User talk:Mike Cline/Conquering the Dilemma-Creating a Better List

Comments on this essay
Copies from User talk:DGG


 * quick comment: you should really add a fifth reason--as a way of providing some information on topics that do not justify a separate aerticle or even a section of a combination article. I'll look at details further.~    DGG ( talk ) 00:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I won't comment there without being invited, but this seems like a good topic for an essay. I've recently raised the subject of bringing the once-infamous List of bow tie wearers to featured list status, and I think your draft is a good start towards a better guide to list building.--otherlleft 02:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Examples
I like the use of examples of what's both good and bad - I would suggest linking to specific versions, since hopefully all of the ones used will be improved over time!--otherlleft 06:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Ordinary articles, categories and templates
I generally avoid lists if possible. There is an issue concerning the psychology of lists; like images, some people favour lists and even think in terms of them, others tend to avoid them. There must be something in the scientific literature about that which might be worth digging out. Perhaps you are a listophile and I am a listophobe. Nothing wrong with either, just different ways brains operate. I do have a focus on navigation templates, which are a kind of list. Anyway, here a few thoughts that may or may not be useful.

List articles can be contrasted with three other modes: ordinary articles, navigation templates and category lists. In particular, a category page and a navigation templates are also lists, so it is always an issue as to which is most appropriate. Also, in my view, many lists would be better reworked as articles.

A category can always be created with the same name as the list, so a list should not be created unless it is clear that the list adds extra value that the category cannot. As you remark in your essay, lists should almost always be prefaced with at least a comprehensive lead. Preferably, there should be a full overview of the topic. You commend List of birds of Greece for its lead. I would go further, and say it should be supplemented with a proper overview characterising the birds of Greece, what sets them apart from birds elsewhere, what geographical features of Greece have special implications for bird life, what numbers are involved, which species are threatened... As it stands, the list doesn't really tell you anything about the birds of Greece, just a list of names. Taking this further, I don't see why the list shouldn't become an ordinary article, "Birds of Greece". The article could list some of the most notable birds of Greece, giving some information about each in a manner that illustrates the special features of birds of Greece. The remaining, less notable birds, can be be referred to in a category list. This would have the potential to be a far more interesting and less cluttered read than the current list. This is partially why I am down on lists. Far too many list articles are lazy. It is dead easy to just go and list a whole lot of stuff and not develop its structure. Properly structuring and explaining the list can be a lot of hard work, but it can end up as something much more valuable, and better written as an ordinary article.

Navigation template are also lists, and your essay could look at the tension there. When is a list better written as a navigation template, and vica versa? Navigation template have the advantage that they are usually present on the articles listed in the template. This gives a much greater exposure to readers. Many readers interested in Greek birds may not be aware of the list. But if the principal birds that characterise Greek birds are templated, the reader will more likely notice and surf around the other birds. Templates can also structure lists up to a point as in aquatic ecosystem topics. This template also leverages off category lists, by using them under the "More..." entries. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with the idea that Nav Templates are essentially embedded lists, navigational solely in purpose. I'll try to incorporate that idea in the essay. I wonder how WP:List and such might apply to Nav Temps?--Mike Cline (talk) 16:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

My take
I haven't spent much time considering the role of lists here on Wikipedia. I like them for the role they play in article development and stubbing, to ensure complete coverage...Odd that after five years, I don't think I have created a true list, but have created templates which allow quick linking to various related items, like mountains of one area, etc. I've been impressed with Mike Cline's rapid list generations, and plan on using them to stub out some articles...so I suppose, my feeling is that lists are handy to allow readers and editors an opportunity to see on one page these related items...we do have featured lists...I suggest all one would need to get one featured would be for it to have a respectable introduction, as much descriptive discussion as possible in the body of the list, be comprehensive, and a conclusion or summary at the end...pictures and plenty of various references should also be part of the criteria. Some lists such as the List of mountains is going to be a long way away from being featurable...it is dynamic and is added to all the time as more mountains articles or redline links are added...it has no intro...etc. Whereby a list of a smaller area or scope would be easier to "complete" and therefore would be more likely to remain stable enough to become featured. I'm going to think about this some more and get back here in a few days.--MONGO 01:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)