Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Inclusion criteria for Lists/draft

Stand-alone list policy

 * (All) Wikipedia policies and guidelines apply to stand alone lists.

Notability of stand-alone lists

 * (all) Notability applies to stand-alone lists, but is just one guideline that affects inclusion.
 * (10-3) WP:N states that the notability of an article's topic should be established through reference to reliable sources. For a stand-alone list, such notability should be established at the list article itself (in a lede paragraph). If a list is a legitimate sub-article (spun out from an existing article) the notability established at the parent article may sometimes carry over to the spun-out list (it is never wrong to re-establish notability at the list, but it is not always necessity).

Topic and scope of a stand-alone list

 * (All) "List of..." is irrelevant. A stand-alone list by any other name is still a stand-alone list.
 * (All) Notability should be established for the topic of a stand-alone list.
 * (5-1) The topic of a stand-alone list is the group of things. For "list of foos", the topic is "foos" as a group / set / class of things.

Notability of items within a stand-alone list

 * (10-3) The question of the topic's notability is distinct from the issue of whether the items listed must be notable or not. It is recognized that a list's topic may be deemed notable, even if it includes non-notable items (Example: "List of  episodes", where the notability of the TV show has been established). It is also recognized that a list's topic may be deemed non-notable, even if every item listed is individually notable ("List of US Presidents who have eaten eggs" for example.)

Categories and stand-alone lists

 * (4-1) Not every category with multiple verifiable entries should have a stand-alone list article. Just because there is a category of articles that all meet policy, it does not mean that it is appropriate to organize them into some combination to create a stand-alone list.
 * (All) Existence of a category is not relevant to deciding whether or not to create a stand-alone list. Some topics are suitable for either stand-alone lists or categories, let alone both or neither.

Articles and spin-out lists

 * (5-1) Not every topic that is appropriate for an article is also appropriate for a stand-alone list. If foo represents a good article (or potentially good article), it does not mean that it is appropriate to create list of foos or list of examples of foos.
 * (All) Editors should seek to include the stand-alone list contents within a larger article before creating a new stand-alone list article, as per WP:SPINOUT. This may require trimming of existing information in the main article or list to meet the article size limit. Creation of a new stand-alone list should only be considered after exhausting such options.

Does this describe the consensus at the RFC?
''This statement of principles should accurately summarize the areas of wide agreement expressed at Requests for comment/Inclusion criteria for Lists. We will make sure that this statement of principles accurately summarizes the RFC by using the WP:BRD process.''


 * Endorse as reflecting RFC Blueboar (talk) 16:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Endorse with the following caveat. I think the List/Category idea is right, but needs a bit of rewording.  I'll think about it and propose a slight change.  Good job SW.  IMHO very little needs to change with current list policy/guidelines other than clarifying the above. --Mike Cline (talk) 17:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * SW: Here's my category/list neutral way to say what you were saying. Not every category or list with multiple verifiable entries needs to have corresponding a stand-alone list article or category. Just because there is a category of articles/list article that all meet policy, it does not mean that it is appropriate to organize a comparable list or category. - Many topics are suitable for both lists and categories, the existence of one does not invalidate the need or desirability of the other. --Mike Cline (talk) 17:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I'll wait for Masem to check in. I agree there's a lot to be desired on the wording. I'm hoping that once we have some agreement that this fairly represents the consensus at the RFC we can figure out where to write down these principles, and also work on the wording. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think many of the statements above are improperly applying a notability test or judgment where it's a more straightforward question of whether a list of notable things is encyclopedic (as in the "list of U.S. presidents who have eaten eggs" example). Maybe that's just my view and not the view of others in the RFC, but I thought there was more of a consensus that notability was a red herring in a lot of ways in determining whether a list was valid, because it asks the wrong questions and ignores whether there is a utility in a particular (often standard) mode of indexing.  Here's how I'd formulate it:  1) A list must first pertain to notable topics, whether by indexing notable things (i.e., articles) or enumerating detailed elements of a notable topic (i.e., split-off subtopics of articles).  That can be satisfied in a number of ways.  2) Then the real test proceeds, judging whether the particular grouping of notable topics or list of details of a notable topic is encyclopedic in relation to those notable topics.  postdlf (talk) 16:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me try to understand. Are you saying that there are other policies (like WP:IINFO and WP:CROSSCAT) that have a big impact, if not bigger impact on WP:N? I thought it was implied that other policies definitely affect which lists we inlude or not. And I don't think it would be controversial to add to an area where there is consensus. (Even if the actual interpretation of those still lead to a lot of disagreements. Unfortunately, I never saw the RFC arrive at an agreement about what was indiscriminate or not... just that we knew we don't include indiscriminate lists.) Or if I'm still not getting you... would you be able to point to one part of the RFC where it looks like there's a consensus for what you're talking about? Shooterwalker (talk) 19:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I would relate this to my points below. Only a SAL needs to pass N, but ALL lists must be discriminate / encyclopaedic.  N is necessary, but not sufficient, for a SAL - the inclusion criteria WITHIN the notable topic must also be considered. (My feeling is we spent a lot of time discussing that, and it's worth capturing if there is consensus)  ‒ Jaymax✍ 21:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I would agree with you, but the RFC focused strictly on the inclusion of list articles (e.g.: stand alone lists). So I'm reluctant to overreach. Not sure I see a consensus for it. But I definitely added the idea that WP:N is one of many guidelines that apply to lists, and meeting it is just one step. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Good start, but fails to thoroughly distinguish between list ARTICLES (SAL) and embedded lists. For example, point about list-item-notability applies equally to embedded-lists.  As does point about categories.  (Although, admittedly they'd be small categories).
 * I also think there was consensus(??) that a list could be restricted by consensus objective criteria to ensure it is encyclopaedic / not indiscriminate. ‒ Jaymax✍ 21:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure there was a consensus on that point. I wouldn't personally disagree with it, but I don't think we ever got any substantial number of people to weigh in on that specific issue. Remember that this is a starting point of stuff that we agree on... it doesn't resolve all issues. But we could start by writing these down and hope that the policy evolves over time. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll buy that the scope for now is list articles and that perhaps we need a follow-on RFC for the stuff (and tidy-up) relating to discrimination and lists generally. I would endorse your summary if most refs to list changed to list article and list's topic to list article's topic. And "it does not mean that it is appropriate to create a stand alone list of foos or list of examples of foos."  Also, it's important (to me) to make it explicit at the outset that the context is SAL.  There are two terminology options, stand alone list or list article, I'm neutral on this.  ‒ Jaymax✍ 05:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I edited the principles to focus on stand-alone lists, since that was the scope of the RFC. I hope it makes more sense now. I'm with you that I wish we had spent some time working on other criteria for inclusion, especially "discriminate". But by the time we got to that, most people had already left or given up. I hope that we can write down these principles and use them as a foundation to work on another RFC. Assuming most people agree this is what the RFC produced, the next step would be to find a place to document these principles (whether WP:N, WP:LIST, WP:SALAT, or what not). Then further additions and adjustments could be made through editing, or another RFC if necessary. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * endorse - But because I'm a pedant, in the last item, I suggest: "... it does not mean that it is appropriate to create a stand alone list of foos or list of examples of foos."; "Creation of a stand alone list should..."  ‒ Jaymax✍ 21:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Got it :) Shooterwalker (talk) 22:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)