User talk:174.2.171.53

List of Ethiopian scientists
Hey, I appreciate the work you're putting into this list, but your edits are causing some issues and I'd like you to discuss it before you reintroduce them again. First, people without articles (redlinks) shouldn't be on those types of lists. Second, those lists should be organized somehow - usually alphabetically. Whatever version you're doing has no organization scheme that I can make out, whereas my version is organized alphabetically by surname. Third, your descriptions are too long and detailed - optimally they should be no more than a single line. Finally, you're somehow introducing something on the order of 50k bites of content with this edit and I can't tell what from - maybe whitespace? In any case, it's not necessary. By all means please make additions of other articles to the list, but please don't just go back and revert to your last version again. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 09:41, 17 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for the reply regarding the making of certain edits on this page. I'm not entirely sure how to directly reply so I'll just make this edit to your response. Firstly, I can understand why you would not want people without redlinks to be on these type of lists, but I disagree with this assertion. I think that individuals should be allowed onto the list whether or not they have an article to their name. This applies to every other country that has a national scientists list, with many of them having lists that contain persons who do not have their wikipedia pages. This doesn't matter in this specific situation however, because I intended on creating a page for each of the scientists on this list once I had completed the majority of the additions.


 * Secondly, I did intentionally organize the list by names but not alphabetically by surname. I restructered it with three points in mind. The subjective prominence of the individual, the likelihood of them being searched up by a person in English, and whether they had a clearly identifiable image of themself at the moment. I felt as though this rigourous assessment of the list would create a much better experience for any person that would research or come across this topic. I do strongly believe in organization by alphabetical order, and I also prefer highly orgaznized and " easy to parse " information, but I do not believe it applies in a situation like this, where there are only a handful of notable individuals to browse through.


 * Thirdly, while I do agree that the descriptions could be shorter and that this would make it more optimal - there is not set in stone rule regarding this. Yes, most of the data being added on in these situations do include blankspaces but this was intended to organize the page much better then simply pressing enter between each addition, or having them be to close to one another.


 * To continue, I will remove the vast majority of the blankspace additions and will simply have them organized with a space created by the enter key. I would prefer to revert to the older version as it contiains substanitally more information regarding this topic. I haven't completed that version yet but want to add about 10 more names and create individual wikipedia pages for all of these persons - as well as those who are already on the list but do not have their own pages.


 * The current version is subjectively condensed, bland, and non intriguing. Built for a quick search by its alphabetical order rather than for those who have curious thoughts regarding this topic.


 * Thank you again for your concerns with the continued development of this article, I absolutely appreciate it! I also hope you understand and respect my perspective on this subject.


 * Hi, thanks for your response. Couple points:
 * Generally, redlinks on lists of notable people should be removed unless reliably referenced, as those lists are fairly prone to spam additions of non-notable people. See WP:LISTPEOPLE and Write the article first for some indications as to why we do things like that. To create new articles, you will either need to create an account and wait until you are autoconfirmed, or if you prefer to remain an IP you will need to create articles in draftspace and submit them through articles for creation. Because lists exist largely for navigational purposes, it should be easy for someone to find the entry they want by an obvious criteria like their name or date of birth, as well as for someone to add a new entry in proper order. Alphabetical allows for both, whereas your organizational scheme was both subjective and opaque. While it's true there is no length format set in stone, you should look to precedent for how a page ought to be formatted. I had a quick scan through some articles at Category:Lists of scientists by nationality, and most of them mention no more than the person's field and occasionally a short description of the person's work. There is no reason for this page not to conform to the same brief style as other lists. Whitespace should not be used for organizational purposes as it artificially bloats the pagesize. I would argue that the page as it presently exists is not bland but tidy. It presents the most significant information about a person's work, without so much detail that the reader (who can easily click through to the person's article for more information) will get swamped in extraneous detail. This is in line with the manual of style guidance about lists and list size, which states material within a list should relate to the article topic without going into unnecessary detail. (From MOS:LONGSEQ). &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 22:52, 18 July 2021 (UTC)