Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lists/Archive 5

List of wikis
List of wikis has received unusual amounts of traffic lately; long-term editors seem to support that the page should be comprised of blue links only (i.e. uses 'notability' as a criteria) and not link directly to external wiki pages. Is this unreasonable? Is it unusual? There's discussion at Talk:List of wikis but given the objections that have been raised recently I'd love some advice from experts :) WLU (talk) 19:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

OK. I found some people are mixing up with the difference between:
 * creating a new article
 * adding an entry within the article

The standard sets in WP:Notability are to deal with page creation! This rule doesn't indicate that the same standards of notability or the same degree of notability has to be applied to every statement we add. Clearly the degree of standards when creating a new page will be lower when we just mention them in a line or two.

The Wikipedia is not a directory page states: Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic, for example Nixon's Enemies List. Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference.

Finally we should ask ourselves this question. Why do we want cleanup the list? We initially don't clean the list that often. It is until the page contains too many spams. We should keep this in mind and don't do overkilling. -- OM 12:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a longstanding guideline on this, not at WP:N, but at the guideline for stand-alone lists: "Ideally each entry on the list should have its own Wikipedia article but this is not required if it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future." UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Quote below is from LIST as of today's version. The section titled "Lead section or paragraph" has been stable a couple months. Here is a quote below of part of that section.

[Quote begins. Emphasis added]


 * Stand-alone lists : Stand-alone lists should always include a lead section just as other articles do. Even when the meaning of a list's title seems obvious, a lead section should be provided which briefly and clearly describes what the list is about. In other words, it should present the inclusion criteria items must meet in order to qualify to be added to the list. For example:
 * If the meaning of the list's title seems obvious, e.g. List of dog breeds, the article may open with a simple statement using wikilinks, e.g. "This is a list of dog breeds." (The inclusion criteria is that an item must be the name of a dog breed in order to be added to the list).
 * If the list's title does not seem obvious, e.g. List of scholastic philosophers, the lead section should clarify the meaning of the title, e.g. "This is a list of philosophers working in the Christian tradition in Western Europe during the medieval period. See also scholasticism."
 * Non-obvious characteristics of a list, for instance regarding the list's structure, should also be explained in its lead section.
 * Lists should not be used to create content forks between a topic that has a separate wikipedia article (e.g. "republic") and a list complementary to that topic (e.g. "List of republics").

[End of quote]

Here is the tricky part though with lists. From LIST. Quote begins (Emphasis added):

The contents of an article that is a stand-alone list should be obvious. 'If the title does not already clarify what the list includes, then the list's lead section should do so. Don't leave readers confused over the list's inclusion criteria or have editors guessing what may be added to the list.'

Review Lists (stand-alone lists) for further clarification. See also WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not a directory) for the suitability of material to make a list about in an encyclopedic context.

For technical advice on how to format lists, see Help:List. [Quote ends]

If one carefully reads LIST one sees that the key to lists are the inclusion criteria. Notability of each item in a list is NOT always an inclusion criteria. But with many lists the editors of the list have agreed on the talk page to require notability for each item in that particular list in order to keep that particular list to a reasonable length. For more info see LIST. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you are qouting selectively, TS, and there are plenty of other guidelines that support the position that lists should have blue links only. For instance, there is this from WP:BIO:

Several articles contain or stand alone as lists of people - for instance, usually an article on a college includes or links to a list of notable alumni. Such lists are not intended to contain everyone (e.g. not all people who ever graduated from the school). Instead, inclusion on the list should be determined by the criteria above. [i.e. the Notability criteria]
 * [Quote ends]


 * Where editors have agreed to require notability, it is because they are following long-standing WP guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the excellent replies, it's much appreciated! From my reading of the above comments (and I could be wrong or missing nuance as I often do), it looks like there's mixed consensus for what I and a couple other editors have settled on for List of wikis.  Judging from when I first got involved in the page, by allowing external and red links, the list rapidly fills up with spam and reds.  My personal criteria (not necessarily other editors on the page) is based on a combination of WP:RED (don't add a red link unless the article is likely to be created), WP:N (try to have notable wikis) and WP:EL (don't link externally unless you've good reason).  I understand that WP:N is for new pages, not necessarily entries on a list, but it opens the door to a page that's mostly redlinks, which isn't useful or encyclopedic in my mind.  If someone is going to create a page anyways, then create the page first, then add the link to the list.  But basically it comes down to consensus on the talk page.  I think that's about it, thanks for the discussion.  Overall however, I think (because this is an area of wikipedia that doesn't get much traffic, not like WP:OR, V, RS or other big policies and guidelines) the list articles and accompanying policy/guideline pages aren't particularly clear - this leaves lots of wiggle room for individual pages, but it makes it harder to get guidance when you're new to lists.  Thanks for the info and comments.  WLU (talk) 14:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) List of wikis sounds like a list that needs some selective inclusion criteria, or it would become huge. You might consider breaking out some "List of [add topic here] wikis" pages. See WP:SPINOUT. Even then you will probably need some selective inclusion criteria.

Some lists are short enough that no additional selective inclusion criteria are needed. As for lists of people the Wikipedia is not a directory page states:

''Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic, for example Nixon's Enemies List. Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference.''

Not everyone on that Nixon's Enemies List will be notable. See also: Master list of Nixon political opponents. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, everyone on Nixon's Enemies List is notable: all of the links are blue. I agree with the approach that WLU is taking with the List of Wikis page, and editors who are facing this issue may want to see the essay I just posted at WP:WTAF (comments and changes are of course welcome). UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The full list is a spinout from the main article. The full list is at Master list of Nixon political opponents, and not all the entries are notable. The entries in the main article, Nixon's Enemies List, are mainly just those people listed in one memo. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There's no guarantee that NEL would all be blue, but given who he was, it's not surprising they are. Anyway, the page isn't long enough to spinout anything, but I am contemplating turning it into a sortable table here, incomplete, but right now it looks pretty ugly.  It really sounds like the whole set of list pages and guidelines could do with some harmonization or at least explicit discussion of the issues we're hitting here - I found them virtually useless and pretty muddy, hence posting on the talk page.  WLU (talk) 16:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As with many wikipedia guidelines there are contradictions with other guidelines. Plus there are people who purposely muddy the waters. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Unitedstatesian's recent changes
I think he's done a fine job improving the format and readability of the guideline. The Transhumanist 23:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Please comment on new proposal concerning list articles
(moved from Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not)

A list content needs to be expanded for an ecyclopedic entry so it conveys information other then its entries. Without the standard encyclopaedic entry, a list can become a catalogue.

I am going to suggest that all lists in Wikipedia must have, like all other articles: --mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 03:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * the encyclopaedic purpose (what does it inform the reader?)
 * an introduction
 * a definition
 * a statement of scope
 * a statement of notability

I have made a new proposal here Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not, and woudl welcome comments and discussion.--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 08:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think that the section on Lead sections in stand-alone lists is adequate if my proposal is considered.--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 04:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It doesn't seem to be gaining any steam over at WP:NOT. However, it seems very reasonable advice to include in this guideline -- though as a set of recommendations, not as a mandate.  We mustn't shouldn't use 'must' when 'should' will do.--Father Goose (talk) 05:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, you are welcome to make suggestions to the proposal. Indeed, if you have a point of view more focused them mine, then you must should ;o)
 * I find that Wikipedia sails along at a leisurely pace, except when encountering a storm of opinions. WP:NOT is one of the less "windy" places. However I have now on advice posted the notification to other ares, so that may invite more comments.--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 05:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose all except the intro requirement, and that can be extremely brief if appropriate. If a "List of Blah" article refers to "Blah" in its intro, its purpose is obvious, its definition should already be clear from what "Blah" is, its scope would be covered by the intro, and its notability is established by the "Blah" article.   &mdash;Torc.  ( Talk.  ) 09:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Its not a vote or a poll. You are only asked for a comment! In any case, I suggest you go and have a look at a few lists before commenting.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 12:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * My comment is I oppose everything except the intro requirement. What makes you think I haven't seen a list before?  &mdash;Torc.  ( Talk.  ) 19:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you looks at many lists across many different projects and portals? List of people born at sea for example? My proposal, when proposed would apply globally. In any case, the usual "intro" in a list is the incorporation of the list title into a sentence. This is not an "intro" IMHO.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 21:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, your proposal would apply globally. That's why I oppose it.  These should not be "required" for every single list article; instituting this would result in abuse.  &mdash;Torc.  ( Talk.  ) 23:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In what cases would application of the proposal to a list would not be required?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 23:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "List of X" articles where "X" is an accepted notable topic. The list is essentially content of the main article that exists on a separate page due to size or readability concerns. Notability applies to the topic.  &mdash;Torc.  ( Talk.  ) 23:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Torc2. A list after all is nothing more than that. It is how it is used that is important. WP Aviation would be a very sad project if it were not for the humble list. Whilst I agree that the AIM of a COMPLETED list is to have no red entries, it will ALWAYS be impossible in say List of Aircraft whilst aircraft are being built, and the ratio of 'aircraft types' to 'editors/contributors' is so ridiculously high.

As for notability, I have exchanged typeset over this in the past. IMHO ALL aircraft are notable due to the fact that they are aircraft. So I would oppose this opinion. In any case most of what is proposed would be in the Title, so re-iterating it in the body of the list would be superfluous!!Petebutt (talk) 11:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

How many lists ?
Is it possible to know roughly how many lists are there in English Wikipedia? Or alternatively what percentage of English Wikipedia articles is represented by lists? Thank you ! Tavilis (talk) 10:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Horizontal lists
I noticed that there is not much information about horizontal lists in this style guideline. Since it is a style guideline I don't want to be bold and add to it without asking here first. I would like to add the following to the "See also" section:


 * and - Dots and bullets for horizontal link lists, such as in navboxes.
 * Line break handling - Covers among other things how to properly handle the line wrapping in horizontal link lists.

Any objections? Or perhaps should those links in some way be added to the section named "Streamlined style or horizontal style"?

Those links do not cover the entire subject, but they are a good starting point and they link to all the other pages and templates I know of that are relevant to horizontal lists.

--David Göthberg (talk) 05:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Probably would be fine just as "See also" links. -- Ned Scott 09:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I came to the talk page to request the same. There is much misuse of vertical lists on WP because people do not know better ways to list items. Please include information about horizontal lists in a prominent place in the article. Mention, , and line breaking, and making multi-column text. Those are useful for lists embedded in the text of an article, not just for navboxes. -Pgan002 (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Notability of lists
Continues to be a problem as this guideline does not say anything about Notability nor links to anywhere that says about notability of Lists. ChessCreator (talk) 14:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * See Stand-alone lists. -- Wavelength (talk) 13:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Automatically sorting columned lists??
Can that be done in articles? ie

a     m       R c      n       T g      P       Z

Which would automatically resort to three columns if you added b,j, q and y??

If it can that should be added to this article, plus any links to how to do it. thanks Carol Moore 16:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

RFC: Victim Lists
Victim Lists is an attempt by me to create community consensus on the inappropriateness of lists of victims on Wikipedia. As they are lists of sorts, and I feel the list guidelines say they are inappropriate, I felt it appropriate to inform those who watch this policy page that this discussion was occuring. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Added Bibliography as a Specific Type of List
I've added the following statement to the guideline as bibliographies are often discussed as lists in debates, but not actually mentioned in the list guideline.


 * A Bibliography page presents a list of relevant books, journal or other references for a subject area. Bibliographies are useful for  expanding Further Reading topics for Summary style articles.

--Mike Cline (talk) 14:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Repeated links within list articles
I would appreciate any guidance or advice that could be offered with regard to repeated wikilinks in Lists, and how (if at all) the approach differs from articles. I am working on West Bromwich Albion F.C. seasons (currently at peer review), and would like to know what would be an appropriate level of linking within the list. For example, if a player is top goalscorer for five seasons in a row, would it be appropriate to wikilink five times or just the first instance? What about repeated names of competitions such as the Charity Shield, where the user may need to scroll down a long way between instances? Thanks. --Jameboy (talk) 12:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure. If you don't get an answer here, try WT:FLC. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Village Pump (proposals) link
I'd like to draw attention to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Lists, itself a synopsis and link to a Village Pump proposal to have bot monitoring of certain selected list articles or list sections of regular articles. Pseudomonas(talk) 21:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Lists and Notability Guidelines - A Proposal
In reviewing this discussion page, as well as many AFD, it is evident that many Lists are challenged on Notability guidelines. Additionally, the List Content section of the guideline does not address notability. To deal with I this I propose the following sub-section and verbage to the List Content section:

Lists and Notability (WP:Notability)
Lists that are compilations of entries which reflect and are linked to existing Wikipedia articles should not be subjected to WP:Notability guidelines as each individual entry is inherently notable while it remains in WP. If an individual list entry does not have its own article, or it inclusion in the specific list is questionable, then its inclusion in the list should be subjected to WP:Verify, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR policies.

--Mike Cline (talk) 17:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This issue comes up from time to time on WT:V. As long as WP:V says that any material can be removed if it's challenged and you don't provide a citation for it, changing this page wouldn't do any good; WP:V would overrule it.  If you want to tackle this issue, the first step should be a large, random, careful survey that describes what type of material tends to be challenged; obviously, lists of links to established articles tend not to be challenged.  (I don't personally know of any DAB links or See also links that have been challenged per WP:V, for instance.)  After you've got your survey results, the next step should be WT:V.  Let us know if the discussion moves there, please. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Dank55 - I tend to disagree with the notion that: lists of links to established articles tend not to be challenged. They do, but should not be challenged on Notability grounds, but they are. The intent of the proposal was to instill the idea that lists of already notable articles should not be challenged on Notability grounds but rather on V, NOR and NPOV grounds if appropriate.--Mike Cline (talk) 17:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant "tend not to be challenged as unsourced". - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:V is a very general policy, and the interpretation of it is complicated, subject to many related policies and guidelines, and often disputed. I think you need to distinguish that the entries will not be challenged as unsourced if they are clearly pertinent. The notability of the list as an overall matter can always be challenged. The pertinence of an entry can also be challenged--as when it is disputed whether or not someone comes from a particular area or is a member of a particular ethnic group. A good careful clarification of all this would be very helpful. There is also the problem of distinguishing liIsts meant to include the notable people from X, and the list meant to provide information about people or whatever not sufficiently notable for a individual articles. DGG (talk) 19:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I find the following comment perplexing: The notability of the list as an overall matter can always be challenged. I selected a list at random: List of battery sizes and am wont to find any notability of the subject. There are no primary or secondary sources cited that say anything about Lists of Battery Sizes.  All the sources cited are about specific battery sizes, not a List of Battery Sizes.  I would submit that if you applied WP:Notability guidelines to the title of most any list article it would not be notable.  However, applying those same guidelines to the contents of the list is entirely prudent.  When one applies the General Notability Guidelines to any list title it will almost always fail, whereas applying the same guidelines to the list content may or may not indicate notable content.  I think we are too quick to say a List is not notable because its content is not notable, whereas logic says if the content is notable, the list is therefor defacto notable.--Mike Cline (talk) 01:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with the statement that The notability of the list as an overall matter can always be challenged. The only way to sucessfully defend a list against merger or deletion is to demonstrate that the list is itself notable and worthy of its own article by citing a reliable secondary source that contains the list. Lists which are not cited in reliable secondary sources, but are compiled by one of more editors from primary sources, is a type of original research known as synthesis. Unless you can demonstrate that the list is notable, it is likely to be viewed as a content fork from the overarching topic. For instance, the list List of New Order Jedi characters is a classic example of synthesis as it has been compiled from disparate primary sources, and there is no way of knowing whether the list is complete, or whether it contains characters which are actually related in any way to each other. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * See Stand-alone lists. -- Wavelength (talk) 13:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Differences with ordered lists and wikimedia software
As far as I can tell, while Ordered list details a way to start a list from a number other than 1 (which would be useful for Tri-Danielson!!! (Omega) as it starts with 14), there's no way to indicate in wikimedia software that the list should start with a number other than 1. Is there a solution for this other than the current way of just writing out the list longhand and using linebreaks? --TIB (talk) 15:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Help:List. But that's more trouble than just spelling out the numbers.--Father Goose (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Tracklists
Considering the regular, on-going arguments regarding where tracklists should and should not be included (in a main article about another topic, in a list of soundtracks, in a discography, etc), should this guide be updated to address the issue? Right now, you have to go all over the place to find stuff, and then you have people arguing that the discography guideline doesn't specifically cover lists of soundtrack so it doesn't apply and they can have a tracklist, or that if an soundtrack album is merged to a main article that its tracklist should be included because no guideline says otherwise, etc. It seems some of the issues might at least be helped by a clearer guideline somewhere? -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 20:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

List of news anchors in India: Help with Interpretation
Please see this edit by me and this explanation by User:IndigoIntentions. Please advise on appropriateness and interpretation of lists criteria ChiragPatnaik (talk) 03:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Single Column Lists - are they needed?
I'd like to have a discussion on whether or not these types of lists are needed. This would be lists which are only formed to list an entry by a single criteria. For example, List of Sports games on the PSP, or List of cities in China. Since the typical agreement is that lists on wikipedia should only include notable items (which typically means they should or can have an article on wikipedia), what benefit do these lists serve over a category, and are they redundant to those same categories? sure, we could pretty up the lists by adding a lot of extra information that isn't really needed (population, release dates, review scores etc) but the case could be made than that in some cases its not longer a list but a comparison. Lists shouldn't have a lot of text on them other than to describe the criteria for inclusion if necessary. So what benefit does a single column list serve over a category and why do we really need them if they're presenting the same information?--Crossmr (talk) 08:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, do you think a "Double-columned" list is acceptable? Can you give me an example of what you mean by that? By double-columned, would you mean charts? Bulldog123 (talk) 19:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As long as there are two stringent categories for inclusion then yes. I find 90% of the lists on Wikipedia to be fairly pointless and not do anything that a category couldn't do. Lists should be used to create organizations of things that might be relevant to something but have multiple necessary criteria for inclusion that would seem unusually narrow as a category.--Crossmr (talk) 07:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say we don't have categories that are too narrow though: Category:Russian-American Jews. Bull dog 18:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:N regarding Lists?
Hey, i posted this over at WP:N and they sort of directed me here. I am looking for some sort of notability guidelines on a list, regarding List of Bloc Party awards. I don't think that this is a notable list, as i think there are too many nominations from non-notable awards ceremonies as well as too few wins. Where would i find such criteria? --SteelersFanUK06  ReplyOnMine!   04:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I've come here wondering the same things. I've been spending a little time at WP:AfD, and here is the argument I keep seeing: "Everything on the list is notable and sourced, therefore the list is notable and should be kept". (As far as I can see, that logic wins every time). It seems to make no difference that the list itself is ridiculous. By this logic, I could start "List of things that are green", as long as everything on it is notable and has a source. My point being, it seems that guidelines for lists need to be spelled out a little better, unless there is something I'm missing, which is entirely possible.-- Susan118  talk  03:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * See Stand-alone lists. -- Wavelength (talk) 13:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

avoiding the verbatim repetition of list titles in the opening sentence
For some time now, it has been the policy and practice of the FLC Directors and many reviewers to discourage nominators from opening their lead sections with a straight repeat of the title "This is [title]". Matthew Edwards has raised the issue of the lack of consonance between this page and current practice. I see that Shonken has reverted my reinstating of text that I originally put here on 16 September to address this issue. His justification in his edit summary says, persuasively, "this is the current guideline". It's reasoning that resembles "this is the way it is, and I don't like your change". We'll need something better than that, I'm afraid. Tony  (talk)  14:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't agree this would be made into a general principle. Note that not every list needs to be a featured list, and that then even the rule is not spelled out thus on the featured list criteria. The proposed change here disallows the short definition, while for a featured list it is only *encouraged* to do something more with it. In other words this is not a Wikipedia-wide rule, in which case one needs consensus to make it one (agreement on FLC-related pages is not enough, most people may want to live with the idea that this is an improvement recommended for featured lists, but not something that should be imposed on all lists).
 * I never very much liked the dog breed example. The new spinning out of that example based on the proposed additional rule, takes the inappropriate travesty to the next, and now completely unacceptable level. Maybe take a look at the current intro paragraph of List of dog breeds, which is way more acceptable than the current example, but also shows that this list is not a good example of a "short" list definition (for that reason I never very muched liked that example, but I succumbed to consensus at the time it was proposed).
 * The dog breed article doesn't mention the number of dog breeds, or any approximation of that number. Starting the list article with "There are more than 200 recognised ..." is at least WP:UNDUE ("policy" breach for the reason of a style issue without general consensus...), looks like a WP:content fork, diverts the attention from the basic facts of what a dog breed is, and on the level of style, it is not OK with WP:MOSNUM


 * In sum: find a more appropriate example, point to the POV fork and content policy breach aspects for list intro paragraph elaborations, and then find CONSENSUS for the proposed update at guideline level. In the mean while I'll revert, the current proposed change is worse then what the guideline was until a few hours ago.


 * PS, try to get the spelling of my name right. BTW, Francis is my first name. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * See also Wikipedia talk:Featured list criteria. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't accept these arguments, which make clear that Schonken has serious ownership issues at WP:LISTS. He has reverted two editors numerous times over the past day on this matter, and at one point said "this is the guideline" (strong argument, isn't it) and required, as it were, the FL Directors to come over there if his guideline were to be changed (see his edit summaries). Tony   (talk)  16:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "Note that not every list needs to be a featured list". I don't understand this logic, Mr Schonken; featured lists are the best lists that we have, and all of our lists should be aiming to such a standard of quality. In any case, this is a guideline, which means that it can still be ignored should it be necessary. This is not the oppressive enforcement of a decision; "disallows" is as relevant as the extent to which this guideline is followed. Waltham, The Duke of 03:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Schonken, we'll have to agree on some kind of recommendation against the verbatim repetition of article-title text in "List of X" lists. The FLC community, including the Directors, wants the change, and nominators have been largely weened off the practice over the past few months. We still have the odd nominator pointing to text here in support of the practice. You are expected to cooperate in good-faith alterations to improve practice, rather than acting like some lord-keeper of what you see as The Guideline, an attitude that I find disticntly unwiki (see your previous edit summary "this is the guideline"). Now, here is a suggestion by His Grace, which I've tweaked a little without substantive change in meaning. Do you have suggestions? Feel free to edit, perhaps in italics so the changes are clear, or by pasting in your own version. BTW, as I said in the edit summary, I find the Philosopher example problematic, and the distinction between "obvious" and "non-obvious" unclear. I also feel that the text is not sufficiently explicit in a few places, especially for newbies (can a brief glossing of "content forks" be given on the spot? Newbies to this page will find it hard-going to have to divert to another article for such a definition, at least on their first reading.

Stand-alone lists should always include a lead section just as other articles do. Even when the meaning of the title seems obvious, a lead section should be provided which briefly and clearly describes what the list is about; it should present the inclusion criteria (those that items must meet to qualify as list members). If the meaning of the title is obvious, e.g., List of universities in Quebec, open with a statement using wikilinks that does not merely repeat the title, but engages the reader with further information about it; e.g. "There are 14 public universities and three private universities in the largely French-speaking Canadian province of Quebec." The inclusion criterion, that an item must be university in Quebec, is in the title, and the lead moves on to explain the structure of the list.

Lists should not be used to create content forks between a topic that has a separate Wikipedia article (e.g. "republic") and a list complementary to that topic (e.g. "List of republics"). 1:24 PM Tony   (talk)  04:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I prefer this version:
 * Stand-alone lists should always include a lead section just as other articles do.
 * Stand-alone lists should always include a lead section just as other articles do.


 * Featured list criteria recommends that "[a list] has an engaging lead section that introduces the subject, and defines the scope and inclusion criteria of the list."


 * Further, non-obvious characteristics of a list, for instance regarding the list's structure, should be explained in its lead section (example: List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach), or in a separate introductory section (example: List of compositions by Franz Schubert).


 * Lists should not be used to create content forks between a topic that has a separate wikipedia article (e.g. "republic") and a list complementary to that topic (e.g. "List of republics").

Are there any problems with it?

I mean, most of the problems mentioned by Tony are no longer present in it.

As for an elaboration of the "content fork" issue: I think we used to have a version of the guideline that spelled out the issues with republic/list of republics (someone must have dramatically shortened it): the republic article explains several definitions of the term "republic" (quite diverse if you see the history of it). There were some problems with list of republics when some editors wanted to use a single definition (some preferred a "current" definition derived from CIA fact book or the like; others went for a definition derived from historical Enlightenment practice) for the purposes of the list. In the end none of that happened of course, some people got blocked, and the intro of the list article is what it is currently.

As for short definitions (I mean really short ones, barely more than a repetition of the title with links): for contentious topics sometimes not much more can be done to make the list feasible. For example list of dictators got deleted: the main problem (in my view) is that the list tried to use a separate definition for the purposes of the list, as any reduction or summary of the dictator article would be a travesty. IMHO starting the list with something in the vein of "This is a list of dictators, as confirmed by multiple sources in high esteem", without any detailed elaboration would have, at least, made the list possible. I do think it a pity that Wikipedia does not have a list of dictators article.

As for "non-obvious characteristics", I think they're sufficiently clarified by the examples, or does this need more elaboration? --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Francis: this seems to be good. My main concern is that it doesn't provide succour to FLC nominators who want to cite this page as supporting the old-style formulaic and very unengaging repetition at the opening of the lead. My secondary concern is that the text here be sufficiently explicit for newcomers. I'm confident that your text satisfies the first concern; as for the second, I'm stressed for time right now, so perhaps we can look at it later (as Matthew Edwards, FLC Director, has suggested) in the larger context. Thanks for your input. Let's see what His Grace thinks of it. Tony  (talk)  16:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * For your second concern I'd refer to Stand-alone lists anyhow. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No objections from me, gentlemen. Time for that section to rest for a while. Waltham, The Duke of 01:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

List of Rachael Ray guests
This is a list of guests which appeared on Rachael Ray (TV series). I just wanted to know the views of fellow editors on the encyclopedic usefulness of this article. I am not yet convinced about the same. I have discussed with the author here ( 1, 2)--Anshuk (talk) 21:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thumbnails instead of bullets
I'm not sure where to publicize this, but I'd like the community to look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inglewood,_California#Born_in_Inglewood. I've used thumbnails to replace the bullets and feel that it adds more zest to the page. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC) (P.S. That is not me; I am not that good-looking.)


 * That violates multiple guidelines and possibly some policies, I'd say. We do not load up articles with images for decoration and its not an appropriate use of the images of living people. That sort of thing does not look professional at all, it makes the article appear like someone's personal website. It has been reverted. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 16:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Note, the edit has since been reverted, so to see it in action, see it at. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 03:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with AnmaFinotera, and would like to add that it reminds me of a forum or blog page that uses emoticons in threads rather than an encyclopedia article. The implementation that was reverted is poorly laid out and distracting. This usage is strongly discouraged at MOS:ICONS. It also invites a new type of vandalism in which politicians and other controversial personalities could have images swapped with unsavory subjects and which would need to be viewed by patrolling editors to verify appropriateness. Sswonk (talk) 03:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Photographs are not flags. Photographs add information. If a reader is not sure who Esther Williams  is, well, a small photo can really be helpful. Click on the thumbnail and it takes you to a bigger version. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The first line of the style guideline reads: "For the purposes of this guideline, icons refers to any small images, including logos, crests, coats of arms, seals, flags and similar graphics, unless otherwise stated." Sswonk (talk) 05:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so. Thank you for pointing that out. I appreciate your guidance. It would be best, then, to hold this discussion at MOS:ICONS, don't you think? — since I believe the style should be changed, and I don't believe we can reach a decision about it here. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The discussion has already started here, so it might as well continue here as it also applies to this guideline (a note has been left at MOS:ICONS however). Additionally, your continuing to revert anyone's attempt to remove your images is inappropriate, as was your personal attack on your talk page. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 05:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

cross-posted to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons) as I'm unsure where the conversation's going from here.

Yikes, no! Aside from the aesthetics (or lack thereof), checking out the thumbnail to the right, who's who? Taking into account different browsers and screen resolutions, that's a confusing and/or misleading at best. —  pd_THOR  undefined | 05:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As 'pd_THOR says ,their are far too many techincal issues and they also look terrible Gnevin (talk) 01:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look at Manual of Style (icons). Kaldari (talk) 02:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * MOS:ICONS is already mentioned above multiple times and quoted as well. Sswonk (talk) 02:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Editintro for lists
It may be worthwhile to have, similarly to disambiguation pages (see Template:Disambig editintro and MediaWiki talk:Common.js), an editintro for lists, with reminders of guidelines on lists. Lists can be detected by the software, when they are in Category:Lists. The difference with disambiguation pages is that they are multiple sorts of lists. I don't feel strongly about this, only adding for consideration. Cenarium Talk  03:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

New bullet
Should not we add some new bullets in making belleted lists? And I have noticed another problem with bullets of bulleted lists and also in numbered lists.
 * Bulleted list normal


 * Bulleted list big


 * 1) Numbered list small


 * 1) Numbered list big

In the three lists above it is noticed that the size of bullet and number does not change with the size of text. Does it look good?

--


 * 1) We already have a section about bulleted lists (Lists). What are you suggesting we add/change there?
 * 2) The bullets/numbers themselves are created/styled by your browser. They look different to anyone using a different browser/operating system. We have no control over that.
 * 3) Why would anyone need to fiddle around with manual font sizes in articles? That's not a good idea.
 * 4) Why have you colored all your text red? (That's a mess of ugly code, and a rude visual highlighting akin to SHOUTING)
 * 5) Please do not use templates in your signature (See WP:SIG)
 * -- Quiddity (talk) 19:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of list articles is much more like deletion of categories: proposed fixes (persecuted list-makers unite!)
In light of the discussion at WP:CLN it is apparent that lists and categories complement each other on Wikipedia, and are often used to do many of the same things. There is much overlap and duplication between them, and that's good. It is not good when deletion discussions involving them are not handled by the same people. Which is occuring now.

When somebody has a problem with a category they don't like, they come to category-for-deletion WP:CFD, because the criteria are not the the same as for articles (we also have separate deletion discussion boards as you see in WP:XFD, eight in all, for other things). However, when people want to delete a list article (list of ships, List of trees, List of birds), which is essentialy the same thing as a category, but in list-form, they go to the article deletion discussion page, WP:AFD. That's not good, because the criteria for notable articles are not the same as those for list-articles. The latter only need a header paragraph to explain themselves (see WP:LIST), and then elements which are individually notable. As in List of birds. But other kinds of wiki-articles normally put up for deletion have more stringent notability requirements, and their verifiability methods are not of the same type (a list article many only have hyperlinked elements and nothing else).

All this produces very WP:LAME edit wars, as you see on the WP:DRV page. For example, List of bow tie wearers has been up for deletion 4 times, and has only survived by now having many, many in-article cites, which makes it look very much unlike List of birds. All that because nay-sayers demanded article criteria for what is essentially a category in list-form. You can see much the same type of problem with List of notable people who wore the bowler hat, which is now up for deletion review on WP:DRV on the grounds that some people are arguing that the existence of the list itself needs defending as a point of WP:V, when in fact, this is really a "what categories are natural?" discussion.


 * I propose that a separate page be created for proposed deletions of list-articles.


 * OR I propose that WP:CFD be renamed Categories and list-articles for discussion in recognition of WP:CLN and the need to treat lists in line with category criteria on WP. Deletion discussion for list articles would then go on HERE.

Comments? I'm going to repost this around on the several TALK pages which deal with this matter. S B Harris 01:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I would wholeheartedly concur with either of these proposals but would probably prefer the separate page option as the best. There are differences between lists and categories.--Mike Cline (talk) 14:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorting exponents
Is it possible to make exponents sortable?  Serendi pod ous  18:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

See List of Solar System objects by radius to see what we are asking about. Is there a way to make the "Mass (kg)" column sortable with exponents? -- Kheider (talk) 11:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand what you are asking. I think you are referring to List_of_Solar_System_objects_by_radius. That section of the document contains two tables and no lists. Neither of these two tables has a column like "mass (kg)", but one has "Mass yt" and the other has "Mass Zg". Both tables are already sortable. I do not think that there is a way to automatically sort a list that is not a table. -Pgan002 (talk) 19:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment at Talk:Comparison of wiki farms
Additional input is requested. We are discussing inclusion criteria and reference links at Talk:Comparison of wiki farms.

We are also discussing Alexa rankings as a possible inclusion criteria. See: Talk:Comparison of wiki farms. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Topic outline? Some guidance.
Mainspace classes of articles, such as proper articles, lists, and disambiguation pages, are all delineated rather thoroughly in the Manual of Style. Here is a new kind of list, the "Topic outline", whose purpose only seems to be documented rather vaguely in talk pages and portals controlled by a rather limited set of individuals (particularly User:Transhumanist). I have no idea what role a "topic outline" is supposed to play in the main namespace, since it seems like the sort of thing that the portal space was intended to fill. But clearly some direction is needed concerning how they are to be constructed and referenced, and what should be included in a "topic outline" and how it should be organized. Personally, I think that at the minimum, the organization of topics in a "topic outline" absolutely should be verifiable. Then again, this should have been discussed and consensus obtained prior to certain editors implementing it on a massive scale. I have added a section, with an expand section request here. siℓℓy rabbit (  talk  ) 05:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This type of page is not new. The set of pages has grown one page at a time over a period of more than 3 years.  Since there is no requirement to get approval to create (implement) a page on Wikipedia, regardless of type (articles, lists, portals, etc.), none was sought.  The Transhumanist  21:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Partially answered at Portal_talk:Contents. -- Quiddity (talk) 06:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply there. I was aware that this proposal was discussed on various and sundry talk pages.  However, no one seems to have taken it upon themselves to develop an appropriate guideline for such articles. They have no MoS entry, and consequently their quality is essentially unregulated.  Accordingly I have added a dummy entry to this particular Wikipedia guideline.  Please add content to it according to whatever consensus has developed out of the volumes of discussion to which this proposal has been subjected.  siℓℓy rabbit  (  talk  ) 00:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The pages have been and are currently regulated by Wikipedia's general guidelines (verifiability, lists, etc.), and these have served very well so far (3+ years). Though credit for the quality of these pages really goes to the editors who have worked on them - they've done a fine job and I for one have enjoyed working with them very much.  I've removed the empty section from the list guideline.  The reason I've done this is because the instructions or guidelines for creating and maintaining outlines will be extensive enough to require a page of their own.  I'm in the process of creating a draft, and will post it for comment when it's done.  I'm also working on articles for the encyclopedia about the various types of outlines, and this is slowing me down.  The Transhumanist  01:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

How much prose can be included in a list?
I was wondering how much prose can be included at the top of a list before: I agree that a list needs a good lead to introduce it, but additional prose sections?? There seem to be increasingly more of these pages that are kind of article-list hybrids. My opinion is that they should be clearly one thing or the other. I would appreciate people's thoughts on the two example above. Thanks. --Jameboy (talk) 17:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It stops being a list and becomes an article? (e.g. List of Oldham Athletic A.F.C. managers has more prose than list, so I'd say it is an article and should drop the "List of" if it is to remain in its current format).
 * It becomes a content fork of its parent article? (List of Football League Cup winners has a History section, which says "For more details on this topic, see Football League Cup." But that article's History section is the same size as the one in the list.


 * It depends. Character lists, to reach FL, should have multiple prose sections, including a creation/conception section and a reception section, at minimum. It depends on the topic and whether there are main articles that cover those topics. However, for those two articles I really see no valid reason to have history sections when there are main articles on both topics that should be covering that. In List of Oldham Athletic A.F.C. managers, the history really looks like a lengthy prose repeat of the list, which isn't very useful either. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 19:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * List of Football League Cup winners is currently up for Featured List if any one would like to leave comments about this, though I suspect it may need to be part of a wider discussion. --Jameboy (talk) 22:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Removal of longstanding guideline info
Please see this diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ALists&diff=267077779&oldid=267059279

User:GeorgeLouis. Please get consensus before removing info from a guideline page.

Please explain why you want to remove the info. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems like it could be replaced with something more useful, like that it is commonly used, giving examples of where it is used. --Ronz (talk) 01:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Alphabetization and collation
I am proposing that Wikipedia have a set of guidelines for alphabetization and collation. Here is a permanent link to a preliminary discussion of the topic: User talk:Noetica - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia [section 4: "Alphabetization (given names, surnames, domestic name order, thorn)"].


 * Something like that. I think navboxes should be used a lot more. They certainly can keep things orderly. Don't hesitate to come back here for more technical discussion as needed. I have a few resources to consult, and the topic interests me.
 * – ⊥ ¡ɐɔıʇǝo  N  oetica! T– 20:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've refined and corrected things a little in my post above.– ⊥ ¡ɐɔıʇǝo  N  oetica! T– 22:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have done the alphabetization of Esperantist. Ba Jin (listed at Esperantist) is a pseudonym, which I alphabetized at Ba.  Pope John Paul II (listed at Esperantist) is a titled name, which I alphabetized at John.  This reminds me of Cardinal, which is used as a middle name/title.  It also reminds me of Esquire, which is mentioned last in a name (or maybe I should say "mentioned after a name").
 * Some telephone directories have all Mc and Mac (and maybe M' ) names in a section between the L section and the M section. Also, Mackenzie (with a lowercase k) could be analyzed as being in the M section, rather than in the section for Mc and Mac.  Several Mac names have two forms which differ only as to the capitalization of the next letter.
 * In my previous work on Wikipedia, I have listed items in ASCII-code order, with numerals before letters. If numerals are ordered as the words they represent, then there is ambiguity with 1492, which could be read as "one thousand four hundred ninety-two" or as "fourteen (hundred) nineteen-two", and likewise with 2009.  See User:Wavelength/Articles started, sections 2 to 7.
 * Recently, when I added M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak Case) to List of environmental lawsuits, I left the order as I had arranged it before, but I noticed another problem: the new entry differed from another one (M. C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath) in the spacing of the initials. Perhaps one is right and one is wrong, according to a guideline somewhere on Wikipedia.
 * (All of this is giving me images of crazy quilting.)
 * -- Wavelength (talk) 07:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can understand your experiencing the crazy-quilting effect. I have edited the lists on the page myself. I do urge a move of Þórbergur Þórðarson to Thorbergur Thortharson; and even without that move, Thorbergur Thortharson would be much better for standard English usage, as in these lists. Such an adaptation is quite normal. We don't refer to Thor Heyerdahl as "Þór", or whatever the original form would be! I have also fixed some punctuation, capitalisation, and the like. The Esperanto word Internacio is best translated as International (SOED, "international": [B. n'] 3 (I-.) Any of various socialist organizations founded for the worldwide promotion of socialism or Communism; spec. = First International, Second International, Third International, Fourth International below. Also, a member of any of these organizations. L19.).
 * One entry was an error, due to confusion with an almost exact namesake. I removed it (see edit summaries). There are articles for several Russians with that same surname, as opposed to first given name and also surname; and while there is a disambiguation page there is not, so far, a DAB tag at the top of every affected page.
 * Language and languages were not designed for strictly rational collation such as alphabetising. We do the best we can, in an imperfect universe. I think we have it sorted out well enough this time. The larger matter of making WP guidelines to deal adequately with alphabetising is separate and more problematic.
 * – ⊥ ¡ɐɔıʇǝo  N  oetica! T– 00:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * }

Here is a permanent link to a subsequent discussion of the topic: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia [section 42: "Alphabetization and collation"].

-- Wavelength (talk) 22:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

[I have updated the permanent link and the archived discussion. -- Wavelength (talk) 02:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)]

Formatting of the lead sentence in lists
I'm assuming WP:BOLDTITLE applies to all lists as well as articles.

If for example the list is titled: "List of some things", then in the first sentence should the "list of" part be bolded too? as in:

"This is a list of some things."

or just the subject of the list, as in:

"This is a list of some things."?

Is there a specific guideline or is it just whatever the editor prefers? Because I couldn't find mention of this in the MoS. -- OlEnglish (Talk) 23:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * At FLC, we've moved away from the verbatim repetition of the title in the lead; instead, we have encouraged a more engaging start to leads that introduce the topic better. See for examples of recently promoted lists that use this format. I find it much better than before, and there has been no opposition over there. One of these days, we will fix this page to be consistent with what goes on at WP:FL. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Splitting a bulleted list
Is there something in the media Wiki-mark up that allows you to create a spilt list? E.g. when a reflist gets bigs big you use see this. Is there something equivalent you can use for a bulleted list? --DFS454 (talk) 10:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you mean
 * something
 * text1
 * text2


 * like
 * this?
 * text3
 * text4

-- OlEnglish (Talk) 00:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes exactly this. Thanks --DFS454 (talk) 09:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There's also div col, which doesn't require the break point to be manually specified. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Scorpion0422/State of the FL process‎
I believe the Featured List process is in trouble, and I have stated my opinions here. All opinions and comments are welcome. -- Scorpion 0422  19:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to advise against short lists
See Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

images in lists
Is there a policy, guideline, or style guide that excludes images in lists as referenced in this edit? —  pd_THOR  undefined | 22:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

People by city in the United States
Are these lists adding anything to the encyclopedia?

Wouldn't adding the appropriate category (e.g. Category:People_from_Nashville,_Tennessee) to each person's article be more organized and easier to maintain?

Also, it seems that this category contains a subcategory of...
 * Lists of people by U.S. cities

-- Stani Stani  23:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As we know, lists are different from categories. Lists can contain redlinks for people who do not have articles--so long as there is a reference showing the person was 'from' the city.  Hmains (talk) 00:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Would it then follow that any unreferenced item on the list should have a reference added or struck from the list? I'm not trying to stir anything up, just wondered what to use these lists for. -- Stani Stani  02:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That is what some people say that WP:LIST means, at least for people in a list. You can check. Hmains (talk) 05:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I'm being a bit too meta. Thanks for the discussion. -- Stani Stani  07:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

List of liqueurs
Hello. I seek guidance on a list article, in particular regarding external links. The article List of liqueurs includes the names of many liqueurs about which we have no articles. The question is: is it appropriate, for red-link liqueurs, to include next to the red link a link to a site selling the liqueur, where readers can verify information as to ingredients, etc.? An instance of exactly what I'm talking about can be found here. Thanks in advance for any opinions, whether here or at the article talk page, where we've been going in circles, it seems. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * replied at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Lists. -- Quiddity (talk) 16:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's true, you answered, and I appreciate that. I would, however encourage anyone else to contribute to the discussion, whatever your feelings on the matter. We're at a point in the discussion where more outside perspectives can only help. Thanks for any feedback on this matter. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Stamp list
Is List of United States airmail stamps‎ an appropriate list for this wiki. Perhaps it should be merged to the wikibooks:World Stamp Catalogue/United States because it seems like a stamp catalog to me, essentially based on the Scott catalogue, a copyright publication, who protect their own numbering system. ww2censor (talk) 05:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Does anyone have any comment to make on this question? ww2censor (talk) 13:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think this list is appropriate: it seems to violate WP:NOT, as it is a non-encyclopedic collection of informaiton. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Lists/Tables
In tables (like infoboxes), there is no standard rule for capitalization. There seem to be four standards we could follow regarding this: Many sites (like amazon, allmusic, imdb) use either option (1) or option (4) (capitalizing each phrase or word in the list). This would be advantageous to us, as if wikipedia conforms to a common standard, then wikipedia style-lovers would have less corrections to make. Some people argue that it should follow sentence-capitalization rules - though there is some debate as to whether the sentence contains "Genre" or not, so these people may like either (2) or (3). Everyone one of these standards appears with some frequency on wikipedia, and none seems to be most common. Are there any thoughts here about setting a standard across WP? Luminifer (talk) 23:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Luminifer (talk) 23:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyone know how to make this table go in the proper location, rather than at the end of this page? --Ronz (talk) 18:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry about my tag screw-up... Luminifer (talk) 17:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So, are there no real thoughts here about this? Luminifer (talk) 17:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to propose a rule for "comma-separated lists". Clearly, if they are in-sentence, then normal capilization rules apply, but if they are not in a sentence (like the above examples), it may (or may not!) make sense to have other capitalization rules. Thoughts? Luminifer (talk) 17:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The only guidance I know of offhand is at Template:Infobox Musical artist, which seems applicable elsewhere. I suggest you ask wikiproject music for confirmation/suggestions. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

List of gamelan ensembles in the United States
Editors are seeking help in regard to use of official sites as references in this RfC. The article includes over one hundered gamelans, only a few of which have their own articles. The question is: when is it appropriate to use the official sites for gamelans as sources? --Ronz (talk) 18:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Which, as I understand it, is equivalent to using http://www.stuy.edu as a reference at Stuyvesant High School, or http://www.royalsociety.org references at Michael Faraday Prize, or the http://www.juniper.net references at List of acquisitions by Juniper Networks. They are all primary self-published sources, that are reliable about certain things. Hence, can be used with due care. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the equivalence. Q's examples are single sites sourcing single articles, and only one of them is a list.  The List_of_gamelan_ensembles_in_the_United_States article has over 100 separate links in the article.  I think the WP:EL guidline is more relevant here, becuse that article's links are behivng more as a list of links and less than sources for the list. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you read through the (large) discussion on the gamelan list's talkpage, you'll see we're trying to collaborate on going through the various links, and ascertain whether they are helpful references individually. When they are not acting as references, we have deleted them.
 * The main concern of those advocating mass-deletion of the links, seems to be their "directory-ness", and that concern has been negatively impacting the potential "reference-ness" that the majority of the links there are currently providing. This seems to me to be an example of cutting off the nose to spite the face.
 * Also, it should be clarified that that there are only 80 links in the article (not "over 100") and that around 30 of them are to independent (non-official and non-self-published) sources. Please try not to exaggerate figures when dealing with an issue that appears to have numbers-of-items as a central concern. Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Links should be wikilinks to Wikipedia articles, or citations to reliable sources, or in an WP:EL section. Self-published sources must meet the criteria listed in WP:SELFPUB. Dlabtot (talk) 23:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, and yes, and yes. And yes, they meet all the criteria in SELFPUB - except potentially #1 which is utterly ambiguous/subjective (and really intended more for getting rid of psuedoscience "references", than it is for getting rid of university music dept and music ensemble references). Remember, the information these references are citations for, are items including: genre played, year established, director's name, translation of ensemble's name, types of instrument played, base location. This isn't controversial, debatable, dubious, or fluff/cruft. They are simple facts. However, many of the sites contain further information, which may be useful to some readers.
 * The only thing that seems to be irking people (after the unhelpful links have been removed) is the quantity of links. (and I'll repeat, this article is not primarily based on these references - they are supplemental). I understand the concerns that this is not a common method, but I disagree that it is a problem. -- Quiddity (talk) 04:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

List of digital library projects
List of digital library projects is undergoing discussion over a rewrite at Talk:List_of_digital_library_projects. The rewrite is at. The page has been in breach of LINKFARM and List for many years. We could do with help reaching a consensus. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Notability of an entire list
I apologize in advance for repeating something I mentioned earlier; I had responded to an old comment but then realized I should have just started a new topic at the bottom.

It seems there is absolutely no standard for determining whether a list is notable (as opposed to the contents of the list. A good number of the lists on WP seem to fail the standard of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Yet here is the argument I keep seeing whenever a list is put up for AfD: "Everything on the list is notable and sourced, therefore the list is notable and should be kept". As far as I can see, that logic wins every time. It seems to make no difference that the list itself is ridiculous. By this logic, I could start "List of things that are green", as long as everything on it is notable and has a source. My point being, it seems that guidelines for lists need to be spelled out a little better, unless there is something I'm missing, which is entirely possible.-- Susan118  talk  22:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * See Stand-alone lists. -- Wavelength (talk) 00:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Blank lines in lists
I've just done some expansion of the "List styles" section to more closely match common practice and last year's discussion (Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 102) about avoiding blank lines between list items. Specifically, I removed the initial blanket warning, which I felt was too terse and a bit awkward in that spot, and added info on the effects double-spacing has on each type of formal list. I believe I've not only summed up the informal "consensus" from the old discussion, but explained a bit more about why the general rule might be broken and how to avoid breaking it when possible. If anyone has any problems with this, please let me know. Thanks. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Notability of list items
fyi, I have begun a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability. Dlabtot (talk) 17:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Featured lists on the main page
I recently started a discussion about nominating featured lists for the main page, and wanted to know if perhaps some of you more active list editors would consider contributing to the discussion happening there. ---kilbad (talk) 20:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Dealing with long lists formatted in sortable table
List of downloadable songs for the Rock Band series is primarily a table with about 700 entries that will continue to grow at a rate of ~10/wk in the foreseeable future. It is well over the typical page size of 100k. There are ways to split this table (likely by date of release) that help to cut it down, but one "feature" of this table is the sorting, which allows readers to find all the songs by a band that have been in the game, etc.

Would it be reasonable to leave the complete large table, as a whole, as one page, and provide users with splitted-versions of the tables - effectively duplicating the information - with the articles directing users to the smaller versions but making sure that links to the full master table are visible? Or if we split it, should it remain split indefinitely? I will point out that we know that off-wiki sites (including the official product site) has a similar table, so it is not like this is a sole resource for this. --M ASEM (t) 15:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Chronological order
Political scandals of the United States seems out of place with items sorted in reverse chronology, newest first. Most articles sort from oldest to newest. But I can't find that in any guideline though I've seen people talk about it on talk pages. Is there such a standard?  Will Beback   talk    05:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * PS: I found something in an old archive. Wikipedia talk:Lists/Archive 1   Will Beback    talk    05:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Citations in lists
I've been working with a couple music-related list articles (Folksingers and Singer-Songwriters) where editors have added citation templates. I believe that this is inappropriate given a) the majority of entries on lists are self-evident/widely-accepted, b) the vast majority of entries in lists link to wiki pages for quick verifiability, c) contentious entries can be usually be vetted without further ado through internet sources and in very few cases, discussion, d) providing a reference for every entry would double the size of list pages, and among other reasons, e) in many cases, one or two comprehensive sources (allmusic.com, for example) can verify most entries and that it seems pointless to link every entry to the specific pages maintained by these sources. I say all this as one of the more ardent supporters of references - I almost never add anything without citing an unshakeable source. It's just that I don't see the value of providing a reference to prove that Woody Guthrie or Mark Erelli is a folksinger unless someone objects and an edit war ensues. Since I haven't been able to find anything specifically on this in WP guidelines, I would appreciate input from other editors on this issue. Thanks. Allreet (talk) 12:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sometimes it's excessive but it is better to just source the entries. A: Self-evident to who? And if it's widely accepted it should be quite easy to find a reference. B: See here. Wikipedia should never cite itself. A link to another wikipedia article is never sufficient. Garion96 (talk) 12:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:REF says "When to cite sources: Sources should be cited when adding material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, when quoting someone, when adding material to the biography of a living person, and when uploading an image." WP:VERIFY says: "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." The essay WP:When to cite gives more details and advice.
 * Also, References can be explicitly stated as applying to many entries in a list. HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 17:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The discussion that clarified for me the issue on what needs references and what doesn't, is this one: Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive_24.  It is a fine analysis of the semantics and balancing-act politics of Wikipedia's verification policy (i.e., what it means).  Because of the whole "challenge" aspect of verifiability, the need for citations is usually hashed out on the local level...  Does a citation tag at the top of a list constitute a challenge to every entry in the list?  Yes.  Can you challenge the challenge?  Yes.  If there's no discussion or reasons given on the talk page, simply remove the tag.  If there is a thread on the talk page, jump in.  Good luck.  The Transhumanist  00:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Red links in Featured lists
Input is appreciated at this discussion. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

outlines
Hi, there is quite a heated debate on various talk pages regards outlines, it is (hopefully) centralized at Wikipedia talk:Outlines, there are some entrenched editors there but some rational input would be useful (and welcomed) from other editors experienced with lists. Lee&there4;V (talk  •  contribs)  14:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced WT:OUTLINE is the best place for this discussion, it gives undue legitimacy to the aims of the project, isn't neutral, and isn't centralised. Verbal chat  15:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts from Umberto Eco
Interesting discussion of lists in this interview of Umberto Eco by Der Spiegel of all publications. Extract: "The list is the origin of culture. It's part of the history of art and literature. What does culture want? To make infinity comprehensible. It also wants to create order -- not always, but often. And how, as a human being, does one face infinity? How does one attempt to grasp the incomprehensible? Through lists, through catalogs, through collections in museums and through encyclopedias and dictionaries. There is an allure to enumerating how many women Don Giovanni slept with: It was 2,063, at least according to Mozart's librettist, Lorenzo da Ponte. We also have completely practical lists -- the shopping list, the will, the menu -- that are also cultural achievements in their own right.

...At first, we think that a list is primitive and typical of very early cultures, which had no exact concept of the universe and were therefore limited to listing the characteristics they could name. But, in cultural history, the list has prevailed over and over again. It is by no means merely an expression of primitive cultures. A very clear image of the universe existed in the Middle Ages, and there were lists. A new worldview based on astronomy predominated in the Renaissance and the Baroque era. And there were lists. And the list is certainly prevalent in the postmodern age. It has an irresistible magic."

Skomorokh, barbarian  16:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Continuing bullet items
I don't know if this is an HTML issue or a Wikimedia-specific question. See the following formatted text:


 * Here is the first paragraph of a bullet item.
 * That same bullet item continues to a second paragraph. Unfortunately, the text in the continued paragraph doesn't justify with the bullet.
 * Here's the first paragraph of a second-level bullet item.
 * And the same thing happens.

You see that the intended paragraphs that are continuations of the first-level bullet items are not justified with the bullet text. Is there any way to fix this?

Bongo  matic  09:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC) ). See Help:List for details. Hopefully that's all you need it for - it shouldn't be used in articles, as it has unreliable rendering across browsers/screenreaders. HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not the intended use of : and * to match indent levels, hence it doesn't work. Semantically, * is for unordered lists. : is for definition lists, used after a ; (See Help:List for details)
 * On talkpages, you can hack paragraphs in with linebreaks (
 * Thanks. Bongo  matic  23:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Bibliography articles
There is an ongoing discussion here about the validity of topical bibliography articles (as separate from authorial bibliography articles). Additional input would be much appreciated. Neelix (talk) 12:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a more general thread about the whole set, at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive_31 Additional input might be best directed there. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

A proposal to reword a guideline in order to specify which types of bibliography pages are encyclopedic
I would like to submit a proposal to clarify the guidelines on the Lists page regarding appropriate forms of bibliography pages. At the moment, the only guideline about such pages states the following:


 * A Bibliography page presents a list of relevant books, journal or other references for a subject area. Bibliographies are useful for  expanding Further Reading topics for Summary style articles.

Based on three previous discussions about bibliography pages here, here, and here, I am recommending that the guideline be reworded as follows:


 * A Bibliography page presents a list of books, journals, or other literary sources which are grouped for some reason other than shared subject matter. Examples of appropriate bibliography pages are a list of publications of a particular author, a list of books printed by a particular historical handpress, and a list of books in a particular book collector's collection. A bibliography of a particular subject should be included as a section on the article pertaining to that subject; such sections should not be expanded into pages unto themselves.

The reasons that this proposal is being submitted have been detailed on the aforementioned discussions, however some of the main concerns about subject-driven bibliography pages are as follows:


 * 1) Subject-driven bibliography pages violate WP:NOTLINK.
 * 2) Subject-driven bibliography pages violate WP:DIRECTORY.
 * 3) Subject-driven bibliography pages violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE.
 * 4) Subject-driven bibliography pages can never be declared complete because there is no way to determine how many literary sources have been written about a particular subject.

This is an important matter to discuss. If bibliography pages are deemed appropriate pages on Wikipedia, there is a multitude of lists which should be compiled. If this proposal is accepted, however, there are some pages which will need to be deleted or moved out of the article space. Neelix (talk) 19:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * We're mainly discussing:
 * Category:Bibliographies by subject
 * Category:Lists of books by topic


 * Abstractly: Preserve for later usage, if they're unsuitable for mainspace. We should err on the side of "Move to wikiproject subpage", rather than deleting whole articles or large subsections. (more later) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose only the last sentence (of the main paragraph). I see nothing wrong with spinning proper non-subject bibliographies out when they become too long (by analogy with discographies, e.g. Britney Spears discography). Would not oppose trans-namespace moves of non-compliant lists. --Cyber cobra (talk) 20:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose not allowing stand alone pages. I think for very broad topics - say, WWII - when you run through all the references used in all the various articles, there are likely going to be a large number of common books and more permanent works (that is, not things like magazine and newspaper articles, but sources that are strongly secondary for that topic) that are good general reading for the topic. Including a bibliography page for a wide-ranging topic that includes only works used as sources on the topic's article pages is completely reasonable: This takes out the issues of the first three points, because this is no longer a indiscriminate list driven by trying to include every possible work, but using those works that have been commonly referenced by WPians in the editing of such articles.  This would be a reasonable supporting page for such vast topics.  Mind you, I would limit these to only those topics that do have a deep structure. --M ASEM  (t) 20:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Completely agree. (To bring up some examples, which are often helpful...) We need a perspective/paragraph that allows for useful bibliographies, such as List of books about the War of 1812 and List of important publications in economics to remain accessible (per Masem's summary), but, is able to gently move the less-useful bibliographies such as List of books about kites and List of books about coal mining into either one-or-more article's "Further reading" section(s), or into a wikiproject's subpage-space for later use in articles. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Misguided Proposal. I am an inclusionist, so this proposal does not sit well with me.  Of the 128 (or so) articles that compose the Category:Bibliographies by Subject, which ones go, which ones stay?  The proposal is based on the premise that these Bibliographies by Subject violate the vague WP guidelines of WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:NOTLINK, WP:INDESCRIMINATE despite many of these articles having already survived deletion discussions which concluded they did not violate these guidelines.  As a real fan of quality bibliographic data associated with subject matter articles, I have added a great number of bibliographic entries to the further reading sections of many articles, only to have other editors arbitrarily remove them because they thought 10 books is enough, 15 is too many.  Limiting bibliographies to further reading sections is fraught with issues.  Additionally, this statement: “Subject-driven bibliography pages can never be declared complete because there is no way to determine how many literary sources have been written about a particular subject” seems to me to be pure POV as the very premise of WP is that articles, no matter what the subject can always be improved in some way.  Is there a guideline I am unaware off about WP:Declaring an Article Complete?
 * In my view the existing guideline is perfectly suitable and the proposed wording extremely problematic:
 * “A Bibliography page presents a list of books, journals, or other literary sources which are grouped for some reason other than shared subject matter.” So a bibliography of books with blue covers would be suitable.  The definition of “Bibliography” does not exclude subject matter bibliographies.
 * “Examples of appropriate bibliography pages are a list of publications of a particular author, a list of books printed by a particular historical handpress, and a list of books in a particular book collector's collection.” Does the author have to be notable and already have a WP article or can any author have a bibliography in WP?, why just hand presses and not any type of press. Does the press have to be notable?  What about book collectors, do they have to be notable book collectors.  Who would know what is contained in anyone’s book collection anyway?
 * “A bibliography of a particular subject should be included as a section on the article pertaining to that subject; such sections should not be expanded into pages unto themselves.” What’s the limit?  Who decides which books get included?  What’s the criteria for inclusion?  What about Summary Style articles? Big problem!
 * I am reluctant to bring up the argument that any Bibliography is USEFUL as nothing is ever useful it seems to a deletionist. However, WP, because it can be edited by ANYONE, including those who are well intentioned but completely clueless about the real literary sources behind many subjects, needs more, not less Bibliographies on as many subjects as possible.  IMHO--Mike Cline (talk) 22:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not understand your objections, Mike. I'll deal with them in the order you dealt with them:
 * 1) You state that the proposed new wording of the guideline allows for "a bibliography of books with blue covers." Isn't the current guideline even more abstract? In any case, I'm glad that you agree that we should be wording the guideline so that certain types of bibliographies are not included.
 * 2) You state that the examples provided in the proposed guideline don't make any comments about notability. Such comments should not need to be included. All articles are required to deal with notable topics; it goes without saying that the author dealt with in an authorial bibliography has to be notable, and similarly with the book collector and the handpress.
 * 3) You ask what the limit should be for how many sources should be included in a bibliography section and who should determine which ones should be included. These questions are not pertinent to the current discussion. Like most article-related issues, they should be discussed on their respective article talk pages. The list of sources not in those sections should be moved to Wikisource. Neelix (talk) 12:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Subject driven bibliography pages violate WP:OR including but not limited to unpublished bibliographies, speculation as to which subject or subjects a bibliography should be about, and another other argument based on subjective importance of a particular bibliography relative to other, related bibliography. Basically, subject driven bibliography pages are lists of indiscrimiate stuff, and there is no avoiding the issue that there is no place for them in Wikipedia, unless there is verifiable evidence that a particular subject driven bibliography is notable in its own right. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Might be a compelling argument if it were as true as you make it sound. Some of the most sought after and valuable pieces of literature on many Subjects are the scholarly works that chronicle and assess the important literature published on a subject. When titles such as: Bibliotheca Piscatoria-A Catalogue Of Books On Angling, The Fisheries and Fish-Culture, With Bibliographical Notes and an Appendix Of Citations Touching On Angling and fishing from Old English authors, Notable Angling Literature, and The Fishing In Print-A Guided Tour Through Five Centuries of Angling Literature are used as verfiable sources in a bibliography, that bibliography is hardly OR.  The statement Subject driven bibliography pages violate WP:OR is simply too broad a brush and is not necessarily true.--Mike Cline (talk) 23:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Then you agree with me that if a subject driven bibliography (henceforth "SDB") is not sourced, then it has been made up. You can see where I am coming from: if a SDB is not the subject of significant coverage (i.e. means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content), then the only alternative is make one up, or stitch two or three sources together to form a synthesis. I am not using a broad brush approach, I am simply saying that if there is no external evidence to suggest a SDB has been noted else where, then it must have been made up. Made up lists have no place in Wikipedia, and in any case the use of categories would be much more useful. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Gavin - Here's where I think your logic is flawed. There is essentially no difference between a subject based bibliography (SDB) and an author based one, just different inclusion criteria.  If you examine most of the author based bibliographies, the sources cited do not support the particular authorship, but instead support some statement about a specific work in the list.  A good example is List of books by Jimmy Carter.  There is not one source that supports the fact that Jimmy Carter really wrote these books.  Did the article writer just make it up.  No one is going to challenge this list, because an examination of each book listed would reveal indeed that Jimmy Carter authored the book.  The same applies to SDBs.  One is unlikely to find sources that support listing every book under the given subject, but how could some one challenge the title: Yellowstone National Park--Historical and Descriptive if it was included in a list of Yellowstone National Park References or would that be considered being made up in your judgement?  I find no difference between author based and subject based criteria in building bibliographies--both are valid and useful.--Mike Cline (talk) 02:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Gavin's logic is not flawed. Sources exist which demonstrate that any book on the list of books by Jimmy Carter was in fact written by him. The fact that those sources are not currently included on the page is not relevant. Author-driven bibliographies and subject-driven bibliographies are completely different from eachother. Please remember that Usefulness is a subjective judgment and should be avoided in deletion debates unless it supports a cogent argument. "A list of all the phone numbers in New York would be useful, but is not included because Wikipedia is not a directory." Similarly, a bibliography of sources about classical mechanics would be useful, but should not be included on Wikipedia because that's what Wikisource is for. Neelix (talk) 12:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Neelix, I would contend that sources exist that document the fact that any book written on the Subject of Yellowstone is indeed on the Subject of Yellowstone. Since this is a guideline discussion, not a deletion debate, the bow shot that Usefullness is not a valid argument is misplaced.  Wikisource is only for online-public domain works, therefore not available for comprehensive bibliographies.--Mike Cline (talk) 21:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It is, but this is a matter of categorisation, its not a valid inclusion criteria for a list article. If you or I attempt to compile a list of creative works, then we do so using our own subjective view as to which books should or should not be in the list. In the academic world, that is a legitimate and useful activity, but in the context of Wikipedia, this is orginal research. A good example of this is the Köchel catalogue, which is a well known SDB of all Mozart's published compositions. If I was to compile a create a similar list myself, that would be original research, unless the source of the list can be supported by citations. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * All four of the numbered assertions behind this proposal are wrong. In fact,
 * 1) Subject-driven bibliography pages do not violate WP:NOTLINK.
 * 2) Subject-driven bibliography pages do not violate WP:DIRECTORY.
 * 3) Subject-driven bibliography pages do not violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE.
 * 4) Subject-driven bibliography pages can never be declared complete because there is no way to determine how many literary sources have been will eventually be written about a particular subject. All Wikipedia articles are works in progress, there is no deadline and WP:NOTCRYSTAL. LeadSongDog come howl  03:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I agree with this comment. Subject bibliographies are the most important and the most difficult to do, and also the most valuable. As a preliminary, I do not much care whether or not they violate various sections of NOT as currently worded: NOT is a policy like any other policy--we made it ourselves: we can change it; we can remove clauses; we can add clauses; we can interpret it; we can decide on exceptions to it; we can decide of aspects to enforce strictly--all of this depending on what we want to achieve.   If we  need lists of links for encyclopedic  purposes, we can have lists of links (not that most bibliographies will be bare lists of links--they will be lists of sources, some or all of which will have links added.  They will rarely be directories in the sense of not, which refers to complete lists of based only on existence-- though it some cases it might be possible to be fairly complete. They will never be indiscriminate--they will be based upon what is appropriate forthe particular subject covered, which will be a matter of judgement based on importance and proportional coverage. They will usually not be complete, because the literature on a subject is always growing--but why should it be?  (btw, in most cases only if a subject bibliography were an  indiscriminate directory,   would it be complete-- to say that a anything must be complete and also not violate not directory is impossible--almost no list can simultaneously meet both criteria--they are essentially  opposites.


 * The difficulty in doing these bibliographies will be in deciding what to include. Because we will want to be current, we will not be able to rely of simply excerpting those listed elsewhere, though most lists would be based on it. In each case, we would need explicit criteria, and there always will be some discussion about what they should be in a given case and whether particular items meet them. My feeling is they will develop like other articles, gradually, and their inclusiveness will be a matter of compromise: there is no point listing the unimportant, and we will need to rely on some degree of compromise. In some sense  they will stretch the boundaries of OR , but they do it equally whether separate or part of an article. Every bibliographic listing of any size in Wikipedia already involves this judgement. The listing of the "best" external links according to WP:EL requires judgment--and research. And to some extent, so does any writing of any article. The proper meaning of OR is that we do not use Wikipedia to develop new theories or hypotheses, and a bibliography will rarely do that. The sort of OR prohibited is "unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position."  It does not refer to the collection ofappropriate material--we do this all the time.        DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)u


 * On the other hand, the specific mention of "A list of books, journals, or other literary sources which are grouped for some reason other than shared subject matter. Examples of appropriate bibliography pages are a list of publications of a particular author, a list of books printed by a particular historical handpress, and a list of books in a particular book collector's collection. is useful--except I would think it so remarkably unusual that we would do the last of them, that I cannot immediately see the usefulness.    DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

the Author: namespace has works by and about a person. There is no controls over "notability"; instead we allow subpages to cater for as much detail as people want to add; e.g. s:Author:Obama. Copyright works are explicitly permitted in this namespace. There are not many good examples of extensive bibliographies, however here are a few examples: s:Author:Wystan Hugh Auden, s:Author:Isaac Asimov, s:Author:Martin Luther King, Jr., s:Author:Shakespeare, s:Author:Martin Luther. the Wikisource: namespace includes topical Bibliographies, and e.g. s:Wikisource:Race studies. Again, subpages are permitted. There hasnt been any discussion about permitting non-free works to be listed in this namespace - I expect that the community wouldnt be too keen on opening up that namespace for non-free listings at this stage, as could introduce a lot of disputes that our community isnt ready to manage. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose a blanket criterion against subject-based bibliographies (at least for now). The criteria for what is included in List of important publications in economics or List of books about the War of 1812 do seem pretty slippery, but if people working on those articles are willing to try and sort through it, I'm reluctant to say we shouldn't have them. If they are based on sources (analogous to the fishing examples above, or bibliography sections of published histories/textbooks/etc), that would help a lot, and explain what the difference is between List of books about kites and List of books about coal mining (which I agree are lower quality, and probably lower in potential even if improved). Kingdon (talk) 12:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete them all. Wikisource has two namespace dedicated to bibliographies.
 * Thank you for bringing this up, John; this is a key point. If these types of bibliography lists are already included on Wikisource, we shouldn't be doubling up on them here. Neelix (talk) 12:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree here: if Wikisource has been determined as an appropriate place for topic-based bibliographies like this, that's where they should be and we can link to them easily and in a standout manner as we do with other sister project links.
 * That, however, should not change having lists here of works authored by a specific author, the equivalent of discographies. These shouldn't be presented as a bibliography.  There are also probably very rare cases of lists of works that have a well-defined, discriminate inclusion requirement that is beyond being a bibliography. --M ASEM  (t) 14:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * My review of the WikiSource Inclusion Guidelines reveals that it would not be suitable for Bibliographies on anything other than online-public domain texts which would essentially eliminate most the the knowledge being challenged in the current realm of WP subject related bibliographies.--Mike Cline (talk) 21:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Given this is the case, I would then argue that we use the following:
 * Lists of works by a single author are completely appropriate in the fashion of actor appearances and musician discographies. These should be built into the author's article, but obviously if too large, a breakout is fine.
 * Lists of works for a subject need a discriminate inclusion requirement, and for that, I would say there are three things:
 * The topic needs to be one that spans many pages ala World War II (I would say the size here probably is "obvious" when its appropriate but I'll go with more than 10 articles broken out per WP:SS as the minimum line, as the point where repeating sources over and over can become tedious), and uses many common references.
 * The works included are those that are used on those pages as normal references - such that the list would be the mathematical union of these sources.
 * Works listed need to be more in-depth coverage of the topic, so something like a book, an academic article, or the like - more than just primary information.
 * In this fashion, we have objective and discriminate measures when to include these lists and when references can be added to them. If a person wants a specific reference on the list, they first them must figure out how to add it as a valid source to other articles before it can be added. --M ASEM  (t) 23:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That seems sensible and workable. I'd support Masem's description/wording, barring unforeseen problems. -- Quiddity (talk) 23:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Concerns and Clarity, although I agree that having discriminate inclusion criteria for a SDB would be useful, those criteria must be extraordinarily clear and not overly restrictive. The three criteria above seem like a reasonable approach, but I have serious concerns about elements of the 1st two, and need way more clarity on the third.  On No. 1, the inclusion of the words articles broken out per WP:SS is very problematic. Not all subjects covered by multiple articles are handled as Summary Style articles.  Two subjects of which I am intimately familar with--Yellowstone and Fly Fishing have upwards of 75 and 30 related articles, but neither one is written in true summary style.  Would these subjects be excluded under this suggested criteria?  No. 2 would actually defeat the purpose of a comprehensive bibliography on a subject, because it would restrict inclusion to only those references used in an article.  This would cause multiple types of bad behavior on WP. The first bad behavior has already be alluded to by Masem--If a person wants a specific reference on the list, they first them must figure out how to add it as a valid source to other articles before it can be added.  This would result I believe in the indiscrimate adding of sources to articles, just so they could be listed in a bibliography. I would challenge anyone to say that the 30 sources I can find that say Yellowstone National Park was created on March 1st, 1872 are not valid.  The only reason to source the article with all 30 would be to include them in an associated bibliography because this proposed guideline demands that.  The other undesirable result that this would create is the the real inability to reconcile the sources in the bibliography with those in the articles.  This would be a two way street where changes in one place would demand changes elsewhere.  Someone could easily remove a source from the bibliography because they can't find the source in an article somewhere (might be there or not). Where's the onus, proving its there or proving it not. A lot of wasted energy better devoted to increasing not limiting the knowledge in WP. No. 3 is inherently unclear because of the words: more than just primary information.  What does that mean?  Wikipedia has clear guidelines as to sources, so why should this guideline say something different.--Mike Cline (talk) 02:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me explain that the goal of those three rules are to avoid making these by-subject bibliography lists indiscriminate, the concerns raised above. Since anyone can create a work that can cover a topic, and presuming they are reliable, then without that, inclusion in this list is indiscriminate.
 * That said:
 * Point 1, I don't mean to imply exactly the means outlines by WP:SS, but it should be the case that the split of articles is necessary for full comprehensive coverage due to size. There is no way WWII can be covered in a single article and thus there's numerous topical articles under it. On the other hand, looking at Yellowstone's article, the article is pretty comprehensive by itself, even if one considers that the various attractions/geological aspects are covered in more detail in other articles. This would be the type of case that the bibliography should be included on the Yellowstone article page instead of creating a separate one. A possible rule of thumb: if someone is research the topic and they will likely need to cross-reference other articles within that topic to get the full picture, then likely a separate bibliography page is necessary.
 * Point 2 is absolutely necessary for inclusion. If a work is seminal on the subject, and would likely be considered a key reference for that subject, then we should be using that work on WP, and thus would be included in the bibliography. Now, I'm aware that someone that thinks a certain reference, which has been passed over or ignored or disputed by the community for that topic, may try to force it in, but that's up the editors to make sure if they've dismissed that as a valid reference and not include it. But if the source is valid and does provided citable information there's no reason to include it in a bibliography. But that leads to :
 * Point 3 is meant to restrict bibliographies to only the most pertinent resources. Take Yellowstone: there are probably hundreds if not more of academic, peer-reviewed articles on the geological aspects of the park.  Some of times may be used as references.  However, these would not be pertinent because they are likely only covering one smaller aspect of the topic.  On the other hand, review papers or books, possibly even a full conference proceeding dedicated to Yellowstone would be more appropriate for inclusion in this. In other words, the works included on the bibliography should cover the topic as a whole or a significant aspect of it, instead of isolated elements. Of course, there are exceptions: if there is a seminal book on Old Faithful that only talks about Old Faithful but is considered the key book on that, then it should be included in the bibliography.
 * Basically, it is not that these are meant to be hard points but to define where such bibliographies should not go as to avoid them from becoming indiscriminate and just a mere collection of related works. There needs to a supporting purpose to these to be in WP, and to make them support a multi-page topic seems completely the easiest way to do this. --M ASEM  (t) 16:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I fully support Masem's inclusion criteria as stated above. The proffered reasoning is sound; the criteria clearly identify which kinds of bibliography pages are acceptable on an encyclopedia and which are not. Neelix (talk) 17:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I just checked into Mike Cline's claim that Wikisource is not an appropriate location for SDB's, and he is correct. I was about to voice my support for Masem's three criteria for including SDB's on Wikipedia and explain how I think we can get around the issues Mike has voiced, but then I came across a bunch of SDB's on Wikibooks. Check out the bibliographies of corsets, Iranian history, and heat transfer. It looks like John Vandenberg's argument that we move the SDB's to a sister project is still valid; it's just that we should be considering Wikibooks rather than Wikisource. Neelix (talk) 16:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I looked there earlier, and checked again, but I think that's not the purpose those lists are there for - they are a subsection of one of the Wikibooks and thus the lists of references for that. Now, it is not unlikely that if we have a wide ranging topic here on WP that there eventually should be a Wikibook for it, but I'm a bit uncomfortable with moving subject bibliographies to Wikibooks if there is not already a book there, otherwise we're just tossing something in a placeholder that may never be filled out. --M ASEM (t) 16:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Understood. In that case, let's impliment the three inclusion criteria for bibliography pages outlined by Masem above. Neelix (talk) 17:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Lets not, I don't think you have consensus.--Mike Cline (talk) 23:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No one has responded to Masem's criteria yet; I was voicing my support, not suggesting that we shut down discussion. Do you have reasons you would like to present for not implimenting the criteria? Neelix (talk) 01:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I and others responded to Masem's criteria in several places above. As far as I am concerned, the existing wording on bibliographies in the list guidelines are perfectly suitable and don't need changing. For those that think more explicit guidelines are required, I would suggest that someone draft a more complete guideline along the lines of Embedded list where all the nuances of bibliographies and reference lists can be dealt with. If the sole purpose of a new guideline is just to create ammunition for a massive deletion effort, then I think many more editors need to be involved in the discussion.--Mike Cline (talk) 21:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No one has responded to Masem's criteria because no one has stated anything since Masem made the suggestion of the criteria. Mike Cline presented arguments against the initial statement. Masem restated and elaborated on the criteria to clarify why Mike Cline's arguments do not apply. The draft of a guideline that Mike Cline is asking for is the one which Masem has already stated. If editors who should be part of the discussion are not currently aware of it, they should be notified of it; I have tried to let as many people know about this discussion as possible already. Are there any arguments against implimenting Masem's suggestions? If so, they should be stated here so they can be discussed. To be clear, there is no "massive deletion effort" being recommended; we are talking about less than a hundred existing pages here, many of which are likely to still be valid under Masem's criteria. The criteria would simply provide a basis for proper discussion to take place about those pages. No one is suggesting that all these pages should be deleted based on one discussion. Neelix (talk) 20:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Have moved this discussion to a new section to clarify and isolate the chaff--Mike Cline (talk) 01:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In answer to Neelix, Masem's inclusion criteria are highly subjective. The key to inclusion for subject driven bibliography pages is notability; all other arguments in favour of their inclusion can be boiled down to the erroneous arguments made at AFD such as WP:IKNOWIT. Without evidence notability, subject driven bibliography are sure to fail two key content policies, namely WP:OR and WP:NOT, because we don't know where these article topics originate from other than the imaginations of the editors who created them. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Two guideline re-word proposals re bibliographies and lists of references
Ok, here’s my take on a proposed guideline that might deal with most of the objections to SDBs voiced above.--Mike Cline (talk) 01:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Bibliography: A Bibliography or List of References article presents a list of relevant books, journal or other references written by a notable author or written on a notable subject area. Both authors and subjects must meet WP:Notability guidelines. Bibliographies are useful for expanding Further Reading topics for Summary style WP:SS articles and identifying references that can be used to improve and expand WP.
 * Entries in Author related bibliographies must be clearly cited with sources that meet WP:Verify and WP:Reliable guidelines.
 * Entries in Subject related bibliographies must be clearly cited with sources that attribute the entries to a published bibliography or list of references on the subject that meet WP:Verify and WP:Reliable guidelines.

Here's Masem's from above:
 * The topic needs to be one that spans many pages ala World War II (I would say the size here probably is "obvious" when its appropriate but I'll go with more than 10 articles broken out per WP:SS as the minimum line, as the point where repeating sources over and over can become tedious), and uses many common references.
 * The works included are those that are used on those pages as normal references - such that the list would be the mathematical union of these sources.
 * Works listed need to be more in-depth coverage of the topic, so something like a book, an academic article, or the like - more than just primary information.

--Mike Cline (talk) 01:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC) In answer to Mike Cline, its not my personal opinion that a list made up by a Wikipedian editor is original research, it is policy: if a subject-driven bibliography has not been published, then it is original reseach, and even if it has been published in bits and pieces which have been stitched together by assocation, then it is synthesis. The fact that these list have not been published; rather they have been started, grown and developed in the rarified conditions an "editorial walled garden" where Wikipedia's content policies don't apply is just an example of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Ultimately they will all be broken up, merged or deleted unless evidence can be found that they are notable per se. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 23:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC) In answer to Mike Cline, the answer to you is the same: since there is no limit to the themes by which you arrange a subject driven bibliography (save only an editor's imagination), the potential result could be thousands of articles that are effectively content forks (which is what these SDB are). Only evidence of notability can counter the argument that a particular list has been made up or is a content fork, and is therefore suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. List article that fail WP:N will fail WP:NOT and vice-versa; if a list is not notable, then it is just random stuff and falls outside the scope of Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * These inclusion criteria for are based on subjective importance, and are not supported by Wikipedia content policies. In particular, if a subject-driven bibliography is to be included in Wikipedia, it has to be supported by evidence that it is notable, e.g. Chronological - Thematic Catalogue of the Complete Musical Works of Wolfgang Amadé Mozart. We can't provide an exemption for subject-driven bibliography which are not notable, as that would be giving a free pass to orginal research. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What part of these are subjctive? The three points I make limit subject-based bibliographies to ones that include works that have already been used, and thus keep them as a bibliography supporting multiple-article topics as opposed to a (what your concern is) an attempt to make a standalone subject-based list with no inclusion criteria.  --M ASEM  (t) 14:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Gavin - I would contend that your invocation that Subject related lists of references and Subject related bibliographies inherently violate WP:OR is your personal opinion and does not reflect WP consensus. There are just too many of these types of lists currently in WP that have survived, been expanded and improved for the last 4 years. Many have survived deletion debates where the OR argument did not carry the day with many editors.  If indeed you believe that these types of articles are OR you need to make that case in the WP:OR guidelines and discussion and generate a much wider consensus that I believe does not exist today.  Additionally, if you feel strongly about this, why aren't you making that argument on individual articles and nominating those you believe violate WP guidelines for deletion? (IMHO I think that would be mis-guided and cause a lot of editors to divert their valuable time to preserving the knowledge in these articles instead of it being better used improving and expanding knowledge in WP.)--Mike Cline (talk) 15:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In answer to Masem, if inclusion is not based on notability, then its subjective. Just because a source has been "used", or is "important", or serves someother purpose is a matter of personal opinion unless it is supported by verifiable evidence of notability.
 * In topics arranged in multiple articles per WP:SS, not every article needs to be notable - only the prevailing topic. Subject-based bibliographies of references used in a summary-style article series is supporting a notable topic and thus need not be notable itself. --M ASEM (t) 23:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Gavin, your logic would essentially make every list in WP:OR since very few of the 1000s that exist have been as you say has not been published and thus would be OR. That is very misguided.  The OR policy says: Carefully summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis—it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by researching the most reliable published sources on the topic and summarizing their claims in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim.  Your claim that editors Make Up any Subject Driven Bibibliography (or other subject driven list) thus they are inherently OR just doesn't wash with the WP:OR policy as written, nor do I think there is any editor consensus that supports your position.  Subject driven bibliographies (or any subject oriented list for that matter), as long as the subject is notable and the entries are supported with sources that meet WP:Verify and WP:Reliable guidelines are not OR, they are, as the policy says: Good Editing.--Mike Cline (talk) 02:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In answer to Masem, for article topics arranged in multiple articles, I think you will find that each one has to be notable in its own right. WP:SS is not an article inclusion guideline, and nowhere does it say that non-notable spinoff articles are allowable. Intutatively, I would say you are mistaken, as if you are correct and "not every article needs to be notable", then spinoffs would be exempt from WP:N, and nowhere in Wikipedia does it say that any standalone article (list or otherwise) is exempt. If lists were exempt from WP:N, then this could potentially result in endless content forks from the lead topic.

All Lists Are Subject Driven
Gavin, you a backing up on the Motorway. Just as there certainly will be a monarchy in England tomorrow morning, ALL lists are subject driven. Its basic prepositional grammar. List of SUBJECT. There is always a SUBJECT in the prepositional phrase component of a List Article Title. That SUBJECT drives the content of the list. You are stumbling over the fundamental dilemma that plagues lists in WP.


 * List of SUBJECT – I contend that only the SUBJECT must be notable (Most lists in WP meet this test)
 * List of SUBJECT – You contend that the title of the List Article must be notable (Very few lists in WP meet this test)

Under my contention, once the notability of the SUBJECT is established, then additional guidelines come into play to structure, set rationale boundaries, and such that drive the actual content of the list. This is where first and foremost WP:Verify and WP:Reliable play a major role. Under my contention, lists are first and foremost navigational and organizational constructs that enhance the usability of WP. Most current lists in WP would survive these ideas.

Under your contention that the TITLE of the list, in other words—the list itself—must be notable would eliminate the great majority of the lists currently in WP. Your contention is that first and foremost WP Lists are Articles first and the navigational and organization purpose is secondary or unimportant.

This is the fundamental dilemma facing Lists within WP today. Additionally, you’ve chosen to apply this logic selectively to a specific type of list—a reference or bibliography and are ignoring its consequences for all Lists.

Here’s why I say you are ignoring the consequences of your position for all types of lists. Take this list as an example: List of current United States lieutenant governors. There is nothing about the title (not the subject) of this list that is supported by notability guidelines. Who published the “List of”?, when was it published?, Who maintains it? What reliable sources says the “List of” is notable. Outside the construct of WP, that List doesn’t exist except through the compilation of a myriad of sources. Now, within the construct of navigation and organization, the SUBJECT of the list “State lieutenant governors” is inherently notable in WP. Therefore the list article is notable and its inclusion criteria and entries need to meet other WP guidelines.

Taking your contention one step further, if you looked at any “Further Reading” section of an article (an embedded list) and substituted the section title “List of References on Subject” your interpretation would begin to cause serious problems because most, if not all, further reading sections are not subjected to the same guideline scrutiny applied to Stand-alone lists. If your interpretation was enforced, there would be very few embedded lists in articles.

The unfortunate thing about the current state of this discussion is that we are all ignoring the original purpose—to clarify (or not) the guidelines on bibliography and reference types of lists. I would suggest that further discussion focus on that vice this discussion that Subject Driven Lists (Bibliographies especially) are inherently not encyclopedic (or not). That discussion needs to be taken elsewhere because its resolution (if one is ever reached) has huge implications for WP.--Mike Cline (talk) 10:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC) However, these arguements run contrary to the generally accepted principal that, in absence of verifiable evidence, notability is not inherited. This means that every article topic including list articles needs to demonstrate that it is notable per se, i.e when it comes to notability, every article is capable of standing on its own feet, and is not dependent on an association with another topic for inclusion. The reason for this is, is that if a topic is not notable, then it is just random stuff which falls outside the scope of Wikipedia per WP:NOT. There for, your argument that lists can be included without evidence of notability boils down to the same argument used in deletion debates as WP:IKNOWIT: the idea that a topic should be included as a standalone based  subjective importance is simply being substituted for other subjective criteria, such as for reasons of navigation, presentation, organization etc. My biggest concern is that lists could and are being used as coatracks for non-notable topics or lists of such topics. Masem and myself have been through this arguement before, but I think it is generally accepted that lists can't be used for a dump for non-notable topics such as fictional characters that get a mention as part of a back-story. It is very easy to expand a barebones list into a verbose collection of topics comprised of unsourced content, and I think this is the risk we face with thematic bibliographies as much as is already the problem with lists of Lists of Star Wars races or Chromatic dragons. A good example of a thematic list that should be deleted is this one, for unless the list is actually notable, then I could only attribute sinister reasons as why this list has been compilied and included in Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC) The problem I have with your statement is it is generally agreed that notability is not inherited. If an article is split, it is done because a particular sub-topic is notable in its own right, which WP:AVOIDSPLIT makes clear. It seems to me that the argument being made in this thread is that specific bibliographies are "useful", but again, this goes against the generally agreed principle that subjective importance is not a valid criteria for article inclusion (as subjective importance is not supported by Wikipedia's content policies), and being "useful" is just another measure of subjective importance. It seems to me that this guideline is not simple because the general advice given in the leading section "Types of lists" is being given precedence over the section "Listed items" which spells out the notability requirement, and the conflict with WP:NOT that arises when list articles are created without reference to notability. In my view, the section "Listed items" needs to come to the top of this guideline, because if a list does not satisfy the inclusion criteria for lists, then it is irrelevant what type of list it is, whether is is a specific bibliography or ortherwise. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * To further support this, lists that would otherwise be included in a notable subject article but are broken out due to size issues do not suddenly lose their value because they are in a separate location. Subject-based bibliographies that are composed of works used as references in multiple articles certainly qualifies here. --M ASEM  (t) 14:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In answer to Mike, I think your agruments are flawed in two regards.
 * Firstly, lets look at your contention that once the notability of a "subject" is established, then spinoff list articles may be created for reasons of navigation, presentation, organization etc. This is the same argument Masem has used, based on his view that article topics can feature in "spinoff articles" in accordance with WP:SS, regardless of notability of the article topic itself.
 * Secondly, lets look at your argument that I am ignoring the consequences of your position for all types of lists. We all know that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, so I can't comment on the merits of every single list on Wikipedia. But taking your example of List of current United States lieutenant governors, I should have thought it possible to demonstrate the notability of the list, as well that of List of current United States first spouses. But there has to be some form cut off beyond which such lists cease to be notable, e.g List of current United States lieutenant governors eldest sons or List of current United States first spouses' personal assistants. My point is that there is no limit to the number, theme or variation in the permutations and combinations of lists that can be potentially drawn up supported by arguments based on subjective importance, becasue the number of subjective arguments for inclusion is only limited by the imagination. Notability is the only rational basis for inclusion, otherwise Wikipedia will become clogged with random stuff.
 * The key to the debate about subject driven bibliographies is that they are great idea for a category, but unless they are notable in themselves, there is no rationale for their inclusion as standalone articles becasue they are comprised of existing content that has been sliced and diced to make a thematic salad that fails WP:NOT.
 * WP content is driven by subjective consensus, not by objective rules. We incorporate objective statements for how WP should handle content to deal with the majority of the cases to avoid needless discussion on obvious cases, but there are always fuzzy lines which is where consensus discussion and debate is used (such as at AFD).  For lists, it is known that we avoid including indiscriminate lists or lists with indiscriminate elements - but what exactly is indiscriminate is of course a subjective measure, with notability only one factor of consideration.  Subject-based bibliographies, as suggested by the three points I've laid down for them, would clearly fail neither of these:
 * As the topic subject of the bibliography must have a large number of articles per WP:SS, the topic has long since past the point of being notable.
 * The requirements for inclusion of a work (book or topical paper or the like, and only ones used on the other WP articles) immediately prevent the list from being indiscriminate with lesser works, plethora of website links, and every casual magazine or journal article mention of the topic.
 * Remember, we're not talking about a list of notable books that have quality X (as your last example does) which would likely be better for a category as you suggest (though remember: lists and categories can co-exist). We are talking about books and references used to build up our articles that likely are so academic in nature that, while a reliable source, never would be considered notable, thus the idea of using categories to replace these is illogical.
 * It is necessary that there is a distinction in what we are talking about here - lists of reference materials that are being used to support the various claims made a multi-article-spanning topics, verses lists of books that are about a topic. There is no OR (beyond the necessary OR and SYNTH needed to construct well-sourced wikipedia articles) in the former list since, if they are being used as a source in the article on a topic, then they are very likely to be about that topic or at least incorporate that topic.  On the other hand, lists of books about a topic X can be tricky if there are no sources that say that included books are about that topic.  (And remember, on average, we're not talking about books you can buy easily at your retail bookstore, so expecting sources to be available is not reasonable).  Thus, a "list of books about topic X" is likely going to be indiscriminate and OR, but applying and restricting the scope of the list to include supporting works for other WP articles is completely ok. --M ASEM  (t) 16:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Although Wikipedia does not employ hard-and-fast rules, its policy and guideline pages describe its principles and best-known practices, which I believe take a higher precedent over Masem's point of view.
 * The fact remains that, that WP:V says if no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it. We can ignore all the rules if we wish, but if we do, then we will be replacing them with another set, even if they are not explicitly stated. In this case, Masem advocating that subject driven bibliographies should have their own list articles on the grounds that the "subject of the bibliography must have a large number of articles". There is no policy or guideline that suports this view. In fact the opposite is generally acceptted to be best-known practice, by virtue that a bibliography or any other topic should have its own stand alone article based on the idea that inherits notability by reason of association, interrelatedness or any measure of subjective importance. If a book is cited in an article about a notable topic, that does not imply or infer that notability is automatically transfered to the book or list of books in the absense of verifiable evidence. If it did, then every book that was ever cited in Wikipedia would be entitled to its own article regardless as to whether or not was the subject of reliable, third-party sources, which makes a mockery of WP:V and all the other content policies.
 * Masem is also wrong about how synthesis can be used to construct article topics which are not notable in their own right. Just because an article is "well-sourced" does not mean that the synthesis can be used to create a topic which does not exist in its own right. Restricting the list to include supporting works for other WP articles is no better, this is simply an artibitary limitation on the amount of synethesis which Masem feels is allowable, but is not explicty supported by or implicitly infered from any policy or guideline. In particular, nowhere in WP:SS does it say that articles or list can be created without reference to WP:SYNTH or any other content policy.
 * I think Masem will eventually have to acknowledge the notability guideline as being the primary basis for article inclusion in Wikipedia sooner or later. Making up arbitary and subjective rules as to which article topics can and can't be included as standalone article that are different from or attempt to get around the inclusion criteria of WP:N may serve Masem with unspecified benefit, but they are not supported by Wikipedia's content policies, and they are misleading and unhelpful in the context of this debate. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 19:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Every article we write is a synthesis. A list already has a subject, that's been standard practise on Wikipedia since near enopugh day one. There's no consensus for your proposed change which is based on a misunderstanding of the way Wikipedia works.  Wikipedia is consensus driven, not rules driven.  Hiding T 16:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A list is indeed a subject, and if it is not a notable subject, then it is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia because it is indiscriminate stuff. Sooner or later, Hiding will have to acknowledge the notability guideline as being the primary basis for article inclusion in Wikipedia, whether that article takes the form of a list or not. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The notability guideline is the primary basis, but not the only basis. Inheritance is tricky, because it could be understood as overlapping with the methods of WP:SPLIT articles. Nothing is simple around here. (What were we talking about, again? Could we get back to discussing specific bibliographies, and stating what we think ought to be done to them, and what needs to be changed/kept at this guideline in order for that to happen? Maybe under a new subheader... :) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You say that notability guideline is the primary basis, but not the only basis, but then what are the alternatives?
 * The main exception is Navigational pages, such as all of those special types listed at Portal:Contents (timelines, topic lists, topic indices, people lists, etc), and the thousands that are used elsewhere. eg 1850 in science and 1850 in rail transport, etc etc.
 * Regarding splits - Category:Bibliographies by author and Category:Rock music discographies aren't all independently notable topics, most were just split out for WP:SIZE reasons.
 * Again - Can we please concentrate on bibliographies, and use bibliography examples (instead of chromatic dragons etc). Which specific articles do you believe need to be defended, or deleted? -- Quiddity (talk) 23:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)