User talk:Erachima/Inclusion (stand-alone lists)

Preliminary comments
This draft of a notability-equivalent guideline for stand-alone lists is the result of my reading a ridiculous number of list AfDs (something like 800) and the opinions on the current notability RFC, and attempts to express current consensus on what lists are and are not presently permitted, as well as how they are usually judged. Also, I believe the section clarifying the stance with regard to fictional lists is necessary due to the current lack of a WP:FICT and that they are the primary concern people have with the list exemption proposal at the RFC.

The page is only a rough outline right now, so I assume it's missing elements and needs various clarifications. Feel free to propose additions, wording changes, etc. --erachima talk 10:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Other types of possible fiction lists: I am just naming them but have no strong opinion about them one way or another, exept to say that long-running life-action serial works with a big geek following usually have real-world production/conception info that could theoretically be added, but rarely is because in-universe details are so much more exciting to keep track of. It is also possible to limit lists of fictional concepts to recurring elements, which automatically limits the depth of in-universe details. – sgeureka t•c 11:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Lists of serialized media - season articles.
 * Lists of fictional concepts - Planets in Stargate, Starships in Stargate, Technology in Stargate.


 * Season articles are a type of episode list, I think they're sufficiently covered. You're right that the second case is probably worth noting. --erachima talk 15:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I like this, I think there's some potential merging or cross-correlation with my suggested Inclusion Guideline, in that the points about what make a good list can be used to outline what are good topics for inclusion in sub-inclusion guidelines. I would try to avoid starting from FICT and working outwards, instead thinking more global and then having FICT elements fit into that, only so that this doesn't attempt to customize lists for fiction-uses only (see, for example discussion of professional sports players or any named village/town in any country). --M ASEM 18:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Criticism
This idea behind Erachima's proposal is not new, and follows on from Masem's proposal to make the article inclusion criteria of the General notability guideline (GNG) less restrictive for certain subject areas such as fiction. At the heart of this proposal is the view that lists can be used as a dumping ground for topics that do not qualify for their own article under WP:N by placing the topics, or groups of topics (sometimes known as "aggegates") in lists, e.g. List of New Order Jedi characters.

This proposal is very similar to the inclusion criteria which Masem is proposing follows on the heals of the proposal at WP:FICT to provide exemption from WP:N for topics of unproven notability. What they have in comon is that topics of unproven notability such as fictional characters or television episodes would be allowed to be the subject of lists, provided that it could be demonstrated that the topic inherited from a topic of proven notability. However, this proposal was flawed because notability cannot be inherited/presumed/acknowledgedin the absence of reliable secondary sources.

Even if notability could be inherited, the proposal does not provide any workable rules as to how inhertited notability actually works other than the statement that a list must be "Related to a notable topic", which means that the list's scope should be integrally tied to an existing Wikipedia article on a notable subject. Since every article in Wikipedia is in some way tied to related topics, it is hard to understand which articles could actually fail this criteria. The achilles heal of this prosoal is that could not prevent content forks other than having to rely on "expert opinion", which would mean relying on editors opinions about a topic's notability, rather than on relying on evidence. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

If there was some other inclusion criteria that could be proposed that would prevent content forks, then I might view this as a positive proposal. However, since you are not proposing alternative inclusion criteria to WP:N for lists, I view this proposal as attempt to obtain special treatment for fictional topics. The inclusion criteria for lists that you are proposing, namely a list must be "Related to a notable topic", is a classic example of a truism. The problem I have with this proposal is that a topic such as Tekli would fail WP:N if it were to have its own stand alone article, as it is basically a content fork of a more notable topic. Your proposal suggests Tekli should feature in a list of similar topics, but fails to recognise that the List of New Order Jedi characters is still a content fork from a more notable subject. I oppose your proposal because there are no limitations on the number of content forks that could be created using the inclusion criteria a list must be "Related to a notable topic". --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC) To go back to my example, you can see how easy it is to create content forks if ignore WP:N. The article The New Jedi Order is itself a content fork; it should actually be renamed List of New Jedi Order Books, which is not a notable topic per se, nor are the books themselves notable that are listed in it. This is the critical problem with this proposal; it gives rise to enless content forks.--Gavin Collins (talk) 13:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, this idea is not new. How could it be? Its whole intent is to be a codification of existing consensus with regard to list inclusion, as judged by review of AfDs and the current RfC on Notability. Aside from that point, however, I'm afraid you are entirely mistaken. This proposal is not aimed primarily at fictional topics, it does not seek to weaken any existing policy, and does not reflect my personal opinion on how things should be, but rather is my reading of how things are. So, Gavin, while you are welcome to point out any disconnects you see between this proposal and the current editorial practice that it attempts to reflect, I would prefer that you refrain from making fallacious insinuations about my intent in writing it. --erachima talk 20:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not so sure you can blame me if for arguing against this proposal, on the basis that I am making "fallacious insinuations". There is a disconnect between the consensus view of what lists are, and what you are proposing. In some ways your proposal reflects the current consensus: that lists are appendicies to articles on notable topics. However, the purpose to which you are proposing to use lists is very different from consensus: using them as a dumping ground for non-notable topics, which is a way of circumventing WP:N.
 * You are aware that these lists and spinout articles are specifically excluded from being called "content forks", per WP:SS? --M ASEM 12:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I see nowhere in WP:SS that says that at all. To go back to the point of my objection, I don't see that it says anywhere in WP:SS that content forks are allowed just because they are contained in lists. In fact WP:SS says that "Editors are cautioned to not immediately split articles if the new article would meet neither the general notability criterion nor the specific notability criteria for their topic".
 * Quoting verbatim from WP:POVFORK, under the section "Article spinouts": Summary style articles, with sub-articles giving greater detail, are not content forking, provided that all the sub-articles, and the summary conform to Neutral Point of View.. --M ASEM  13:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That assumes that the subject of the spinout is notable. If the spinout does not meet GNG, then it is likely to be a content fork. Your reading of the guideline is too narrow by assuming that WP:POVFORK is providing an exemption from WP:N for spinouts, which it is not. The subject of our discussion is a spinout article that fails WP:N; it is these type of articles (or lists, agrregates etc.) where the opportunity for content forks is at its greatest. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no mention of notability in POVFORK, egro it is a red herring here. Content that is split appropriately per WP:SS is not what POVFORK deals with.  Now, WP:SS does caution against but does not restrict non-notable spinouts, and thus the goal is to try to make sure that when such spinouts exist, they have consensus, either as the general approach has been approved as a whole, or on an individual basis.  --M ASEM  15:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What is clear is that there is no mention of any exemption from the General notability guideline for spinoffs. Again, you are reading too much into WP:POVFORK, in that you are assuming it sanctions a class of article called spinoffs that can be used as a dumping ground for non-notable articles. Just because the guideline does not mention notability, it is not plausible that this is meant to be interpreted as an exemption from WP:N. If an article is split, it is split into one or more articles. Spinouts are articles, just like any other. --Gavin Collins (talk) 01:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Gavin, no offense intended, but your claim that lists fall under WP:POVFORK is something that you have completely made up. It has no precedent within existing policy. It has no acceptance as a deletion argument. As such, your argument that lists are content forks cannot be given any weight within this WP:GUIDELINE proposal, because it is not a significant opinion within the community. If you wish to spread the opinion and possibly get it incorporated into future guideline revisions, I suggest that you write an WP:ESSAY or push for it directly via the submission of AfDs on that ground. But whatever, I didn't ask you here to explain the policy-generation process. I asked you here because I thought you wanted to help keep trivial lists out of Wikipedia. If list inclusion is to be done consistently rather than by AfD dice-roll, we need a documented standard of what is accepted.

You may wish to notice that there is no consensus that notability applies to lists, which means that the inclusion of lists is now specifically governed by nothing whatsoever. We need a guideline to replace N for lists, and we need it a week ago. This problem is what's prompted me to write this proposal, and I've done my genuine best to do it objectively and keep it apart from my personal opinions. I've even gone as far as doping it what I would normally consider unacceptably towards content removal, with the demand that individual entries be sourceably significant to the subject. If you do indeed wish to help keep out trivial lists like you claim, then please get down from your anti-fiction podium and help write me a guideline proposal that reflects actual consensus. I personally notified you of this proposal draft because I'd hoped you would be willing to do the same as me, and we'd be able to work together to push a proposal through. It seems I was mistaken, and that you are not willing to put aside your personal campaign. As such, I'll simply have to ignore your repetition of previously discredited arguments and bring it before the community. I am truly sorry. --erachima talk 08:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken that I am against fiction, but what I do oppose is the idea that lists can be used as a free for all dumping ground for non-notable topics. It is not just me that has this view; have a look at the essay WP:LISTCRUFT, and you will see that opposition to using lists in this way is well established. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no relevance of the GNG or in fact any N guideline for items in lists, just as for content in articles. The use of combination articles for material which is sub-notable is well recognized--how else are we going to treat such content? The use of  the GNG  does not then not make sense for the article as such: There is no way to tell if a collection of objects is relevant, because people will not usually write about the collection itself, but the individual objects of it. For example, if we are making a list of camera or telephone models, rather than individual articles on the individual models, it is because there is not enough information to make any particular one of them notable--just a little verifiable information on each, such as one or two minor reviews.  Than they have not specifically written about the minor characters as a group does not mean that it they do not make together a valid article. Gavin is right, though, that is is not specifically about fiction. But his criterion means that unless there is enough for a full article we should write nothing. DGG (talk) 01:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In answer to erachima, if my viewpoint is discredited, I have yet to evidence to this effect. I think you will find that notability does govern lists, but in a roundabout way. As I have stated before, the best defence against deletion or merger of a list is always the citation of reliable secondary sources which demonstrate that the list is itself notable. The best evidence you can present that a list is not a content fork from another notable subject is again the citation of reliable secondary sources in order to get a third party perspective. In any case, lists that do not cite reliable secondary sources are also likely to fail other Wikipedia policies & guidelines, which is why there is a steady stream of lists without any notability being nominated for AFD, e.g Articles for deletion/List of Killer7 characters is just the latest. Notability can also govern the content of list, e.g. Notability (people), which is one example of a prohibition against using lists as a dumping ground for topics (or lists of topics) without notability.--Gavin Collins (talk) 17:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've presented evidence before (On the RFC page) that it clearly is not the case that any non-notable list of characters is acceptable; there is an unspoken threshold of where a list of characters goes from being deletion territory to being a perfectly acceptable solution. One clear point of disallowance is a list of characters from a single game/movie or other singular work.  Killer7 is an example of this.  But when we go to series or franchises, there is more allowance for them.  Of course if the list can be shown notable (as most of the FF character lists), then there's no issue.  We can formulate these criteria to some point for all areas via SNGs.  The SNGs can also say when we never create a list either, just as the case with list of people.  The problem right now is that the SNGs do not really offer this advice in a consistent manner, but I will say that if you look at the pattern across AFDs, you can see where acceptable and completely rejected lists are drawn, and these can be codified in the SNGs. --M ASEM  17:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have stated before non-notable list won't work; like weapons of mass destruction, no one will admit to creating them. In order to provide clear cut advice on inclusion criteria for lists, it appears to me that WP:N must be the basis, as it is not possible to distinguish whether or not a list can be classed as listcruft or synthesis without the citation of reliable secondary sources. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Lists
Gavin, if we need to say right out hat it does not apply to lists, that might be the best solution. How can a list as such be notable -- (unless we're talking about the special cases of a list compiled by some group or author that is the subjet of discussion, which does happen, as NY Times list of bestselling books, etc. but is not the sort of thing we are really talking about here). Saying a list must meet WP:N is saying that no combination article is acceptable unless every section of it is N. Is that what you actually mean? It would clarify the discussion. DGG (talk) 23:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC) I don't think you have realised that the only criteria by which we can distinguish which lists should be included in Wikipedia is notability; vague references to "list is in some way useful" is just not helpful; for instance, the list New York Times Non-Fiction Bestsellers begining with B might be useful to crossword puzzle enthusiasts. Just because a list is useful, does not mean it should be included in Wikipedia (see WP:NOT for an explaination). --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The article New York Times Best Seller list appears to demonstrate notablity because it citesr reliable secondary sources, but there exist many best seller lists competing for attention, so when deciding which one is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, reliable secondary sources should be cited. You refer to such a list as being the exception, but why? Whether I choose to create an article about the New York Times Best Seller list or create a list such as New York Times Non-Fiction Bestsellers of 2000, am I not writing more or less about the same topic? I can see that such a list contains information, but does it contain information worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia? In the absence of a working alternative, it seems to me that WP:N is the inclusion criteria that must be applied to all lists. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you are confused between an article about the NYT bestseller list, and a list of books that are on the list. An article about it as a notable outside list needs sources for the notability of the list in general, and of course they are not hard to find. A list of books that have made the list does not require such sources for the list in general, just an agreement that the list is in some way useful--such as the fact that its a sufficient factor for notability of a book. I agree that in many cases we can do both, but we do not need a references that some particular collection of topics or articles on wikipedia is notable as a set of topics. DGG (talk) 03:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it you who is confused between a "list is in some way useful" and one that is notable. New York Times Non-Fiction Bestsellers of 2001 is just one instance of the New York Times Best Seller list, but that instance does not demonstrate notablity. Other instances of list that do not demonstrate notablity are New York Times Non-Fiction Bestsellers begining with A, New York Times Non-Fiction Bestsellers begining with B, New York Times Non-Fiction Bestsellers begining with C etc.
 * The only policy about what list we include is the fact we are not an indiscriminate collection of information; notability is one measure, but not the only measure, of avoiding indiscriminate. We also need to consider that because WP includes elements of general and specialized encyclopedia and alamnacs, discriminate, useful lists can be included.  A list of NYTimes Best Sellers is a well bounded list and not indiscriminate.  A list of NYTimes best sellers that start with B, assuming no other such list exists for the other letters, is indiscriminate even if bounded.  --M ASEM  10:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

the consensus is to come up with a list inclusion standard that isn't WP:N
First off, we don't want completely non-notable lists. We don't want people to WP:GAME the system by merging any non-notable article into a list of non-notable crap. But there's also a (conditional) consensus that lists represent an exception to WP:N. It exists somewhere between the totally non-notable cruft and the notable high quality content. For some content that isn't notable enough to warrant an individual article, it might be "semi-notable" and deserving of inclusion in a list. So, the first thing we all need to admit is that Wikipedians DO want some inclusion standard for lists to weed out the crap, but it is not the same as WP:N. That's the consensus.

Secondly, WP:N potentially lets a lot of garbage lists through. Sure, a list that meets WP:N is off to a great start, but it can still lead to unencyclopedic trash. Just as an example, Michael Tyson, Michael Jackson, and Michael Jordan are all notable persons. But most Wikipedians would think that a standalone list of Afro American celebrities named Michael would be unencyclopedic and inappropriate, even if the comparison can be sourced to Notorious B.I.G. in Victory.

To summarize, WP:N is too strict, and yet too loose. Many lists that meet WP:N should still be deleted, and many lists that don't strictly meet WP:N are kept. We need an inclusion standard for lists to keep out the crap, but it's time to admit that WP:N is just the wrong standard. We need a standard that is tailored to the unique format of a stand-alone list. And indeed, that's the consensus. Randomran (talk) 18:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It may be consensus in your view, but evidence shows that non-notable lists are being deleted virtually every day (see Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by POP TV for example), usually because they fail one or more content polices, such as WP:NOT. The reality is that there is no clear cut definition of which lists "should be kept", only those that can't. In order for a list to escape from failing WP:NOT, it seems to me that the only defence is compliance with WP:N, a good example of which is Bio. I dispute your statement that "Many lists that meet WP:N should still be deleted"; if you can give an example, and the reasons why you think it so, that would be helpful. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A "list of notable people that have the first name of Fred" is notable but indiscriminate - there's nothing special about being named Fred that connects the list together.   And while many non-notable lists are deleted when brought to AFD, there is a non-trivial number that are kept, meaning there is some standard that allows for them.  --M ASEM  10:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This example does not exist. I still dispute the statement that "Many lists that meet WP:N should still be deleted"; I know of no real-world instances of such lists. Many non-trivial lists may be kept, but there may be a presumption of notability underlying that decision. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Browsing through the List-related deletion archive, I can see several lists around notable topics that were deleted for being indiscriminate, including: Articles for deletion/List of one-, two- and three-letter rivers and streams, Articles for deletion/List of European languages by country, and Articles for deletion/Previous performers at The Houston Livestock Show And Rodeo from the early part of the list. --M ASEM  12:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * None of these lists are notable by a long stretch of the imagination. Have a look at the first one: Articles for deletion/List of one-, two- and three-letter rivers and streams; the nominator of the list is the person who created it: even he doubts the notability of the list and admits creating it for a newspaper competition! --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Masem has offered a lot of good examples. There's also a huge gray area where we can verify the entries in the list with reliable third-party sources, but the list itself is a little suspect. For example, catsuits and bodysuits in popular media or List of creatures in the Resident Evil series. Even so, we're getting off topic. We keep a lot of non-notable lists, and there's a consensus that this is done on purpose, not by accident. Even if we still delete a lot of non-notable lists, we have to acknowledge what people have actually said and done. Randomran (talk) 15:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The examples given are examples of original research. Each of the examples was created by an editor for reasons unknown; POV is not a practical basis for inclusion criteria for lists. Your example of List of creatures in the Resident Evil series is a synetheis of various sources; there is no evidence that this list has been reviewed, checked for reliablity or completeness, and its content fails WP:NOT on at least two counts (WP:NOT and WP:NOT). If there is any method behind the examples you have given, I have yet to divine this. What I am trying to highlight to you is that non-notable lists are slowly but surely being deleted, because they are listcruft, i.e. they are not "suitable" encyclopedic content. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think the evidence supports that all non-notable lists will eventually be deleted, though. And you're also ignoring the consensus seen here. Randomran (talk) 16:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't claim that they would. However, failing WP:N is indicative as to whether a list would fail WP:NOT or another Wikikipeida content policy. On your last point, I did not see that there was a clear consensus for A.4, in fact there were a suprisingly high number of editors who opposed the proposal; the vote in favour was in the proportion 3:2 or thereabouts. That aside, I think the question still is on the table: what inclusion criteria could be applied as an alternative to WP:N? If someone has a practicle proposal, I am all ears. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I was hoping you might be willing to work with us to figure that out. Many examples of non-notable lists we keep: Category:Lists of television series episodes. Randomran (talk) 17:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't look at just the !votes; when I read through the responses in my evaluation, both supports and opposes pointed out that indiscriminate lists are not appropriate but wasn't called out in the proposed text; the supporters cautioned that language needed to be added for that approach, while opposers stated that they couldn't support without that language. The end point is that they all agree on the same basic aspect: non-indiscriminate non-notable lists do have some place here.  And we already outlined two classes that you kept rejecting: Lists of episodes of notable shows, and lists of major/recurring characters in a series of fiction (tv show, multi-release video game, etc.)  Both are non-indiscriminate and material that would be part of the larger coverage of the show or fiction if we didn't use WP:SIZE. --M ASEM  20:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Even if you set aside the default inclusion criteria of WP:N, lists of episodes still fail WP:NOT and lists of non-notable characters fail WP:NOT. It seems to be there is a specific prohibitions for lists of episodes and characters in WP:NOT, but I do not understand why you think this . If using lists as a vehicle for evading Wikipedia polices and guidelines, I am afraid you can expect a lot of opposion to this proposal, regardless of how you indend to draw up alternative inclusion criteria. At the end of day, Wikipedia is neither a fansite, nor game or TV guide, nor a telephone directory for fictional characters. I do not see any encyclopedic value (using WP:NOT as guide) for this proposal. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi. I was going to as to how WP:NOT and WP:NOT apply to lists of episodes and characters, as nether seems to fit. But I gather that your proposal at WP:NOT is intended to amend this? - Bilby (talk) 09:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Basically, the question remains: why list every non-notable topic, just because it may have featured in a TV series? Paper based encyclopedias could not of course; they neither had the space, and their editors were aware that such lists tended to date quickly. Wikipedia has its own problem: listcruft is a magnet for undesireable content, so why encourage it? I don't understand why this random stuff should be listed if it does not provide encyclopedic content. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Me personally, I'd rather stick with WP:V and WP:N that require reliable third-party sources. But there's a consensus that they aren't the end-all be-all. If you read through that RFC, you'll find that people are willing to make an exception for lists on the condition that they still meet some other high standard. At a certain point, I had to stop ignoring the consensus. Randomran (talk) 13:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As I have said before, the consensus was not unconditional, and the concerns raised in response to A.4 still need to be addressed. I would suggest that we start by compliling a list of the suggestions made by supporters and concerns raised by opponents of the proposal, rather than assuming that proposal is itself the solution on the basis of a vote. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've started the process of doing that, for my own understanding, but the methodology is rigourous but slow, so whether or not my version of the analysis has any value will depend on how quickly the results are needed needed. - Bilby (talk) 13:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You're 100% right: the RFC revealed an exception, but it was not an unconditional exception. And the best place to start is probably the RFC itself. Thanks for taking on the analysis Bilby. There might be some room for interpretation, but hopefully we can start from some broad principles that reflect the consensus. Randomran (talk) 17:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)