User:Lapadite/sandbox

Wiki Cheatsheet: Help:Cheatsheet
 * Template for G-style section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo_(band)#Musical_characteristics_and_lyrics

Hidden txt for editors:

Tagging pages
WP:TAGGING (whole article)
 * Under "Over-tagging": "Placing tags is, in itself, not a means of improving the encyclopedia: It is only a means of asking other people to improve an article that you cannot or will not improve yourself."

WP:TAGBOMBING

Tagging guideline per WP:TC; e.g.,
 * Avoid tagging articles if you can easily and confidently fix the problem. The goal is an improved article, not a tagged article.
 * Avoid "drive-by" tagging: tags should be accompanied by a comment on the article's talk page explaining the problem and beginning a discussion on how to fix it, or, for simpler problems, a remark using the reason parameter as shown below
 * If an article has many problems, tag only the highest priority issues. A lengthy list is often less helpful than a shorter one. (See also: tag bombing and over-tagging)
 * Don't add tags for trivial or minor problems, especially if an article needs a lot of work.

Inline tags
List of tags - Template:Inline_tags Tagging guideline per WP:TC; e.g.,
 * Avoid tagging articles if you can easily and confidently fix the problem. The goal is an improved article, not a tagged article.
 * Avoid "drive-by" tagging: tags should be accompanied by a comment on the article's talk page explaining the problem and beginning a discussion on how to fix it, or, for simpler problems, a remark using the reason parameter as shown below
 * If an article has many problems, tag only the highest priority issues. A lengthy list is often less helpful than a shorter one. (See also: tag bombing and over-tagging)
 * Don't add tags for trivial or minor problems, especially if an article needs a lot of work.

Citation needed:
 * Citation needed w/ reason:
 * "This quote needs a citation":

Dead link: Needs quotation: Whose quote: "When?": [when?] Inaccurate statements/ "dubious,discuss": Better source: Irrelevant citation/Failed verification: or Verification needed: According to whom/Attribution needed:, , or or Weasel words: Unreliable source: "Disputed,discuss":

Clarify:

Original Research:

Neutrality disputed:

Undue weight:

Puffery: (e.g. here) Quoting: "text"

When talk indents get too deep - { {outdent|:::} } (without the spaces on either side; add however many colons previous indented comment had, either in colons or with numbers)

Article Templates
WP:TEMP and WP:TC for complete list. Why templated Unreferenced (so long as it is not nonsensical or a biography of a living person):

Additional citations needed/improve: Unreliable sources: Outdated page: Expansion: Puffery/Peacock: If there are various tags (use |section=y if placing in particular section; more info): Copy edit:

Over-quotation: Redundancy: Reads like review: Tone: Superfluous info: Too many sections: Inadequate lead: Neutrality of lead: Neutrality of section: Reliance on one source: Original research:

Speculation/claims: Undue weight: Globalize (related & other regional temps): Weasel words: Confusing: Contradict itself: Contradict another article: Article undergoing MAJOR EDIT w/ specific time frame (otherwise use "a short while"; link to section): Section MAJOR EDIT(s): Off topic:

Infobox
List of infoboxes
 * Template:Infobox_musical_artist (standard infobox for musicians)

Template:Infobox_requested for Talk page

Template:New infobox for Talk page.

Template:Cleanup-infobox

Citing TWITTER & YOUTUBE
Template:Twitter status Template:YouTube

Don't need to cite that the sky is blue
WP:FACTS

4 Inline citations req
WP:MINREF

Common Sense
WP:SENSE

Responsibility for providing citations
WP:BURDEN: The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material... In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that there may not be a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable. If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it.

Requests for page protection (user and articles)
Requests_for_page_protection

When to revert
WP:STATUSQUO: Reverting is mostly appropriate for vandalism. The Wikipedia edit warring policy forbids repetitive reverting, but you should avoid reverting edits other than vandalism most of the time. Detailed advice on when reverting is and is not appropriate is in Revert_only_when_necessary (which states: Reverting is reversing a prior edit. Revert vandalism upon sight but revert an edit made in good faith only after careful consideration. It is usually preferable to make an edit that retains at least some elements of a prior edit than to revert the prior edit. Furthermore, your bias should be toward keeping the entire edit). If you make an edit which is good-faith reverted, do not simply reinstate your edit – leave the status quo up, or try an alternative way to make the change that includes feedback from the other editor. If there is a dispute, editors are encouraged to work towards establishing consensus, not to have one's own way. Instead of engaging in an edit war, propose your reverted change on the article's talk page or pursue other dispute resolution alternatives. During a dispute, until a consensus is established to make a change, the status quo reigns.

Revert only when necessary
WP:ONLYREVERT

BOLD, revert, discuss cycle
As per BRD (use for both pro and con justification)

...Making bold edits may sometimes draw a response from an interested editor – someone who may have the article on their watchlist. If no one responds, you have silent consensus to continue editing. If your edit is reverted, the BRD cycle has been initiated by the reverting editor.

After someone reverts your change, thus taking a stand for the existing version and/or against the change, you can proceed toward a consensus with the challenging editor through discussion on a talk page. While discussing the disputed content, neither editor should revert or change the content being discussed until a compromise or consensus is reached. Each pass through the cycle may find a new, interested editor to work with or, new issue being disputed. If you follow the process as it is intended each time, you should eventually achieve consensus with all parties. As such, BRD is in general not an end unto itself – it moves the process past a blockage, and helps get people get back to cooperative editing.

Bold

 * Explain your changes before posting them: People often make an edit first, and then explain it on the talk page. This may result in some fast-off-the-hip reverter reversing you right while you are in the middle of composing a talk page explanation. To protect against this, reverse the order: first edit the talk page, and post your edit immediately afterward. This way, your explanation will be already present at the moment of the expected revert. Don't hesitate too long between the two actions though, as people tend to be accused of bad faith if they do that. Best of all, if the page is not highly active, you can prepare edits to the article and its talk page at the same time and save them near simultaneously without fear of an edit conflict.

Revert

 * Rather than reverting, try to respond with your own BOLD edit if you can: If you disagree with an edit but can see a way to modify it that results in a net positive rather than reverting it, do so. The other disputant may respond with yet another bold edit in an ongoing edit cycle. Avoid the revert stage for as long as possible.
 * In the edit summary of your revert, include a link to WP:BRD to remind an inexperienced editor of the method and your intent, or just ask that they offer their edit for discussion on the talk page. People feel more cooperative if you let them know that you're willing to listen to their case for the change. Otherwise, a revert can seem brusque.
 * A revert of your revert may mean your edit broke an established consensus: Move to the next stage, "Discuss".
 * Revert-wars do not help build consensus: Try to avoid reverting a revert yourself. Go to the talk page to learn why you were reverted, or to try to get the reverting party to unrevert themselves, and/or get them to make an edit themselves.
 * If people start making non-revert changes again, you are done: The normal editing cycle has been restored.

Edit warring

 * Do not edit war. The BRD cycle does not contain another "R" after the "D". Discussion and a move toward consensus must occur before starting the cycle again. If one skips the Discussion part, then restoring one's edit is a hostile act of edit warring and is not only uncollaborative, but could incur sanctions, such as a temporary block. The objective is to seek consensus, not force one's own will upon other editors. That never works. If you encounter BRRD (bold, revert, revert...), do not escalate the situation to BRRRD.

Polling not substitute for discussion
WP:POLL:
 * Wikipedia works by building consensus. When conflicts arise, they are resolved through discussion, debate and collaboration. While not forbidden, polls should be used with care. When polls are used, they should ordinarily be considered a means to help in determining consensus, not an end in itself. While polling forms an integral part of several processes (such as Articles for deletion), polls are generally not used for article development. Remember that Wikipedia is not a democracy; even when polls appear to be "votes", most decisions on Wikipedia are made on the basis on consensus, not on vote-counting or majority rule. In summary, polling is not a substitute for discussion. See: Why regard polls with caution?
 * ...Because the point of these processes is to form consensus, it is much better for editors to explain their reasoning, discuss civilly with other editors, and possibly compromise than it is to sign a one-word opinion. "Votes" without reasoning may carry little to no weight in the formation of a final consensus. "Vote stacking" is frowned upon because it tends to encourage voters without reasoning. The template Not a ballot can be used to remind editors about this when necessary.

Consensus not numbers: WP:CNN

No consensus
WP:NOCONSENSUS WP:DRNC

Collaboration
COLLAB:

''Collaboration and dispute resolution are more important than content contributions in a wiki community. While counterintuitive, this is because editors who are consistently disruptive and uncivil, or who bully or filibuster others into submitting to their will, will continuously alienate other contributors. These in turn will become a wellspring of resentment and negativity, which will worsen the alienation caused by the disruptive contributors.''

An otherwise productive contributor who cannot collaborate is not a productive contributor.

List of templates
User temps; Other multi-level temps

DISRUPTIVE EDITING
Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been reverted or removed. Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing.
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

→ You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia.

VANDALISM
Hello, I'm Lapadite77. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks!

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia.

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

What is NOT vandalism
WP:NOT VANDALISM e.g., Reversion or removal of unencyclopedic material, or of edits covered under the biographies of living persons policy:
 * Some material—sometimes even factually correct material—does not belong on Wikipedia, and removing it is not vandalism. Check to make sure that the removal was in line with Wikipedia standards, before restoring it or reporting its removal as vandalism.

GENRE WARRIOR
(Frequent or mass changes to genres without consensus or reference) Welcome to Wikipedia. I have noticed that some of your recent genre changes have conflicted with our neutral point of view and verifiability policies. While we invite all users to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, we urge all editors to provide reliable sources for edits made. When others disagree, we recommend you seek consensus for certain edits by discussing the matter on the article's talk page. Thank you.

Please refrain from changing genres without providing a source or establishing a consensus on the article's talk page first. Genre changes to suit your own point of view are considered disruptive. Thank you.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to change genres without discussion or sources, you may be blocked from editing.

This is the final warning that you will receive regarding continued genre changing without discussion or sources. If you choose to continue, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

OWNERSHIP
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please remember that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you create or edit an article, remember that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

Please do not assume ownership of articles. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you.

Please stop assuming ownership of articles. Behavior such as this is regarded as disruptive and could lead to edit wars and personal attacks, and is a violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

→ You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia.

This is the only warning you will receive about ownership of articles. The next time you continue to disruptively edit Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

NO NEUTRAL POV
Hello, I'm Lapadite77. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you may be blocked from editing.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article.

UNSOURCED OR IMPROPERLY CITED MATERIAL
Hello, I'm Lapadite77. I noticed that you made a change to an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.

Please stop adding unsourced content. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia.

EDIT WARRING
(generic) Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

(references specific article:) Your recent editing history at Article shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

(adds additional text:) Your recent editing history at Article shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Additional text

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

SOFTER TEMP FOR NEWBS: Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you.

Not using
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please make sure to include an edit summary with every edit. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history.

The edit summary appears in:
 * User contributions
 * Recent changes
 * Watchlists
 * Revision differences
 * IRC channels
 * Related changes
 * New pages list and
 * Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks!

Using inaccurately or Inappropriately
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you.

PREVIEW BUTTON
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to article, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you.

MINOR EDITS
Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you.

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Article, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you.

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Article, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Additional text

REMOVING PROPER SOURCES CONTAINING DEAD LINKS
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not remove citations or information sourced through citations simply because a link to a source is not working. Dead links should not be deleted. Instead, please repair or replace the link, if possible, and ensure properly sourced information is retained. Often, a live substitute link can be found. Links not used as references, notes or citations are not as important, such as those listed in the "External links" or "Further reading" sections, but bad links in those sections should also be fixed if possible. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

INCORRECTLY MARKING EDIT AS VANDALISM
Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage editors. Please read NOTVAND for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you.

NOT SIGNING POSTS
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you.

IMPROPER USE OF WARNING OR BLOCKING
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you.

Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you.

→ Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been reverted or removed. Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing.
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

RESTORING REMOVED COMMENTS FROM USER/TALK PAGE
Don't restore

General policy page: WP:BLANKING

Editing of other editors' user/talk pages
WP:NOBAN "In general, it is usual to avoid substantially editing another's user and user talk pages other than where it is likely edits are expected and/or will be helpful. If unsure, ask. If a user asks you not to edit their user pages, it is probably sensible to respect their requests (although a user cannot avoid administrator attention or appropriate project notices and communications by merely demanding their talk page is not posted to)."

Meatpuppetry
WP:MEAT

Competence
WP:COMPETENCE

Here to build an encyclopedia
-WP:HERE - "The expression "here to build an encyclopedia" is a long-standing rule used to distinguish constructive and non-constructive users and pages" -Not here to build encyclopedia

Wikipedia is not
WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND
 * WP:PERSONAL

Stand-alone lists
WP:LISTN → Notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles.

Coatrack articles
WP:COATRACK → Wiki article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality has been written to make a point about a tangential subject. The nominal subject is used as an empty coat-rack, which ends up being mostly obscured by the "coats". The existence of a "hook" in a given article is not a good reason to "hang" irrelevant and biased material there.
 * But it's true! → The contents of this type of coatrack article can be superficially true. However, undue attention to one particular topic within the scope of the article creates an article that, as a whole, is less than truthful. When confronted with a potential coatrack article, an editor ought to ask: what impression does a reader unfamiliar to the topic get from this article?
 * WP:CHERRY→ Often the main tool of a coatrack article is fact picking. Instead of finding a balanced set of information about the subject (positive and negative), a coatrack goes out of its way to find facts that support a particular bias. Even though the facts may be true as such, the proportional volume of the hand-picked facts drowns other information, giving a false impression to the reader.

Trojan horses
WP:TROJAN

Stay on topic
WP:OFFTOPIC

Citation overkill
WP:CITEKILL

Music articles
Manual Of Style: WP:MOSMUSIC Album article style guide: WP:MOSALBUM Good and bad sources: WP:MUSIC/SOURCES
 * About.com: WikiProject_Albums/Sources + Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_48

Singer-songwriter RFC
Wikiproject RFC

Good Article vs Featured Article
Standards comparison - WP:GVF

Double Standards nb
WP:DOUBLESTANDARD

Archiving
WP:ARCHIVE

FAQ
Template:FAQ

Redirects
Automatic redirect Don't 'fix' links to redirects