Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists/Archive 8

Lists of notable X
WP:BLP requires appropriate sourcing for any claims regarding an individual, especially when they may be of a contentious or private nature. But it does not specifically address the question of where the sourcing should go when deciding whether an individual belongs on a list of notable individuals satisfying certain criteria where the requirement is for a blue-linked article. This has led to some question whether it's appropriate to add an individual to a list based on a claim not made in the main article. For example, in List of hackers, where clearly there could be a negative connotation to being called a hacker, there's been a question whether to add serious computer scientists including Marvin Minsky, L Peter Deutsch and John McCarthy under the broad definition of Hacker (term) that includes "A community of enthusiast computer programmers and systems designers", even though their articles do not identify them as hackers and certainly no one believes these are "People committed to circumvention of computer security" or who engage in "unauthorized remote computer break-ins".

It seems to me, and I think it's been a common practice, just never explicit, that the right place to vet most sources and claims about an individual who's notable and has a blue-linked article is there at the article itself in the plain light of day in front of all the other editors most familiar with the subject, not in a separate list. This is why we don't generally clutter most lists of notable X with references when a blue-linked article is required. These are basically navigation lists, not where we check the claims except just to verify that the article is there and makes the claim. Consequently, I added this paragraph to the WP:LISTPEOPLE section with the edit comment, "When it's a list of notable X and a blue-linked article is required, the article should identify the individual as meeting the selection criteria. That's the place for any needed sources."

"Where the requirement is for an existing article to demonstrate notability, that existing article should identify the individual as meeting the selection criteria. That article is also where any sources needed to support the claim would normally go. New claims about the subject should not be made by including someone in a list that are not made in the blue-linked article, even if sourced.  If you have a new source that supports a new claim that would support inclusion in a list, that claim and source should first be added to the main article, where other editors familiar with the subject will more likely see it and can vet both the claim and the source under WP:BLP."

AndyTheGrump has reverted me with the edit comment, "per WP:BLP policy, inclusion in a list requires a source - in the list." But I believe he's wrong. While it is absolutely clear that WP:BLP requires sources, it does not state at WP:BLPCAT or anywhere else on the page where the sources should go. I do not believe that WP:BLP anticipates new claims being made about an individual by adding them to a possibly notorious list if those claims aren't already made in their WP:BLP if there is one or that you should be able to get around this by adding a source to the list where it likely won't get the same scrutiny. Msnicki (talk) 18:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Andy's reversion here. A BLP claim needs to be on the page on which any statement is made. If the BLP statement happens to be on 5 or 6 pages, it needs to be cited on 5 or 6 pages. We cannot rely on sourcing from a different page to back up any claim, but especially when it concerns a BLP. – SchroCat (talk) 18:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Sources go in the relevant articles (and a list is an article). Where else would they go? And while I agree that anything that validates inclusion in a list should probably be included in the biography as well, that doesn't alter the fact that unsourced lists can and do frequently contain blatant violations of WP:BLP policy - and the claim that 'it is sourced in the biography' is not only dubious per policy (we don't cite our articles as sources), but frequently impossible to verify, since the source for the claim isn't named. And why the heck shouldn't we insist that the very thing that merits inclusion on a list should be cited where the reader can find it? We are supposed to be writing for the benefit of readers, not the convenience of list-compilers too lazy to actually provide a citation when they are adding someone to a list? If they are adding a name, they must be working from a source (or at least, they darned well should be) and are in the best position to get it right. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree more with . 's edit summary, per WP:BLP policy, inclusion in a list requires a source - in the list (as in, a source being mandatory for any living person added to any list) is not something I understand to extend from WP:BLP.
 * In general, the specifics of whether a description/term X should apply to a person is best hashed out at the article for the person. A person should not be added to a list of X if it has not been determined to be appropriate at the article. But there is no broad requirement that the sources which verify inclusion of a person on a list must be at the list, as far as I know. It's nice when a list is well sourced, and local consensus can produce an inclusion criteria dictating sourcing as a requirement, but I don't think it's a necessary extension of WP:BLP.
 * That said, I'm more sympathetic to extending WP:BLP to those lists (stemming from WP:BLPCAT), where inclusion could potentially harm someone's reputation or otherwise cast a negative light on the person, but I still think that's better handled per local consensus as those lists tend to have a good amount of gray area.
 * What about navboxes and other templates which list people? They appear in other articles and include people's names. Require sources there too?
 * I'll also add that this is a grayish area that doesn't need to be a huge problem. If someone adds a person to a list, and the person's inclusion in the list is sourced at the person's article, then someone who wants a source on the list can just go fetch the source from the article. Likewise, when the editor adding the name to the list is asked for a source, he or she can just go fetch the source from the article, too. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 19:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, no, no! That goes completely counter to the point of lists, to our unbreakable BLP policy and to WP:CIRC. - SchroCat (talk) 19:59, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "someone who wants a source on the list can just go fetch the source from the article". If it was ever there in the first place. And if it hasn't been removed in the meantime (sources get removed from articles for all sorts of reasons, including perfectly reasonable ones). Effectively, an unsourced entry on a list is nothing but an assertion that at some point in history there might have been a source validating inclusion. If the person adding the name to the list understood policy at all - after all, why should anyone assume that adding a new name to a list requires a source if there is no evidence that any of the other entries are sourced? No, someone adding a name to a list can 'just' do what is expected of them in any other context on Wikipedia - provide explicit sourcing. If they can't be bothered to perform this elementary task they have no business editing in the first place. We are writing for the benefit of readers, not the convenience of contributors, and we have an obligation to ensure that material concerning living persons is properly sourced. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It surely shouldn't be just an assertion about history. It seems to me that if the WP:BLP changes and no longer makes a claim that might qualify the individual for inclusion on a list of notable X, they should be removed from the list.  We should decide questions of whether someone really is an X, whatever X is, at the subject's WP:BLP, not at a possibly notorious or only tangentially-related list where the claim is unlikely to receive the same scrutiny it would at the BLP, e.g., that even it seems reliably sourced, that other sources agree.  Msnicki (talk) 20:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * f it was ever there in the first place. And if it hasn't been removed in the meantime (sources get removed from articles for all sorts of reasons, including perfectly reasonable ones). Effectively, an unsourced entry on a list is nothing but an assertion that at some point in history there might have been a source validating inclusion. -- This is precisely the same as if someone adds content to an article with a source and then someone else removes the source. A statement in a BLP article is nothing but an assertion that at some point in history there might have been a source validating the statement. In such a case, as with the list article, the statement/list item should then be removed. If there's no source, there's no source. But the premise here is that there is a source at the article. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 21:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'm less concerned with what 'should' happen than with what frequently does. Which is that people get put on lists with no source at all. Though if the level of scrutiny you are advocating was carried out on the BLP talk page, one would think that little extra effort would be involved in actually citing the source where the reader can find it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If the list is a topic that is even potentially contentious (like being a hacker, white- or black-hat), as compared to a rather mundane fact (like being born from a specific country), then it should be sourced to be included in the list, even if the blue-linked article has this clearly cited as well. At worst, we're reusing a reference from the blue-linked list to do that. --M ASEM (t) 21:31, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * How is relying on the source being in the linked article not a form of using one of our articles as a source? Dougweller (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It begs the question, which is why if for "List of X" where X is a potentially contentious claim, the source should be on the list (as well as duplicated in the article, obviously) - we should not be asking readers to search for this in the person's article if the claim is made on the list page and not sourced. Something less problematic like birth nationality, which is not contentious, that's different, but certainly would be preferable to include the source on the list page. --M ASEM (t) 21:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * If the BLP must state the qualifying criteria for the subject to be included, else they should be removed, the list becomes merely navigational, like a dab page. Msnicki (talk) 21:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * And what if sources disagree? I think you invite the case where an individual gets added to a list based on a single reliable source when in fact other sources disagree or where an individual is added to a list claiming they are "known for" something when in fact that's completely WP:UNDUE weight on something that might be true but not what they are really known for.  For the specific case of lists of notable X that also require blue-linked BLPs, I think questions of whether someone really is an X should be decided at the BLP.  You shouldn't be able to add someone to a list, especially a notorious or perhaps obscure list, even if you do have a source, if their BLP doesn't also clearly make the same claim, preferably right in the lede paragraph.  If nothing else, to do otherwise invites forum shopping.  If you have a claim about a living person, you should be able to make it stick at their BLP or not at all.  Msnicki (talk) 21:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If we're including BLP on a list of X where there is wide disagreement on whether a specific person qualifies as X, then the list absolutely needs to have a very hard inclusion requirement to eliminate disagreed cases - or potentially the list itself is bad. An example I could think of would be a list of LGBT persons. Allowing any random source to justify inclusion is brewing for trouble, while on the other hand if we narrow that list to self-identified LGBT persons, that would be far different. We'd still need a source or two to make that clear, obviously. --M ASEM (t) 21:59, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Verifiability is a bright line, core criteria for Wikipedia. If we want to say something in an article (and that includes list articles) it must be verifiable.  More over, if there is any question, the verifiability must actually be demonstrated by providing an in-line citation to a reliable source (see WP:BURDEN).  Every article (even a list) must stand on its own in terms of sourcing.  Facts must be supported in every article in which the fact appears... list articles are no exception.  So, if List of notable Xs includes person Y as an X, then that entry needs to be sourced, and it needs to be sourced in List of notable Xs (not just at the bio article).  This is especially important in cases where BLP might apply.
 * That said...WP:V also states that "verifiability does not guarantee inclusion" in an article... We have other policies that also apply, and those too can affect inclusion. For example, if there is only one source that says person Y is an X... and lots of sources disagree and say that say Y is not an X... then WP:UNDUE WEIGHT would apply.  We would omit person Y from List of notable Xs, because including him would give undue weight to a minority view point... even though the one source appears to verify that view point. Blueboar (talk) 22:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * So what do you say to the editor who adds a name to a notorious list based on a reliable source supporting a claim that is not made (or perhaps contested) in the BLP? Are saying you think the debate should happen at list article, out of view of the editors working on the BLP?  And what if the list and the BLP now disagree over whether someone really is an X, each based on some number of RS?  That would be okay?  Msnicki (talk) 22:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I would say that that issue is in no way going to be addressed by removing/not requiring sources in list articles. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  23:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * At the moment, there is no debate - the name just gets added to the list, unsourced. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And incidentally, it is worth bearing in mind that the MoS is a guideline, whereas WP:BLP is policy - and accordingly we cant have a guideline which contradicts it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I do note within the mos we have the language "Stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines for articles, including verifiability and citing sources. This means statements should be sourced where they appear, they must provide inline citations if they contain any of the four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations." So any "List of people that are X" where X is a potentially contentious thing about BLP means that we must have inline sources per both this MOS and BLP. --M ASEM (t) 02:29, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

any "List of people that are X" where X is a potentially contentious thing about BLP means that we must have inline sources per both this MOS and BLP -- Yes, but that's not where this thread started. It started with an edit summary: per WP:BLP policy, inclusion in a list requires a source - in the list. That's broader than inclusion in a list where inclusion is potentially contentious. Nobody's arguing against verifiability, because verifiability explicitly does not mean the same thing as every statement having an inline citation. If we're talking about a subject that is not contentious -- say, list of clarinetists -- and we know the fact that a person is a clarinetists is verifiable because it's verified by a reliable source at the person's article, there's no verifiability concern. Now, if someone challenges someone's inclusion on the list, then a citation can be demanded there as with anything else. But it is not the case that, across the board "inclusion in a list requires a source - in the list". &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 02:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I would say that no-one is doing the encyclopaedia any favours in adding any unsupported information (saying someone is a clarinetist is way off "the sky is blue" level that doesn't need a source), but that goes doubly for BLP, where policy does require all statements to be supported. That needs to be done on the page where an assertion is made, and not just relied upon an unconnected page that may change over time. - SchroCat (talk) 02:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that BLP does not require a source for every fact made about a BLP, but absolutely requires it in the case of a contentious claim. That John Q Smith is a clarinetist is likely not contentious, but John Q Smith being a hacker (which has both positive and negative meanings, and as used in the OP example, a case of someone that would not professionally call themselves a hacker but does the work that is equivalent to a hacker) - that's a contentious claim and per BLP would require a source at the list. Another way to look at it: if the inclusion on the list is based on the fact not being contentious, then I should be able to verify that fact with almost no effort by looking at the blue-linked article. If it requires me to read between the lines or get into details, then it probably should be cited at the list article. --M ASEM  (t) 03:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * And I would go further. If inclusion on the list is based on a fact that might be contentious, then it absolutely should always be easy to verify it with almost no effort by looking at the blue-linked article.  If that's not the case, I don't think you should add the individual to the list even if you do have a source because it should be obvious there might be other sources that disagree or a case of undue weight.  In either event, the place to hash this out should be the BLP itself where the claim and the source can be fully vetted.  As it is, most lists of notable X do not have sources no matter how notorious, so arguing they should all be sourced is pointless.  They aren't and that's not likely to change.  To the contrary, in those few cases where an entry is sourced, it's been my experience that the sourcing is rarely of the quality that would stand up in the BLP and it's offered only because the BLP does not make the claim.  It's a way of sneaking things in.  All I'm proposing is the simple, workable rule that if you'd like to add someone to a list of notable X that requires blue-linked articles, the BLP should clearly state they are indeed an X.  Msnicki (talk) 03:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * You are essentially saying that 'crap exists, so we may as well stick to that level, because its too difficult to do anything else'. That's just not good enough. If you add information about a LP to any page it needs to be reliably sourced. That's the bottom line, and trying to justify not adding a source is just bollocks – and lazy bollocks, I'm afraid. Make a claim on a page, source it on the page: it's not difficult, and is part of a fairly simple, but very strong policy. - SchroCat (talk) 03:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly - it is a lazy habit that predated BLP and while BLP's in place a while, we haven't really cleaned up messes that existed before. BLP lists really should have a source for every entry until there's clearly no contentious evaluation of inclusion (such as by birth place). --M ASEM (t) 03:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Don't be silly. This has nothing with laziness or WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.  The question is this:  Do you think you should be able to add someone to a list of notable X, possibly making a contentious claim that the individual is an X, even if the BLP does not say that, just so long as you have a source?  I don't think so.  You both appear to think this would be okay; it would be helpful if you could clarify your position.  Msnicki (talk) 04:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There is nothing silly about this, and I wonder why you continue to push an unpushable point. WP:BLP is bloody simple: if add something about an LP you need to provide a good reliable source to back it up. If you don't, it'll get ripped out. If you continue to add the same, you'll face censure. I'm not sure which bit of this silliness you are failing to understand, but this thread is going past the point of being constructive now. – SchroCat (talk) 04:17, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * A complete non-answer to my question. Do you think you should be able to add a person to a list, in effect making a claim about them that isn't made in their BLP, just so long as you have an RS?  A simple yes or no will do fine.  Msnicki (talk) 04:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes! If you have a WP:Reliable source that supports a contentious claim that is important enough for the BLP page, then the issue is not with the list page, but with the BLP page and why it is being kept off. The mere fact that we are debating the issue of list level inline citations yet again (I stopped counting at 10) is all the evidence you need that list inclusion in general is contentious enough to require inline citation at the list level. In contrast to your proposal, there are lots of reasons why a well supported fact about an individual might be notable for the list in question, but not for the BLP of the living person. For instance, the people of Eureka, California are quite proud of the fact that Ulysses S. Grant served at Fort Humboldt two years before the town incorporated around it. Celebrated with a town statue and all. It is a well supported and WP:notable event in the town's history, but a minor one in the life of the president and not included on his BLP. Having edited thousands of these pages, I can assure you I come across more than a few instances like this. I've been on both sides of debates about whether these events are WP:Notable enough for inclusions on lists. Trying to create a mandate for only including materiel also found in a BLP, would simply be creating editorial pain where no reason for creating such pain is apparent...because we already have rather broad consensus for inline citation at the list level. D kriegls  ( talk to me! ) 04:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's another great example. Winning the highly un-glorious Ig Nobel prize. Not exactly a WP:Notable event for a BLP. But completely WP:Notable for list inclusion. D kriegls  ( talk to me! ) 04:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * That's not an example at all. (a) It's not a list of notable X.  (b) It doesn't require a blue-linked article for inclusion.  (c) It's more than just a list of names, it's an actual article with descriptions of each award. (d) While some of the entries do have sources and/or blue-links, many have neither.  (You'll probably want to get right on that.) (e) It's not likely to be contentious since we can presume the Ig Noble prize was either awarded or not awarded and it's unlikely that sources would disagree.  Msnicki (talk) 05:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "It's more than just a list of names". So your proposed recommendation is limited to lists of just names? That seems randomly convenient for you to add at this point in the discussion. Are you aware that there is also a long standing consensus that lists of just names are to be avoided whenever possible? Prose explaining the person's connection to the list is always preferred to no prose at all. If you disagree, please explain how you think Wikipedia treats lists-with-just-names differently from lists-with-more-then-just-names. Because the only difference I'm aware of is that the first should be given a tag encouraging editors to expand it? D kriegls  ( talk to me! ) 08:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "It's not likely to be contentious since we can presume the Ig Noble prize was either awarded or not awarded" and yet the talk page is littered with small debates about the reason the person was given the award or if the award misrepresented their work and that Wikipedia shouldn't repeat the misrepresentation. If the editors of this list were following the well established policy of inline citations for every BLP list entry, it would make their work easier. Like the editors at this List of people who have been pied. They cited every entry, editors at the various BLP's did not find this event to be notable enough for their BLP, and yet, no debate on the talk page; because every entry is well cited. D kriegls  ( talk to me! ) 08:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Blah, blah, blah. It's still not a list of notable X that requires a blue-linked article for inclusion.  Msnicki (talk) 09:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * RE: "Do you think you should be able to add someone to a list of notable X, possibly making a contentious claim that the individual is an X, even if the BLP does not say that, just so long as you have a source?" Yes... if you have a reliable source, it passes WP:BURDEN. The claim is verifiable, and the person may be added in good faith.
 * However, that does not mean the entry will remain in the list.  Inclusion can still be challenged on other grounds.   Verifiability is simply the first test that must be met for inclusion on a list... but it isn't the only test. Blueboar (talk) 14:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "It's still not a list of notable X that requires a blue-linked article". Well, I already provided that for you with Ulysses S. Grant and List of people from Eureka, California. So you may want to ease up on the flippant "Blah, blah, blah" comments and instead take more time to fully read what other editors have written. Since you seem to think your proposed policy should only be about notable people lists, lets refer to the Notable people section of the WikiProject Cities/US Guideline. "A fast and easy way to establish this is if they already have an article written about them on Wikipedia, since it would have never been approved, or would have been deleted, if they did not meet notability requirements. This is not the sole rationale for inclusion, since some people who might meet notable standards may not have an article". So we have both people who are included in such lists that do not warrant their own BLP and people like Ulysses S. Grant who's relationship to the list is notable for the list, but not for his own BLP. Those are two exceptions to your proposed policy that I find with some regularity. The "Lists of people" section on the Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists page is guidance for all lists of people, not just your ever changing subset of lists of people. Please take some time to appreciate that you are asking for a change to a long standing consensus on in-line verifiable policy; not on an actual policy page, but on a manual of style page. In-line citation at the presentation of the content has been a long standing wp:policy. WP:CIRCULAR specifically discourages what you are suggesting: "Content from a Wikipedia article is not considered reliable unless it is backed up by citing reliable sources. Confirm that these sources support the content, then use them directly." e.g., don't cite the article and thus indirectly its editors as proof of verification, but use the verification itself directly at the source of the claim. You are essentially asking us to cite the credibility of editors on a different wikipedia page as proof of verification of a claim on these lists.  D kriegls  ( talk to me! ) 18:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Very well, let us consider your "example" of Ulysses S. Grant and List of people from Eureka, California. There are three big problems with your example.  First, Grant is a not a living person and hasn't been almost 130 years.  He is not covered by BLP.  Second, so far as I know, no one assume that if you lived in Eureka, that you are probably a criminal.  It is not like being called a hacker.  Third, the pièce de résistance, have you looked carefully enough at your example to have even clicked "Edit"?  When I did, this is what I found it said:

""
 * Clearly, I am not the only person who thinks it's not unreasonable that if you have a list of notable X that requires blue-linked articles, that the linked article should state whatever claim is required for inclusion on the list and provide a reliable source for the claim. Msnicki (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The issue that you claim to be trying to fix is not in any way shape or form going to be ameliorated by the rule change that you are suggesting. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  01:21, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The list of people from Eureka, CA, is not the type of list that absolutely needs sources; the original example, List of hackers is one that is a contentious claim, because there are people that 3rd parties might claim are hackers but the actually people would deny it. This is where sourcing is needed to include. --M ASEM (t) 01:26, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know about that... I would want a citation to verify that someone was from Eureka. It's hardly a "Paris is the Capital of France" type statement that is so easily verifiable that we wave citation.
 * Let me give another example... look at our List of Freemasons articles... The inclusion criteria for those articles is two fold: 1) the person must be notable to qualify for the list.  That is a requirement which is satisfied by the fact that the person has a Wikipedia article.  Second, the person must be a Freemason to qualify for the list.  THAT is a claim that requires verification, and can only be satisfied by supplying a  citation to a reliable source that supports the fact that the person is a Freemason.  If either of these two criteria are not met, we remove the person from the list (if added).
 * Now... in many cases, the fact that a person belongs to a Masonic Lodge is a very trivial thing to mention in the main Bio article. Indeed the editors of the bio article may well decide that it is simply too trivial to bother mentioning.  Yet we would not remove the person from the List of Freemasons simply because the editors at the main bio article thought it too trivial to mention in the bio article.  Blueboar (talk) 01:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, in considering a place of birth, this is universally a piece of information found in an infobox or in the bio section for any person. (I would be hard pressed to find an example of a person of modern-enough times (19th century onward) lacking any details of where they were born). The article should have that verification via source, but it is near universally that this is known and included. As such, a blue-link on a list would be sufficient. But your example, such as being a Freemason, or being a hacker, those are things that may or may not be listed in the bio article. Or even something like a person being a (self-stated) supporter of LGBT rights, that might be in the article but buried. To meet WP:V we should be considering how much effort the V part is met. Birthplace - a jump to the article should reveal it on the top of the page. Freemason/hacker/LGBT supporter, that's not universally going to be the case, so the source should be right there on the list to avoid any WP:V-based ambiguity. --M ASEM (t) 02:17, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I give you Barack Obama as merely example where even well sourced birth places are "controversial" .-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not that it is "controversial" but that on the blue linked article, I don't have to "work" to find a source to support the claim because (in this case) it's sourced in the first + second sentences of the body, and not buried; this is because bio articles universally start with "So and so was born on DATE at LOCATION". On other categories, membership of the class may not be something directly mentioned, and that's where a source on the list is needed. --M ASEM (t) 18:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Some comments. (1) Doesn't pretty much everyone know how to use Ctrl-F? If you'd like to find where the bio says someone was a hacker/Freemason/LGBT supporter, don't you think most people know how to do a search?  It's not like they actually have to read the whole article to find it.
 * (2) Suppose we had a List of U.S. Presidents born outside the U.S.. Would it be okay to add Obama so long as I have what I claim is an RS?  How about if I have two of them?  Or maybe three.  How many would you like?  My real question is, do you think we should debate the claim and the sources there at the list or is that forum shopping?  Shouldn't we settle basic questions of what we will report about an individual in one place, at his BLP?
 * (3) Re: what about claims that might be "too trivial" for the bio, it seems to me this argument assumes the unlikely; the more likely reason we wouldn't report something is because the sourcing isn't that good. Setting aside that it has not been my experience that WP fails to report stuff because the topic is too trivial, if it's too trivial to report that someone was an X, then maybe he really wasn't that much of an X after all.  Most of these lists of notable X introduce themselves as lists of people known for something.  If the claim isn't important enough make it into their bio, it doesn't sound to me like they were really known for it.
 * (4) Are you more amenable if any ambiguity is removed to state clearly that claims require sources everywhere they're made but merely that, in addition, if you make a claim about an individual with a blue-linked BLP by adding them to a list, that the claim must also appear in the BLP? Msnicki (talk) 18:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit break
Msnicki, that note is my edit, not someone agreeing with you. As has been explained to you multiple times now, not all blue links are BLPs. Nor even biographies of dead people. People involved in a single notable event may have links to all types of articles that aren't biographies. Most importantly, that note specifically says "The fact of their association should have a reliable source cited." I've never cited BLP as cause against your proposal, hence my reference. I've only cited in-line citation at the source guidelines. There is no consensus on requiring citations anywhere but at the source of the claim. Hence WP:CIRCULAR. If you can find one I would love to read it. Until then, this is the wrong venue for you to be trying to change longstanding consensus on policy. You should being trying this on a policy page, not an MoS page. -- D kriegls  ( talk to me! ) 03:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Indeed, not all blue links are BLPs, nor even biographies. But in your List of people from Eureka, California example, the ones of concern certainly are biographies.  I call your attention to the excerpt from that list which I quoted above, which states, Only people who already have a Wikipedia article may appear here. This establishes notability.  Msnicki (talk) 04:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The text I wrote? With the expressed understanding that I followed it with "The fact of their association should have a reliable source cited." In that, entry on the list must be cited at the list where the claim is made. I can assure you that I posted that on a lot of these pages and yet let stand names that do not yet have BLPs but do have citations establishing notability. I don't make policy no matter what I do to discourage frivolous edits to these pages. Citing me won't help your cause. See Nancy Utley from List of people from Glen Ellyn, Illinois. Most editors on this thread clearly aren't siding with your proposal. Instead of wasting everyone's time with this, why don't you focus on something you can change. What is it about the hacker list that you find unnerving? Let us help you change that at the page level. D kriegls  ( talk to me! ) 06:56, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that you intended that statement to indicate that the citation should appear there on the list. But realistically, the statement is ambiguous on where the source is supposed to appear.  I read it to be an elaboration on the previous sentence and to mean that the article that makes the claim of a connection should have a reliable source, that you were depending on the editors at that article to sort out the issue, if there was one, the same way you depended on them to sort out any question of notability.  (You certainly are claiming these are notable people but you're also certainly not demanding sources for that.)
 * I'm not sure I understand your objection based my suggesting the change here, not on a policy page. Arguably, I suppose it could be ignored if it's only a style issue, which if you think it's a silly rule, you might like.  Why would this be a permissible rule only if it's policy, making exceptions nearly impossible?
 * Is your objection that you think I'm arguing against also providing sources in the list? It's true that I do happen to think they're pretty much unnecessary if the bio clearly makes the claim with proper sourcing, especially for those lists of notable X (e.g., List of programmers, List of fashion designers) that offer little more than a navigational list of names.  But the language I proposed doesn't actually say that and I'm willing to concede the point that strictly speaking, yes, our policy does ask for sources every time a claim is made.  Would you be more amenable if any ambiguity were removed, clarifying merely that both the article and the list should make the same claim with sources?  Msnicki (talk) 17:37, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You're the first of many editors who've read my note and told me it was ambiguous. Perhaps because the others were more likely to assume the pre-eminence of our in-line citation policy. I'm always up for suggestions to improve it. The ultimate goal is not to prevent red linked names of wp:notables with good citations from being added to these types of lists. Since I started adding it, spam edits of "Sam: town's local drunk" have decreased drastically.
 * If you are dropping the in-line citation objection and simply sticking to the need for better vetting of who and who-is-not a Hacker, then let's take it to the hacking page. I suggest making a note like I did that says something like "calling someone a Hacker is possibly a contentious claim and required a WP:Verifiable source. Additionally, the editors on the BLP page of the individual in question should be informed of their inclusion on this list. Please put this on their biography's talk page (canned take page edit). Also, please consider adding this claim to their biography". You patrolling that page is will probably achieve the similar ends. I also encourage you to expand the list with a good lead that describes hackers (maybe differentiating white and black hats) and maybe a little about what makes each entry qualify as a hacker.  D kriegls  ( talk to me! ) 06:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I am confused about where this is going/coming from.
 * I think we want cites for lists of NN people. e.g. The First Violinists for the Chicago Philharmonic have been 1) Joe Doakes 1879-1883 (cite), 2) Mary Smith 1883-1907 (cite), etc. Should one of these be notable, my understanding is that a cite is still required. Each Wikipedia article is stand alone. We cannot use the alleged notability of Mary Smith (linked) to provide us with information which must be contained in this article, not the article on Mary Smith which may be deleted at some point. The link is there to help readers, not to provide a lame indirect citation for lazy editors. The reason is potentially circular citation. If I don't understand the arguments, I apologize. Student7 (talk) 15:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * But there's also no hurry. If this detail isn't controversial or likely to be challenged it's not productive to demand a citation "just because". All info in a list will get sourced during the WP:GAN or WP:FLC process. That said, I'm generally in favor of tagging non-notable additions with, or the whole section with something like  if there's a bunch of them. I think this is not helpful when the addition is notable and already has an article with sources, verging on WP:POINTy. But some interpret WP:BLP to require a citation for addition of a living person to any list, and lean that way myself.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Citing list entries
I'm in an argument with a veteran editor over whether list entries need to be cited.

Let's assume that I have some (currently non-existent) article that passes notability (this is not a notability issue). In that article I have a subsection for otherwise credible reasons (this is not a disagreement over the credibility of a subsection name!) "US Presidents under six feet tall." Let us say (for instance) that Jimmy Carter is in that list. I maintain that there should be a footnote substantiating that Jimmy Carter is, indeed, under six feet. The other editor believes that a) Everyone knows that, and/or b) they can go to Jimmy Carter's article and find that out, or (his last argument) c) That he and several other editors are watching that article. There is no chance that anyone will make a false entry. The "good guys" will enforce that.

IMO, the article (with list) should be maintained in a WP:STANDALONE fashion so that any editor can verify, without otherwise leaving the article for yet another article (which may or may not contain Carter's height, reliably sourced); that we should not have to depend on any particularly subset of editors for any article. (I monitor many articles where I am the only experienced editor. Other contributors are often of good faith, but wrong!)

Using reliable sites to establish that an item belongs in a list should be stated somewhere clearly and echo-ed in sub-policy and Project articles so this problem does not persist. And yes, "apple is a fruit" is allowable without citation. But the problem with making that exception is that there are no contrary statements to offset it! Does the Higgs Boson totally exist in our four-dimensional universe or not? That is not obvious. Nor is it obvious that Hermann Witganager should be in the list of longest serving mayors of Ostend-um-Rhine. Even if he is notable. I am not really sure he ever was mayor there, in fact! Let us spare watching editors and clearly make brighter lines here. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 21:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The short answer is that information needs to be cited wherever it appears. The longer answer is this: yes, you would need to provide a citation to verify that "Jimmy Carter" belongs in the list of "US Presidents under six feet tall"... even if the bio article Jimmy Carter already contains a citation for that information. The reason why is simple... the bio article might end up being re-written at some point, and the information about his height (along with the citation) could end up on the editorial cutting floor... being omitted in the course of the re-write.  When information appears in some other article, we can't count on it remaining in that article.  So it has to be cited in both articles, just in case.
 * As for the "this is obvious" or "everyone knows this" argument... that is not actually a valid reason to exempt a statement from WP:V. It is true that statements such as "Apple is a fruit" or "Paris is the capital of France" do not need to be cited... but the reason we don't require them to be cited isn't that "everyone knows this" or "this is obviously true"... the reason we exempt them is that such statements are obviously verifiable (there are thousands of sources that do so), and so that actually providing a citation to a source is silly.
 * That said... If you already know that "Jimmy Carter's height" is currently mentioned and cited in the Jimmy Carter article... don't be a dick about WP:BURDEN and insist that the other editor do all the work to copy the citation to "US Presidents under six feet tall"... just copy and paste the citation yourself. Doing the work yourself will take you all of two minutes... while trying to force the other guy to do it will take hours (Yes, technically it was his responsibility, but the reality is that it's a waist of your time to point this out). Blueboar (talk) 15:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The situation at Kos is not exactly similar to Jimmy Carter's height. Unlike the height issue, which can indeed be removed from an article, this list concerns people associated with Kos. Since for most of these figures that means Kos is their birthplace, the information cannot end up in the cutting room floor as it is central to their bios. It is also easily verifiable, all one has to do is check the early life section of the bios to verify that. I actually had to add a source for one Koan who was actually missing an RS for her birthplace, but I did it at her article, not at the island's page. There are also two articles that have "of Kos" in their common names. The list is also not long, so verification is not tedious. In cases such as this it helps keep the list clean by avoiding citation clutter on every entry of the list, especially with citations which have little to do with the island itself but rather with the individuals involved. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 08:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If you are going to list notable people from Kos at the Kos article, the information still needs to be cited at the Kos article. I have Fixed the Problem (it took me all of five minutes to copy and paste the sources).  Blueboar (talk) 13:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, there are three other editors at the article, two at the talkpage and one in the article history who don't think this is an improvement. I find such reference use unnecessarily pedantic. It also clutters the article references with references largely unrelated to the main topic. But I've said that before. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  17:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Blueboar. This seems to be covered by WP:NLIST. Student7 (talk) 01:56, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Student7, do you (or did you) have any concern that these entries might be incorrect? It's not clear whether you were concerned about the content itself ("Maybe this doesn't belong on this list") or only about its presentation ("Wikipedia looks more respectable with citations").  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Both. See, for example List of Haitians. This is energetically maintained by a prolific editor, who may have missed the fact that some of the people on the list are Haitian-Americans who have never been to Haiti. They cannot be easily confirmed without a citation, which would clear the matter up immediately. (He has purged the list of citations and s )! I need my ducks in order before taking him on).
 * Nor can a researcher be assured of Haitian ancestry. Are we just saying this? These people BTW, are often not terrifically well-known, another problem which I cannot solve outside of politicians and soldiers. In other words, they might belong on some provincial list, because they are not known outside of Haiti or have scant fame in the States, as well. But the basic fact of birth (in this case) needs to be proved first before moving on to the "Is s/he famous enough to be known outside of Haiti?" question.
 * For "watchers/reviewers", these need to be hammered out, one at a time. I have had great success over the years without having to personally research each person popping up on a list. WP:BURDEN. I flag it, and erase it after three months or so. Phoneys don't generally show up twice. I am really not interested in most of these people personally. I don't want to, nor should I be required to be an expert on a "list" just because I am trying to maintain its viability to readers. IMO.
 * I am not trying to play killjoy to newbies and if someone insists, I will look up one or two. But looking up everyone on this Haitian list (which had some citations for awhile) is beyond me.
 * Can we determine whether WP:NLIST is a real guide or simply a piece of verbosity which can be ignored? Student7 (talk) 00:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * My own feeling on this (to comment kind of late) is that WP:MINREF was written for a reason. It's perfectly fine for a list to (for now) contain items that are not likely to be challenged, are not currently challenged, and are not contentious. There are 100,000 things to do to make Wikipedia better, and WP:POINTedly challenging an entry that is not contentious and was not likely to be challenged, just to "force" it to be challenged to make work for another editor, is not really among them; if it's done by the same person frequently, it borders on disruptive, and if it's done by one editor against another editor all the time, who is making useful, good-faith contributions, it's an inappropriate personal dispute. If a list item has its own article and there are sources in it that indicate it meets the list's inclusion criteria, that's good enough for the time being. As the list article wends its way through the WP:GAN and WP:FLC processes it will eventually be totally sourced. For routine information there is no rush to do this.  If a list entry does not have an article, then it may well be appropriate to challenge an unsourced addition of this sort, especially if the list (or article it appears in, in the case of an embedded list) is otherwise well-developed.  PoV-pushing or original research in the vein of over-inclusive redefinitions of subjects to "make" them fit the criteria (as in the List of Haitians case above wrongly including Haitian-Americans with no direct connection to Haiti) are cases where challenging inappropriate entries is perfectly reasonable. It's also a common interpretation of WP:BLP that inclusion of a living person on a list requires an in-list citation. I've yet to see a good rationale against this interpretation, because the BLP policy is quite strict.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree if someone is following around another editor and inserting "citation needed", one should wonder at his/her motives.
 * But, no, I don't know if Barack Obama was a resident of Smithville, Illinois, or Hilo, Hawaii, or not. Maybe I should know, but I don't. And if not him, then who? Student7 (talk) 19:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 23 July 2015

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

The result of the proposal was move per discussion. The page provides a general treatment of stand-alone lists not limited to style guidance.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 08:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists → Stand-alone lists – Also replace with. This page includes more than just style guidance, and we don’t currently have a page for non-style guidance regarding stand-alone lists. Therefore, this page should be separated from the MOS and simply be a page about all stand-alone list matters. 67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - While much of the guideline does (appropriately) cover "style" issues, significant portions relate to other, non-style, issues. In other words, this page (despite it's title) is already "a page for non-style guidance regarding stand-alone lists".  A renaming would would simply be an acknowledgement of this fact.  While it (arguably) may be improper for a "style guide" to discuss non-style related issues (such as Notability), there is no reason why a broader guideline can't cover style issues. Blueboar (talk) 11:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. This is only a guideline and would be moved to a stand-alone (!) guideline. However, WP:MOS, by itself, is an official policy, carrying higher weight IMO. It seems to me that we would be demoting it, wouldn't we? Student7 (talk) 18:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Um... WP:MOS isn't a Policy... it has "guideline" status. Blueboar (talk) 20:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:MOS itself transcludes MoS-guideline. Far from a demotion, the proposed move would expand this guideline’s scope beyond style. Or perhaps more accurately, it would correct a years-old error that had technically put it in violation of its limited scope. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support move and transition from MOS to content guideline (Some of the comments above do not realize that the MOS is a style guideline, which carries the same weight as a content guideline). Portions which deal with formatting/style could be merged into Manual of Style/Lists. AHeneen (talk) 09:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Clarification: I’m not proposing this be made a content guideline. I’m proposing it be made a general guideline which can address both content and style, as the text currently does. But I have no objection to turning it into a content guideline if that’s the consensus. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 18:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * In its current state, this is already a general guideline - since it currently covers notability issues, content issues, style issues, etc - the problem is simply that the title and template don't reflect what it has become. All that needs to change is the title and the template. Blueboar (talk) 14:59, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support – late to the party, but as per the arguments of . --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Post-move cleanup
I've reordered the sections, and made some conforming and redundancy-cleanup edits so the page makes sense, in the order of: content guidelines, style guidelines, naming conventions, and misc. Had to put naming last, because the template is excessively long, and shunted the corresponding  nav template to far lower than it should be, when the name section is put before the style section. Restructured the lead to be cohesive and to have a. The "See also" section now includes everything at the WP:List disambiguation page, so it was no longer needed in the hatnote. I also cleaned up some outdated advice on glossaries, lists of lists, etc., and added some missing stuff, e.g. outlines. And fixed shortcuts to go to the right places, and added the missing WP:NCSAL shortcut for "SAL" consistency. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Most of the changes are seen in these two diffs: and .  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Lists of lists clarification
We should add [back] "Do not use List of lists of X." in the #Titles paragraph about lists of lists. An ongoing RM is WP:SNOWBALLing against such a name (though uncertain on whether to use Lists of journals again or Index of journals), and more to the point Category:Lists of lists shows that we don't use that format at all (well, I think one example turned up), but overwhelmingly favor Lists of X, or sometimes List of X (mostly when an existing, originally concise list grew and grew until split per WP:SUMMARY), and sometimes Index of X for a particular type of list-of-lists (though few of the various articles with such a title are yet categorized there; some AWB cleanup should take care of that). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:46, 2 August 2015 (UTC)