Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Embedded lists/Archive 1

What we REALLY need: Collapsible Lists!
Certain lists are quite appropriate right where they are, but have been tagged for cleanup because they do not quite deserve their prominence in an article. We need a feature to support these more naturally.

Collapsible lists are the answer: they would remain inside the relevant articles where most appropriate, yet they would initially be out of view to avoid cluttering the default view. Clicking the "+" or the text on a line such as "+ Listing of imminent Wikipedia features" would then expand the list in place underneath. It could be just as easily hidden by clicking "- Listing of imminent Wikipedia features" or just by reloading the page.

Who can implement a great COLLAPsible solution like this? We need to do the right thing here -- with better software -- and resolve many of the List-Or-No-List battles across the WikiRealm.

(Editorial: Many lists are NOT appropriate, such as those which grow unreasonably long, which lack any natural ordering (such as alphabetic or chronological), or which do not naturally fit the parent article. However, the lists in plenty of tagged articles are really not inherently "unencyclopedic" -- and the definition of that word is surely subject to change with the advent of electronic encyclopedias such as Wikipedia! Requiring articles to look just like (and no better than) the obsolete in-print Brittanica does not make us "encyclopedic".) Parsiferon 17:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If you think about it, collapsible lists are the best way to resolve clutter while keeping short lists attached to the most appropriate sections of the articles they belong to. Otherwise we wind up with the usual mess: text-only articles linked to long list-only "articles", with no practical way to keep their sections and subheadings in synch and linked with each other. (Then the lists are deleted. Then they get recreated. Then they are moved again...) Parsiferon 17:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed clarification/exception for bulleted paragraphs
I notice that this style guideline makes an exception for items that would result in a lengthy sentence. I propose a second exception for items that are currently short paragraphs. Sometimes, having them in a bulleted list makes them easier to read than if they were just short paragraphs without bullets. It also doesn't seem right to artificially condense unrelated points into a bigger paragraph. As an example, please see: 2005_Texas_Longhorn_football_team. I think this section is very clear the way it is formatted, though its formatting violates the stipulations currently found on this page. Johntex\talk 18:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that arbitrariness is uncool, and support your exception. And in cases where points are being made, or a specified number is mentioned for the presented things (like "the seven deadly sins are:", then enumeration can be used instead of bullets. -- The Transhumanist  06:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed clarification/exception for a list of accomplishments
I also think this page is too restrictive with regards to items that are traditionally expressed as a list. An example would be a list of records set by an athlete or sports team. While it would be possible to write these as complete sentences, doing so would actually decrease their readability. As an example, please see: 2005_Texas_Longhorn_football_team. I think this section is very clear the way it is formatted, though its formatting violates the stipulations currently found on this page. Johntex\talk 21:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Items with statistics are better displayed in list or table formats, not in paragraph form. Also, the page is very opinionated.  Editors have differing styles, and to claim that "lists make Wikipedia worse, not better" is silly.  Lists and tables help break up long pages of otherwise seemingly endless text.  They also tend to draw the attention of the reader to the items they display and can therefore be very useful for emphasizing important information.  The example given seems somewhat contrived and the paragraph is very cludgy because of the dates in parentheses.  Let me give it a shot:

As a basic principle, when subsequent paragraphs are children of the paragraph that precedes them, you should avoid merely stacking such paragraphs if they contain information that would be easier to read in a list format. Such "children" logically qualify for indentation beneath their parent description. It is also more acceptable to bold the item entries in lists. For example:

Which example above looks more like a sterile monstrosity? Which one was easier to read? Breaking up an article's text in various ways makes it it easier for the reader to follow and remember, because the logical structure is represented in the way the material is displayed, and can be seen as plain as day.

Well, what do you think?

The Transhumanist 17:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC) 10:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that lists are often better, although even the left side looks fine due to the proper division into paragraphs.--Patrick 08:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfair comparison
This comparison is unfair because the main difference is that on the left there is more content:

Two questions are mixed up here:
 * whether a list form is better
 * whether extra content is better

Patrick 08:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It looks like we are in agreement then that the admonishment against embedded lists is too harsh and too inflexible. I will take a shot at updating this guideline to reflect the discussion above. Johntex\talk 01:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I added the new example into the guideline. I did not say that it is OK to bold the items in the list because we have other guidelines that say we only bold the name of the article itself. Johntex\talk 01:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. A more fair comparison would be the following: Under this fair comparison, it seems that the list form is better. 98.203.237.75 (talk) 05:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

"See Also"
(moved from Village pump)

We don't seem to be in the habit of putting See Also links in our articles. Isn't it common practice in paper encyclopedias to have a See Also section right under the article title?

For example: Energy See also energy conservation, energy policy, energy engineering.

The reason I bring this up is that some of our articles address a particular meaning of a word, with no indication of where one might turn for information on other senses. On the Conservation page, there is a nice sentence explaining that the page is about the conservation ethic, not laws of conservation in science. But isn't there a simpler way to just put See also Conservation of Energy or whatever totally different meaning a reader might be thinking of? Hawstom 23:29, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * I thought "See Also:" was used pretty extensively here. Just go ahead and add wherever you think appropriate. There are also disambiguation pages and disambiguation statements added (usually) at the top of a page where more than one meaning could have lead a reader there - Marshman 00:02, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * "See Also" is not meant for disambiguation. It has more or less the same function as the internal links in the body of the article. It is used when there is no natural place for the link in the text or when a particular link is thought to be very important. Andres 04:09, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Merge Triva sections
I am proposing that Trivia sections be merged into this guideline as a trivia section is being defined as a list within an article - the main problem with the trivia lists being that they are not organised. This guideline should better guide those who wish to have an embedded list within an article that may or may not contain disorganised or trivial material.  SilkTork  * SilkyTalk  —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 11:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm opposed. Trivia lists are their own distinct problem and deserves their own guideline.  Mango juice talk 12:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This guideline is about lists of links; trivia is a list of facts.  Different beasts.  When lists are bad the info in them is just fine but the list format should be converted to prose to make it more explanatory.  When trivia is bad, either the info is fine and the list needs to be integrated into different sections, or the info is impertinent and should be avoided.  I also don't agree with using this page as a broad bias against all lists, and don't want to endorse that interpretation by creating a master guideline against different kinds of lists.Wikidemo 12:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah. You know, I'd always seen Embedded lists as being about lists within articles rather than stand-alone lists - I hadn't seen that it was about lists of links. You are right. I had recently adjusted wording on the cleanup-laundry tag on the basis that Embedded lists was talking about lists within articles. But it's not, it's talking about embedded links. The laundry list is a different thing, and relates more closely to what I am thinking. Perhaps this guideline should be renamed Embedded list of links to make it clearer? Hmmmm.  SilkTork  * SilkyTalk 13:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. Maybe "Link lists" or "Lists of links" since it's not clear to me how "embedded" adds any specificity at all (all lists will be "embedded" in articles by virtue of being in the articles).  Separately, are you still proposing the merger?  If not, you should remove the merge tag from WP:TRIVIA.--Father Goose 18:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm still considering the situation. We have a guideline on standalone lists, but we don't have one uniform guideline on lists within articles - which is what I'd always thought Embedded list was about. The current discussions/guidelines are within Embedded list, Trivia sections and the WikiProject Laundromat. I think it might be helpful if these three areas could be brought together in some way. The WikiProject Laundromat is not a guideline, but it does reveal that there is some feeling that neither Embedded list or Trivia are quite covering the whole of the territory - though it does link to them, as they do link to each other.
 * If a list contains "links", or "miscellaneous facts", or "insignificant or inessential matters" or "how-to" material, or is "disorganized and unselective", then a unified guideline dealing with that, perhaps under the name Lists within articles, would be helpful. Perhaps what I'm looking for is not so much a merge, but a new project page that would have summary style break outs into Embedded (renamed "Link lists") and Trivia. Still doing hmmmmmm at the moment.  SilkTork  * SilkyTalk 08:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the two are discussing different kinds of lists. I don't know that they can/should be merged. I mean, we could put them both on the same page, but I don't see that they overlap in their subject - they do fine on their own. --Cheeser1 04:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, if it's just a style / organization matter of putting multiple "don't do this with lists" guidelines on the same page I have no strong feelings either way. So for that purpose you can count my oppose as no opinion.  But be careful about combining sections and concepts.  Wikidemo 05:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Trivia lists are very different from Embedded lists. No merge -- ( Cocoaguy ここがいい contribstalk) 14:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Trivia sections sometimes take the form of a list, but not necessarily. there is considerable sentiment--I think majority sentiment--for rewriting them in paragraph format when applicable. There are enough problems with lists without getting it involved with this also rather disputed matter. DGG (talk) 07:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm removing the merge tags as I'm persuaded that I have misunderstood the exact nature of the two pages I suggested merging. I will, however, create a proposal: Lists within articles. And I will suggest changing the name of Embedded list to (Embedded) Lists of links.  SilkTork  * SilkyTalk 10:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Has everyone read this page?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Trivia_and_Popular_Culture/Discussion

Here are some interesting external web sites concering trivia. http://www.neatorama.com/2008/03/22/wikipedias-identity-crisis-keep-or-delete-trivia/ http://billso.com/2008/03/18/should-wikipedia-include-trivia/ http://www.economist.com/search/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10789354 http://www.economist.com/search/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10789354&mode=comment&intent=readBottom http://www.economist.com/search/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10789354&mode=comment&intent=readBottom http://www.includipedia.com/blog/2008/03/10/inclusionists-versus-deletionists-on-wikipedia.html http://www.includipedia.com/ http://www.includipedia.com/wiki/Includipedia:About http://www.includipedia.com/wiki/Main_Page http://blog.shankbone.org/2008/12/22/trivia-section-on-wikipedia--an-american-dad-christmas-illustration.aspx http://www.impactlab.com/2008/03/24/wikipedia-identity-crisis-part-2-keep-or-delete-trivia/ http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080111152140AA8xEth http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiTrivia Ozmaweezer (talk) 04:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Layout considerations
This is a very good article to refer people to during a WP:GAN, but I wish it mentioned one more angle on the problem: layout. Even if it says nothing else, the rule-of-thumb of not having too much white space, or not making the white space too jagged, would be nice. That's a major part of WP:GAN's objection to lists: they appear too ragged. Organizing the information in a table or turning them into bulleted prose seems to be to be addressing a layout issue as much as anything. I would tackle it, but I'm snowed under with other stuff at the moment. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 00:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Skyscraper example prose is UNGRAMMATICAL, lol...
"NYC's skyscrapers include A, B, C, and D are all icons." Rep07 (talk) 20:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Now fixed. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 22:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Embedded lists in lead sections
Please participate in the centralized discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Lead_section. I would like to see information about using (or not using) embedded lists in lead sections also added to this guideline. Viriditas (talk) 23:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Full stops
Shouldn't there be guidance on here as to when a list of items is composed of fragments (and how to punctuate them) rather than full sentences requiring a full stop?

Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley talk contrib 18:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

== Does the "Work" part of the Josie Maran article fit into "Tables of information and short lists can also complete articles [...]"? And it is additionally a "children" of the career section of the text ==

Does the "Work" part of the Josie Maran article fit into "Tables of information and short lists can also complete articles [...]"? And it is additionally a "children" of the career section of the text?

Hi!

I'm tired of some user who keeps removing the most important information about someone who is model (and nowadays has a cosmetic line too). The most important information is the reference to a model's work.

What do the people who have written the article "Wikipedia:Embedded list" say: Does the "Work" part of the Josie Maran article fit into "Tables of information and short lists can also complete articles [...]"? And it is additionally a "children" of the career section of the text?

I clearly say yes.

Greetings —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.121.126 (talk) 15:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Outdated
"Tables of information and short lists can also complete articles, e.g. Politics of Germany presents an overview of the topic and includes a list of current ministers and a short list of German political parties."

- Embedded_list

Either this rule no longer applies, or this rule is referring to an older version of Politics of Germany. Can anyone diff it, so we can link it instead of Politics of Germany? Otherwise, we have to use a completely different example.174.3.98.236 (talk) 04:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Guideline Conflation
A discussion about the conflation of lists, stand-alone lists, embedded lists, and WTUT is occuring at Village_pump_(proposals). If you decided to contribute please contribute there.174.3.98.236 (talk) 23:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That thread isn't about a conflation of guidelines, it's a proposal to delete all lists.--Father Goose (talk) 06:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You are welcome to contribute your opinion. Do you not agree there is overlap between the guide lines?174.3.98.236 (talk) 07:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, try to remain civil when editing.174.3.98.236 (talk) 07:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Guideline reverts
Some edits I have included edit summaries. For those I have not:

*Change from == Lists within articles == to ==Integration==: *Change from "See also lists, Compare lists, and Related topics lists are valuable navigational tools " to "This is composed primarily of a list of internal links. " *Movement of == How many links in each article? == to bottom of == See also section == and deletion of headling headline **Paragraph pertinent to links in see also sections, thus moved in to a section headlined "See also section" *Change from "The syntax for referencing a URL is simple. Just enclose it in single brackets:[line break] [URL optional-text-after-space] [line break]The URL must begin with  http://  or another internet protocol, such as  ftp:// or news:// ." to "The syntax for referencing a URL is simple. Just enclose it in single brackets . You can put optional text after a space after the URL . The URL must begin with  or another internet protocol, such as   or  ."
 * Policy_and_guidelines, invoking the more relevant title to the information.
 * Adding an extra table:
 * to make clear and examplify the uses of the application in question.
 * Removal of "" style="padding-left: 10px;"
 * Doesn't make much sense to have one table formatted one way and the other formatted the other way.
 * Removal of "Tables of information and short lists can also complete articles, e.g. Politics of Germany presents an overview of the topic and includes a list of current ministers and a short list of German political parties."
 * Old example that does not show up at the articles
 * Change from == Related topics (navigational lists)== to == See also section ==
 * Harmonization to layout
 * Removal of "See: Guide to layout and "
 * Guide to layout no longer exists
 * Change from "Navigational templates." to
 * Clarity
 * As appended.
 * Compare violates Mos
 * Related topics = nonstandard
 * Change from "Links to related topics - topics similar to that discussed in the article." to "* Links to related topics[line break]: - topics similar to that discussed in the article."
 * We should set an example (formatted to wp:mos)
 * Change from "* "Web hyperlinks", lists of links to web addresses other than Wikipedia, under the heading "External links"[line break]* "References" - lists of academic journal articles or books, under the heading "References". " to "* "Web hyperlinks"[line break]: lists of links to web addresses other than Wikipedia, under the heading "External links"[line break]* "References"[line break]: lists of academic journal articles or books, under the heading "References""
 * Removal of unnecessary space at the end
 * We should set an example (formatted to wp:mos)
 * Formated to wp:mos style
 * Removals of
 * Non standard table formatting.

Discuss before reverting.174.3.98.236 (talk) 07:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No, discuss before making massive and incorrect changes to guidelines. You clearly are on an agenda to delete all list related Wikipedia scoped pages and it will not be ignored. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 14:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The changes have been put up plainly before you. If you have any problems with them discuss them here.174.3.98.236 (talk) 03:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * By the way, no, I am not on an agenda to delete all lists or list related pages. Or list related wikipedia scoped pages.  You also have no proof of this and are assuming bad faith.174.3.98.236 (talk) 05:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, you did say "we really need to get rid of lists for all and for once" at Village_pump_(proposals). But perhaps that was merely a misstatement on your part.


 * I personally have no objection to the changes you made to this guideline. They seemed pretty reasonable formatting/organizational changes and did not change the overall advice, except for removing a couple of statements that were unnecessary or off the mark.--Father Goose (talk) 07:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much. Please state clearly (like I have) what you do not like.  I will proceed to revert Colleterian.  Please, as I have stated, if you do not like something, be specific.174.3.98.236 (talk) 08:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Like I said, I have no objections. The "couple of statements" I referred to were ones you removed from the guideline that were probably appropriate to remove.--Father Goose (talk) 09:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * As you were blocked by an admin, clearly I'm not the only one who questioned your motives. I've already responded. I do not approve of any of your changes. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 07:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Responded to what?174.3.98.236 (talk) 07:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Third Opinion What's all the hullabaloo about? Looking over the IP's edits, they seem to be mainly, if not all, serving to clean up the page, instead of the "massive and incorrect changes" and "agenda" claimed by User:AnmaFinotera. Most of the original content remains the same, and that that has been removed was done so because the example it was referring to no longer exists. As far as I can tell, the meaning of the page remains the same. Remember to WP:AGF--just because an anonymous editor has made 27 consecutive edits doesn't mean they're bad! Mildly MadTC 14:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * His changes changed the meaning of several bits of the pages, had no consensus, and I'm not going to assume good faith about an IP who also declared in other places "all lists should be deleted". It would be helpful if you'd also looked at all his other edits and the ANI thread on this guy. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 16:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Can someone revert back to my version? I can't revert otherwise people will accuse me of warring.  Once again, a (probably) bad faith editor (Reyk) has reverted me.174.3.98.236 (talk) 16:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Why? A falsely filed 30 (that is not a 30 when you are already being discussed at ANI) does not make your edits correct NOR has any actually discussed your edits to the point of their being consensus for any of them. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 16:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You are the only person opposing my edits. Also, the 30 was not improperly filed; once again you are not assuming good faith.  (On the relevant talk pages) Your disputes are only between me and you.  I am also following the dispute process.174.3.98.236 (talk) 17:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I've refactored the title here. Anonymity is not a blanket privilege here. If you're going to be doing large-scale edits to guideline pages, particularly if you're going to get into disputes with other editors over it, you should be editing from your registered account. Also, take it a little more slowly to see if there's consensus, and if disputed use the talk page to work with other editors on it. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 17:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes I have. And no I do not have an account.174.3.98.236 (talk) 17:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean by blanket privilege, because I haven't done anything disruptive. What title?  (Confused)174.3.98.236 (talk) 17:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Change To Standarize All Tables On This Guideline
One of the tables has the formatting | width="50%" style="padding-left: 10px;".

I propose to change it to | width="50%"|.

I will wait two days. If there are no objections or discussion, I will change the guideline as proposed.

Also, a message has already been filed at wikiproject MOS. They have been notified of these changes.174.3.98.236 (talk) 05:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Why? -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 06:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Why not? Shouldn't we make all the tables look the same way?174.3.98.236 (talk) 17:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No, we shouldn't. Different tables have different purposes. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 17:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That table? With an extra 10 pixels of padding?  How does it make the table more clear?174.3.98.236 (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The change in question would be like so. Do you really prefer uneven padding on the left and right sides, AnmaFinotera?--Father Goose (talk) 06:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

How about the removal of


 * The paragraph html is not necessary, and nonstandard when used in tables. Yes, this is just html, but it will be easier for editors in the future when they edit this page.174.3.98.236 (talk) 17:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd agree with its removal. It seems to be serving absolutely no purpose the way it's used on the guideline page.--Father Goose (talk) 06:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Do we have consensus:P174.3.98.236 (talk) 09:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Give it a shot.--Father Goose (talk) 09:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks.174.3.99.176 (talk) 04:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

TBH, I've looked over my proposed changes, and most of them where aesthetic. As Father Goose pointed out weeks earlier, my changes did not alter the rules.

Anyhow that said:

Removal of

"Tables of information and short lists can also complete articles, e.g. Politics of Germany presents an overview of the topic and includes a list of current ministers and a short list of German political parties."

The removal is of:


 * An article that no longer includes a list
 * Commented out text
 * "short lists can also complete articles" = redundant

174.3.99.176 (talk) 05:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I will give 24h for discussion. Afterwards, I will be bold.174.3.99.176 (talk) 05:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

How does everyone feel about the change from:

"The syntax for referencing a URL is simple. Just enclose it in single brackets:

[URL optional-text-after-space]

The URL must begin with http://  or another internet protocol, such as  ftp:// or news:// ."

to

"The syntax for referencing a URL is simple. Just enclose it in single brackets . You can put optional text after a space after the URL . The URL must begin with or another internet protocol, such as   or."

The reason for my change is because it explains the use of the URL syntax better. Once again, 24h waiting time.174.3.99.176 (talk) 02:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you know what, let's move this paragraph to a more relevant guideline. This guideline, as it is, a guideline for embedded lists, not a how-to guide for format URLs, right?174.3.99.176 (talk) 02:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I propose we turn the text:

"At the beginning of the 20th-century, New York City was a center for the Beaux-Arts architectural movement, attracting the talents of such great architects as Stanford White and Carrere and Hastings. As better construction and engineering technology became available as the century progressed, New York became the focal point of the competition for the tallest building in the world. The city's striking skyline has been composed of numerous and varied skyscrapers, many of which are icons of 20th-century architecture:


 * The Flatiron Building, standing 285 ft (87 meters) high, was one of the tallest buildings in the city upon its completion in 1902, made possible by its steel skeleton. It was one of the first buildings designed with a steel framework, and to achieve this height with other construction methods of that time would have been very difficult.
 * The Woolworth Building, a neo-Gothic "Cathedral of Commerce" overlooking City Hall, was designed by Cass Gilbert. At 792 feet (241 meters), it became the world's tallest building upon its completion in 1913, an honor it retained until 1930, when it was overtaken by 40 Wall Street.
 * That same year, the Chrysler Building took the lead as the tallest building in the world, scraping the sky at 1,046 feet (319 m). More impressive than its height is the building's design, by William Van Alen.  An art deco masterpiece with an exterior crafted of brick, the Chrysler Building continues to be a favorite of New Yorkers to this day."

into a table, with a comparison cell. This is because as we are trying to illustrate, not show, what would happen when bullets are used, and when bullets are not used. Below is what I propose to put the text into.

24 hour objections?174.3.99.176 (talk) 17:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Are there any objections to moving == How many links in each article? == to the bottom of == See also section == and deleting the headline "How many links in each article?"?174.3.99.176 (talk) 06:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Are there any objections to me renaming ==Lists within articles== to ==Integration==?174.3.110.108 (talk) 19:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I personally would go with a section title like "Lists versus prose", or something like that. "Lists within articles" isn't right, but "Integration" doesn't summarize what's in the section well either.--Father Goose (talk) 02:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'll change it thus:-) I don't have consensus anyways:-).174.3.110.108 (talk) 21:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Are there any objects objections to me removing "Compare lists, "?

The reason for removal is because these sections would violate wp:head if they existed.174.3.110.108 (talk) 00:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Such Sections In Articles?
Where on earth do we have articles with the section ==Related topics==? I've only seen ==See also==. Sections named ==Compare== just violates wp:mos, so that definitely should not be here.174.3.98.236 (talk) 18:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see where in the Manual of Style "Compare" sections are prohibited. They're not standard sections, like See also, External links, References, etc. sections are, but they aren't prohibited either.


 * Offhand I don't know of any "Compare" sections in articles, though we do have quite a few "comparison of" articles.


 * Mind you, the set of examples at Lists -- which I gather you are trying to modify here -- is poor. I'll take a shot at improving it.--Father Goose (talk) 07:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hopefully this is clearer: . We'll see if anyone objects to the change.--Father Goose (talk) 07:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Father Goose. I haven't looked at your change off hand, but in response to, here is specifically the charge against using solely verbs in headlines (section headings):


 * "Titles should be nouns or noun phrases (nominal groups)".174.3.98.236 (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I just realized that link er, diff, you pointed was to wp:lists not wp:embedded lists. I have no idea if you realized this.174.3.99.176 (talk) 04:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah so. Well, that one needed rewriting anyway.  This one does too.  Parts of the guidance describe things that probably haven't existed on Wikipedia for years, if ever.--Father Goose (talk) 08:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The things I removed DIDN'T exist for years ! So, everyone in agreement that
 * "Tables of information and short lists can also complete articles, e.g. Politics of Germany presents an overview of the topic and includes a list of current ministers and a short list of German political parties."


 * should be removed?174.3.99.176 (talk) 02:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Consolidation?
Please note that this page has been nominated to be consolidated with the primary Manual of Style page. Please join the discussion at the MOS talk page in order to discus the possibility of merging this page with the MOS. Thank you. — V = IR (Talk&thinsp;•&thinsp;Contribs) 15:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps within WP:LISTS. I am concerned that it encapsulates a basic principle, i.e., lists in tables versus lists embedded in running prose. It also has information that is probably redundant, especially the last section, "References and external links". Tony   (talk)  09:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Leading into a list
Where a list is otherwise appropriate, it seems to me it should at least flow from the narrative rather that just pop up with no introduction! The example I have issue with is the article on Colin Powell section 2.1. The easiest way to lead could be as simple as stating in the preceding narrative "The following is a list of promotions as well as the effective date of each promotion:" and then the list. Any thoughts?My76Strat (talk) 14:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I see no need to add a sentence that provides no information - it would be a shibboleth.
 * However, this section has the same list in 2 formats and reverse order. And is there no information about any of the promotions, e.g. getting new responsibility or experience that advanced Powell's career? The same may apply to the list of decorations - some will be just standard issue, but some may be for specific achievements. --Philcha (talk) 16:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you may have intended a term other than shibboleth, And I disagree that the sentence, even in this simplest form, provides no information. Because it precedes the list, it introduces the information and prepares you for what you are seeing next. The intent of my comment was the idea of an introduction as opposed to a list poping up from nowhere.My76Strat (talk) 01:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think sometimes, you want a lead in sentence for the bulleted paragraphs. Other times, it will just be obvious from the content what you are doing (the bulleted lists with bold are just little cheap sections anyhow).  (I like them, not dissing, just explaining, is how I would write a good memo.)  If you look here, in "Distribution" I didn't bother with a topic sentence.  In "Habitat", I did.  Probably a judgement call on when it makes things smoother, when it adds content, when its just wasted text.TCO (talk) 09:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

MoS naming style
There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB (talk) 20:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Lists within prose
I probably missed it somewhere, but where is the guideline about lists within prose. Example from Business process: "In general, the various tasks of a business process can be performed in one of two ways – 1) manually and 2) by means of business data processing systems such as ERP systems." Is this the correct way? --Muhandes (talk) 05:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Two items aren't generally considered a list. They can be handled grammatically, like this: "the various tasks can be performed manually, or by means of business data processing systems"... The reader can readily see there are two.  The only reason to mention the number in this case would be to lock it down, such as "can be performed in only one of two ways", and even then, numbering each item isn't needed.  For more information, see WP:embedded lists. The Transhumanist  18:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Notable residents
Good Article reviewers have been known to insist on the recommendation that lists of notable residents should be represented as prose, as a condition before passing an article as GA. I feel  this recommendation  is  being interpreted too literally.

Two areas that often have a separate 'List of...' page, are notable residents, and alumni. My rationale is that if list  pages can exist, then medium length lists that are not long enough to justify a separate page, especially  of these two types, can be an exception to the recommendation that  all lists should be generally be written  as prose. Encyclopedia visitors usually want to scan down such lists, which are usually alphabetical, and not wade through a prose of miscellany.

Examples that demonstrate the readability of list  vs prose can be seen at: Entries may be bulleted and unless they already have a Wikipedia page, a one- or two-line description declaring notability. Links to articles related to an entry are encouraged, but beware of overlinking, for example if many residents have entered a varied career, there is no need to link to every item in that person's career. Red links should be kept to a minimum - in theory, people who are sufficiently notable will already have a Wikipedia entry.
 * Malvern, Worcestershire - prose would be ridiculous.
 * Milford Haven - the very maximum size that  a list  could be sensibly represented as prose.

I appeal to common sense, or even WP:IAR, in applying this recommendation of list-to-prose, and and to stop failing Good Articles for displaying their notable residents in well sourced, tidy, descriptive entries. I would like this to be considered for inclusion in MOS policy. --Kudpung (talk) 11:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think if you can really write good prose, then you know when to put something in a list as opposed to prose. Articles should be capable of containing small lists.  It really leads to lumpenprose to cram the lists down into prose anyhow.  Bad for the rest of the prose AND for the list content itself.  The issue is they are sensitive to people that only want to write bullets or lists (Powerpoint style) and so they think list bad, para good.  But then they start putting something where it does not belong.TCO (talk) 14:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem with lists is that where do you draw the line, in prose you can put the people you call notable in context, in a list they are completely out of context. -DJSasso (talk) 14:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I guess you have to use editorial judgment. Think about the best way to convey information.  The most efficient way for your reader,for the given sitation.  As with any similar decision (say how to structure).  For instance if the list when converted to prose ends up just being a "list in prose form", say of unfamiliar terms or blue-linked concepts, with little development, then the information would be better presented in a bulleted list or perhaps a table.  On the other hand, if you are listing three ideas and then each of them is developed, well, some introductory topic sentence would work better.  The decision is not one of "rules" or "drawing the line", but one of editorial judgment.  The point is to use the screwdriver for screws and the hammer for nails.  Perhaps making both versions and comparing them would be helpful.


 * I'm not anti-prose, I LOVE prose. I love having a point and developing it.  Just don't kid oneself that one is being more prosey when converting a boring list into boring prose.  If it's a list and I don't want to read it, I can jump over the bullets (or table, tables serve similar function really) and get on to themes and development.  When you cram a list down into prose and it's just running text of long lists with little so what, you're not showing more sympathy to prose writing, but less.


 * My own opinion is that lists of notable residents, as long as well researched should not prevent a good article being classed as one. When I put Rhondda up for consideration the article was fortunate to be reviewed by an editor of good sense who although stating he would like to see the section switched to prose, it was not important enough to prevent GA Status. I have since switched the list to prose, but it is now a considerable section with many notable residents not mentioned, but are linked with a See also Category:People from Rhondda. FruitMonkey (talk) 17:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with DJSasso. In 'list' form, it inevitably gets out of control. Dlabtot (talk) 17:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem with "notable residents", in either format, is to determine what constitutes a notable resident. Some famous people have their home city somewhat "attached" to their fame, such as the Beatles being from Liverpool. Others are simply famous, and their home city is just statistic info. At least, prose forces to give context. --MBelgrano (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Two and a half thoughts:
 * Sometimes, a plain list really is the best option. One example of when this is preferable is when the individual items don't relate to each other, e.g., notable residents of a town from different centuries, buildings that have no connection to each other except being in the same city, unrelated movies for which someone won awards, etc.  This is particularly likely if you're trying to name the most famous couple of people in a summary that points to a more comprehensive list.  (Just imagine trying to write a sensible, connected prose that covers a state governor from the 19th century, a Nobel Prize winner from the early 20th century, an Oscar-winning actress from the late 20th century, and a billionaire who moved to town last year.)
 * The inclusion of lists is not prohibited by this guideline. If you've got a GA reviewer who can't find the second section in this guideline (that's the one that is labeled Appropriate use, then we either need some WP:TROUT or some better reviewers.
 * That said, sometimes these lists should be turned into prose. For example, if the famous residents are related to each other (through family ties, business partnerships, or any other means), then a couple of paragraphs would highlight the connections.
 * I don't think that we need to change this guideline to make an explicit exception to overcome the misunderstandings of a small number of GA reviewers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keeping these as lists should be fine. When something really is a list, having to sit through reading a list written out in prose is annoying for the reader. If there is a bit of interesting, proseworthy stuff and the rest is just list, the prose could be at the top as a "lead" for the list; it shouldn't be necessary to convert the entire list into badly-written and choppy prose. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 22:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Looking for evidence
To the people asserting misapplication on the part of GA reviewers: Please provide links to the relevant GA reviews, and an explanation of why you haven't availed yourself of the dispute resolution options at WP:GAR.

For example, the only GA that Kudpung is obviously associated with is Evesham, whose reviewer says "Although I have no problem with the format as a list, I would like to see some sort of opening sentence or two tying these people together." (emphasis added). Asking for an introductory sentence hardly qualifies as insisting that the list be turned into prose.

I am seriously concerned that we are being asked to change this guideline to "solve" a problem that exists only in someone's imagination. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That, WhatamIdoing, is an unfair, dismissive conjecture, and borderline inflammatory. Discuss the policy and not the editors. Nobody is being asked to change any guidelines anywhere. Evesham is the tip of the iceberg but has nothign whatsoever to do with Dana Boomer's comment, who, it should be plainly obvious, also does not feel that  it is mandatory to comply with a mere MOS 'recommendation'. --Kudpung (talk) 08:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * There is nothing unfair or inflammatory about WhatamIdoing's message, and asking for concrete examples of a problem is not "discussing the editors". r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 23:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It's worse - To say that the problem exits only in my imagination is bordering on a PA. There is already plenty of support for the topic I started, and I certainly didn't dream it up just to waste everyone's time. --Kudpung (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * If the problem can't be proven to exist, then we don't need to "solve" it.
 * Have you personally encountered this dispute at any article except Evesham? I've seen a number of GA reviews that have problems, and I make a pest of myself by insisting that reviewers stick to the actual criteria rather than making up extra requirements, but this complaint is new to me, and the situation at the article doesn't support the existence of a general problem.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I posted an issue just a bit further down the page, with the same problem at FA for Painted turtle about five days ago! We had nice bulleted, bolded list paras (very similar to the NYC buildings, what I'm used to irl, and also good for my particular issue of describing the subspecies to make the info pop and allow comparison and also allow "non line using section headers". There was pretty much non comprehension of "being allowed to do this" or the general reader benefit (despite this being how I would write in corporate America or the military).  We did end up keeping the bolds, so I got half a loaf.  That said, there is still total noncomprehension and TRY taking an embedded list through FA and I will bet you money you get the same objects without even a knowledge of both sides of the issue (i.e. this policy).  People on the wiki reacted to Powerpoint nontextual people, by wanting everything in prose.  I think that once you reall understand how to write smooth paragraphs with a flow, you realize the benefit of NOT having pure list stuff encumbering a narrative paragraph. TCO (talk) 02:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Appropriate use
I note that WhatamIdoing indicates that lists of people embedded within an article is allowable under this guideline. I am not so certain, as I don't see that within the guideline as written. Lists which are prose explanations and are the children of explanatory paragraphs are allowable. An example of this is in Regency_Square,_Brighton. Instead of a simple list of the Listed buildings, we have a definition list, which explains and describes the buildings. Another example: Philosophy. Such definition lists do as the guideline says - "allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context". They are educational. We aim to be educational. These are not simple lists, but are definition lists. Lists of names would be simple lists, not covered under part one of Appropriate use.

The second part of Appropriate use covers long sequences within a sentence, when there are a number of items. It might be argued that this could be used for associated people, and would be a better approach than simply allowing a list of names. A list of names tells us very little, and is actually hard to read and absorb. Lists are for when you are scanning for something - not for the taking on board of all the data. The human brain is not geared that way. When training people to remember data, it is advised to put lists of data into a prose story. Putting the people into some form of definition sentence, and then presenting the names in bullet form would be an alternative to keeping them in the sentence. But either way, the data is being explained, defined and grouped in a manner which would be helpful to the reader.

While I don't feel this page is the appropriate venue for discussing GA criteria, I would agree there needs to be some flexibility in interpreting any guideline, and it would be a rare GA reviewer who would fail an otherwise excellent article because of one small item. A lead which doesn't quite cover all the details in the body of the article does get passed if that was the only sticking point, an article which may not quite cover all the main aspects of the topic may be passed, etc. But if both the lead was not quite right, and there was an embedded list in the article, then the reviewer should continue to urge the work is done or fail the article. The aim, after all, is to improve the encyclopedia, and the GA process aids that improvement only if people are pushing for the work to be done.  SilkTork  *YES! 13:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The first example under #Appropriate use is not a definition list. In fact, a definition list should probably be formatted properly as definition lists rather than bulleted lists:
 * Term to be defined :Definition goes here...
 * Next term :Next definition goes here...


 * The first example covers "children" of preceding paragraphs. The given example provides one paragraph of general information about NYC architecture, followed by a list containing the names and descriptions of three specific buildings.  This model can be trivially applied to a section containing one of general information about people, followed by the list containing the names and descriptions of people.    WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Embedded list sections
Other than "See also" and "External links", this guideline does not adequately treat embedded list sections, that is, sections specifically intended as lists. They are not disallowed. Embedded list sections are useful for presenting examples from large classes, because it isn't practical to include a comprehensive list for those. (Keep in mind that the section's lead should prevent the assumption that such a list is complete.) Embedded list sections grow organically in articles, and have since the beginning. That's where many stand-alone lists came from.

Just like prose, embedded list sections are subject to the splitting and summary style guidelines. When a shorter version of a list is retained, a Main link should be provided, leading to the more comprehensive stand-alone version.

A great deal of confusion could be avoided by properly naming embedded list sections. Regular section headings imply subjects presented in prose. Keep in mind that section headings are subject to the same guidelines as article titles, and can include format identifiers such as "List", "Timeline", etc. Format identifiers prepare readers for what to expect.

A good example of an embedded list section is Human geography.

I believe that the inclusion of embedded list sections should be made on a case-by-case basis. It's best not to impede Wikipedia's organic process. Transplanting is always an option. The Transhumanist 02:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that sums up my opinion that it is probably not constructive to the GA process for reviewers to systematically insist that  all  'Notable resident'  sections in  articles about towns should be written  as prose. Those that  havesuccessfully achieved GA status while retaining the bulleted list, are indeed onse that  have an introductory paragraph to the section. I would like to see more opinions however, and maybe some from those GA reviewers who, IMHO, interpret the 'prose' recommendation too  literally or too  rigorously. Kudpung (talk) 02:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Are GA reviewers actually rewriting "notable residents" sections from lists to prose? If so, this is silly - for these sections, lists are obviously better (that is, a reader is able to process them more efficiently) and in fact when I come across these as prose (and I have some spare time) I reformat them as lists as a matter of course. If there is some sort of guideline or whatever deprecating lists, there should certainly be an exception for "notable residents" sections. Herostratus (talk) 04:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No, the GA reviewers are not rewriting, they are simply insisting on conversion to prose, and/or declining to pass as GA because of the lists. Kudpung (talk) 04:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * (answering Herostratus) No, there are no guidelines deprecating lists. On the contrary, lists are alive and well.  See:
 * WP:LIST
 * WP:STAND
 * WP:CLN
 * Portal:Contents/Outlines
 * Portal:Contents/Lists
 * Portal:Contents/Glossaries
 * List of timelines
 * Lists of people
 * Lists of country-related topics
 * Lists by country
 * Special:PrefixIndex/List of
 * Wikipedia has over 8,000 stand-alone lists, and embedded lists many times that. The Transhumanist  05:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is an example of the reviewer issue, given previously. They were not aware of the wiki policy or off-wiki practice
The embedded bolded lists (short paras) are viewed with suspicion and lack of familiarity (although I am used to exactly this device in writing off wiki):
 * 
 * 

TCO (talk) 05:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * @ The Transhumanist: Then surely we should be able to  communicate this somehow to  the GA reviewers who insist  upon  converting  these lists to  prose in  order to  pass GA,  without a new RfC to be able  include it  in  existing policy  or guidelines. Can we cite a consensus that  the rule is only  a recommendation? Will  that  change the interpretation  that  the GA reviewers currently  assume to  be graven in  stone? Or can we write into  the relevant  guidelines that  there are indeed perfectly  acceptable exceptions to  this rule? It's interesting  to  note that  the GA reviewers have declined to comment here.--Kudpung (talk) 06:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The various quality award departments are held to MOS. They can't enforce style guidelines that don't exist.  Ask them to point out to you where it says in MOS that embedded list sections are disallowed. The Transhumanist  23:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Dialogue is probably not possible, comments from the concerned reviewers, while not  uncivil, are often blunt, dry, and uninvited. This does not encourage even the nicest and boldest of us to raise a discussion where there is a possibility that GF is going to get lost  on the way, or where reviewers might  pull rank. Kudpung (talk) 08:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Then in the opening statements of your next nomination, point out the section and how it fits into MOS. You could also include a link to this discussion thread. Another option is to propose here the wording for a new section of this guideline that covers embedded list sections.  The Transhumanist  08:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that Human geography is a good example of an embedded list. That it states it is an embedded list doesn't make it any more readable or helpful than if the title were simply Human geographers. A list serves a different function to prose. It acts in a manner similar to a navigation box or a category. A list presents items that people may wish to scan to look for a particular item. It is not in itself educational, and certainly not helpful - unless it is explained - or the data has been previously explained. I would suggest that the embedded list would be better as a nav box. And that if someone wanted to help inform the reader about the key people involved in the development of human geography, that the section would need to be written up in explanatory prose explaining who did what and when, and why that was important.

WP:PURPLIST is useful in summarising the use of lists on Wikipedia. And Categories, lists, and navigation templates is also helpful. Lists can and do serve a useful function. I think though we need to be careful where we are using embedded list within articles. When it is to do something other than to present a short amount of easy absorbable and related data (such as a brief list of important albums or singles, or battles, or a timeline) then we need to make sure we are doing our main function as an encyclopedia in explaining and educating.  SilkTork  *YES! 13:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

An example
I have just had an experience somewhat similar to Kudpung's, during a GAR for Josie Petrick Kemarre. At that GAR (see Talk:Josie Petrick Kemarre/GA2), the reviewer generally did a good job in re-reviewing an article I had originally nominated at GAN, and it certainly was improved by the GAR process. However, as can be seen here, the final sticking point was whether or not a particular list would be improved or prosified. It appeared that whether the article was going to be kept or delisted hinged on that single point. I made an argument during the GAR that good practice in this field (Artists' biographies) is to have at the end of the biography a list of major gallery collections in which the artist's works are held. I drew attention to both online and offline examples of this practice, but this argument was not addressed during the GAR. I accept that in other respects the reviewer made cogent arguments about the merits of the list - I just didn't think, on balance, that it was enough to warrant prosification.

The above case has two aspects: what should be the approach at GAN/GAR (which should not be discussed here at this talk apge); and whether the guideline should be interpreted as meaning that such a list - namely, of galleries in which an artist's works are held - fails to be acceptable in terms of the EMBED guideline (which is being discussed here).

For information, lists of this sort can be found in around 30 articles I have created, including Minnie Pwerle, Wintjiya Napaltjarri, Kwementyaye Napanangka and Bronwyn Bancroft (all FAs). While the GAR at Josie Petrick Kemarre is the first time I have had to deal with this issue, I emphasise that I accept there is merit in points made by the reviewer. My question is not whether there are arguments either way, but whether other editors think that the use of the lists in these articles fails to fit within the 'wiggle room' given by EMBED. Comments? hamiltonstone (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that in this thread, and in the original one I started at Notable residents above, there is, together with your comments, a consensus beginning to crystalise in favour of recommending that the intransigent GA reviewers should adopt a more flexible approach. The suggestion that this be clarified in the GL is, IMO, the one that should now be followed.  Kudpung (talk) 04:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)