Template talk:List missing criteria

"Embedded list" flag
I'd like to see a flag that would cause the template to refer to Manual of Style/Embedded lists rather than the existing Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 19:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I deleted the above - the problem I was trying to deal with is at Strait. WP:LSC is part of the MOS Stand-alone lists article. I found that Manual of Style/Embedded lists does not mention selection criteria at all. Manual of Style/Lists mentions selection criteria but only for Stand-alone lists. For now, I tagged the introduction sentence with Citation needed. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 19:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposed change
Linking "help" to the edit function can only cause confusion. There is an edit tab directly above the template, as anyone who is likely to provide selection criteria will know. I propose delinking it and appending "or by discussing the issue on the talk page" (with an optional argument to specify the section). Compare List dispute. RockMagnetist (talk) 19:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you may have misunderstood. That "help" link will work on other pages as well, sending you to edit those other pages, NOT the template itself. This seems useful enough to me. Debresser (talk) 19:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I just didn't express myself clearly. Transclusions of this template sit at the top of each list. Some people may click on it, thinking it will offer suggestions, and will be surprised to find themselves editing the list. At best it's not very helpful, since the edit tab is a few pixels away. RockMagnetist (talk) 19:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The template is not offering "help", it s asking for "help". Does that resolve the question? Debresser (talk) 21:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you're thinking I want to eliminate the request for help altogether. Not true! I just want to eliminate the link. The text that I am proposing would look like this:
 * This list has no precise inclusion criteria as described in the Manual of Style for standalone lists. Please help by adding inclusion criteria or by discussing the issue on the talk page.}}
 * RockMagnetist (talk) 21:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, a lot of maintenance templates have this link. You would have to open some centralized discussion, if you want to remove them. If you do, please drop me a note on my talkpage. Debresser (talk) 01:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should split this into two questions. How about adding "or by discussing the issue on the talk page"?
 * Strong oppose: discussion does not in and of itself help. Also, this is not an accepted formula on maintenance templates. Debresser (talk) 02:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, in general it is wise to discuss inclusion criteria before defining them, because contributors sometimes have strong feelings about what should be included. Also, someone coming to the page may not be aware that a discussion is happening. The reason I proposed this change is that someone is attempting to start such a discussion at Talk:List_of_chemical_compounds_with_unusual_names, but I cannot use the template to point to it. I think that is counterproductive.
 * Another such discussion is at Talk:List_of_important_publications_in_physics. It is quite difficult to formulate good criteria for this list, and it would not be helpful for someone to just jump in and edit. RockMagnetist (talk) 05:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I also think you're wrong about links to discussions not being an accepted formula. I already mentioned List dispute, and merge templates are another set of counterexamples. RockMagnetist (talk) 03:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Links to talkpages are appended to the text, as in Merge where they are added in brackets, but they are not usually a part of the text of the maintenance message. Debresser (talk) 10:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * We could easily do that here as well, and add  to the template, like in Merge, adding (Discuss) to the text. Debresser (talk) 10:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd be o.k. with that. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:37, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Debresser (talk) 18:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. As for the other issue: I don't want to get into a discussion that changes a lot of cleanup templates. However, I notice that usually the link is on the action following "help", e.g., "help improve this article". So I'd be satisfied if the link in this template was moved so it reads "Please help by adding inclusion criteria." RockMagnetist (talk) 18:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * In this case the word "help" is in the place of "improve this article". We could change "help" to "improve this article". What do you say? But having the link on "adding inclusion criteria" is a bad idea, because there I would expect an internal link to explanations about inclusion criteria. Debresser (talk) 19:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * O. k. RockMagnetist (talk) 19:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)