Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists/Archive 12

Documenting selection criteria
Unless someone wants to unhat, the discussion has moved to a revised proposal in a later subsection. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:00, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to User:NewsAndEventsGuy for the new section. I think this is good and useful but that as currently written it could be interpreted to create a new requirement of seeking consensus on list criteria before creating a list. I would suggest that the first paragraph be reorged to eliminate the potential for such an interpretation, for example as follows: "List criteria should be documented in two places. First, they should be clearly described in the list's introductory material. Second, they should be added to the list article's talk page, using Template:List criteria. If list criteria include acceptable self-references to Wikipedia (see 'common selection criteria' below), it should be formatted in the article using Template:Self-reference link. Any disputes over list criteria should be resolved through consensus. If that consensus was established through discussion, a link to the discussion where the consensus was established should be added to the talk page template." -- Visviva (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I saw this edit. On one hand, it seems like a good idea; on the other hand, I don't think it "documents current practice" at all. I couldn't remember ever seeing this template on a list talk page, and indeed it's only on 124 of them. So it seems like there should be consensus to add this to the guideline, but at the same time it's a decent enough idea that I didn't want to rv. :) &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 18:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with User:Rhododendrites that the proposal doesn’t “document current practice.” An edit of mine was reverted by that editor who said it documents current practice, on July 18 on the basis that we “Need to use Template:List criteria” before describing list scope in the lead.  A discussion about it ensued at the corresponding article talk page under the heading “Attempted compromise”.  I found out about the discussion here at talk:Stand-alone lists when another editor (User:SamuelRiv) alluded to it today at the talk page where the “Attempted compromise” discussion occurred.  To be fair, I banned User:NewsAndEventsGuy from my user talk after he banned me, although he has posted at my user talk anyway (and of course he could have mentioned this proposal at article talk).  Also pinging user:Thryduulf, User:hike395 and User:Visviva.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:50, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)
 * @Visviva, thanks for calling attention to the nuance of brand new single-author list articles. I feel its vital to include documentation for the consensus version of the list criteria, and so I would solve the problem you wisely raise this way (proposed text for entire subsection)....
 * Whether the selection criteria are those chosen by the creator of a new list or have been changed through consensus, the selection criteria should be documented in two places. First, the criteria should be clearly described in the list's introductory material.  Second, add the criteria to the associated talk page, using Template:List criteria.  In the template, indicate whether the criteria were chosen by the list creator or, if changed by consensus, include a link to document where the consensus was determined. If list criteria include acceptable self-references to Wikipedia (see "common selection criteria" below), it should be formatted in the article using Template:Self-reference link.
 * In contrast, list articles lacking sufficient statements of list criteria should be tagged with Template:List missing criteria.
 * Thanks again Visviva, for calling attention to the oversight regarding new list articles
 * NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Wowzers.... at the same time it's a decent enough idea that I didn't want to rv. :) thanks Rhododendrites! That's the first time I've laughed (the good kind) in four or five hours. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @ Rhododendrites, seriously though.... after the dust settles, and assuming this "sticks", I intend to ask the community to formulate a new reason for WP:AFD on the basis that lists lack criteria and adequate discussion has not started. I'm not sure how we measure "adequate" discussion, but the idea is to flag lists that lack criteria, and have a reasonable method to purge them while leaving list editors a reasonable means to solve the deficiency. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:52, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I would very strongly oppose deleting anything on the grounds that "discussion has not yet started" - you should start the discussion. If you don't think discussion could ever produce acceptable criteria then nominate it on those grounds. Thryduulf (talk) 19:02, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * So would I, but since this isn't a brainstorming for AFD reasons regarding lists, arguing about it now (even though we agree) would be premature.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:24, 19 July 2022 (UTC)


 * A helpful addition may be that until there's consensus for something else, lists should use the WP:CSC rather than nothing at all. In terms of documenting practice, the CSC serving as a default is in line with my experience. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 19:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * My goal has been to clearly articulate current consensus for lists; As I understand your comment, you are proposing something new;  Specifically, that lists will always be required to use one of the list-selection formats found in WP:CSC until and unless there is consensus to do something else;  Is that what you meant to propose?  Personally, I would support this change even though my prior efforts to improve this guideline were intended to merely document existing practice more clearly.  In my view, creating a default for list criteria would be a valuable improvement for list articles in general, so THANK YOU for putting the notion of "default list criteria" on the table! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I believe that adding a requirement that forces editors to document list criteria falls under instruction creep. It's not being currently done today (compare the 120 transclusions vs. 118,000+ list articles. Forcing this requirement will generate a large amount of work for editors. Speaking for myself, I don't see the utility that offsets the extra work.


 * From what I've seen, the vast majority of lists have inclusion criteria which are obvious. If those criteria do not fulfill WP:SALAT, an editor brings it to AfD and makes an argument for deletion. If a list has unclear criteria for inclusion, the list gets messy and there is a discussion on the talk page which resolves it. I don't see why obvious inclusion criteria need to be documented.


 * I'm going to revert the addition of the documentation to the guideline until we can get consensus on what is required vs good practice. — hike395 (talk) 02:39, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

FYI, my current intention is to follow up on this, but I find that I lack sufficient understanding of two (maybe three) permutations of stand alone lists, namely indexes, set indexes, and outlines. FYI and FWIW I am seeking education at the pump, and at present the thread is this one. Your input there would be welcome.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:52, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Documenting list criteria NAEG ver 2
("NAEG" is my short wiki name.) Armed with my better understanding of actual practice and user:Hike395's excellent suggestion of distinguishing between required and recommended practice, here's a new version for discussion....

The phones are open, feedback welcome. @Rhododendrites, I thought about adding your suggestion for mentioning default criteria, but just don't t see how that would really help. An experienced list editor knows, and a newbie reading this will have their brain fed just by looking at the section with common examples. But if folks want to address ideas for default criteria I don't object. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:49, 23 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I still fail to see the use of it to mention the criteria both in the article and on the talk page when uncontroversial. It looks like me to promote the use of templates, just because they exist, not to solve a need. The Banner  talk 10:17, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Since Template:List criteria was and remains optional, you don't have to use it. You're right, of course, for uncontroversial criteria the advantages are not immediately obvious. Nonetheless I believe they include
 * Guarding against the dubious assumption that there will never be controversy over list criteria
 * Lead text is susceptible to "drift" as a few words are changed here and there, often introducing unintended ambiguity or unconsidered nuance. The template would help keep a snapshot of time, so criteria could more easily be reset
 * Anyone newly interested in a list's criteria could find the discussion, review perspectives, and consider pinging involved eds, but in long archives finding such threads is an extra mile only the conscientious try to take and the lucky complete. The template would save such a researcher a lot of time.
 * So I submit it is good, but optional practice.  And if its written out in the lead, how much bother is it, really, to copy it to the template on talk?  question does anyone know of a good way to research AFD or article talk space, to try to get a measure on list criteria confusion and/or debate? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Your arguments do not cut any wood or make sense. The Banner  talk 11:22, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * So do object to any other part of the proposal besides calling the template "good practice? Your silence on the rests suggests the rest is OK.   Meanwhile, as for the template, its a simple matter to just say FYI there is an optional template or words to that effect, if too few people think it merits "good practice". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:52, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Your silence about my concerns is interesting. But to my opinion it is enough to just write is as On many lists the selection criteria are simple and can be unambiguously stated in list-article's title. Otherwise, include the criteria in the list's introductory material. We should not use templates just because we can/have them. The Banner  talk 17:34, 23 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The status quo seems okay to me.  This proposed statement is also problematic: “It is good practice, but not required, to repeat the list criteria and document the location of any discussion on the list-article's talk page using Template:List criteria.”  Saying this is good practice implies that the opposite is bad practice.  If the list scope is simple and obvious from the title and/or the lead, it’s perfectly good practice to not use a template, which just creates more work and complication.  In fact, using a template would cause even more work and trouble because any change in scope in the article would have to be updated in the template too.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support this proposal or something like it, as the guy who made the list criteria template. What the talk page template does that neither the title nor the lead can do is to link to the discussion where consensus for the criteria was reached. If there is no discussion to link to, then yes, the template might be unnecessary. I'd still support this if it simply said the template is optional (as opposed to good practice), but I think it might be better to recommend use of the template when the criteria is the subject of consensus. Levivich (talk) 01:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It should at least be optional if there was little or no talk page discussion that it would link to. I’d just make it optional period, for simplicity’s sake.  People can always search the talk page archives like they can on all other points.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The list criteria discussion isn't always in the talk page archives. Sometimes it's on another page. That's what the template was made for, to help editors find it when it's not so easy. I think everyone agrees it's optional. Levivich (talk) 02:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * How about making it “best practice” if the discussion about it wasn’t at the talk page?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it's good practice regardless of where the discussion is. Even if it's in the talk page archives, having a link in the talk page header saves editor time spent searching for it. Levivich (talk) 22:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It’s not bad practice, sure, if an editor wants to spend extra time finding the template and learning how to use it. But saying it’s “good practice” is like saying “you really ought to do this or else you’re not being good”.  I would only say it’s recommended if the discussion isn’t in the talk page archives, and otherwise it’s allowed as an available option.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:36, 27 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Support if the language says something like, It is convenient, but not required, to repeat the list criteria and document the location of any discussion on the list-article's talk page using Template:List criteria. As it stands, the language somewhat contradicts itself just a tiny little bit. Huggums537 (talk) 06:22, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, or something like it. By the way, even though it's a goal that the list criteria "be unambiguously stated in list-article's title", that is not always possible, especially in titles that are already getting longish, and adding that last bit to make it completely unambiguous would tip the title over into "ridiculously long" territory. As an example, see for what happens when there are no explicit criteria, and the title can be read in more than one way. This proposal would give additional support to those trying to get criteria included, so I support it. Mathglot (talk) 21:46, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to language that allows self-reference. See discussion below, where allowing self-reference appears to go against consensus. I propose a compromise in a new alternative. — hike395 (talk) 16:06, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Self-reference
I don't think it serves our readers to put Wikipedia rules into the lede of list articles. To take the example from WP:CSC, I don't think that List of Dilbert characters should start with "This is a list of Dilbert characters, none of which are notable". I think this is a bad idea, either with or without the WP wikilink: the vast majority of readers would think this was confusing or would doubt the veracity of the list.

WP:SELFREF is a generally good policy to avoid confusing readers, and to allow re-use of Wikipedia in other contexts. I don't think we should make an exception for this case. Instead, if a WP self-referential list criterion is considered desirable to add, then it should be added via List criteria on the Talk page. In the Dilbert case, the lede of the list could say "This is a list of Dilbert characters." and (optionally) the talk page could have. — hike395 (talk) 13:05, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That’s a great suggestion, I agree the list criteria template should be recommended in case we’d otherwise do a self-ref in the lead. AFAIK, the only other instance where we should recommend it is to link substantial discussion of list scope somewhere other than in talk page archives.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It is important to set the scope of list in its introduction where that scope is narrower that the title - e.g. if a "List of Dilbert characters" does not list every Dilbert character we should make it clear to readers and prospective editors that this is the case. If we don't do that by saying "notable" we need to do it in some other way. Thryduulf (talk) 09:34, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The scope of "List of Dilbert characters" appears to be all Dilbert characters. The fact that Dilbert (character) and Asok (Dilbert) are articles which presumbly passed WP:GNG appears to violate WP:GNG#2, but I'm not sure what to do about that. Same thing with Paracetamol brand names and Tylenol (brand).
 * Perhaps a better example is List of mountains by elevation. The lede says its an incomplete list, but it obeys WP:GNG#1 (because it appears that almost all of the entries are either blue links: I should clean up the remainder). Must we say "notable mountains" or "notable mountains" in the lede? The current lede appears to already fulfill WP:SALLEAD. — hike395 (talk) 18:03, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The inclusion criteria for that list appears to simply be elevation not notability (which is fine for a list of geographical features), so I don't think it's relevant here. Thryduulf (talk) 21:02, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The minimum elevation in List of mountains by elevation is 3.6 meters, believe it or not. There are many (many) mountains in the world that are not in this list: it only contains notable mountains per WP:GNG#1. Should we change the lede in this and similar cases? — hike395 (talk) 11:22, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no need to refer to any Wikipedia rules in the lead by name, however you can still comply with the rule without stating or linking to it. Lead guidelines still apply, and MOS:LEADSENTENCE says this: "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where. It should be in plain English. Stating specific inclusion criteria in plain English and not in rule-based-language at the top of the article is perfectly fine, and should be encouraged, so that both readers and editors know what the article is about. If editor consensus at Talk determines that it is about something like the following, then it is perfectly appropriate for the lead sentence to say: "This is a list of the principal characters of the Dilbert comic, including all characters who made eight or more total appearances, including at least one appearance in four different calendar years", or whatever it is editors want to agree on. There's no way you can shoehorn that into a reasonable article title, and therefore criteria are required; calling it out in the first sentence is just normal procedure, and it is compliant with MOS:LEAD without requiring mentioning any rules by name. Mathglot (talk) 22:03, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, this example works well. Huggums537 (talk) 03:15, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Documenting list criteria ver 3
Given the rough consensus in the side discussion, above, I propose a compromise that does not permit self-reference. This version also incorporates the discussion over optionality of List criteria:

Thoughts? — hike395 (talk) 16:06, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me, thanks.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:16, 11 August 2022 (UTC
 * Opposed for now but maybe.... Self reference is already and for a very long time been part of our P&G. Any change should reflect that stable consensus so if the omission is intended to suggest prohibition then (A) we should just blurt that out explicitly and (B) the consensus needs a much broader vetting by the community.  Having said that, I believe the self-reference is useful and should be retained, especially but not limited to the idea of WP:Notability as an element of permissible list inclusion criteria. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:46, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm a little confused by your comment. Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid already says to avoid self-references in articles:
 * Unless substantially part of the article topic, do not refer to the fact that the page can be edited, nor mention any Wikipedia project page or process, specialized Wikipedia jargon (e.g. "PoV" in place of "biased"), or any MediaWiki interface link in the sidebar or along the top of the screen.
 * Proposed version 3 clarifies that that existing WP:SELFREF guideline applies specifically to self-reference in list criteria. It doesn't contradict any existing guideline as far as I can tell -- it just says to put the self-reference on the Talk page, not the article. I'm not sure what you mean by omission or blurting out explicitly? — hike395 (talk) 00:19, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that you care!  Please review Stand-alone_lists and do a text search there for "Notability".  As I understand it - and I could be wrong - explicit invocation of WP:NOTABILITY has long been an acceptable and somewhat commonplace element of list inclusion criteria.  If you're still in doubt after such review, I'd be interested in hearing the hair splitting details as to the basis of your doubt. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:00, 12 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Question: I'm not all that familiar with the backstory here, so apologies if this has been covered before. Why actually do we need to say anything about self-refs at all, in particular, to warn against using them? Is this something that editors in list articles do so often, that we need to warn them explicitly? I mean, I can think of an infinite list of "don'ts", so why pick on this one particularly, is I guess what I'm saying. I can think of *so* many errors users, especially new ones, make in the WP:LEADSENTENCE even in non-list articles so why are we waving them off about self-refs?
 * The other thing I was thinking, and maybe this was covered also, is the difference in meaning between "Notable" in Engish, and "Notable" in Wikipedish. That's something that could be worth mentioning, and if they meant the Wikipedish meaning, then you can finesse the whole "selfref" issue (well, a large part of it, anyway) by just saying, "instead of notable (which people may disagree on) use expressions like for which an article exists which at least is concrete and not subject to misinterpretation or disagreement." Or am I completely on the wrong track, here? Mathglot (talk) 06:44, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think I see what NAEG is saying. WP:Notability is used by many articles in their list criteria, and WP:SALLEAD says to put the criteria into the articles, so self-reference is actually required by WP:SALLEAD.
 * There's a fundamental contradiction between WP:SALLEAD and WP:SELFREF. I'm trying to resolve it by pushing the self-refs to Talk. NAEG previously tried to resolve it by, and, in v2, marking such usage with srlink. It could be helpful to look at how specific examples of introductory sentences would be affected by v3 (at least according to my interpretation):
 * ✅ This is a list of notable things.[1][2] --- This is a fairly common case, per NAEG. Per Mathglot, "notable" is a well-understood English term in addition to a Wikipedish term, so it should be allowed even under WP:SELFREF.
 * This is a list of notable things. --- a self-ref that both v2 and v3 would forbid (it's a bare selfref not wrapped in a template).
 * This is a list of things. -- this is allowed by v2 and forbidden by v3
 * This is a list of people that meet Wikipedia's notability requirements and whose membership is supported by a reliable source. --- this is forbidden by v3, since it refers to wikipedia even though there are no links
 * This is a list of characters from a book, none of which are notable --- this one looks weird to me. A reader would be confused why we are making a list of non-notable things. An editor would be confused about whether to add a character. It isn't forbidden by WP:SELFREF, but it doesn't seem like a good idea to me.
 * ✅ This is a list of the principal characters of the Dilbert comic, including all characters who made eight or more total appearances, including at least one appearance in four different calendar years --- example from Mathglot, which has no self-ref.
 * To answer Mathglot's question: we don't need to say anything about self-ref. The contradiction between WP:SELFREF and WP:SALLEAD is somewhat disturbing. So far, the direct usage of self-reference links on list pages seems quite rare. If some future editor decides to add a massive number of self-ref links to list articles to obey WP:SALLEAD, it could be difficult to unwind if we decide we don't like it after all. WP:BEANS could be relevant here. However, I prefer either v2 or v3 to remaining silent on self-ref. — hike395 (talk) 10:10, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Incorrect characterization of my view, @Hike395. At no time did have I believed there as any inconsistency between the Self-references to avoid and Stand-alone lists.  The former explicitly says its not universally mandatory and includes a sentence describing one self-reference and says its OK, then the next sentence logically links to this OK characterization.  That is a reference that makes sense on mirrors and forks and in print, and makes sense in a copy of Wikipedia that contains only the article space. Similarly, many list articles explicitly state their inclusion criteria in the lead section.  I never and still do not believed these MOS and guidelines were contradictory.  I only started working on this because I thought our how-to instructions for documenting list criteria and consensus-forming discussions needed some work.  We can continue the discussion under Ver 4, I just wanted to note your description of my work isn't really what I was trying to do.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:00, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think mathglot and NAEG both have great ideas about being careful, and using ordinary expressions to explain criteria, but I would not use the example of "for which an article exists" because that implies redlinks can not be used, and takes the notability standard away from saying it is notable. I think most templates say something about if the list is "incomplete", and how you can help? Maybe language could model after that in some ways? Huggums537 (talk) 02:15, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If Notability is part of agreed criteria, just say something like sufficiently notable to merit its own Wikipedia article.  Note that meriting an article means just that.  It does not mean the article has already been created. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:55, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * What has worked for the album series of lists, for example List of 2019 albums, is to define notable by quoting WP:GNG, but not referencing it, so that the lead sentence states "The following is a list of music albums, EPs, and mixtapes released in 2019. These are notable albums, defined as having received significant coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject." Note how the first sentence expands upon the title of the list, while the second sentence defines acceptable criteria without referencing back to an article in Wikipedia. While technically not stating no red-linked albums or artists (or non-linked albums or artists, list preference), it tends to fall out that if neither the artist or the album to be listed does not have an article, it is a real challenge to find significant coverage in news or review articles, which are secondary sources independent of the subject. Mburrell (talk) 04:01, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That is pretty good. I notice there are no red links, but there are some notable entries that don't have blue links so that is how it should be according to me. Huggums537 (talk) 04:32, 16 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Opposed to the conceptual change of barring editors from agreeing to make careful self-references as part of the list criteria; and my experience on contentious articles is that problems are reduced when all the selection criteria are stated in the lead, even if includes a self-reference. The key is being careful so the reader on any offwiki platform is neither misled nor scared off nor confronted with incomprehensibility.  This is the status quo for my entire time at Wikipedia (Going on 11 or 12 years).  Why change? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:16, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposal version 4
Later: how about if we try to clarify the self-ref section with two examples? — hike395 (talk) 14:37, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

— hike395 (talk) 14:37, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I understand why list criteria might not be obvious from the title; I gave an example of one myself. Can you give an example of a type of list which would *require* self-reference, because I'm not sure I can picture one. Mathglot (talk) 16:53, 12 August 2022 (UTC)


 * There are several that are discussed in WP:SAL. For example, WP:EXEMPT1E, WP:CSC#2, or the more stringent criterion listed at WP:LISTPEOPLE ("must have a Wikipedia article already written about them"). I just cleaned up a list that had that last criterion (List of Chinese Filipinos). — hike395 (talk) 19:26, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That makes sense; thanks. Mathglot (talk) 20:40, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Proposal version 4 looks good to me, thanks.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:44, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * While I agree as well, I'd feel queasy about saying anything like this with only a few editors responding. Not saying we necessarily need an Rfc, but I'd rather see some significant support by more editors. We should list this at a couple of WikiProjects or some other centralized venue and get more feedback. I'll hold off if in case someone else would prefer to initiate that, but I'm happy to do it, otherwise. Mathglot (talk) 03:47, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * To my opinion, it might be a good thing to write out the definition of notable as some people have clearly problems with that. Something like "Notable, as in having its own Wikipedia-article". No self-ref needed, just a clarification. The Banner  talk 09:40, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * do you mean adding the clarification to the introductory sentence itself, or to the commentary afterwards?
 * Yes, I agree that we don't have consensus yet. I'll ping WP:WikiProject Lists, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid (again), and WP:VPP. — hike395 (talk) 11:48, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Preferably in the introductory sentence. Too many people do not read comments, or hidden comments. Or just ignore them when it does not suit them with an excuse as "I did not see that". The Banner  talk 11:59, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Sadly, mentioning Wikipedia itself is a form of self-reference. From WP:SELFREF:
 * Mentioning that the article is being read on Wikipedia, or referring to Wikipedia policies or technicalities of using Wikipedia, should be avoided where possible.
 * Adding "having its own Wikipedia article" to introductory sentences goes against WP:SELFREF. That's why this is so tricky. — hike395 (talk) 12:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You mean it is self-defeating? The Banner  talk 12:28, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Both WP:SALLEAD and WP:SELFREF are well-meaning guidelines: the first shows editors the list criteria in the article itself (to reduce off-criteria edits), and the second allows downstream free usage of WP itself. There are cases where I don't know how to fulfill both. The best I can think of is to put the self-reference on the Talk page. Even with WP:SALLEAD, regardless of what we do here, there will always be inexperienced editors who junk up lists with off-criteria entries. Lists just take a lot maintenance. — hike395 (talk) 20:11, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Later: I wonder if an article-space message box would fulfill both? It would put the list criterion up at the start of the article. Let me ask at the Village Pump. — hike395 (talk) 22:26, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's necessary, @Hike395.
 * There's nothing wrong with putting a vague description in the lead and then expanding on it in the talk page. Perhaps that's worth considering. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:27, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . That's what the current proposal (version 4) is aiming for. — hike395 (talk) 22:34, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "Notable, as in having its own Wikipedia-article" is not what WP:Notable means. "Blue-linked" means "having its own Wikipedia article".  "Notable" means that it meets the criteria to have one, if anyone ever felt like writing it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:26, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I 100% absolutely agree with WAID about this. There are huge differences between lists confined to "notable only", "blue-links only", and "Wikipedia articles only". It is extremely important these distinctions are made clear because many editors are under the false impression these three criteria refer to the same thing, when in fact they are three very different sets of criteria. Huggums537 (talk) 07:24, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

What do you think of Proposal 4, above? I'm trying to figure out whether there is consensus for it or not. — hike395 (talk) 12:36, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I support most of it, and agree with WAID that there is nothing wrong with a vague description for the lead with more details at talk. However, I do have one little problem with:

--- ✅ "notable" is a commonly-used English word, not a self-reference, and is acceptable usage.

I personally think encouraging the English usage of notability is confusing the actual usage, and is not needed. It could be restated to say the same thing without encouraging that awful usage. It really makes no difference whatsoever to readers or to editors whether or not the usage is English language or Wiki language just so long as the reference isn't being made. What makes the difference about the reference being made is if the link appears or not, (since a link is an obvious reference to something) and not some abstract philosophical debate about language.

--- ✅ "notable" is not a self-reference because it does not link to Wikipedia, and is acceptable usage. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 16:48, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ I updated the proposal per your suggestion, although I want to point out that MOS:SELFREF discourages "specialized Wikipedia jargon" as a self-reference, in addition mentioning "Wikipedia" and links to Wikipedia. My point was that "notable" is not a specialized jargon term. But we can leave that detail out. — hike395 (talk) 18:35, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for considering my concern, and fixing it, but I would also like to point out that all three versions mention Wikipedia, and reference technical jargon, so there is no avoiding that anyway. Plus, when you think about it, almost every talk page notice does the same. I just went to the main page, and the talk page of the featured article links to various Wikipedia policies and so forth, and so does nearly every internal link to other articles on the page of the featured article, so I'm convinced SELFREF is meant to apply to articles, not their talk pages. Huggums537 (talk) 21:14, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * In fact I just read SELFREF:
 * The templates that render self-referencing messages for the maintenance needs of developing articles, such as stub, npov, and refimprove, are unavoidable (and may permissibly include things like "Edit this page ..."), but articles should normally avoid self-referencing templates such as shortcut and the others. Huggums537 (talk) 21:21, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, when you think about the shear number of times we reference Wikipedia, and technical jargon in talk page discussions, it would be absurd to think SELFREF applied. Huggums537 (talk) 21:32, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oops, I think we're miscommunicating. There are three different places in Wikipedia we're talking about:
 * The introduction or lead of the list article, in the main namespace.
 * The talk page of the list article, in the Talk namespace
 * The guideline at WP:SAL, in the Wikipedia namespace
 * The proposal is saying that we should not use SELFREF in (1) and push all SELFREF to (2). Maybe it isn't clear, but the example sentence  is supposed to occur as the first sentence in (1). That's not a good place for Wikipedia jargon. The use of the List criteria is on the Talk page (2) and can have as much Wikipedia jargon as we need. All three versions of the proposals are for editing WP:SAL (3). The examples will be published and read in (3), but are examples of sentences that would occur in (1). If it's too confusing, we can remove the examples. — hike395 (talk) 06:14, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh right. I got it. I think we are good. Huggums537 (talk) 06:30, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll admit I'm new to this discussion so these topics may have been raised before, but having worked on quite a few FLCs, I see several key issues. First, this format encourages the use of "This is a list of X" in the lead, which is explicitly discouraged by MOS:LEADSENTENCE. Second, I don't think it is necessary for inclusion criteria to be documented on lists; disputes over whether articles should discuss an item or not are put on talk pages, not the main article. (Moreover, adding inclusion criteria could get really repetitive; for instance, every film awards list follows the same inclusion criteria, and listing that at the start of every standalone list would become redundant.) While there are cases where stating the inclusion criteria is useful, mandating its use is not in line with practice, and since there is little evidence for a significant issue, there is no reason to go against practice. Just my two cents. RunningTiger123 (talk) 13:10, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Whether you need to explicitly document the inclusion criteria depends on the subject. List of presidents of the United States does not need explicit documentation, because people can figure out what belongs in the list just from the title.  List of megachurches in the United States probably does, because most of us don't know where to divide "church" from "megachurch".  List of unusual units of measurement definitely needs an explanation, because otherwise we're asking for endless disputes over what constitutes "unusual".
 * (Redundancy across articles doesn't worry me; in fact, that's a good thing, because it means any individual article can stand completely on its own.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think RT123 makes a good point about LEADSENTENCE, and it has also caused me to rethink what NAEG has been saying about SELFREF. I'm wondering if we should leave the examples out since they seem to be promoting a "list of x" type of format, and I also think the language about SELFREF should be exactly like the VER2 language. Do these two things and you have my full support! Huggums537 (talk) 04:21, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that RT123 makes a very good point about WP:LEADSENTENCE and now I think we should get rid of the examples. But even if we get rid of the examples, I think we haven't achieved consensus on the change. — hike395 (talk) 06:33, 16 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Opposed See my reason under Ver 3 NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:17, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Discussion
I noticed that this thread began without any mention of its initial motivations, which is essentially the example usage case from which the first proposals were worked. This is key information in the process of any policy proposal, or tech support, or just any communicative process, in my opinion. I promise I'm not trying to poison the well or cast aspersions on any editor, but for as large as this discussion has become I think it's important to link that it originated with a simultaneous impasse in discussion at. To be clear, I am not accusing an editor of trying to change policy to manipulate a discussion – it's not like this was secret – nor do I think this should affect the merits of any of the proposals above. It simply gives context to the origins of the discussion and the formation of the proposals. Editors who have been concerned about list types for which this change might inadequately apply may additionally have more context of what to look out for as they look for more potential conflicts. SamuelRiv (talk) 02:58, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Input request
Comments would be appreciated at Village pump (miscellaneous). All opinions welcome.4meter4 (talk) 20:36, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Non-redirect article?
WP:CSC reads: Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia., but is there even such a thing as a "non-redirect article"? What is that supposed to mean? Aren't redirects non-articles by definition? So, how could you ever have a "redirect article" that would actually ever be able to meet this notability criteria? The answer is you wouldn't. It appears to me to be a very tricky way of saying notable redirects are not allowed by conflating redirects with articles. Huggums537 (talk) 16:33, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

To insert another argument I just now realized when I made the change; the sentence in question links to WP:N, but there is absolutely no reference at all of any "non-redirect" articles in the entire WP:N guidance page whatsoever so once again I'm forced to wonder how this got made up, and what other part of policy or guidance it references if not what was actually linked to.

If someone can't explain what the heck this is supposed to mean, then I am going to request that "non-redirect" be removed ASAP per the reasons mentioned above that it just doesn't make any sense, and it is needless to say because it would never be possible for any notable entry to have anything other than a "non-redirect" article. Huggums537 (talk) 07:27, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

OK, it has been over a week, and no objections or explanations so I will make the requested change. Thank you. Huggums537 (talk) 09:05, 3 September 2022 (UTC)


 * At some point "article" there may have been "page", which a non-redirect page does make sense. But which the switch to " article" that term generally does not include redirects, disambiguation, and other mainspace navigational aids, so this new change is removing an outdated redundancy. M asem (t) 10:17, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * As far as I know how to search in the history it was always "article", but I can see how "page" might make sense except I've never heard of notable items that qualify for their own "page" since a page could mean anything other than an article i.e. help, user, and talk pages. Thanks for the support though. Huggums537 (talk) 10:42, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * There is WP:ARTICLE, which says that redirects are not usually considered articles-proper. I think your edit is good. — hike395 (talk) 13:55, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that helpful information. Huggums537 (talk) 23:30, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Guidance on obscure lists
added the following sentence after the "one-eyes horse thieves from Montana": There should be a reasonable expectation that readers will seek to see that particular grouping and selection of list items.

While I agree with the sentiment, I found the wording of the new sentence confusing, since there was no obvious "particular grouping and selection of list items" that is being referenced. Instead, how about A list should be defined so that a reasonable number of readers seek it out. — hike395 (talk) 17:32, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. North8000</b> (talk) 17:44, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * As long as we get something like that in there without further ado. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 19:49, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ — hike395 (talk) 23:07, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Cool. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 00:51, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I also agree with the ammended change as a participant in previous discussion about this. Huggums537 (talk) 21:10, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Time to revisit the "every entry fails the notability criteria" rule?
"Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles: for example, List of Dilbert characters or List of paracetamol brand names. Before creating a stand-alone list, consider carefully whether such lists would be better placed within a "parent" article. (Note that this criterion is never used for living people.)"

For starters, the two examples given fail this rule, as both have entries with articles. I have some trouble imagining stand-alone lists where none of the entries are notable enough for a separate entry, but the whole is still notable enough for a separate article. Why would we have a separate list of people who all did job X if none of these people are notable? Why would we have a separate list of characters from comic Y if none of them are notable (aren't we deep into WP:NOTPLOT with such a list?). The argument for these is usually that it would overwhelm the parent article, but then one should consider whether having this much detail about non-notable sub-objects is really wanted. We don't need to describe every detail, not everything verifiable should be included; we are supposed to summarize, not just reproduce. Thoughts? Fram (talk) 14:27, 9 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I see a lot of lists of non-notable examples get deleted. That makes sense since most of the list has no third-party sources. But there are lists of non-notable examples that are more likely to survive an AFD. We'd need to pull up some AFD discussions to see what we normally do. There are extreme views on both sides here, and it's best to ground these discussions with real examples. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:18, 9 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep the status quo since removing puts severe limititations on the ability of good creators to make useful lists and smart editors can find different better ways to eliminate "bad" lists. Huggums537 (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Does the selection criteria need to be supported by reliable sources?
The guideline for selection criteria currently says that: " (also known as or ) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. Avoid original or arbitrary criteria that would synthesize a list that is not plainly verifiable in reliable sources. In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed (for example, lists of unusual things or terrorist incidents), it is especially important that inclusion be based on reliable sources given with inline citations for each item."

Around a month ago, List of states with limited recognition got nominated for deletion with the justification that since the criteria for inclusion has no citation, this entire list is WP:OR. I asked about this on the Help Desk and two admins replied that all criterias for inclusion are supposed to be determined by consensus and editorial discretion of editors since reliable sources may not agree on the definitions or qualifications of items that should be included in a list. This means that while Wikipedia only has lists for things that are discussed sufficiently in reliable sources, we editors still get to debate and determine what items to include in each list ourselves, correct? StellarHalo (talk) 01:15, 10 December 2022 (UTC)


 * That would be correct. That hopefully means that a wholly made up inclusion metric not from sources (a list of states that contain the letter "e") should likely be rejected by the consensus, while something that has somewhat established sourced basis would be kept. Its certainly not a black and white line and requires consensus to decide. M asem (t) 01:20, 10 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Masem is right. Selection criteria that are WP:OR are more likely to be WP:INDISCRIMINATE. But these things get murky and usually require discussion. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:08, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * And what about a list of artists currently and formerly signed by a record label? Even when half of the artists is non-notable (as in, has not a Wikipedia article)? The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 15:19, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Ideally, I think every entry on a list should be supported by RS as Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources. However, in practice I usually find a bluelink or supporting citation acceptable evidence that they're appropriate for inclusion. DonIago (talk) 17:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * A LOT depends on how controversial the list’s topic (and thus inclusion in the list) is. The more controversial the topic, the more important it is to cite an RS to support inclusion in the list. Blueboar (talk) 18:01, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I echo what Blueboar said.....the more controversial that it is the stronger the sourcing requirement. Also note there are two things blended together here. #1 The criteria #2 Supporting that a particular item meets the criteria. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 20:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)


 * It's certainly okay for a list of people to include non-notables: the names of non-notable people may be included in a list that is largely made up of notable people, for the sake of completeness. (WP:EXEMPT1E) It's necessary for inclusion in a list to be backed up by RS that supports the criteria for inclusion; but we can set the criteria for the list itself. The list criteria don't have to be discussed in RS. So if, for example, if a list becomes too long to render on the wiki, it could be divided (say alphabetically, geographically or chronologically). The criteria would still be verifiable and discriminate, even though they are made up and arbitrary. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:35, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That also depends on the individual list. It is perfectly reasonable (for example) to require that a list of graduates of a major University be restricted to notable alumni. Blueboar (talk) 22:06, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure is. But note that notability is our concept. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:08, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the requirement for reliable sources is in the wrong section of the guideline. There's the topic or scope of a list (described in WP:SALAT), and then there is the specific selection criteria for that topic (described in WP:LSC). It makes more sense (to me) to require that the topic/scope of the list be supported by reliable sources, not the selection criteria itself. After all, as Hawkeye notes, "notability" or "has a Wikipedia article" is a WP concept and cannot be supported by RS. Right now, there is no limitation on list topic (other than consensus of editors) --- that would be an ideal place to say that the topic must be defined by multiple reliable sources. — hike395 (talk) 01:05, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with essentially the same sentiments expressed by @Hawkeye7 and @Hike395. As in the example being discussed above there is a huge difference between each individual on an entire list being "notable" (thus requiring their own article or the ability to have their own article) and the general Wikipedia concept of the list page itself being notable as in the fact that we are allowed to have an article about a list of graduates of a major University because the university has had enough coverage about their alumni in reliable sources. According to some parts of the guidance the list does not have to be restricted to notable alumni since the page itself is already notable, but editors may choose to restrict it they like. I personally think a notability restriction is kind of silly and absurd. The idea behind the restriction is that the list would become chaos and out of control. but this simply isn't true. Maybe that might happen if we allowed entries without sources, but we don't. Acording to WP:V, everything must be sourced. This is more than enough of a restriction to limit a list of alumni since it would be very difficult to source every alumni from a university. Requiring an entry to have more than ordinary sourcing and making it be actual article material grade is overkill and makes the need for these kind of lists pointless because if all the list entries have articles then we already have the information on wikipedia and there really isn't very much point to such lists outside of navigational/organizational aids and those should/would not have to be notable. A helpful and useful list would be one that offers content you can't get anywhere else but on that list. The only way to accomplish that is to allow it to have reliably sourced entries that don't have to be notable as long the parent article is notable. Huggums537 (talk) 22:34, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Something I would like to add is that even if every alumni could be verified by a reliab;e primary or secondary source the list would still be a very finite one anyway since there are only so many alumni and it isn't very likely a complete list could ever even come close to being fully formed on Wikipedia given the notorious difficulty in obtaining access to some primary sources so many entries would be excluded from the so called "endless list" problem that was conjured up by the notability freaks who want to spread fear and paranoia that a non existant "possibility" of some unmanageable list containing every alumni who ever lived might blow up Wikipedia. They want you to think that you must restrict lists to notable entries only because otherwise you will end up with a https://yearbook.org on Wikipedia, yet I've never seen any evidence whatsoever of there being a record of transitional fossils to prove the missing link between lists with non notable entries and some kind of database listing abuse on Wikipedia especially since we have thousands of existing entries that are non notable, and still no cambrian explosions of databases or directories that the notability freaks have been predicting would happen if non notable entries are allowed. Huggums537 (talk) 04:03, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Are award pages stand-alone lists?
I've worked on a number of articles for literary awards, and oftentimes, they include a brief description of the award then provide winners and shortlists. In some cases, people have marked these pages as lists, whereas sometimes they're not. Is there any agreement about whether the page for an award should be considered an article or list, especially when the primary content is award winners? Significa liberdade (talk) 02:07, 15 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Best to give an example...that said I would hope every list has a lead introducing what the list is about and it's criteria for being a list. Manual of Style/Lists. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 02:44, 15 March 2023 (UTC)