Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lists/Archive 6

Is this article a LIST?
This is perhaps a bit out-of-place, but I would like comments regarding whether or not the article Scientific opinion on climate change is, or is not (should, or shouldn't be) viewed within the context of WP:LIST. I believe it should, but that the current scope of WP:LIST doesn't really allow for it as such (or if it does, it's not much help as a guideline). I'd rather avoid a debate on notability or neutrality of the article. Note I've also put some comment at Wikipedia_talk:Hatnote relating to hatnotes that tighten-up list inclusion/exclusion criteria, relating to the same article. If editors agree the article IS a list, and a good example, then perhaps it can inform some tweaks to the list guidelines. --Jaymax (talk) 02:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this is clear example of a content fork from the article Climate change. Simply listing the opinions, instead of featuring them in article is not a valid excuse for a content fork. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Abbreviations
I have looked but can't seem to find any guideline or policy that deals specifically with abbreviations in lists. For a list of title changes, for example, can you have Phoenix, AZ or does it have to be Phoenix, Arizona ? One editor who doesn't like abbreviations keeps claiming that using abbreviations are too "US centric" (a claim I don't buy, especially since all the locations are linked anyways).  TJ   Spyke   00:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I am the editor he speaks of. Let me explain the situation further. First off, I and several other editors have tried to update FLs that were passed two years ago to match the recently passed FLs and follow the new changes in format. Now, when it comes to state names. WP:PW has problems when it comes to being neutral. I and a few others I have spoken too, view the abbreviations as too US centric. The newer lists do not use abbreviations. Due to the article being a quick reference tool for several readers from around the world that are not just from the US, it would be best to write the state names out for it to remain comprehensive and keep consistent with the recently passed articles.-- Will C  22:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I would think it would be confusing, though it isn't a very good example but on the List of WWE United States Champions, Toronto, Ontario is in abbreviations and probably is on other lists alike, I would think this may be confusing to some readers who fall across it and don't have a great deal of knowledge of the United States may think it's somewhat apart of the United States as weird of scenario it is, it could happen. Afro  ( Not a Talk Page ) - Afkatk 19:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Referencing
There seems to be some confusion over whether or not lists should be independently referenced; whether, for example, a list of MPs should be referenced or not if the articles on those MPs note, through reliable sources, that they are MPs. It seems commonsensical to me that lists should always be independently referenced; it opens up the opportunity for abuse if not. As such, I suggest including a point within the lists guideline that lists must always be referenced, regardless of whether the linked articles are. Thoughts? Ironholds (talk) 11:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:BURDEN is pretty clear that all content added to Wikipedia should be sourced, regardless of whether it is in a list or not, to avoid the accusation that their content is original research. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree as well. Lists are articles and as such are not exempt from WP:V.  Them  From  Space  20:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Our policies are absolutely clear: ALL material must be verifiable to reliable sources. Lists and list items are certainly no exception. Dlabtot (talk) 20:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Just A Question About The Semantic
What does "low-quality contextual information" mean?174.3.98.236 (talk) 04:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Guideline Conflation
A discussion about the conflation of lists, stand-alone lists, embedded lists, and WTUT is occuring at Village_pump_(proposals). If you decided to contribute please contribute there.174.3.98.236 (talk) 23:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Ucucha 07:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Lists → Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (lists) —No longer a guideline on how to use lists, it lists situations where using lists are appropriate and inappropriate. Also mentions how to use them, how to format them, what style to use, what conventions to abide by, etc. etc..174.3.98.236 (talk) 11:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I am confused about this move. Are you suggesting that we turn this into a talk page and if so why? Also what do you mean by no loner a guideline because as far as I can tell it is still marked as one.--76.66.191.181 (talk) 00:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Currently, it is more of a how-to guide. The name should change to reflect the rules established in the guide, instead of an instruction manual.  But hold on a bit.  I am assessing embedded lists and stand-alone lists.174.3.98.236 (talk) 00:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose - the assertion that this is 'not a guideline' is simply wrong. Dlabtot (talk) 01:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I never have any problem finding or understanding this guideline with this title--Mike Cline (talk) 01:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Just doesn't seem necessary.  We have other MoS pages that don't have "Manual of Style" in the title either, such as Linking.--Father Goose (talk) 05:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose why would you move a non-talk page on top of a talk page? 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops, i named the proposed page wrong.174.3.98.236 (talk) 06:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Rewrite?
Here is the following passage:

"The list title should not be misleading (and should normally not include abbreviations), but overly precise list titles can be less useful (and make the list difficult to find); the precise inclusion criterion of the list should be spelled out in the lead section (see below), not the title."

It is not clear if the lead section refers to lede, or to every lead in a section. It is not clear weather this applies only to stand alone lists or also to embedded lists.174.3.99.176 (talk) 23:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Comma-separated_Lists
should be cleaned up. It is absolutely unclear what it is talking about.174.3.110.108 (talk) 23:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree! 12:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Character lists
As they are now commonplace merge points for longer running works, should they also be mentioned in "Types of list articles include:"? 陣 内 Jinnai 22:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)