Wikipedia talk:Overlistification

Changes and Additions
Please add any changes or additions anyone would like concerning this topic.

Proposal to merge
Instead of creating multiple guidelines dealing with essentially the same subject, why don't you expand Overcategorization by adding a section specific to lists, and maybe consequently change the title of the guideline. CG 21:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC) In my view, lists and categories are sufficiently different that you shouldn't merge any "over-" guidelines. The same argument would apply to merging List guideline and Categorization. If you see why those two pages shouldn't be merged, then the same applies here. Carcharoth 17:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. The sooner the better. Bulldog123 21:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've left a note in Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization. CG 22:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree: Categories, lists, and series boxes explains how lists and categories have different purposes, and acceptable inclusion criteria are not the same in each case. The two guidelines should be kept separate, because I can think of many occasions where a list would be useful and encyclopedic, but a category could cause all sorts of problems wrt to referencing and/or category clutter. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * We're not suggesting that the same things apply to categories and lists. Overlistification is fined tuned for lists. Many things that wouldn't be acceptable in categories are acceptable in lists. We're just suggesting to merge the two articles but maintain the separateness in application. So that there is at least a policy to go by for overlistification. If you think merging the articles into one would be too confusing, than can we at least get some type of consensus on an Overlistification policy/guideline? Such a thing has been requested numerously and would help immensely in many recent list-related AFDs. Bulldog123 01:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Fine, a merge to save wiki-paper isn't necessary, but there should be some discussion to try to get this into policy. It would help tons of deletion debates IMMENSELY. Bulldog123 04:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Then you need to link to it at all the usual places, and keep talking about it. There are lots of other things out there for people to discuss. Don't expect things to happen all at once, but keep working at it and keep people aware of the issue. Carcharoth 09:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Way ahead of you :) Bulldog123 16:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This shouldn't be merged with Overcategorization, but shouldn't it be merged with WP:LIST? This is essentially a guideline of when lists are and are not appropriate. So is WP:LIST.  Why make people look in two places for information about the exact same topic? --JayHenry 20:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. There seems to be very little here that isn't already covered by policies about notability, NPOV, citations, etc...  This page potentially does serve the purpose of explaining precedents when inappropriate list have been removed. (See comment below about precedent).  Often CFD discussions are about how a category would be better served as a list.  If the list satisfies standards of notability, NPOV, verifiability, etc... that seems sufficient.  Categorization is a different can of worms and is constrained in ways a that a list is not.  I hope that list deletion policies and practices can be more inclusionist than those for categories. -- &#x2611; Sam uelWantman 21:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I very strongly disagree with the statement that much of this is covered elsewhere. There is absolutely no clear information on WP:LIST about when it is appropriate and when it is not appropriate to create/delete a list and tons of afds have had this problem, with numerous people asking for help and clarification on the subject. Satisfying notability NPOV etc is not that easy to determine. If it was, then much of the information on WP:OCAT wouldn't be necessary. There needs to be some sort of guideline. I would support major tweaks, additions, etc...even a merge to WP:LIST, but to say that much of this information is already covered is very untrue. Within the last few weeks there have been two to three requests on the Village Pump about what to do with certain lists. Bulldog123 06:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry if it seemed that I was saying that this information is not necessary. I agree with what you are saying, but "notability" is a problem all over Wikipedia. If there isn't a clear understanding at AFD or the discussion pages at WP:LIST about what makes a notable list, then discussing it here would not be an effective way to reach a consensus. I guess "covered" was the wrong word.  The issues are being discussed and debated elsewhere, not that the policies and guidelines are clear.  They are not.  I think WP:OCAT was possible because there was already a clear consensus that we had to exclude non-notable, POV categories to keep the categorization system functioning.  Is there is that sort of consensus about lists?  Frankly, I wish people would ease up on the notability deletions.  If something is minimally notable, tag it.  If it is uncited, tag it.  But if it isn't blatantly ridiculous or embarrassing I don't see why it has to be deleted.  One person's trivia is another's doctoral thesis. -- &#x2611; Sam uelWantman 06:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As you can see, there are actually very few overlistification instances that are listed on this page -- very different from WP:OCAT, where there are dozens. Only four so far, and they mostly overlap. so nobody has to worthy about making OLIST as non-inclusive OCAT. Mainly, I hope for improvements to this page - better examples, better wording, to make it more like OCAT and get it as a guideline for lists. Bulldog123 20:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Use precedent
The overcategorization guideline is based on the clear repeated precedents set at CFD. This guideline, if it is to exist, should be based on clear repeated precedents set at AFD. Examples of those discussions should be linked. Since there are already discussions about criteria for deleting articles, this guideline should address how those guidelines (NPOV, notability, etc...) apply to lists. I also hope that the standards for being an acceptable list are more liberal than those for the acceptability of a category. If there is to be a listing here it should be for lists that cannot be made acceptable, and not cite discussions where lists were removed because of other defects (like being unreferenced) -- &#x2611; Sam uelWantman 07:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * My proposal was not to apply every line in Overcategorization to lists; but because the existing policy about categories and this proposal about lists definetly contain some overlapping guidelines, it would be silly to create two separate pages that deals with similar subjects which is a listing of articles. See Overlapping policies and guidelines. I would be cleaner to, instead of creating two pages, to include lists, as a separate section, but as part of Overcategorization (which might have a title change). (Look at WP:CSD for example). CG 13:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

(Almost) Totally disagree
This page is an attempt to set guidelines favoring one particular outcome of debates about lists--the view of those people there who seem to dislike many lists. Their view often, but not always prevails, and I see this is an attempt to cast in stone their preferences, especially as it uses for examples some lists about which there was sharp disagreement. Guidelines such as these should be based upon a general consensus, not a possibly temporary victory on some examples. More specifically
 * "List of songs about suicide, List of films with female leads, List of Celebrity's pets" There is almost certainly consensus about the second and third examples--but there is no real agreement about the first. Personally, I support most such lists, especially when the items do correspond to real classes--there are songs specifically about suicide, while most songs are not. I see this not as trivia, but an appropriate subject distinction, and one that is usually fairly obvious. I think we need more of a justification in any particular guideline.
 * "List of University of Washington honorary degree recipients" This is a proposal ignoring the result at AfD -- the article List of University of Alberta honorary degree recipients was discussed on 4 June 2007., and the decision was no consensus" Another similar (and in my opinion more distinguished) list, [[List of recipients of Honorary Doctorates at the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven  was deleted there at about the same time. It is obvious that there is no real agreement on such lists.  [[User:DGG|DGG]] 17:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC):

Some thoughts
Yes, this page is a good idea, but like WP:OCAT it should be based upon existing and accepted AFD outcomes. Incidentally you may want to borrow some of the wording from OCAT, in particular wrt arbitrary and unclear inclusion criteria. I'd suggest keeping the two pages separate, although they should cross-reference; for instance, OCAT mentions in several spots that a list is better for that kind of information. The best approach is to only make entries on this page for which you can find three or four semi-recent AFD debates that indeed favored deleting them.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  15:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am trying to look for examples, but going through all the AFD archives is taking a while. Please feel free to add whatever is missing from here, like the wording from OCAT. Bulldog123 21:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Real Examples
I added a bunch of real examples. I still need real example of Agenda-Oriented lists. So far I could only find a few without digging through the thousands of archives. Can anyone help? Bulldog123 04:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Recently, I've been calling for and working towards complete overhaul of the D&D wikiproject, which is full of unfiltered fancruft. Some people aren't happy with the elimination of fancruft, and instead have been proposing that we turn it all into lists, which would be standalone lists, and although this is already against policy, something like ovverlistification would allow for a better guideline in making lists, not just deleting them. It would be good to have a policy that makes people think twice about adding in another list. Yes, it helps people after AfD's, but so many of the lists on Wiki need to be deleted due to simple worthlessness. Piuro 19:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Lists or categories
I hope we can discuss the distinctions between Lists and Categories. Considering the examples mentioned in the Overlistification section, some of these were deleted because there was already a category. This seems backwards. It often makes more sense for these categories to be lists than vice versa. That is certainly the way many CFD discussions have gone. Take for example, LGBT composers. If someone sees that a composer was LGBT, and it is linked to a list, the list could discuss aspects of their sexuality and how it related to their lives as composers. If there is a significant connection between sexuality and being a composer, it would be a valid category. If the connection is tenuous, it might still be a good list. The criteria that we have worked out for categories requires the significant connection. I would say that the only requirement for a list is that the connection could reasonably be mentioned in the articles. In this way we would be saying that we are making editorial decisions about these connections. If the connection is trivial, it should be removed from the individual articles. If that is the case then the lists should also be deleted. So if we remove the fact that John Fooman likes fried chicken, we'd also remove the List of people who like fried chicken. If it alright to mention that actor John Fooman is a Morman, than it would be alright to have a List of Morman actors. If books are written and courses taught about Morman actors it would be alright to elevate the list to being a category.

So the big problem I'm having with this page is the underlying thinking behind deleting these lists. It would help if there was some consensus about why these lists need to be deleted. I don't see the consensus for a clear rationale in many of the AFD discussions. The burden of proof necessary for deleting any article should be that they are destructive to the project in some way. I don't see a consensus about how they are destructive. -- &#x2611; Sam uelWantman 06:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * My addition of LGBT composers was a mistake. I just recently !voted on it and it was still on my mind. You just caught it before I had time to fix it. But all the others ones had their categories (if the categories existed) deleted too. Bulldog123 07:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

"If it alright to mention that actor John Fooman is a Morman, than it would be alright to have a List of Morman actors."


 * That seems a little extreme to me. For example, tt's big hype to mention that someone is of some ethnic descent in an article, and usually it is kept. But I don't think that should justify the creation of all lists in which the person would fit in. Let's say the person was a journalist, TV-show host, and Pulitzer prize winner. And lets say his family was from Finland and he lives in America. Wouldn't that justify the creation of List of Finnish-American journalists, List of Finnish-American TV-show hosts, and List of Finnish-American Pulitzer prize winners? A little extreme, no?  Bulldog123 07:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a philosophical issue for me. I don't see that much is accomplished in putting an effort into deleting things that are basically harmless.  A single bad category can appear on hundreds of articles and give a mistaken emphasis to information.  This is bad and should be deleted.  For a list to be bad, it has to be so ridiculous that it makes the category it is in look ridiculous.  You don't need a policy about such pages because everyone will agree they are ridiculous.  But there is a gray area for things that are not category worthy, but are not ridiculous.  To quote Jimmy Wales,
 * "it's no doubt true that we have extraordinarily extensive coverage of things that a traditional encyclopedia would really turn their nose up at. That does get used as a criticism against Wikipedia, but my response to that is twofold. First of all the people who were writing the Pokemon articles aren't hurting anybody. They are not stopping anybody from writing articles about Thomas Jefferson. So what's the harm?"
 * So on one side there's a minimal harm to letting things slide by that might be considered "unencyclopedic" to some degree. On the other side is the effort it takes by all the participants to have an AFD discussion, and the bad feelings that may be generated in the process.  I see the energy expended, bad feelings and contentiousness as more harmful than the original problem.  A healthy gray area of disorder keeps us focussed on things that really matter, and makes everyone feel better. -- &#x2611; Sam uelWantman 07:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I suppose I'm a bit more right-wing in my views of lists then. I don't think "harmlessness" should be thought of as a reason to keep many, many user-created lists. I'm all for lists of people, and lists of people by nationality and even lists of people by ethnicity...but when it gets to intersections such as "List of people by ethnicity and occupation" and "Lists of people by religious background and award winnings" I think we might be going too far. Something like List of Dijimon is fine, but List of Mormon actors might be over-reaching. Bulldog123 03:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm really interested in understanding how you see this. I spend most of my "policy" efforts dealing with categories and understand the issues around overcategorization well.  I'm not as familiar with the issues around lists.  If someone is interested enough in creating an intersection list, I'd guess there are more people that would find it interesting and useful.  Since we are not able to dynamically create these intersections, what is the problem with creating lists for the intersections?  There are major problems for doing it with categories, and we try to discourage people from creating the categories and encourage lists instead.  If we can have lists of Pokeman characters and Star Trek episodes, what's so terrible about having Morman actors?
 * I'm intrigued with bridges and worked on making List of largest suspension bridges a featured list. I'm sure to some people it is just as unimportant as how I see Pokeman characters. If the list isn't original research, can be cited, and is NPOV, why not keep it?  If you are going to draw a line and say list A is OK, and list B is over-reaching, there should be a clear explicit explanation of the criteria that makes it unacceptable. What is it? -- &#x2611; Sam uelWantman 09:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Problems with proposed guidelines, possible ways to achieve consensus
Since this guideline is proposing to tweak the Overcategorization guideline for use with lists, this guideline needs to be more integrated with List guideline and Lists (stand-alone lists). Categories and lists are similar but separate beasts and this guideline needs to reflect that. As it states at List guideline, lists have three main purposes: Information, Navigation, and Development.

This guideline doesn't reflect any of this and appears to being developed separately from the list guidelines, using only category specific info. That said, there are some good things in this proposed guideline. In particular, the Irrelevant Intersections by Race, Gender, Beliefs, Sexuality, Ethnicity, and Religion Lists appears similar to what I've proposed at Proposed guideline for lists of people by ethnicity, religion, and other cultural categorizations. Some tweaking of language would be needed, but the similarities are there.

Unfortunately, there is the appearance that this guideline is being created to bolster one side of the debate around the deletion of certain types of lists. I'm sure the same could be said for my proposed guideline. Perhaps we should try to fix this perception. As people may know, the guidelines and policies which succeed at Wikipedia tend to be the ones which reach consensus from people on both sides of a debate. Perhaps we should merge info from Proposed guideline for lists of people by ethnicity, religion, and other cultural categorizations with this proposed guideline, bring in info from the current list guidelines, and see if we all can't reach a general consensus on this issue. Any thoughts on this from people?--Alabamaboy 18:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * A merger of the proposals seems prudent. Murcielago 18:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I continue to believe that both of these proposals need to be merged with WP:LIST there's no reason to add additional list guidelines to a location other than "List guidelines". --JayHenry 20:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, a merger seems to be acceptable to provide a concrete system for lists, the current policy being a bit hit and miss at the moment. SGGH speak! 21:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm for a merger of the proposals. To me it seems as the most logical way to go. Tony the Marine 00:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok Bama, how is your proposal different? You seem to support the irrelevant intersections part, but I haven't seen that exemplified on some AFDs. Your posse seems to be in agreement but we need some type of specifics on what there is to merge. Bulldog123 03:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, Bulldog123 I'm in nobody's "posse". I consider that as a disrespectful remark on your behalf. If you can't express yourself without making such remarks then refrain from doing so. Tony the Marine 05:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's as clear as day that you, Murcielago, SGGH, and Bama are agreeing with eachother on everything to push for a consensus. Either that or everything is a vote to you guys. Plus you guys even admitted to being friends, so I don't see why should be offended by that. Stop trying to start a quarrel. Bulldog123 07:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Come on now. I didn't even know who "Bama" and SGGH were before the whole Hispanic Medal of Honor discussion, and haven't interacted with them since. So I don't think I agree with them on "everything", nor is "everything a vote" to me.  I do view this as borderline disrespectful, Bulldog.  I am friends with Tony -- touché.  Let's keep this civil, though.  OK?  Murcielago 15:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Bulldog, the simple fact is that you and I have both been working on proposed guidelines which intersect. Merging them seems logical and, as I said, if opposing sides on an issue can reach consensus, then the guideline has a great chance of passing. If you are interesting in doing this, please let us know. But if you're not interested, please state so now so we don't waste our time. But do realize that unless we try to achieve true consensus on all this, these guidelines will likely fail. --Alabamaboy 11:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I might be willing to combine parts. Depends on what. Bulldog123 06:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Completely disagree with this proposal
I see no reason for this proposal other than to provide ammunition to deletionists in AfD debates. First of all, it fails to give any reason why Overcategorization should be tweaked and applied to lists. The overcategorization gives two compelling reasons for not creating certain types of categories, even when they meet the policies of verifiability and NPOV: "For lengthy articles, this could potentially result in hundreds of categories, most of which aren't particularly relevant. This may also make it more difficult to find any particular category for a specific article." Neither of these reasons apply to lists.

Further, the overcategorization page states that it is "based on existing guidelines and previous precedent at Categories for discussion". This proposal, however, is based on a few AfD discussions, some of which resulted in no consensus, and some of which resulted in deletion "with no prejudice against sourced recreation." Some of these were deleted only after 2 or 3 nominations. This hardly indicates an overwhelming consensus that there is an "overlistification" problem that needs to be addressed with a new guideline. Some arguments to delete a list were based on the (IMO faulty) reason that the list would be better as a category, while completely ignoring the real overcategorization problem.

Lists, just like any other articles, must be verifiable, not based on personal research, and not promoting a particluar point-of-view. But this proposal goes beyond those policies and applies them in a POV-fashion toward a certain goal, which appears to be to simply reduce the number of lists in Wikipedia. For reasons unclear to me, certain people seem to be offended by the existence of certain types of lists.

This proposal seems to be based on the presumpions and personal opinions of the author. For example, it declares certain intesections are "irrelevant". It then goes on to correctly note that relevance should not be based on original research, but then imposes a higher standard than policy requires: "There must be a reasonable amount of solid, mainstream articles, books, or documentaries specifically addressing the issue of a connection between the intersectees and showing how that relationship is manifested." The verifiablity policy requires only that sources be reliable, and notability guidelines say that coverage should be non-trivial and independent of the subject in order for there to be a separate article (or list in this case). But that is far from saying there must be a "reasonable amount" (whatever that means) of "solid, mainstream" (not just reliable) sources, and demanding a certain type of discussion about the intersection, not just non-trivial coverage.

"Catholic businesspersons", for example, is hardly an irrelevant intersection to Tom Monaghan? Note that there was a previous discussion about ethnicity/religion-profession intersection lists, and it failed to reach any sort of consensus back then, and I don't see any consensus now.

Many deletion debates seem to be simply based on subjective interpretions of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information or Wikipedia is not a directory. This policy gives specific examples of "indiscriminate information" and "directories" but otherwise gives little guidance on how to objectively interpret these phrases in relation to anything that does not fall within those examples. One person's "indiscriminate list" or "directory" may be another's "verifiable, reliably sourced, neutral, informative, encyclopedic, navigation aid". These policies seem to conflict the most, and thus result in the most subjective debates, when it comes to lists.

Another example, songs about tequila was important enough to be the subject of an interview on CNN, or several pages in a book about country songs. And there is no shortage of reliable sources talking about celebrity pets.

Finally, what the proposal calls "over-extensive" lists seems to include Lists of topics and Lists of people, and every list linked on those pages. And the last comment, "Wikipedia is not paper but it is bytes" is completely meaningless; the policy itself states "there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover, or the total amount of content." Storage is essentially infinite for the purposes of Wikipedia (and if storage ever does become a problem, the Foundation will certainly do something about it). DHowell 04:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I very much agree with DHowell. I'm still willing, however, to listen to anyone who wants to make a case for some need for a page like this.  So far, I don't see a case. -- &#x2611; Sam uelWantman 06:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I very much disagree with DHowell, and I think it would take longer discussions and clarifications before we should pick teams or jump the boat on this. I don't expect inclusionists to agree with Overlistification, but I do expect at least some agreement that it is necessary to a degree. Bulldog123 08:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't necessarily disagree with all the ideas in this proposal. But I strongly disagree that there's any reason whatsoever for this to be a separate policy from WP:LIST.  I'd move to reject this proposal, and move any new proposals for guidelines about lists to WT:LIST. --JayHenry 05:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with the merger but let's worry about merging after discussing the content, no? Bulldog123 08:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Bulldog123's replies to DHowell:

 * "I see no reason for this proposal other than to provide ammunition to deletionists in AfD debates."
 * Although you may feel this is an extreme deletionist standpoint, I'm certain many others feel that there is currently a severe bias towards keeping articles, especially lists on wikipedia. This proposal is then aimed at, at least, lessening that bias. Nor do I expect inclusionists to agree with this proposal. But I don't think its a baseless idea. And I think I might be able to get at least some inclusionist's support for it.
 * I don't consider myself and inclusionist or deletionist. I generally think more articles are deleted than should be, but I've strongly supported deleting more categories than usually end up getting deleted.  It is because I support trimming categories that I do not support being so strict about lists.  One person's "listcruft" might be another persons reason to get excited about Wikipedia.  --&#x2611; Sam uelWantman 08:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "Neither of these reasons apply to lists."
 * I definitely don't think that's true. An excess of "particularly irrelevant" lists may not fill up the bottom of every article on wikipedia, but it does "fill up" wikipedia wih a lot of, what many people consider, listcruft, and this certainly doesn't help wikipedia's image as a genuine reliable source of good material. I know for a fact it has turned off many people. Bulldog123 08:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Reliable? yes. Verifiable? yes. NPOV? yes. These are already the standards for all pages.  The problem is defining "good material".  This is where we need to have a big tent. -- &#x2611; Sam uelWantman 08:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Further, the overcategorization page states that it is "based on existing guidelines and previous precedent at Categories for discussion". This proposal, however, is based on a few AfD discussions, some of which resulted in no consensus, and some of which resulted in deletion "with no prejudice against sourced recreation." Some of these were deleted only after 2 or 3 nominations. This hardly indicates an overwhelming consensus that there is an "overlistification" problem that needs to be addressed with a new guideline. Some arguments to delete a list were based on the (IMO faulty) reason that the list would be better as a category, while completely ignoring the real overcategorization problem. DHowell 04:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ending in no consensus on previous nominations actually exemplifies part of the problem, which is that there is a bias towards keeping "non-encyclopedic" lists on wikipedia, and only after serious lengthy debates concerning policy and encyclopedic-worth does it end up going through. Take for example the List of films by gory death scene. It took administrator discretion and seriously long discussion to weed out the WP:ILIKEITs and WP:USEFULs to finally get to the core of how it is unencyclopedic. And it went through. It's actually a perfect example for what I'm trying to point out, and I'm not sure why Sam removed it. No prejudice of recreation is simply the closing admin's opinion though. There isn't evidence that it would go through even if it was recreated. And if it does, then it isn't a good example. To my knowledge, I have accidently put an example of a list that was deleted because it served better as a category, but have since removed that. Bulldog123 08:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll explain why I removed it. I think it actually does not make your case.  The closer said, "If someone wants this moved to userspace or project-space in an attempt to come up with a version that satisfies the delete arguments as to sourcing and OR" it would be OK.  The problems with this list were sourcing and original research.  Three people said it was "trivia", two said it wasn't.  To include it as an example of a guideline, you should have an example where there is a clear consensus that the list is trivia, and that trivia is the reason it is being deleted.  This example does neither.  By removing it, I was trying to help you make your case by leaving the example which does have a consensus about trivia. -- &#x2611; Sam uelWantman 08:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll get to the rest a little later, but I just wanted to clarify that "Trivia/Trivial Lists" is more of a play on words than anything. The example afd doesn't have to be deleted as "trivia" but moreso because its "an indiscriminate collection of information". Bulldog123 13:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Lists, just like any other articles, must be verifiable, not based on personal research, and not promoting a particluar point-of-view. But this proposal goes beyond those policies and applies them in a POV-fashion toward a certain goal, which appears to be to simply reduce the number of lists in Wikipedia. For reasons unclear to me, certain people seem to be offended by the existence of certain types of lists. DHowell 04:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know what is wrong or POV about "reducing the number of lists on wikipedia." If you have participated in any of the discussions at Wikipedia Deletion Sorting/Lists, you'll see how many have met with deletion success, and you'll see a general consensus OUTSIDE of WP:ILIKEITs etc for their removal. Bulldog123 08:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I see this differently. I think there should be an effort into making clearly defined, well thought out categories.  I see lists as a way that people can create an alternative to formal categorization that is looser.  A way to associate articles and subjects that is less constrained, less "encyclopedic" in the Encyclopedia Britanica sense, but more "encyclopedic" in the "comprehensive source of information and knowledge" sense. --&#x2611; Sam uelWantman 08:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

This proposal seems to be based on the presumpions and personal opinions of the author. For example, it declares certain intesections are "irrelevant". It then goes on to correctly note that relevance should not be based on original research, but then imposes a higher standard than policy requires: "There must be a reasonable amount of solid, mainstream articles, books, or documentaries specifically addressing the issue of a connection between the intersectees and showing how that relationship is manifested." The verifiablity policy requires only that sources be reliable, and notability guidelines say that coverage should be non-trivial and independent of the subject in order for there to be a separate article (or list in this case). But that is far from saying there must be a "reasonable amount" (whatever that means) of "solid, mainstream" (not just reliable) sources, and demanding a certain type of discussion about the intersection, not just non-trivial coverage. DHowell 04:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm not too happy with how you assumed this was a vent of my personal beliefs. It might be my belief but it is equally shared by many participants in AFD discussions, as can be exemplified by the many recent nominations of lists. This, in my opinion, just a different interpretation of Verifiability policy. The pure existence of an intersection outside of wikipedia on a reliable source does not designate it's notability. This isn't a higher standard, it is a highlighting of WP:SYNTH here: "specifically addressing the issue of a connection between the intersectees showing how that relationship is manifested." If the latter didn't exist, there would be no justification for its existence, which is actually required. Further, if this standard was not imposed, it would directly violate WP:SYNTH. As many many previous lists (most of which have been deleted) do. One reliable source cannot support an entire list. And if we were to include many non-mainstream sources, then numerous lists based purely on the beliefs of, lets say, fringe science could pop up. There are many instances of fringe science being reported by reliable sources. Bulldog123 08:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with having a list based purely on beliefs. One such list that I have been involved maintaining for 3 years is Films considered the greatest ever.  It documents the beliefs of others, but almost all of it is cited and verifiable.  There could be a list about fringe science beliefs (clearly labled as "beliefs") that could be similarly cited and verifiable, and it would be acceptable. -- &#x2611; Sam uelWantman 08:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

"Catholic businesspersons", for example, is hardly an irrelevant intersection to Tom Monaghan? Note that there was a previous discussion about ethnicity/religion-profession intersection lists, and it failed to reach any sort of consensus back then, and I don't see any consensus now. DHowell 04:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The existence of a relevant intersection for some people shouldn't designate a list for the plurality. Take the book "HITLER'S TABLE TALK: 1941-1944. Enigma Books." which discusses the possiblity that Adolf Hitler was a vegetarian. So by this logic, list of vegetarian dictators could pass off, since no doubt being a vegetarian is hardly an irrelevant intersection to researchers of Hitler. Bulldog123 08:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Many deletion debates seem to be simply based on subjective interpretions of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information or Wikipedia is not a directory. This policy gives specific examples of "indiscriminate information" and "directories" but otherwise gives little guidance on how to objectively interpret these phrases in relation to anything that does not fall within those examples. One person's "indiscriminate list" or "directory" may be another's "verifiable, reliably sourced, neutral, informative, encyclopedic, navigation aid". These policies seem to conflict the most, and thus result in the most subjective debates, when it comes to lists. DHowell 04:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, purely because there is a chance some people's garbage might be another person's gold, I don't think this is a valid reason for keeping what general consensus would deem unencyclopedic. Consensus isn't always unanimous, but there's just no way to combat that. People will simply do their own research and not rely on wikipedia for such extreme topics. Bulldog123 08:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we should be using the other definition of "encyclopedic". What we want is a vast comprehensive collection of information and knowledge.  As long as it is verifiable, not original research, and well-sourced, I don't think we need to worry about the rest.  I resist the effort to extend verifiability to strict standards of "notability" and what is "encyclopedic". -- &#x2611; Sam uelWantman 08:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Another example, songs about tequila was important enough to be the subject of an interview on CNN, or several pages in a book about country songs. And there is no shortage of reliable sources talking about celebrity pets. DHowell 04:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Like I put on Overlistification, the pure existence of an intersection on the internet, even by reliable sources, does not automatically delineate its notability. Your example actually support this is a way and I hope to make you understand. Your very first example is a brief transcript of an interview which is in no way "about" songs about tequila, but rather just a brief discussion between people who aren't experts about tequila itself and some information on its affect in American culture. This is no way could back up the article Tequila in popular culture much less the list. Your second example is just the index of a book of country songs, with a brief 2-page discussion of "drinking songs" where they suggest tequila is popular beverage choice among country singers. Drinking songs could possibly pass notability as "99 bottles of beer on the wall" but tequila songs don't. Your last example is just a search engine result for "celebrity pets." Look at the first result: . It's completely irrelevant. But to support your view and then show how it doesn't work. Here is a reliable source about celebritie's favorite recipes. Obviously, no one will expect List of celebrity's favorite food recipes to make it on wikipedia. Bulldog123 08:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You are arguing a very good case for "no original research" and "verifiability". Notability is shorthand for the combination of the pillars of Wikipedia, but that does not mean that it should be extended to exclude entire classes of lists irrespective of whether they satisfy the requirements of our most important policies. -- &#x2611; Sam uelWantman 08:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Finally, what the proposal calls "over-extensive" lists seems to include Lists of topics and Lists of people, and every list linked on those pages. And the last comment, "Wikipedia is not paper but it is bytes" is completely meaningless; the policy itself states "there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover, or the total amount of content." Storage is essentially infinite for the purposes of Wikipedia (and if storage ever does become a problem, the Foundation will certainly do something about it). DHowell 04:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No, over-extensive lists are not lists of lists. They are lists that potentially contain non-notable and encyclopedic listees OR that are unmaintainably long. For the latter reasoning, there are many example of lists like this being deleted, from List of Europeans to List of African Americans to List of Australians. The last sentence about bytes was only meant to be an ironic jest at WP:NOT which is consistently overused in deletion debates. Bulldog123 08:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Question for Sam: Do you think your view on lists is representative of most wikipedian's opinions of lists? Specifically, your statement that they need to be more liberal than categories. Bulldog123 07:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There have been many CFDs that resulted in "Listify". This is a common phenomena when:
 * The category is not seen as being a defining characteristic.
 * Membership in the category may be controversial, or may need explanation.
 * When multiple categories would clutter an article (like All Star Game team rosters}.
 * There are probably some other good reasons as well. The general assumption at CFD has been that if information would be deleted as a list, it shouldn't be a category, because categories have constraints that lists do not.  -- &#x2611; Sam uelWantman 10:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

No consensus for this policy
No consensus is forming for this. It's just overly broad, has failed to state why it is important, and i just saw it cited as a reason to delete a list that was unanimously kept three months ago. If the list was unanimously kept three months ago then isn't it fairly obvious that there's no consensus for this policy based off of AFD? Finally, categories and lists just serve totally (and obviously) different functions; there's just no good reason given here that isn't already given at WP:LIST and indeed it should never have been a fork of the list guideline. --JayHenry 05:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "If the list was unanimously kept three months ago then isn't it fairly obvious that there's no consensus for this policy based off of AFD?" Out of four lists recently nominated, two were met with "near unanimous keeps" beforehand and yet met with deletion recently. Further, with all due respect, your only contribution to this discussion was a complaint about merging, and absolutely no discussion about the content itself, which you were free to change/improve on etc (so complaints about it being over-broad are unfounded). As for using it in AfDs, I explicitly put "the proposal" in front of it every time it's mentioned as my sole reason for deletion. And as per the rules of AfD, consensus determines what is kept or deleted, not simply a violation of policy, as many, many times, lists were kept because of ILIKEIT consensus. Not every comment has to be based on policy. So let's not get ahead of ourselves. I stated why this proposal is important right above you, and the upwards of dozens of lists being deleted weekly continue to support a need for, at least, something like it. For lack of a better phrase, WP:LIST doesn't help crap. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater simply because your sensibilites were offended by a recent AfD. For the zillionth time, you are urged to change whatever you don't like. Bulldog123 06:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe that recent events at AFD have been against long standing practices. I think it is very misguided to delete long standing pages with broad community input because they are defective.  I've been with this project for over 3 years.  When I started, almost every article was defective.  It is demoralizing to have things deleted because they have problems.  There was a very long standing consensus that AFD was for deleting things that had no possibility of being repaired.  Now AFD is doing much more than that.  It is wrong to expect all of us to spend all of our time defending defective articles from being deleting.  That is a big waste of time.  We should be putting effort into fixing them.  All I've had time for recently is these debates.  I'm close to proposing AFD be shut down because I think it is disrupting the project in very negative ways. -- &#x2611; Sam uelWantman 10:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Since when does consensus not change? Perhaps we're evolving to finally come to our senses and realize that action needs to be taken as the number of wikipedians grow. That's really how WP:OCAT came along. Maybe we're not having a list crisis yet but we're certainly requesting it by moving to insanely reactionary measures such as closing down AfD. Despite what everyone assumes, there aren't that many bad lists left on wikipedia. If I had to make a guess, I'd say 90% of lists pass the Overlistification criteria (of which, despite attempts to convince otherwise, no such criteria exists in WP:LIST). How many more non-notable list intersections by RERBS exist anymore? Almost none. I'd guess maybe less than a handful, and they're being maintained by cliques (see fancruft). How many agenda-oriented lists exist? Again, almost none. Certainly no more than a handful. And how many over-extensive? More than the others, but again, no more than 10 (again, being rigorously maintained by cliques). The only lists that still exist a lof of on wikipedia are trivial lists and this potential guideline leaves the option open of what trivial is on WP:NOTABILITY, which itself gives instances for ascertaining notability. Again, I don't expect to satisfy staunch inclusionists, but I also see no way that this criteria is "over-broad" of potentially risking deleting good material. Bulldog123 16:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, here are my thoughts:
 * There are existing policies that cover absolutely every aspect of this policy that deserves to exist.
 * Overlistification is a bad name, because it is not a real word.
 * This category relies on personal opinions that a given intersection is "irrelevant." If it is irrelevant, it already falls under several WP:NOT categories.
 * This proposed guideline exists only as deletion ammunition. We've deleted a lot of hard work for reasons that essentially are WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This is bad for the project, and irrational as well, since this is not paper. If you dontlike a list, then find one of the numerous policies that already governs whether or not it should be deleted.
 * Since we have an overwhelming number of guidelines already about what is and is not acceptable, adding this new one is, in my opinion, instruction creep.
 * I was happy to give this a chance to improve.

I believe that this list cannot be salvaged into something that would be useful for the project. I am sorry and I don't mean this as a personal attack or as revenge for a few deletions I would have voted differently about. I don't think there's any way to move forward and I don't think this is an appropriate way to amend list guidelines. --JayHenry 16:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to format responses in bullets like this. But associate number with number:
 * Ok, I challenge you to find the criteria for deleting lists based on irrelevant intersections of RERBS. There is a reason several other proposals propped up around this time, including three complaints on VIllage Pump that no criteria is available. Indeed, dozens of editors now utilize WP:OCAT in list deletions because no list equivalent was found. Bulldog123 17:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) "Listcruft" isn't a word either but it's still used all over in deletion debates and the name of an essay. "Overlistification" is meant to be a semi-humorous pun, but change it if you want. Bulldog123 17:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) That's why WP:NOT is cited on this essay. As with WP:OCAT this is meant only to serve as a segway to other policies and explain how they apply in each instance, and hence would be a "guideline" and not a "policy." Bulldog123 17:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Sorry that I have no feelings for people's "hard work" on a list. I guess that makes me seem cold but, IMO, people don't own their articles. It's not like we have signatures at the bottom of every article. Bulldog123 17:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) You could also point that out to AlabamaBoy and the many others who made similar proposals because they could not find this criteria you speak of on WP:LIST. Maybe I'm blind but WP:LIST is honestly devoid of any useful information in deletion debates. It's just inclusionist ammunition, as is WP:NOT. Bulldog123 17:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "I was happy to give this a chance to improve"
 * Simply "giving a chance to improve" puts the burden solely on me, as you made no effort to improve it either (or even gave suggestions for that matter, except "merge"), even though you've stated that you agree with some of it. And then going as far as pointing out that I was the sole contributor negatively in an AfD really took the cake, especially given people are allowed to cite essays in AfDs and have been doing so forever. Bulldog123 17:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Just because people do it doesn't mean they should. --Hemlock Martinis 19:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it is time to tag this with rejected. -- &#x2611; Sam uelWantman 20:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it is time to bring some neutral participants to this discussion, as to get a take on what is the consensus outside of deletionists and inclusionists. As with your AfD ideology, improve don't delete. However, leaving the burden of improvement solely on me is not helpful. In other words, people would find use for this as a well-improved essay, than a rejected proposal. Bulldog123 23:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Enlisting articles for deletion based on compliance with this proposal
I find it unacceptable to refer to this proposal as a basis for non-notability of articles. I don't understand why this proposal was submitted shortly before the List of journalists killed in Russia was filed for deletion. The Categorization of people guideline allows for intersections of occupation and residence categories such as "Journalists" & "Russian". I don't think intersecting that with the "Murdered" category will make the sub-category non-notable. I can't find a matching example in Overcategorization. ilgiz 01:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's editor consensus in relation to policy that determines if the list should or should not be deleted. There was no suggestion to delete the list in compliance with this proposal. I just hyper-linked it because I wanted people to comment. It's proposal advertising, and I fixed the nomination rationale since then so that people won't get confused. Bulldog123 05:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Transferring into Essay: For Now
I'm converting this from a proposal to an essay. However, I do very much want other people to contribute to this essay, whether it be deleting or adding material, because I don't want it to just be seen as a deletionist standpoint. Thanks to Sam, JayHenry, and DHowell for being thorough commenters. Please do consider implementing revisions. Bulldog123 21:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh and by the way, "converting from a proposal to an essay" doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Proposals are actionable, essays are not. This page is intended as actionable, so it either is or is not a guideline depending on veracity, but it certainly is not an essay.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  11:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Lists of...
There is a bit of controversy at the moment about such articles as List of Rajputs and List of Poles. What do we think, would this be better represented as a category, or as a list, or both? Perhaps we can add something to either this page or OCAT.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  11:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Lists are not categories!
Tweaking the overcategorization guideline to apply it to lists doesn't make any sense. As WP:OC says in its introduction,


 * "not every verifiable fact (or the intersection of two or more such facts) in an article requires an associated category. For lengthy articles, this could potentially result in hundreds of categories, most of which aren't particularly relevant. This may also make it more difficult to find any particular category for a specific article. This trend is also known as overcategorization." (emphasis added)

That is the only reason to avoid overcategorization given in the guideline. It is a practical reason, based on the limitations of the software. If we could display arbitrary intersections in a usable way, they would actually help rather than hinder the navigation and usefulness of the project. But as it is, adding too many categories result in a cluttered and nearly-useless footer at the bottom of the page.

The reason above does not apply to lists. Inclusion in a list article does not clutter any other articles, as the only effect shows up in the "What links here" tool, which is very minor. Lists can be useful for navigation. I don't know where people get the idea that every single page on Wikipedia has to be "encyclopedic" (whatever that means), when it is quite obvious that we do have many pages that are not encyclopedia articles but just navigational aids (think about disambiguation pages, for example). Lists can also be seen as navigational aids, similar to categories but without some of the limitations of categories. --Itub 12:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Lists are not categories, but the two pages are related. Some articles that are lists should be converted to categories, or vice versa. Some topics are suitable for neither a list nor a category.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  12:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, but that does not answer my concern that it makes no sense to try to apply to lists a guideline that was written for categories based on practical limitations of categories that lists do not have. --Itub 06:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Lists and categories overlap, and increasingly so over time. One reason for this is that there are editors who work primarily on lists to the exclusion of categories, and vice versa.  It's idiotic to get rid of the works of one group in favor of the other.  Both are viable core navigation systems!  The two sides often leapfrog each other -- and that's a good thing.  The competition should be kept to leapfrogging, which is healthy, rather than let devolve into the fiercer cut-throat competition of deletion, which is unhealthy for Wikipedia because actual work is lost.  For example, sometimes a well-developed list gets deleted because a category could conceivably do the same thing, even though the category is practically empty.  Well, that's a poor strategy for developing an encyclopedia.  Let lists and categories co-exist.  Together they are synergistic, because people are synergistic.  Don't alienate your listmakers or your category builders.  Live and let live.  The Transhumanist 21:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Do not currently support this proposal
While I do support WP:OCAT, I don't support this Overlistification proposal in its current form. Here are some of my problems with it:

- The proposal appears to imply that "tweaking" the category guidelines should apply to lists. However categories intentionally are supposed to have a higher barrier against creation than lists because a bad category can affect a hundred articles while a bad list is just a single bad article. Valid categories generally make for valid lists, but not all valid lists make for valid categories. So the restrictions on creating lists are intentionally looser than the restrictions on creating categories.

- In the section "Irrelevant Intersections by Race, Gender, Beliefs, Sexuality, Ethnicity, and Religion Lists", the proposal says that "There must be a reasonable amount of solid, mainstream articles, books, or documentaries specifically addressing the issue of a connection between the intersectees and showing how that relationship is manifested, for it to have some notability as an intersection. The existence of the intersection outside of wikipedia is not proof enough that it is a notable intersection." I actually am not sure I entirely believe that statement is true. That's because lists serve dual purposes. One is to present a combination of entries to inform the reader on a broader topic. The other, though, is to serve as search indices for related articles on a topic, much like categories serve as search indices for their articles.

It is quite possible, I think, for a list to serve a useful function as a navigational list for the reader without the "overall topic" of the list being specifically notable. There are probably useful ways of organizing navigational hub articles within broad topics that haven't been discussed, and these hubs do not always constitute original research since they do not necessarilly constitute an original opinion or rely on primary sources for their reliability.

Therefore I don't currently accept the general notion that overall list topics need to have been thoroughly discussed by outside publications. Rather, the list needs to be properly referenced, having an easily and objectively determinable inclusion criteria (to avoid the list actually being original research) and serve some sort of useful function for readers on the topic.

- Under "Trivia/Trivial lists", the section says that "This is essentially expanding upon what wikipedia is not: an indiscriminate collection of information." That is an incorrect statement because WP:IINFO does not deal with trivia at all. The word trivia doesn't even appear in the section, and that is intentional. Rather, IINFO is the catch-all for WP:NOT that includes various specific types of information which Wikipedia can discriminate against.

Now that being said, there is a proposal on the WP:NOT page to introduce a new section to WP:NOT that outlines what the five pillars mean when they say "Wikipedia is not a trivia collection." There is also the "Not a directory of loosely associated facts" section that is sometimes relevant to trivia lists. And there's also WP:TRIVIA as a style guide. So my advice would be that if you want to mention trivia at all you should reference any or all of those sections and not "indiscriminate collection of information".

- In "Over-extensive Lists" the section appears to contradict itself by saying that "When a list is prone to having many listees that can never have an article written about them, or that simply fail notability, the list can usually be deemed as over-extensive and would probably function better as a category." The problem with that statement is that clearly if a large number of entries on a list don't have articles then you can't use a category for it because the category will be missing a large number of entries.

It is quite possible for a list to contain both a mix of entries which have their own separate articles and entries which do not have their own articles. For example, I think the odds are good that many song lists will contain songs that do not have their own articles but that, in order to be complete, those songs must be included in the list. Similarly not all sporting events have their own article, but it's quite possible to have lists of related events within a season or for a team or player which is a necessary data adjunct to a discussion on the topic. Even with non-notable entries, though, the list as a whole can still serve a useful navigational or informative purpose for readers on the topic, especially when it contains at least some notable entries with their own articles.

So in summary I can't support this proposal as written, and even possibly as it is currently intended to function. It would take a serious rewrite for me to consider this as a guideline. Dugwiki 15:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with many of the sentiments against this proposal in large part. I also see that many editors assume that red links equal a sort of lack of notability, and therefore a list that contains a subjectively "high number" of red links would work better as a category. I also agree with previous posts that this is something WP:LISTS should be considering, if it were ever to become a guideline. I find it troublesome, also, that many AFD voters state "indiscriminate collection of information" as a rationale, then fail to state what part of that section the list fails. It seems as though they are basing such arguments on some instinctive gut intuition rather than policy or guidelines when they vote like that. Personally, I believe anyone who cannot point to the specific violation in detail who votes should not be counted, as their informed judgment cannot be at all discerned. Finally, I find it very unfortunate that deletionists have been referring to this page as a justification for the deletion of lists. It is not policy. It is not a guideline. It is the opinion of an author that is striving to gain consensus for their essay (which is fine by me, despite my disagreement with it). (Mind meal 22:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC))


 * I also oppose this proposal on similar grounds. Statements like "there must be a reasonable amount of solid, mainstream articles, books, or documentaries specifically addressing the issue of a connection between the intersectees and showing how that relationship is manifested, for it to have some notability as an intersection" are quite extreme, the article seems very redundant to me. Above all, I think it's just best not to attempt to create any generic criteria beyond the obvious (useful organization of information), to avoid poor applications of overgeneralized guidelines. And as others have pointed out, the article shouldn't declare near equivalence between guidelines for lists and categories unless a thorough discussion of the differences is offered - otherwise list guidelines are bound to be poorly applied to categories, and vica versa. — xDanielx T/C 22:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I honestly don't see how that statement is extreme. It just prevents people from assuming obscure mentions of trivia are to be listified immediately, which is the case very often. Bulldog123 20:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose the proposal. Delete it.  It favors cateogories over lists, and those two systems are complementary.  Categories aren't superior to lists for navigation purposes.  Both have problems and both have strengths.  I won't support a policy or guideline that puts one above the other.  The Transhumanist 20:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed (do not support). There are good lists and bad lists, but disfavoring lists overall is overkill.  The title, and focus, of this proposal suggest a bias against lists overall, and the contents confirm that it's not really a useful step in sorting out those lists are appropriate from those that are not.  Wikidemo 19:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The entries
It would seem to me (in looking over the discussion examples) that all but one of the entries on this page are essentially saying the same thing:
 * Intersections by Race, Gender, Beliefs, Sexuality, Ethnicity, or Religion require notability.

The other entry concerns "trivia", which is, of course, subjective anyway. (Which is also explained more clearly in other guidelines, style guides, and the like.)

It would seem to me that, since this is merely 2 ideas, that the two ideas be merged to some more appropriate page (for ease of reference, at least). For example, the essays Lists in Wikipedia and Listcruft seem to cover similar perspectives.

Or as an alternative, remove the trivia entry (or merge it elsewhere), and refactor this page to be about:


 * Intersections by Race, Gender, Beliefs, Sexuality, Ethnicity, or Religion in Categories, lists, and series boxes.

This could be clearer, cleaner, and likely be less controverial that way. - jc37 18:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Please do that. I'd support it. Bulldog123 20:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you're getting at? Some intersections that are inappropriate to categories are likewise inappropriate to lists, so they're mentioned twice?  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No I'm saying that in looking over this page, it's mostly about Intersections by Race, Gender, Beliefs, Sexuality, Ethnicity, or Religion. So I'm suggesting that the page be renamed/retasked to focus on that. - jc37 08:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Status
RFCpolicy I see that this proposed, and possibly unfinished page has been worked on by basically a single editor, who contributed extensively in June, not so much in July, and whose last contribution was 2 months ago. I also see a fair amount of recent opposes by established editors above. Has the time come for a final discussion on whether to accept, reject, or amend this proposal? - Mtmelendez (Talk 04:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Fine with me. My current opinion is to delete, or at least refactor into an essay involving: Intersections by Race, Gender, Beliefs, Sexuality, Ethnicity, or Religion in Categories, lists, and series boxes. - jc37 07:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree, deletion or essay. Wikidemo 15:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd go with delete.--Alabamaboy 00:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's kinda silly how everyone keeps complaining I was the only contributor to this essay instead of just CONTRIBUTING to it by themselves. I've said millions of times I wanted people to change what they didn't like but nobody did anything, and quite frankly asking for it to be "deleted" (which, all in all, is totally unnecessary for an essay) sounds a lot like a radical inclusionist standpoint. So no wonder, AlabamaBoy's proposing to delete an essay, as his proposal is much more liberal than mine was. Besides, I didn't reopen this essay for proposal status- that was done by someone else. Bulldog123 19:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm thinking of leaving this RFC open for a week or two, especially to give time to the main contributor to respond. After that, I'm inclined to nominate for MfD for a final binding solution. How does that sound? - Mtmelendez (Talk 02:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * We could also slap a rejected tag on it, though I wouldn't oppose deletion if it came to that. DHowell 02:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's an another alternative. Do you think MfD is the best forum, or should we conduct a final discussion here? - Mtmelendez (Talk 02:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Reject this proposal. Tagging or deleting are both acceptable to me, preferably tagging as a first step. Refactoring into an essay does not have my support. Pia 04:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I've tagged as rejected, there's no need to delete it. Archiving old proposals by marking them as "rejected" is the best way to stop them being suggested every 6 months.  Neil   ム  18:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Overlistification is not a word
Nor is listification. (Is it possible that its meaning might be found in some obscure reference somewhere.) Why is this a problem? Because it may make this article original research (WP:NOR ) and since it is not a word then it lacks notability (WP:N ). Perhaps renaming the article to perhaps "Over listing" or perhaps "excessive listing" might solve the problem and make finding the article easier for those unfamiliar with the Wiki..I'm making the point for your consideration; I'll leave any discussion of this point to those concerned. --User:Warrior777 (talk) 19:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Advice
I asked on the talk page of List of unmanned aerial vehicles whether the (hugely overblown) list should be reduced by removing all red-linked and non-linked entries - even if they had references (which are typically only links to the manufacturer's website). So far nobody has responded. Should I boldly go ahead and trim it right down? 10mmsocket (talk) 10:42, 12 July 2021 (UTC)