![]() |
This page is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
Minimum number for List?
What is the minimum number where it is appropriate to create a list? For example, there is no point in creating a list where there is only one known: List of planets where humans live, List of stars around which the Earth orbits. But is it appropriate to create a List where there are only two known members? (List of elements with less protons than Lithium, List of natural bodies in the Earth-Moon system) Should there be at least three? At least four? Is there a policy? -- Eliyahu S Talk 06:04, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Eliyahu S: I came here wondering if the answer to that question could be 0. List articles in the form "List of something of/in some county" could be part of a group of lists for every country on the topic. The number of items within some of those lists could fluctuate, including going to zero.
- For example, in Category:Lists of airlines by country there are lists with just one airline; e.g., List of airlines of the Central African Republic, and zero airlines, List of airlines of the Federated States of Micronesia. --DB1729 (talk) 00:05, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Feedback requested: do MOS:TRIVIA and MOS:POPCULT apply to stand-alone lists?
There is an ongoing discussion happening at Wikipedia talk:TRIVIA to determine whether there is consensus that MOS:TRIVIA and MOS:POPCULT apply to stand-alone lists. You are invited to contribute. Thanks, Pilaz (talk) 19:53, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Lists of (university name) people
This website has many "lists of (university name) people" such as List of Harvard University people, List of Princeton University people, etc. IMO a general guideline is required for such lists. Those pages should include alumni (graduates and attendees), faculty members, researchers, and visiting professors affiliated with those universities. The purpose of universities is to educate, teach, and perform research. Thus, alumni and those who assumed employment level duties, namely teaching university-level courses or performing research, should be included in those pages. Ber31 (talk) 17:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- Assuming there are reliable sources to substantiate inclusion, I would say yes. Personally, I would break it into several smaller lists (one for alumni, another for faculty, etc), but that’s just my own preference. Blueboar (talk) 19:03, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- Lists of (university name) people come in various "flavors". For instance, List of Princeton University people (government), a sub-page of List of Princeton University people, contains both alumni and faculty. Your idea of breaking them into smaller lists is a good one! Lists of (university name) alumni can contain alumni (graduates and attendees). Lists of (university name) faculty can contain researchers and faculty members. Introducing this guideline will benefit this website. Ber31 (talk) 15:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
I've created a general guideline. Here is the link: Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists#Lists_of_(University_name)_people. Ber31 (talk) 17:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Editors such as User:ElKevbo, User:Sdkb, User:Doug Weller, and other interested editors should join this discussion! It would be nice to have a lively discussion on this issue. Ber31 (talk) 13:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Ber31: do you really mean all "Former students (alumni) and employees, including faculty members and researchers, should be included in such lists". That would be hundreds of thousands for big universities. I think you need to add "notable" to that. That would match the earlier statement "For instance, articles about schools often include (or link to) a list of notable alumni/alumnae, but such lists are not intended to contain everyone who verifiably attended the school." Note that "school" includes University. Doug Weller talk 13:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
What is the purpose of this change? The lists are arranged in a variety of ways, with separate lists of alumni, alumni of specific divisions, faculty, presidents, athletes, and even at least one IMO absurd list of non-graduates. All of them fall under WP:LISTPEOPLE, so what does a new subsection add? Are there a lot of disputes over whether to include just tenured faculty vs. researchers, too? Disputes about people with a brief relationship or honorary degree recipients? I suppose it's better to be consistent than to leave it up to a case-by-case basis, but if there are many such disputes and the effect of this change is to say "no honorary degree recipients or non-graduates" then it will affect many articles and should probably have discussion before creating a new subsection, potentially with an RfC listed at WP:CENT. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- I would also appreciate a clear answer to this question. I can offer some guesses but it would be helpful to have a clear guiding purpose for this addition. ElKevbo (talk) 22:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- I appreciate that Ber31 took the step to write this and add it, but unfortunately I don't think it's necessary, and I suggest it be reverted until consensus to add it is established. It doesn't say that much—just that we should include non-graduates and shouldn't include honorary degree recipients—making it pretty WP:CREEPy. What it does say would be better placed in WP:UNIGUIDE, the centralized resource for college articles. I should also note that the current example articles are very poor choices—they represent only large, elite, U.S. institutions, and none are featured lists despite the fact we have several. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Seeing no emerging consensus, I've removed the section to restore the status quo ante. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:54, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Appropriate topics for lists
One of my concerns about the recent addition is that a list which isn't nearly as specific as the given example about "one-eyed horse thieves from Montana" might be too subjective to interpret as "reasonable". For example, if the list was just about "horse thieves", then the addition isn't really compatible with what the section talks about in the first sentence about being too specific, but rather starts talking about this subjective type of judgement that we are expected to guesstimate about readership. This follows into my second concern, which is that a subjective judgement is not policy based like other areas in this guidance that reserve judgement based on what Wikipedia is WP:NOT or some other policy. Huggums537 (talk) 09:54, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- What raised this in my mind is running across a lot of lists at New Page Patrol which are unlikely ever to be used and combining that with what the note in this guideline noting that the possibilities for lists are infinite. These aren't absurd like "one eyed horse thieves" but just some of the trillions of possible lists that could be invented. To make up a hypothetical example, a list of aircraft carrier visits to Sydney Australia since the year 2000. One of trillions of possibilities like it. Not absurd, but has a near-zero chance that a reader would seek that particular grouping. There really is a lack a guidance either here or in other core policies and guidelines regarding this. I believe that good guidance would be that there be a reasonable expectation that a reader would want to see this particular grouping of items. Like most guidance in Wikipedia, it is not specific / explicit. This allows this consideration to be taken into account along with other considerations when deciding whether to create an article or what to do with one that has been created which ~98% of the time is how things work in Wikipedia decisions. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:53, 10 May 2022 (UTC).
- I certainly understand your concern, but I feel like the response doesn't address any of my own concerns. What do you say about my assertions that I think the proposed guidance is too subjective, or that I see no policy supporting guidance telling editors we should or (in this case) should not have any lists based on personal guesstimations about if we *think* readers will like/want them or not? Huggums537 (talk) 20:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- Well, for reference for others, I'll start by listing the proposed addition which was/is "There should be a reasonable expectation that readers will seek to see that particular grouping and selection of list items." And then to avoid repeating, note my rationale described above. On your first point, this is admittedly not specific and subjective. But such is common in Wikipedia policies and guidelines. This is a "screening" type statement and so the net effect of that is that it would merely put a "finger on the scale" towards that expectation. And the net result of that would be that it would only screen list that fall really far short in that area. On your last point, this really isn't the broader "basing" article on such assessments, it's a screening function which is narrower thing. And it's net effect would be to screen out only the ones that are unusually lacking in that area. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- Do you have real world examples other than the hypothetical aircraft carrier visits to Sydney Australia, and is this related to the lists in this discussion? Huggums537 (talk) 05:38, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- A real world example that brought the question to mind was/is a set of articles that I ran into at New Page Patrol, and the thought that the potential for such cross-categorization lists is infinite, and that guidance in this abstract area is lacking from Wikipedia. About all that it says is "don't do obviously absurd ones" . This is just a case which brought this to mind where more guidance is needed, not an inference that these should be excluded. This was seeing, during New Page Patrol, an editor creating a whole series of articles, each of which was "A list of executions at the xxxx prison." And them on a path to prepare one of those articles for each prison. So this is NOT an illustration of problem articles, it's an illustration where wikipedia fails to give any guidance other than "don't do absurd ones". North8000 (talk) 14:05, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- Your thoughts? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- Glad you brought these up. I have big concerns. I think if subjectivity is common on Wikipedia guidance, then that needs to change in as many places as it possibly can. How do we know the net effects will be restricted in the way you say they will if people have their "finger on the scale"? Some people have a heavier finger than others. I have a very good reason to suggest that this kind of guidance is more of an inference that these lists should be excluded, and not so much good guidance for prevention. It goes back to my issue with the whole subjectivity of it all. It works both ways. If New Page Patrollers can use this kind of vaguely defined guidance as a very broad measuring stick for what counts, and put their "finger on the scale" to tip in favor of getting rid of bad lists, then new page list creators can read the guidance, and just as easily take their own fingers completely off the scale to justify the creation of their lists in the first place so this kind of guidance will do absolutely nothing whatsoever in the prevention of these lists being created. The only real world useful purpose this kind of guidance would serve would be for New Page Patrollers to have a broader measuring stick for removing "bad" lists. The problem I foresee with this is the endless debates it will also produce about who decided what regarding whose finger was on what scale, and if it was pressing too hard or not. Huggums537 (talk) 02:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- Your thoughts? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- A real world example that brought the question to mind was/is a set of articles that I ran into at New Page Patrol, and the thought that the potential for such cross-categorization lists is infinite, and that guidance in this abstract area is lacking from Wikipedia. About all that it says is "don't do obviously absurd ones" . This is just a case which brought this to mind where more guidance is needed, not an inference that these should be excluded. This was seeing, during New Page Patrol, an editor creating a whole series of articles, each of which was "A list of executions at the xxxx prison." And them on a path to prepare one of those articles for each prison. So this is NOT an illustration of problem articles, it's an illustration where wikipedia fails to give any guidance other than "don't do absurd ones". North8000 (talk) 14:05, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- Do you have real world examples other than the hypothetical aircraft carrier visits to Sydney Australia, and is this related to the lists in this discussion? Huggums537 (talk) 05:38, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- Well, for reference for others, I'll start by listing the proposed addition which was/is "There should be a reasonable expectation that readers will seek to see that particular grouping and selection of list items." And then to avoid repeating, note my rationale described above. On your first point, this is admittedly not specific and subjective. But such is common in Wikipedia policies and guidelines. This is a "screening" type statement and so the net effect of that is that it would merely put a "finger on the scale" towards that expectation. And the net result of that would be that it would only screen list that fall really far short in that area. On your last point, this really isn't the broader "basing" article on such assessments, it's a screening function which is narrower thing. And it's net effect would be to screen out only the ones that are unusually lacking in that area. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- I certainly understand your concern, but I feel like the response doesn't address any of my own concerns. What do you say about my assertions that I think the proposed guidance is too subjective, or that I see no policy supporting guidance telling editors we should or (in this case) should not have any lists based on personal guesstimations about if we *think* readers will like/want them or not? Huggums537 (talk) 20:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC)