm working on our list guidelines - WP:EMBED, WP:STAND and WP:LIST, and tidying them up and making sure they match each other in what they say. Lists are a sequenced number of items which are related to the same topic - these items can be placed in a simple bulleted list, or in a more complex table. When a list appears in an article, we term it an embedded list, when the article is primarily a list (that is, when there is more list than prose), we call it a standalone list. At least that was my understanding. When looking at some Featured Lists to get a feel for what we regard as the best examples of stand-alone lists I noticed a number of FLs that are articles which contain an embedded list, such as U.S. state reptiles, 30 Rock (season 1) (there are a number of these), and Heroic Age of Antarctic Exploration.
How do you folks define a list, and what makes the above examples lists rather than articles with embedded lists? In the FL criteria you link to WP:STANDALONE, by saying "In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists". The first sentence of WP:STANDALONE is "Stand-alone lists are articles that primarily consist of lists of links, data or information." Are these two sentences compatible? In the examples above, are the FL reviewers only examining the list features, or do they assess the whole page? And when do they make a judgement that a page is more of an article than a list, and so is not appropriate for FL - or do reviewers also assess embedded lists, so that FL covers both stand-alone and embedded lists? I note that the above examples are not called "List of ..." or some other common term identifying them as lists so are more likely to be article, which makes me wonder if you folks are by consensus and usage including embedded lists as part of FL, though have not yet got round to formalising that in your criteria. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
- Embedded lists are part of an article. Stand-alone lists are articles containing at least one embedded list (though not all articles containing an embedded list are stand-alone lists). Featured list status can only be awarded to articles, not their components. While there is a clear distinction between articles and disambiguation pages, there is no such distinction between stand-alone lists and normal articles. In practice, we leave it to the reviewers at WP:FAC. What's too "listy" for them, comes to us. Goodraise 14:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
-
- Thanks Goodraise. Are you saying that as long as an article contains a list you will review it as a FL? What about this "not all articles containing an embedded list are stand-alone lists"? At what point, for you, would an article containing an embedded list not qualify as a stand-alone list? SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
-
-
- You're asking me to draw a line between sandy water and wet sand. Well, let me try. I'd say an article containing only one embedded list should only be considered a stand-alone list if that embedded list is the focus of the article's attention. We have a featured list called List of French monarchs. I can also picture an article containing less detailed tables but with more explanatory text. Perhaps a section on the history of the title, a section explaining what distinguishes the French monarchs from those of other countries, and so forth. I'd place such an article at Monarchs of France instead. And I can also picture a third article dealing primarily with the title of King of France or Queen of France, wherein the people who actually held that title are not all that important. That wouldn't be a stand-alone list in my mind. More generally speaking, I think, to qualify as a stand-alone list, an article needs to have what I'd call a "list character". Assuming you managed to change every section of France to table form, I might be convinced that it's a stand-alone list. On the other hand there is articles containing nothing but prose and they're still stand-alone lists as far as I'm concerned. List of Naruto characters comes to mind. Anyway, while I'm sitting here squeezing my brain to come up with some sort of definition, I'm wondering something myself. Why do you even want to have such a definition? The editor of an article should try to present information in the best possible way. Sometimes that means an article becomes more "listy", sometimes less. What's the harm of having a gray area? Goodraise 16:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Thanks for that Goodraise. Very useful. The example of List of Naruto characters is interesting, and what you say about "list character" makes sense in a way. When tidying up WP:EMBED we looked into the various forms of lists, and for when a list approach was more useful to the general reader than prose, and for when prose was more useful than a list. What you call "list character" would presumably be when it would be more useful to present material in a list fashion. The "grey area" you talk about, would likely be when information is better presented as a "definition list", which is information presented in list format, but with detailed prose explanation - such as List of Naruto characters. SilkTork ✔Tea time 20:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Um yeah, case by case. What's the stress? More often than not, if a FAC gets kicked out for being too "listy", we'll welcome it here at FLC. No worries. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- It wasn't my intention to stress anyone Rambling Man, and I apologise if the question has given you that impression. I am not actually interested in Featured Lists as such, I'm looking to brush up our guidance on lists in general, and thought that FL might have something to offer on what makes a good list - as part of that, I'm interested in how folks here define a list. If our guideline's description of "articles that primarily consist of lists" is not, for you folks, appropriate or accurate, then - as you guys spend more time critically examining lists than anyone else - it might be worth revisiting that description and getting input from the list experts. SilkTork ✔Tea time 20:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
-
-
-