User:Moonriddengirl/List test

This is a test conducted as part of the conversation at User:Sidatio/Conversations/On list guidelines to see if a requirement of a certain number of criteria is feasible and desirable for lists. Specifically, this is examining lists of people. The current proposal at User:Sidatio/Proto WP:LIST suggests that "there should be at least three criteria for inclusion on a stand-alone list of people." I am examining somewhat at random lists included at Lists of topics to examine how these existing lists relate to the proposed guidelines and the implications of that. If you have stumbled upon this page by accident, please feel free to contribute to the conversations wikilinked above. --Moonriddengirl 12:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

1-5

 * 1. List of Anglicans and Episcopalians
 * Summary: Moderately long list of "notable persons who were members of a church in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury, known as an Anglican Communion church. Members of schismatic churches may also be included. Only former Anglicans who left the church in adulthood may be included, with accompanying notice."
 * 3/2 viable outcomes: List fails 3/2 unless people were both Anglicans -and- Episcopalians. List of Anglicans and Episcopalians sectioned by (chunks of alphabet) and (nationality)
 * Possible Issues: (alphabet) seems like an arbitrary division unless a list is large enough to require subdivision (this one may and certainly would if fully utilized); (nationality) runs the risk of ghettoizing some names.
 * 2/2 viable outcomes: division by either (alphabet) or (nationalist).
 * Note: Begs the question "is there a need for this kind of list?" Can of worms returned to shelf, unopened.


 * 2. List of saints
 * Summary: According to the intro, "A small selection of Christian saints are listed below in alphabetical order." Page acknowledges that more than 10,000 potential candidates exist. Very well organized list, but already quite long.
 * 3/2 viable outcomes: List of saints by some combination of (nationality), (era), (faith identifying), (name in alphabetical divisions). Example: List of Armenian saints, A-M.
 * Possible Issues: Nationality may run into some debate; faith identifying will ghettoize and duplicate; alphabetical divisions seem random.
 * 2/2 viable outcomes: As above, but with only one additional criterion. For saints, this may be more practicable. There actually is a List of saints by name:A which is quite long and which is proposed to be merged into List of saints.
 * Note: This list makes an interesting test case. There's nothing to clarify who qualifies to be part of the "small selection" of "10,000+." Three criteria may be too many. Lists of saints ca. 500-900 by name: A grows unwieldy. Lists of saints by name: A who were martyred by crushing is too specialized.


 * 3. List of notable converts to Judaism
 * Summary: Moderate-sized list; well organized and referenced
 * 3/2 viable outcomes: List of notable converts to Judaism (from other faith). Could also do nationality or era, but the connection of these to topic is less clear.
 * Possible Issues: Article is already sub-organized by faith.
 * 2/2 viable outcomes: Already there. (Essentially: List of "Jews" "who were not Jews")
 * Note: If there were a debate about this list, I'd be starting from the position of keeping it as it is. Does this suggest that number of criteria is less the point than nature of criteria? Or that Wikipedia's editors don't know of that many notable converts to Judaism?


 * 4. List of Taoists
 * Summary: Rather short list with broad inclusion definition.
 * 3/2 viable outcomes: (by era) and (nationality).
 * Possible Issues: With those criteria, none that I can see except as have been addressed above. With this particular list, while it already subdivides by era it is currently too short to warrant division by even one category, much less multiple.
 * 2/2 viable outcomes: (by era) or (nationality)
 * Note: Another list that is really too general, but is also too short for division. Would this be an AfD issue? Opens the question.


 * 5. List of agnostics
 * Summary: For people who have called themselves agnostics or said agnostic things. Relatively short; very well referenced.
 * 3/2 viable outcomes: (by era), (nationality), (alphabetical division)
 * Possible Issues: as above
 * 2/2 viable outcomes: one of above
 * Note: Another list that is possibly too general, but is also too short for division.

6-10

 * 6. List of kings of Rwanda
 * Summary: Relatively short list subdivided by era.
 * 3/2 viable outcomes: Lists of kings of Rwanda (by era).
 * Possible Issues: The list would be much too short.
 * 2/2 viable outcomes: As is.
 * Note: This list is one that could not appropriately be subdivided into three criteria. Since there are no new Rwandan kings, it's not growing.
 * Similar: Rulers of Katanga Rulers of the Ouaddai Kingdom Leaders of Ovamboland myriad more


 * 7. Heads of state of Democratic People's Republic of Angola
 * Summary: Very short list in a pretty table.
 * 3/2 viable outcomes: No viable subdivisions. Or maybe it it's already 3/2. (Heads of State) of (Angola) when it was (Democratic People's Republic).
 * Possible Issues: Efforts to subdivide this finite and complete list would render it uselessly small.
 * 2/2 viable outcomes: as is.
 * Note: Self-contained list that seems like it should be part of an article already rather than a stand-alone. Further evaluation convinces me it really is 3/2 anyway, but it gives an example of how 3/2 and 2/2 can seem to blur.


 * 8. List of Bahrainis
 * Summary: The international equivalent of List of Americans, except there's apparently only 6 of them, and 5 of them are redlinked.
 * 3/2 viable outcomes: none given the length of the list, although if it were more complete divisions could be by (region), by (occupation), by (alphabet), by (gender, where specifically relevant).
 * Possible Issues: Size does matter.
 * 2/2 viable outcomes: Same concern as above: not enough size to divide.
 * Note: This is an AfD candidate to be sure.


 * 9. List of American journalists
 * Summary: Relatively short list given potential scope.
 * 3/2 viable outcomes: already subdivided (by era), could be divided by (region) or (publication)
 * Possible Issues: Division by region, even if large enough, creates difficulty in assignment--did H. L. Mencken move? Do we count the region where he was born or the one where he worked? Or died? Is he listed in all of the above? Publication is also too specialized. While there may be a large pool for List of (American) (New York Times) (Journalists), there isn't going to be as great a one for (Collier's Weekly). Also, journalists have a pesky habit of moving from one publication to the next.
 * 2/2 viable outcomes: already there.
 * Note: I cheated with this one. The above random choice made me think about subdivisions within national lists, and that made me want to check out one that might have substance.


 * 10. List of Belgians
 * Summary: The much bigger brother of List of Bahrainis. This list could definitely stand to be further divided.
 * 3/2 viable outcomes: As subdivided, by (occupation). Potential additional subdivisions include (gender where appropriate), (era), (alphabetical chunks)
 * Possible Issues: (occupation) is a natural choice, but few of these subdivisions can stand to be further subdivided. Arbitrary distinctions by (era) and (alphabetical) chunks on this list would be creating unnecessary lists.
 * 2/2 viable outcomes: (occupation)
 * Note: Another list of people that seems viably divisible by (occupation) but no further at this time.

Midpoint considerations
Dawning conclusions: As of #10:
 * 3/2 may be too rigid a criteria requirement for lists of people. While List of American journalists could easily grow into 3/2, arbitrary imposition of the criteria in the nascent stage would make the list too short to have any function. At this point, I keep finding myself drawn to question the purpose of these lists anyway. And, again, I feel the distinction between categories & lists need to be made more clear. Why is there a List of Belgians when there is a Category:Belgian people? What function does it serve other than to allow school children to more easily select a topic for a biography during "Belgian history month"? Prior to my experience with List of Indian women, I would have thought this a clear candidate for AfD. However, that particular list has also survived an AfD, and it is routinely maintained (and vandalized). The true challenge of the proposal you are attempting to craft, imo, is identifying the function of lists and creating rules that incorporate existing consensus within a citable framework for future construnction. Oi. --Moonriddengirl 17:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

11-15

 * 11. List of soap opera actors
 * Summary: Very long list of soap actors with mention of show.
 * 3/2 viable outcomes: list of (soap) (actors) by--(alphabetical division), (soap opera), (network)
 * Possible Issues: Soap actors, like journalists, are mobile and move from one show to another. Alphabetical division is somewhat random. That said, the list probably needs to be subdivided in that fashion. It's grown very large.
 * 2/2 viable outcomes: meets
 * Note: This is an example of a list that when immature may have been sufficient for 2 cats now probably needs 3.


 * 12. List of obese actors
 * Summary: It's all right there in the title. The list does have a short intro paragraph explaining why obesity is a notable factor.
 * 3/2 viable outcomes: Alphabetical subdivision; era.
 * Possible Issues: Neither of these is practicable with this list, which is too short for subdivision.
 * 2/2 viable outcomes: As stands.


 * 13. List of character actors
 * Summary: (pausing to organize that one a bit. Notice that somebody has already suggested it be replaced with a category.) (character) (actors). nuff said.
 * 3/2 viable outcomes: (alphabetical), (male/female), (nation)
 * Possible Issues: (male/female) conflicts with other policies. Nation runs a risk of ghettoizing.
 * 2/2 viable outcomes: as is.
 * Note: Another one that makes me pause to consider the function of lists and categories.


 * 14. List of ambient artists
 * Summary: Composers of ambient music.
 * 3/2 viable outcomes: the usual, primarily (alphabetical)
 * Possible Issues: Not necessarily large enough to sustain subdivision.
 * 2/2 viable outcomes: as is.


 * 15. List of ragtime composers
 * Summary: ragtime composers with mention of one notable work; subdivided by era
 * 3/2 viable outcomes: (by era); (by alphabet)
 * Possible Issues: The lists are short for subdivision by era. Not yet large enough for subdivision by alphabet.
 * 2/2 viable outcomes: As is.
 * Note: Most of the lists referenced at List of composers would fall into this same category.

16-20

 * 16. List of All About Me cast members
 * Summary: (pausing to PROD; duplicated at All About Me page).
 * 3/2 viable outcomes: none whatsoever.
 * 2/2 viable outcomes: as is.
 * Note: This one apparently was nominated for listing through CfD. This is the kind of thing that might make you think, "Yes, a 3/2 requirement might work." Then you look at List of All That cast members. This list also fails 3/2. The material is not duplicated at All That. It's a well-organized list. My guess would be that it separated out from the main article when it became too long.


 * 17. List of All My Children characters
 * Summary: (All My Children) (characters)
 * 3/2 viable outcomes: by (alphabetical subdivision), by (eon)
 * Possible Issues: It's a long list. Alphabetical subdivision might not be inappropriate. Eon won't work, because undoubtedly some of these actors have been present through multiple eons.
 * 2/2 viable outcomes: as is.
 * Note: If this were up for AfD, I'd vote to leave it alone. I don't think it needs subdivision, though it is long. Any other category imposition would be arbitrary.


 * 18. List of American University people
 * Summary: A list of people tied to the American University.
 * 3/2 viable outcomes: As per internal subdivision: (notable alumni), (professors), (honorary degree & commencement speakers), (chancellors/presidents), (trustees)
 * Possible Issues: none that I can see
 * 2/2 viable outcomes: as is
 * Note: This page could be subdivided easily into 3/2 categories. I'm not sure Wikipedia would benefit if it were.


 * 19. List of Asian Americans
 * Summary: Notability required.
 * 3/2 viable outcomes: by profession, as subdivided.
 * Possible Issues: This is yet another can of worms given the prevalence of such lists (see note).
 * 2/2 viable outcomes: As is.
 * Note: Multiple similar: List of Chinese Americans; List of Cambodian Americans etc. I am not personally convinced of the encyclopedic value of some such lists and think that most of them would benefit by separation and improvement. There is, for instance, an article on Asian Americans in arts and entertainment. It's tagged as needing work itself. It seems to me that several of the professional categories under List of Asian Americans could tie in neatly to this article. It would be far more beneficial to Wikipedia users than a free-floating list. Weighty considerations (sigh). Putting it aside until finished the 20.


 * 20. List of guitarists
 * Summary: 1-criterion list of people; huge.
 * 3/2 viable outcomes: as is + 2: by (alphabetical subdivision); (genre); (time period).
 * Possible Issues: none that I can think of not discussed above.
 * 2/2 viable outcomes: As is + any one of the above.
 * Note: Finishing up on a cheat. This is one I randomly discovered during the conversation and thought to examine more closely. It has already gone through an AfD and survived on no consensus.

Final conclusions
I was commissioned to examine 50 lists that failed the 3/2 criteria, but I feel confident at this point that anything beyond 20 is going to be "more of the same." A 3/2 criteria requirement for lists of people would immediately put many existing lists in violation. 3/2 may be a good goal for many mature lists, but I fear it might quash lists as they develop. List of soap opera actors has become long enough to divide into List of soap opera actors, named A-M or some such. List of kings of Rwanda can't reasonably be subdivided and never will be.

Is the proper response to this to create a rule acknowledging exceptions? I don't think so. I don't think such a proposal will be accepted by the community. My opinion at this point after looking through dozens of lists to find these 20 is that we really need to identify the function of the 3/2 criteria and try to find a way to articulate it without necessarily specifying a criteria limit. What is it that makes the oft-discussed List of Indian women unmanageable, while List of kings of Rwanda is not? I submit that it's the scope of the subject.

I believe we do need to incorporate into guidelines a growth clause, allowing that List of saints may start out as a one-criterion category, but will require suitable subdivision when it reaches x point of unwieldiness. While the specific wording of this section of the proposal may not be final, I think that it might be adaptable to that purpose: Also, be mindful of the number of entries on the list. If there's less than fifteen notable entries that can be represented on the list, it would be best to keep that list as a sub-section of its parent topic, rather than making a stand-alone list. For example, if a List of French Olympic curlers only turns up five or six notable entries, keep those entries as part of Sport in France#Olympic Games. Likewise, if the article grows to 150 or so entries, it would be prudent to explore sub-listing as a way to keep the list from becoming overwhelming. In this context, we might simply want to note that once an article reaches a certain size, sub-listing may be needed to keep the list manageable.

climbing on the soapbox and clearing throat This isn't an easy task. The purpose of this discussion is to provide guidelines to future list creators and to editors examining current lists. I believe most who nominate lists for AfD (including me) do so from good faith. I believe most who defend lists from AfD (yes, including me) do so from good faith. I think more explicit guidelines--not necessarily more complicated or restrictive guidelines, but simply guidelines which are easily interpreted--can help maintain civility and will greatly benefit the project.climbing off the soapbox

I invite feedback. :) --Moonriddengirl 13:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)