Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists/Archive 6

What is a red link, and what is not an acceptable red link
My vantage point comes from a recent spree of cleaning up red links. They're saying "red links are acceptable". I'm thinking "3RR". Ha!

WP:CSC says: "Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia. Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future. This standard prevents Wikipedia from becoming an indiscriminate list, and prevents individual lists from being too large to be useful to readers. Many of the best lists on Wikipedia reflect this type of discernment."

But then it also says ""Creation guide" lists—lists devoted to a large number of redlinked (unwritten) articles—don't belong in the main namespace."

The discrepancy arises from another kind of list article, the subject outline. I'm thinking there are two kinds of red links, and there is another kind of judgement involved in the other kind of red link that is scoping subjects, and this is the essence of red links: a red link found in an article that is reflecting a missing item in a hierarchical subject outline contains that "acceptable" essence, whereas the red link in other stand-alone lists contains little more than redness. Sometimes the redness is not very acceptable.

There is in fact significant occurrence of "unacceptable" red links. And they're being supported by the sentence I struck out. Supporting them as "acceptable" goes against the Category:Wikipedia red link cleanup because the context of this section of the style manual is the same as the context of the cleanup template, which is that of stand-alone lists. Of course the cleanup template could be applied to red links that are not in stand alone lists. But this almost never happens (in the category). Subject outlines don't tolerate red links in themselves for long.

The discrepancy supports edit warring over cleanup templates. I hope to achieve a better, overall understanding, hence the length. (Sorry. You can get the gist from the one paragraph in bold lettering.) While the MoS keeps the struck-out text in that place, it will muck up 3RR queues.

The judgment on red link inclusion can be simplified: when it comes to red/blue links reducing readability, the judgment, esp. when there is an aging red-link cleanup template, is against overlinking (stale red links). I don't think "acceptable" is the right word because it implies that there was a reason found in a debate for accepting red links, and to accept that. But there is no reasoning left to do for any kinds of red linking. There are two kinds of red links, one inarguably unacceptable, and one inarguably acceptable (as I will show). In neither case would "acceptable" be the right word unless there was a reason for the acceptance, unless the reason came from a judgment, where "judgement" in our context means a non-trivial hearing, such as in 3RR or AfD resolutions of "acceptableness". Red links in a stand-alone list is a trivial matter that should not be heard in 3RR battles involving a red-link cleanup template. I don't see much of a battle against my unwording that sentence. I've thought it through to close the case here and now. Here it is.

Although tradition does without them, there are now two reasons for red links, 1) as an editor prerogative, timing the arrival of new articles on the wiki, and 2) as a subject outline indicator, scoping the content in an article. The former is not necessarily acceptable after a time, and the latter is what is here found to be an acceptable use of a red link as the semi-permanent establishment of a subject outline in competition with other encyclopedias.

The unacceptable kind of red link is from an over-zealous editor making too numerous decrees, and is so "not acceptable" that there will always exist the corresponding cleanup template. Too much zeal lands in 3RR. Where every item in a list is bonified as an article, saying there "this black text should be blue, so I'll make it red to indicate that" carries little truck. Think about that. There could be seen no red links if the same editor (who knew both of the subject, and the subject inside and out) would just create the article. This type of red linking is tag-team editing, which is fine when the team plays well, but not if if the "team" is in a multiple-personality disorder. Although this is rarely ever an unacceptable kind of red link, neither is it acceptable at all times, so I struck it out in the rewording above. When it is no longer "acceptable" for red links to remain overlinking a list article, there is no debate. There is no "acceptable compromise" arising from a hearing except to say "pick one or two to be red, not all of them". Editor prerogatives lose by WP:NOT and the admin fiat from an aging cleanup template decree. (Nor do I expect to see too much debate concerning the other kind of red link. It will stay red, in one form or another, until it is in another form, red.) "Acceptable" sounds as if negotiations were had. They weren't really had. There really are none to be had, and there are no debates about negotiability, there is only inarguability, as I am proving. Overlinking red link is fair game for removal of the redness in the "link", returning it to black, which is a black "link" equivalence, by virtue of being on a stand-alone list. In the 3RR game, where 100% removal results in 100% restoral (of the overlinking of red links), the game ends in the loss of 100% red-not-black links every time, hands down. Even if exceptions are made for a few articles, those articles might sit with a cleanup tag, which is hardly acceptable because, well it's not well, because WP is not an anarchy.

'''If "this is a notable subject the encyclopedia needs" is information that both a list and a red link signify, why even one red link on the stand-along list? If none exist in the stand-alone list, then what are red links for? I believe an application of red links was found that contains more intelligence, and that is the intelligence implicit in a wikifiable subject outline. That subject outline is somewhere else, just as is the cite of a list item, red or black, is somewhere else when not yet existent in the references section. The subject outline is more widely available because publishable on Wikipedia proper, and thus has more potential intelligence than what appears to be haphazard "timing prerogatives" or random "timing prerogatives" or just general pushiness to the readership. A red link that is scoping a subject is just awesome to the general audience, highly acceptable, while "hearing" editor A telling editor B "time to edit red snow" for timing reasons is hardly acceptable (but not unacceptable), being almost a violation of WP:Self reference. Seeing 100% red links where seeing 100% black "links" would be entirely equivalent to the reader, carries for me no good reason, is not in good standing, misunderstands red links, and lapses on the readership-orientation mandates of Wikipedia. When "ownership" will overproduce redlinks then defend overlinking, then may those not rightly be 100% undone via the counter-fiat of an aging cleanup template? Or else which random red links might be left by a cleanup from an outsider? None. A few left might be chosen by an insider-defender, if any, but any wholesale defense carries little truck.'''

It is worth noting that the subject outline, if it is documented, does not tolerate red links well in itself, but it expects the corresponding link in the article are red, thus bringing the map to the adventurer, and finding best use of red link. An acceptable use of red links is where they can represent subject outlines. You don't touch such red links, like you don't touch category trees&mdash; unless "you da man" who specializes in that. There exist young MediaWiki wikies with copious red link in the articulation. The "hierarchical subject outline" kind of red link is not even stylistically limitable. There is no style guide debate possible that would precisely limit, as a definite percentage of such prose, any creative red linking: there are no limits to subjects (and thus their discussions concerning their relevance). It can be 1%, 10%, 20%! and no cleanup template could suggest its dating. That is the "acceptable" kind of red link, whose acceptance is remains largely unquestioned until a better organization arrives. This other kind of red link is acceptable because desirable as a no-pressure "to do" that is based more on knowledge and less on opinions about how to be hasty.

The term "acceptable" was used probably because a specific number cannot be found for red links in a stand alone list. Thus the exceptions that are the red links in the stand-alone lists are "temporarily acceptable". This is understood, but not stated clearly enough in the MoS. Such red links are acceptable only until they become "unacceptable", when holds are barred on them. The number of stylistically acceptable red links on stand alone lists might depend on the number of team members, hotness of the article subject, etc. Reorganizing a list article's red linked list items would shift red links from one list item to another. Many of the worst lists on Wikipedia are overlinked with red links, producing lists that are too red "to be useful to readers". Because such lists are 100% blue linkable, all black "links" are red in theory. Thus such lists need not contain red links, except when an editor is guiding other editors at the expense of the readers. "The best lists on Wikipedia", for example, Timeline of ancient history need display no red link, and so the struck sentence was problematic in its context because Timeline of ancient history is a list article that would probably not "accept" red links.

Because overlinked red link articles seem pushy and religious, sporting, and political, the wording that they are "acceptable" seems a red herring. It implies a debate was won for red links as "editor timing prerogatives". It wasn't: they are barely tolerated because not best practice. It is esp. not debatable when the cleanup templates appear. Yet they will debate and debate thinking "all's fair in love and war", and they'd be right.... Hey, let's take away that sentence I pointed out, and leave the other one ruling that "a large number" of red links don't belong. &mdash; Cp i r al  Cpiral  00:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * A red link should be weighed via its likely claims to N/GNG as redlinks either become stand alone articles or are directed to pieces of other articles. Any number of red links is acceptable given that the coverage is missing, but do not make a list of red links in namespace because that is useless to the readers of Wikipedia. Such a list however is part of WP:MISSING. Roehm's Avengers, notable but absent, but weighing the topic shows it should definitely remain a red link until someone creates the page. Your example of "Timeline of ancient history" is a dangerous because it advises removal by coverage omission. Wikipedia is not a print encyclopedia, and those red links can be fixed at any time. It is rare for someone to insert a missing entry once a page is made, let alone spread it out across all relevant mentions, relinked the de-linked material or even removed mentions. I say no, red links are fine even at FA articles because they will likely become blue links and have an expectation to do so. Assuming the target subject is N/GNG, red links are important for building the encyclopedia and will improve accessibility as soon as someone takes the initiative. Also, we may have 4.3+ million articles, but anyone working in non-Angelo centric fields knows that English Wikipedia's coverage of notable monuments, art, people, vehicles, and all facets of their history are poorly documented, but are nonetheless important subjects. A red link says to an editor "make me", whereas black text is self dismissive. From the point of a reader, and purely a reader, it matters not because the missing information simply isn't there, at best a reader may search outside Wikipedia for the term because the presence of the link conifers that the subject is worthy of an article. Red links remaining red links is fine, but the real danger is in de-linking those links or omitting subjects presumed by others to be notable. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It would be dangerous to "not grow", to not charge ahead, on with wiki, and the red links that grow wiki. I dismiss not growth by making red links plain, I dismiss red because red itself impoverishes plain text dismissively. An expert might decide over a red item on the same list that a black item is going to be their contribution. There is no debating "cleanup red links" tags, or "creation guideline" abuses at 3RR; I think abuses will be remedied at 3RR quickly if I would revert to plain text three times, and have them warn the abusers not to continue reverting to red links. (I'm not doing that, because it is wikilawyering. I'm following the rules and talking and reasoning on the discussion page.) I'm not against growth by advertizing the "weight of a topic" on a stand-alone lists, I'm simply for cleanup tags and for "tough love" levied on over-zealous editors.


 * What I'm really doing by asking this guide's authorship to consider rewording (besides addressing a discrepancy) is advocating for more awareness of those red links that serve to provide Wikipedia containment tasks, that are more organizational to Wikipedia than organizational to the worlds missing articles. I advocate not because I'm worried about the existence of Wikipedia articles, but because alongside my admonishing the guide for the enabling of the abuse of red link "quantity imperatives" there comes the important additional reason I'm here: to advocate for the rethinking of red links in a way that has less to do with physical growth (N, V, or RS), and more to do with subject outlines as a healthy exercise in quality competition with other encyclopedias, and thus here to have one world of red see the other world of red, and thus understand red usage better. (There are two kinds of valid red links, one for shaping the subject space of articles, and one for adding new articles. The subject scoping aspect of red links are not yet clear at  Red links.)&mdash;  Cp i r al  Cpiral  07:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Just as users should not insert red links unless they are reasonably certain we can have an article on that specific topic, you should not remove a red link unless you are reasonably certain we CANNOT have an article on that specific topic. Mass removal of redlinks is, in nearly all cases, destructive editing. The main exceptions are, of course, AfD cleanup, spam, and if they were recently mass-inserted in a similarly haphazard manner. --erachima talk 07:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You bring up an excellent point, being right on about indiscriminate actions. No subject-outline type of red link should be removed.  All stand-alone type of red links should be removed.   How to tell the difference?  It's not easy. All the ones on the standalone list are notable, so can be made not-red because those are already notable and creatable. What if a red link was serving to signify both that an article need creation now/next, and that it was a list item on a subject outline? (It is both kind of red link.) I point a bot-like creature to the list and clean it up, being neither the surgeon to discern any inclusion policy nor subject-matter expert to discern scope/size of an articulation.  I am a hapless, 3RR-savy gnome knowing nothing about the subject-outline or the topic.  I am only following orders. Assume a red-links cleanup template as a general guide to there. Have I done something wrong? Yes.  Is there anything I can do about it?  No. Is there anything Wikipedia can do about it?  Must they stop cleaning up abused red links?  Must gnomes not be there, but only elsewhere?  Must only discernment reign over red links? I can only hope that most of the red links were "article creation guidelines", which are being tagged there with support from here saying they are unacceptable in mainspace.


 * Then the cleanup is reverted (along with the removed cleanup tag), saying "red links are acceptable". They don't understand the cleanup template, and just ignore it.  They read this guide, saying "red links are acceptable" in stand-alone lists, where actually they carry no information except that their exists an editor with delusions about article creation timelines.


 * But here is my specific point. This section of the guide deals with stand-alone lists whose every item is a notable article. Starting from that, add a simple red-link cleanup tag.  Does the guide support that?  No.  As it reads, even cleanups of stand-alone lists are not allowed because "red links are acceptable [in stand-alone lists]", whereas "creation guides" are not.  I want to remove that discrepency. &mdash;  Cp i r al  Cpiral  20:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Removing or unlinking the redlinks from a specific list is not necessarily disruptive... but going on a crusade, removing redlinks from lots of disassociated articles (essentially to make a point) is. Whether red-links are kept, de-linked or removed entirely must be judged on a list by list basis... because so much depends on the topic of the specific list.
 * That said, I have found that in general, a list that contains lots of redlinks is a sign that the list itself is problematic. It probably means that the list is focused on a non-notable aspect of some other topic, and should be merged into another article (or re-merged back into the parent article if it was a spin-off).  Blueboar (talk) 12:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You are onto something I may have forgotten when you say how so much depends on the specific list and the specific topic's history&mdash;that the admin placing the cleanup tag is using this guide to decide? Because if the description of the topic as you describe it is not described clearly enough at WP:RL, the guide to the initial placement of the cleanup tag, based on messy style, may be mislead.


 * Since the list we're talking about here in this part of the style guide cannot contain non-notable items, I thought it would be very easy to suggest that red links are not acceptable when the cleanup tag has matured, but of course It's more complex that that. If a list is seen as "problematic" because it has red links on it, and if those red links are are not notable topics (i.e. virtual articles), but merely "non-notable subjects for another topic" as you say, then, (and here it gets tricky to understand), your type of red-link description, that is subject-focused (folding and unfolding from articles) is acceptable (as a complex style issue) indefinitely, as subject-outline representatives, and a cleanup tag may be removed by the knowledgeable defender for the reason that the list appeared to be an article creation guide, but was actually true red link, which are misunderstood. You seem to be describing the true red link, the ones that appear as "non-notable subjects for another topic" make for quality, not quantity, the ones that forge a real encyclopedia out of a list of indiscriminate subjects.


 * The other complexity, as pointed out above by erichima, simple "article creation guidelines" imperatives, can muck up a perfectly good set of subject-oriented red links, the kind you describe, by mixing creation guidelines into them, the kind that are not to be kept in mainspace or confused with true red links.


 * Blueboar, I'm here only to try to stop the self-contradictory red link guidance, and will probably go to WP:RL next to get to the root of the problem. The complexities here that allow the discrepancy to exist could very well be the cause of both cleanup-templates on stand-alone lists (virtually all of the cleanup tags), plus be the cause of the revert of the cleanup, i.e. that the discrepancy incites 3RR war, e.g. when a eight-mos-old cleanup tag is guiding the hapless wikignome straight to an edit war. Editors who ignore the cleanup tags don't understand that there their red means nothing, they think red is saying something, and that it is "acceptable"; they just don't understand.&mdash; Cp i r al  Cpiral  20:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have a sincere question for you. Why do you find it difficult to read a list where each item contains one red link? I can understand that in prose, many red links quickly lead to overlinking. But at lists, each entry is self-contained and separate from items above and below. I think that the red links at each entry in the list should be interpreted on their own merits, independent of other entries; this way, the percentage of red links in the whole list doesn't matter much. But as you seem to strongly disagree with this position, could you please elaborate on why you don't find this reasoning compelling, and why it bothers you so much to have red links at many items in the list?
 * Apart, I believe appropriate here to gently remind you that Wikipedia rules are not rigid nor universal; it doesn't make much sense to infer one interpretation of written rules and apply it everywhere, because Wikipedia rules are not made to be used consistently. It's OK to apply a rule one way at some articles, and exactly the opposite way at others; it really depends of who do you find interested in supporting each article or topic. This is fine, and Wikipedia rules are designed to support that loose interpretation and the possibility to be ignored at any time if editors agree to do so (this is the meaning of WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY and WP:CONSENSUS policy).
 * So, the best approach to get others to agree with you, or to explain why they disagree, is to explain the benefits that you think will be achieved by following (or not following) the rules at each particular case. You won't get too far if you simply elaborate on why you think your interpretation of the rules is consistent, as others may simply disagree with that interpretation or rather think that it doesn't improve the article being discussed (and thus can be ignored). Diego (talk) 22:54, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to expose conceptually an improved red link, so on purpose, and yes with difficulty I try to see them differently. The reason I take the stance of the devil's advocate is because I believe the MoS and WP:Red link need improvement. They seem to be setting up edit wars. There is something missing, and I aim to find it and make it part of a more solid guideline to refer to.  What I can say for sure is there may very well be something wrong around redundancy  when "article creation guidelines" use red links in stand alone lists.  I'm also sure that the principles of notability and reliability are banter around red linking that can better become well defined aspects of red links, and not red links themselves, as those principles are being used to fully define the red link. The red link is yet ill defined, and so its style is ill-defined. &mdash;  Cp i r al  Cpiral  19:07, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Honestly Cpiral, I'm sensing a general lack of clue here, and with the way you write you'll probably not win many people over if you're dragged off to one of the Drama pages to argue the point. So, again, when in doubt, don't delink stuff. --erachima talk 04:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I have doubt, and I have stopped delinking for now until my numerous clues (noted elsewhere) are demystified and the doubt is removed, thank you. &mdash; Cp i r al  Cpiral  19:07, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

We need to be more strict on our criteria
A lot of list articles are being made despite that their better off as categories. And this is mainly pertaining to fiction such as List of fictional Jews or List of LGBT characters in film, animation, written fiction, video games, television and radio, List of multimedia franchises

Now just to assure anyone who has bad-faith, I'm no nazi and I definitely fall in LGBT. But to me, these type of lists seem to just be there for fan readers who want to look up these characters. To me, its like trying to list every book out there. For example: LGBT fictional characters also fall into LGBT genre, such as yaoi and yuri (japanese genres for gay and lesbian). So it seems to defeat the purpose of making such a list if its already a genre. The LGBT wikiproject had made it so that their inclusion is by series that have articles on them. In which seems to me like their trying to put a loophoole.

I personally have don't any specific interests in jews, so personally I don't see what merits it is to have a list of fictional jewish characters. Its like looking for list of fictional catholics, list of fictional wiccans. Etc.

Shouldn't we find ways to make the criteria more strict.Lucia Black (talk) 18:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe it is well-settled (though of course consensus can change), for many years now, that lists and categories -- though they can be very similar or even close to identical -- serve different purposes, have different characteristics, and have different capabilities when it comes to referencing, etc. (whether those are availed of or not, in any particular case). As to the list of fictional Jews, over 55,000 people found it of interest in the past 90 days it would seem -- so while you personally may not find it of interest (I could say that of much of the project), others have a different view.  No doubt what interests you will not always be of interest to all others, either.  Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * What those lists need are solid introductions... a paragraph or two, to establish that the concept of a fictional TV/Radio character being Jewish (or LBGT, or whatever) is notable in the first place. This would be true for similar lists... any "List of X in Y" article needs to establish that the connection between X and Y is notable.  Once that is done, then we can populate the list with Xs that are verifiably in Y.  Blueboar (talk) 14:36, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

"Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria"
One of the common selection criteria mentioned is "Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria", with an explanation, "These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles: for example, List of minor characters in Dilbert or List of paracetamol brand names." Better examples may be needed, as the first contains at least two entries that meet notability criteria, and the second isn't a stand-alone list. I also suggest removing "most or" as that contradicts the criterion. Peter&#160;James (talk) 16:59, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Please note that List of minor characters in Dilbert is a section within the broader List of Dilbert characters article... and NOT a stand alone list. Blueboar (talk) 02:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think this section needs additional clarification. If all of the items in a list 'do not warrant independent articles', why does the list necessarily warrant an article? As the section is specifically discussing notability in relation to the list, I believe WP:LISTN is relevant, and that this section could more clearly align with the inclusion criterea discussed there.Dialectric (talk) 05:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * it is used a lot for "list of minor characters in X" type of articles, but your question about the "why does the list warrant an article?" still stands - and the answer is probably "because there are lots of fanboys" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:41, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Which is not a good enough reason. Maybe we should not have lists that include entries that don't meet our notability criteria. This seems to give pretty free reign for list creation. Dougweller (talk) 16:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I do think this needs to be addressed, and apart from appeasing a certain subset of wikipedia users, still can't understand the rationale for applying a lower standard of notability to these lists. Not to canvas, but for example's sake, I'm currently participating in an afd for several "everything is not notable" list articles related to a relatively low-importance computer game, and experienced editors are arguing that wikipedia policies support keeping such lists, while the fictional element AFD archive shows that in the absence of clear guidelines, past results for such lists have been all over the place. Dialectric (talk) 18:47, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Lists of companies and organizations
No need for notability? So anyone can add their company to a list if it's relevant? If this is so, we can't stop people from advertising their company on lists (with presumably a link to their company to prove it exists). Dougweller (talk) 17:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The approach I'd like to see is: (1) If there isn't a reliable source to support the claim that a particular non-notable organization is a member of the set, then remove it. (2a) If a source can be found, then it is OK to include that organization in that list. (2b) However, if the list is too broad to be useful it may not itself be encyclopedic/notable and can be AfD'd for a variety of reasons. For example, given the right sources quite a few non-notable organizations would be eligible as members of List of unimportant small businesses in Suffolk – but the list itself probably wouldn't survive AfD. Does that work for you? - Pointillist (talk) 18:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Not really as it doesn't stop people using these lists to promote their company, no matter how small it is. Dougweller (talk) 16:45, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, if there is a reliable independent source that shows the small company is genuinely a member of the set that the list describes, I think that should be sufficient. It's a sort of nano-notability. Of course, the list itself can still be challenged. - Pointillist (talk) 09:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * At the risk of repeating myself, that allows anyone to promote their own one man company as long as they've managed to get someone to write about it in their local paper. And how about a list of some form of media? Would any website be able to include itself, as it obviously exists. For instance, if we had a list of online news media. Seriously, such lists could theoretically have at least hundreds of thousands of entries of companies nobody outside their immediate vicinity ever heard of. Dougweller (talk) 13:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * What is being left out of the discussion is the issue of context. Let's take the example of PepsiCo... it owns lots of other companies.  Many are notable in their own right, but others are not.  Now, our article on PepsiCo might well include a section that lists of all companies that are owned by PepsiCo ... both the notable and the non-notable.  I hope everyone would agree that it might be appropriate to include such a list... in the context of that article.
 * However, let's suppose that the PepsiCo article was getting overly long... we might decide to split that section off into a daugher article entitled List of companies owned by PepsiCo. Now things get trickier.  We have to decide if it is appropriate to include the non-notable companies in this new context?
 * There is an argument for saying that we should not... When we create a List of X article, the title always assumes an omitted word: the word "notable".  In other words, the title "List of X" is assumed to contain the word "notable" even if that word is omitted.  List of X is assumed to actually be List of (notable) X.  Thus, as soon as you remove the section on "Companies owned by PepsiCo" and present it in its own article, you are actually creating a List of notable companies owned by PepsiCo... and the non-notable companies should be left out.
 * There is, however, a counter argument... the argument that in a split-off daughter article (list or not), the notability of the parent article (PepsiCo) is transferred to the daughter list. Personally, I don't think this is valid a valid argument (Notability is not inherited)... but it is one that is made.
 * Of course there is yet another possibility... if it can be established that "X" is a notable attribute in its own right, then there is an argument to say that anything that falls into that group should be listed.  So... if it can be established that being owned by PepsiCo is a notable attribute for a smaller company to have (note I said "if") then any company with that attribute should be listed.  In this case, the key is to establish the notability of the attribute.  The list would need to have at least a few paragraphs of text that talk about why being owned by PepsiCo is notable in its own right.
 * As I said... it's a tricky thing... and it all depends on context. Blueboar (talk)
 * I see various lists where there are constant attempts to add companies without articles & where other editors remove them - I do myself at times. That seems to be standard practice, and I think the guidelines should reflect that. Dougweller (talk) 19:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree ... the tricky part is figuring out what to say. The appropriateness of keeping/removing non-notable items in a list really depends on the topic of the specific list, and the context in which that list appears.  In some lists, it is highly appropriate to limit inclusion to notable items... in other lists it highly appropriate to be more flexible and allow non-notable items.  The hard part is figuring out which is which. Blueboar (talk) 19:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Naming of articles about an actor's roles and awards
Please refer to an RfC at Category talk:Filmographies, which refers to this guideline (specifically WP:NCLIST). —sroc &#x1F4AC; 14:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Why are lists of lists exempt?
The very top of this guideline says: "Being articles, stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability, no original research, neutral point of view, and what Wikipedia is not, as well as the notability guidelines."

Then here is the entirety of the section "Lists of lists": Wikipedia has many list of lists articles. On lists of lists, nonexistent lists should not be included. That is, all the links in a "lists of lists" should be active (blue, not red). Lists of lists should also be available as alphabetical categories. Put lists that have actual content in one of the subcategories under Category:Lists.

I can't seem to find anything that says lists of lists should be held to a different standard. Since they're in the article namespace and not a disambiguation page, don't all lists of lists have to satisfy (among other things) notability as stated at the top? (Demonstrating that the set of lists is talked about as a group -- the lists talked about as a group -- in reliable secondary sources?) Is this an exception to notability is not inherited? Maybe I'm just not searching correctly for the right page explaining this... --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  14:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * you're really not gonna like List_of_lists_of_lists then. Once you go beyond a list I consider it navigational only, purpose being to organize information, so per IAR no need for an independent source that has a list of lists of X or even a list of list of lists.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Mind you, the navigation should be a natural grouping, not random associations that show no organization, but I agree at list-of-lists, notability /stand-alone requirements aren't needed to be shown. --M ASEM (t) 17:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Lists of lists of woah there, you know what they say about recursion don't you? "First you curse, then you curse again."  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  04:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I have suggested this before, but perhaps it is time to suggest it again. We need to more clearly differentiate between "Informational lists" (pages that are intended to convey information - which I think we all agree are articles that happen to take a listified format, and thus subject to all the policies and guidelines that affect other articles), and "Navigational lists" (pages that do not convey information and are there purely to help readers find articles). To my mind the best way to differentiate these two kinds of pages is to use two different words to describe them. My suggestion is that the purely Navigational lists be renamed... replacing the word "List" and using the words "Index" ... to give an example: Index of bio articles (hockey players) or Index of articles about US National Parks. Blueboar (talk) 14:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm....that is an intriguing idea. D kriegls  ( talk to me! ) 18:10, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Such navigational lists would probably fall under the same idea as WP:Outlines, though with different structures. There might be a way to build out "navigational pages" that would include outlines, lists of lists, glossaries, and the like. --M ASEM  (t) 20:53, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I like that. Would it be too much to just treat lists of lists as outlines? Naming them as such and just moving them all? I know there are slight structural differences, but I don't think they need be identical to fit under the same banner. D kriegls  ( talk to me! ) 06:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if trying to merge them all into a single term is appropriate (that is, renaming "outlines" as navigational pages") though a page that describes navigation pages should explain that these are generally exemption from things like notability, etc. due to being navigation aids, but they still still be reasonably sensible navigational pages that make common sense. --M ASEM (t) 14:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of making the distinction clearer by referring to a navigational list as "index." Using "outlines" doesn't seem to make as much sense because of the presumption of hierarchical organization, but the inverse could be true (the outlines could be considered indexes, which are occasionally hierarchical).
 * But back to my original question, I'm finding it hard to accept that, as put by above, notability /stand-alone requirements aren't needed to be shown as long as the navigational list is a natural grouping. Who then decides what's a natural grouping? What policies do still apply? Maybe it would help me to understand if anyone knew of good examples of Lists of lists that were deleted via AfD? --&mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  |  14:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It would really need to be a judgement call if someone questioned it, and thus determined by consensus. A "List of lists of people" that would include all "List of people from X" is natural, and makes sense. A "List of lists of topics that start with the letter M" is not.  --M ASEM  (t) 14:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * or... to tie what Massem said into my concept: Index of lists of people from Minnesota is a natural grouping... Index of lists of topics that start with the letter M would not be. Blueboar (talk) 16:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Oregon example

 * Index of Oregon-related articles
 * Lists of Oregon-related topics
 * Outline of Oregon
 * Portal:Oregon

I know a portal is a different animal, but I included it here because it does seem to cover a lot of the same ground. If the proposal in the section below is implemented, the Lists... article would be renamed to Index... but in this case both exist...and an outline. How do outlines fit in? --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  19:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Lists of names
It mentions reliable sources, but shouldn't we specify that those sources must be referenced in the list? Too often it seems to be assumed that a linked article is sufficient. Dougweller (talk) 18:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I sympathize, but since we don't require sources for adding people to categories I doubt that lists are going to be policed any better, at least in the short term. What we really need is a "global" named reference space so it is easy to cite the same source across different articles and languages. - Pointillist (talk) 18:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * See: WP:Stand-alone lists... This MOS already specifies that list articles need inline sources, and that simply linking to an article is not sufficient.
 * That said, if the information is sourced at the linked article, then the fact that the list is not being properly sourced is an easy problem to fix... Just copy the source from the linked article and paste it into the list. More to the point, since it is such an easy problem to fix... don't just complain and and then sit back waiting for someone else to fix it... fix it (or at least some of it) yourself. Blueboar (talk) 14:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That seems reasonable and I often do it - often finding it isn't sourced or even in the linked article. Dougweller (talk) 16:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sadly there are hundreds of lists which adopt this approach, I think it's even written somewhere in MOS that this is somehow acceptable, that a list can simply rely on linked articles for references, for example List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft. Worse still is that nuggets of info from the linked articles are then added to the list article, often incorrectly, and it renders the verifiability of the list useless. As Blueboar has suggested, you could fix it yourself, but in a list with hundreds if not thousands of entries, that's a huge ask.  We should be changing the guidance (wherever it is) that suggests having zero references because you can rely on the fact that Wikipedia has an article about it to reference each and every time.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yup... or at least we need to initiate a joint centralized discussion to resolve the conflict... we should not have two guidelines giving contradictory guidance. Blueboar (talk) 22:50, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I've been told that 'way back in the day, we actually prohibited citations in list articles. So the fact that they're largely uncited might well be a legacy from that.  Also, a lot of lists have pretty BLUE information, or information that can be easily verified from a single source (e.g., "List of Fancy Important Award winners in 2013"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * For any list involving living persons, where inclusion might be contentious, existing WP:BLP policy makes referencing compulsory. There really isn't any wiggle-room here - a blue link isn't a reference, and WP:BLP states that " Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:37, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The conventional practice of the Wikipedia community, as reflected in the overwhelming majority of our thousands of lists of people including these and these, is that blue links are commonly accepted. I'm in favor of the deletion of all non-blue-linked/no-independent-RS-ref entries. Those are deleted often, but always some creep back in, especially to the less-viewed list articles. Epeefleche (talk) 18:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:CSC (Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists#Common selection criteria)
I recently edited the second point in the section on Common selection criteria (my additon in bold) My addition has been reverted by Dkriegls with the comment: "That's just simply not consensus. There are a lot of categorical reasons to create stand alones that have nothing to do with length." Based upon previous discussions, I think my addition likely does have consensus. However it was a bold edit, and as such I respect Dkriegls right to revert it... the next step (in accordance with WP:BRD) is to discuss and find out whether it has consensus or not. My intent was not to disallow stand alone lists where every entry in the list fails notability... but to discourage them. I feel that best practice is to place such lists within the context of their parent articles whenever possible. Please discuss so we can determine consensus. Blueboar (talk) 13:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 2. 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 minor characters in Dilbert or List of paracetamol brand names. (Note that this is not applicable for living people. - See WP:LISTPEOPLE.) Such lists are best placed within the context of an article on their "parent" topic. Resist creating a stand-alone list unless the parent article is overly long.
 * Sorry, I may have been tired and cranky when I read that. It was more the tone that rubbed me wrong and I was thinking of the plethora of scientific and mathematic lists that fall under that stand alone of non-notable items category. But I read what you said and I now see and agree with your point. I added it back with a softer tone. Check it out and let me know what you think. Feel free to be bold with your thoughts. D kriegls  ( talk to me! ) 19:51, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries... I didn't take your revert personally. And tone is important. Your revised version works for me. Hopefully a few others will agree as well and we can establish a true consensus (my feeling is that two can reach agreement, but you need at least three to form a consensus). Blueboar (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

"List of" vs. "Chronological list of"
There is a discussion about the naming of lists at Talk:List of French classical composers (chronological), requesting a move to Chronological list of French classical composers. Please feel free to participate. Dekimasu よ! 21:49, 8 November 2014 (UTC)