Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists/Archive 1

Original proposal on WP:COUNCIL/P

 * Description : This project will encourage editors to write more lists. Lists are quite scarce now, and they're definitely needed to make Wikipedia as complete as possible. Compared to WP:WPGA. You can see a discussion on a "Today's Featured List" in the Main Page on this link.-- Ed  ¿Cómo estás? 02:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
 * 1) (nominator)  Ed  ¿Cómo estás? 02:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Tom pw  (talk) 09:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) The Placebo Effect 12:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) -- HamedogTalk|@ 05:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) --Birdman1 talk/contribs 00:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) -Phoenix 16:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * I suggest including getting exsisting lists up to Featured List standrard in the project's remit. Tom pw (talk) 09:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I was thinking about that, actually...we definitely need more FLs in the long run.-- Ed  ¿Cómo estás? 16:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming the first task is using a bot to tag all articles strting with List of as being in the project, and then deleting ones that are uncyclopedic. Would it be possible to create a bot to always tag new List of articles? The Placebo Effect 12:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * We'll have to ask the people at WP:BAG about it.-- Ed  ¿Cómo estás? 23:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Do Timeline ofalso count as lists. I'm assuming yes since some have been promoted to FL and not FA. The Placebo Effect 01:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In response to Placebo Effect, Timelines might count as lists or articles, depending on their content. That is done on a case by case basis.
 * Also, do you think that we have a large enough consensus to start the Project?-- Ed  ¿Cómo estás? 02:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * When you're ready, I'll help start the project any way that is needed. The Placebo Effect 20:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Goals
I think that we should add one bullet point to the goals. IMHO, we actually need to have more lists around WP in order to keep things in order, etc.-- Ed  ¿Cómo estás? 01:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Quota
I would like to propose a quota that all WikiProject members would be encouraged to meet: I think that implementing such a quote will encourage more edits towards lists, which IMHO are the most neglected parts of edits in the entire encyclopedia.-- Ed  ¿Cómo estás? 01:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * One new list sent to DYK per month
 * One list promoted to FL status per month


 * I'm not sure if this is a good idea. I don't think it will increase quality lists, I think it will just increase the number of pre-mature lists going to FL candidacy, and then failing. Nominate when a list is ready, and not by an arbitrary time cycle. Encouragement is good, but there's a lot of ways we can go about it. -- Ned Scott 04:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed,also in the interests of avoiding instruction creep and "missed deadlines" too. Let those who find quotas a useful self-motivator establish their own privately. --Quiddity 07:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Contents
Could this wikiproject also help maintain Contents and its subpages? We could always use more eyeballs to help give those pages more perspective, and we don't currently have an associated project page, as such. --Quiddity 08:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, should Incomplete lists be merged/redirected here? It's very historic, hasn't changed significantly since 2004. --Quiddity 08:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Contents is a definite cousin to this project. I've added it to the resources list (irony). Incomplete lists does duplicate some of what we're intending here. I'd say that this project's scope is that plus general improvement. So maybe merge/redirect to here. The first thing I thought with "incomplete lists" is that pretty much any list on Wikipedia will never be complete. Unless it's a very finite thing like the number of states in the USA. But even that may change eventually. --Monotonehell 19:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please don't invade Canada!
 * I'll merge that one. --Quiddity 22:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You mean North Montana? --Monotonehell 22:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I mean Greenland's Mexico.
 * Projects merged, feel free to trim the verbiage. I hope the other cleanup rearrangements are acceptable to all :)
 * Also, the "incomplete list" link in the templates is now directed to here. --Quiddity 23:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

List of companies working in Technopark
[Note: I copied this from Wikipedia talk:External links. I changed my first reply to adapt it to here. --Timeshifter 17:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC) ]

Given the discussion above Wikipedia_talk:External_links and related discussions, I'd like others' opinions on List of companies working in Technopark.

I consider the article a linkfarm, and started cleaning up the links when I noticed there were only 2 internal links in the list of 110 entries. I considered this reason enough to propose the article for deletion.

Since then, two entries have been removed and six others have been changed to internal. That gives 8 internal links in a list of 108 entries. -- Ronz 19:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks like a linkfarm that will be very difficult to keep clean. Removing everything but the blue links is probably the best option. But then at that point why not just merge what's left of the list into the Technopark%2C_Kerala article? (Requestion 20:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC))

This could be discussed in several locations:
 * WP:CITE
 * WP:Notability
 * Notability (organizations and companies)
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists.

If the list topic is considered notable, then the perennial question is should only the big-name companies be listed, thus in effect, putting wikipedia in the position of supporting oligopolies of the most well-known companies with the best press that money and advertising can buy. There are conflicting wikipedia guidelines. See WP:NOT. It states:

"Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic, for example Nixon's Enemies List. Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference. This site search, and this one, pull up thousands of examples of lists and comparison tables. Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted."

I think the main problem with the list is that it does not give any info about the companies, and thus is basically a directory. I am not sure which way to go with this, and would like to hear more discussion. --Timeshifter 17:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing this topic up in this venue. I think it should be deleted as a directory, but I'd like to hear other's opinions as well before I AfD the article. -- Ronz  17:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe what is going on in India's technology sector is notable, encyclopedia-worthy info. See Technopark%2C_Kerala. If a start could be made in making the list encyclopedic by maybe listing some info about each company, and maybe sorting the list by type of company, etc.. it might be worth waiting awhile before an AfD. But I don't know the precedents for this. Maybe somebody can ask at Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies) for some of them to come over here and comment. The citation/reference links can be removed for those entries that already have a separate wikipedia page. The remaining citation/reference links need to put in the standard, numbered, unlabeled format. --Timeshifter 18:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have done extensive work on the Technopark, Kerala article. The sub-page containing the list of companies working at Technopark serves an important purpose in that it avoids increasing the size of an already large article (the compactness of the article was discussed in its FA discussion) as well as in emphasising the number of companies working in the largest IT Park in India. As you may realize, creating content for close to 110 companies is no mean task. In the interim, as suggested here, we can look at organising the list and adding some static content to some of the entries. We could also look at more external links, but then it could be labeled a link-farm.


 * As the IT Park is a collective of the firms working there, retaining their identities is essential. This will help readers understand more about the kind of work being undertaken at Technopark and also help them make practical use of the available information. Hence, I strongly oppose deletion of the page. Thanks! -- Ajaypp 09:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

List of mind mapping software
Could some other editors comment at the talk page there? --Timeshifter 21:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Group blanking
Concerning List of mind mapping software

Ronz removed/blanked the citations/references June 2, 2007. See this diff.

Requestion blanked the citations June 3, 2007. See this diff.

MPS blanked the citations June 4, 2007,. See this diff.

Nposs blanked the citations June 5, 2007. See this diff.

It looks like there is a regular blanking crew for this list article, and possibly other list and chart articles. Consisting of Requestion, MPS, Nposs, and Ronz. On other list and chart pages I have seen some of these people doing this type of blanking.They substitute non-verifiable (to the average reader) hidden source links (using hidden comments inside the wiki code).

I have traced it back to at least the beginning of March 2007. I note that occasionally one of them will feign compromise, but they always end back at this newly-invented method of theirs of using hidden source links. It is completely against wikipedia guidelines and policies.

I would like some feedback from others about this. Any other lists and charts that this type of blanking is occurring on? --Timeshifter 17:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Since Timeshifter is posting this in multiple places, I guess we all have to respond in multiple places, too. Your concern for sourcing is well placed, but there is a fundamental difference in perspective here: (1) the links are citations and (2) the links are misused external links. For those editors who subscribe to (2), it is not a matter of blanking or vandalism, but rather an appropriate application of the external link guidelines. To assert that their actions constitute blanking is a violation of AGF and suggests that you are unwilling to accept the possibility of their viewpoint (potentially disallowing the process of consensus building.) Namecalling and threats will not move this discussion forward. Please, let us return to the process of suggesting workable alternatives that editors are likely to support (embedded links without a reference section not being one of them.) I fall into (2) and would prefer that the links not be on the page, but I understand your point of view and have been willing to compromise on how the links might be incorporated into the page. What compromise are you willing to offer? Nposs 18:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Nposs wrote (emphasis added): "Please, let us return to the process of suggesting workable alternatives that editors are likely to support (embedded links without a reference section not being one of them.)" So you blanked all the sources/citations/references in a wikipedia article!!! The compromise offered is the one made by many editors on list and chart pages. They remove inline citation links for entries that have separate wikipedia pages with the source links found there instead. Thus no duplication of links, and thus no spam linking.


 * Emphasis added to quote below.


 * Quote below from Citing sources guideline:


 * Articles can be supported with references in two ways: the provision of general references – books or other sources that support a significant amount of the material in the article – and inline citations, which provide source information for specific statements. Model articles provide general references that support all the content while giving inline citations for statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged. In some articles, where all sources used for the article are cited inline, a separate section for general references will be omitted.
 * Articles can be supported with references in two ways: the provision of general references – books or other sources that support a significant amount of the material in the article – and inline citations, which provide source information for specific statements. Model articles provide general references that support all the content while giving inline citations for statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged. In some articles, where all sources used for the article are cited inline, a separate section for general references will be omitted.


 * I am being mild in calling it blanking and not vandalism. Blanking is the correct term when the deletion is said to be done in good faith. But the above guideline shows that you are mistaken, and therefore further deletions can not be said to be in good faith. See below:


 * Emphasis added to quote.


 * Quote below from Vandalism policy:


 * Blanking: Removing all or significant parts of pages, or replacing entire established pages with one's own version without first gaining consensus. Sometimes important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary. However, significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary. An example of blanking edits that could be legitimate would be edits that blank all or part of a biography of a living person. Wikipedia is especially concerned about providing accurate and non-biased information on the living, and this may be an effort to remove inaccurate or biased material. Due to the possibility of unexplained good-faith content removal, uw-test1 or uw-delete1, as appropriate, should normally be used as initial warnings for ordinary content removals not involving any circumstances that would merit stronger warnings.
 * Blanking: Removing all or significant parts of pages, or replacing entire established pages with one's own version without first gaining consensus. Sometimes important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary. However, significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary. An example of blanking edits that could be legitimate would be edits that blank all or part of a biography of a living person. Wikipedia is especially concerned about providing accurate and non-biased information on the living, and this may be an effort to remove inaccurate or biased material. Due to the possibility of unexplained good-faith content removal, uw-test1 or uw-delete1, as appropriate, should normally be used as initial warnings for ordinary content removals not involving any circumstances that would merit stronger warnings.


 * I used the correct warning template on Requestion's user talk page. uw-delete1, --Timeshifter 04:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * At the risk of feeding the troll in this situation, a couple of remarks: (1) There are several editors on the page who feel like the links are not references, but misused external links. You really need to AGF, here. These are experienced editors who have done a lot of good work. There is no need to exaggerate the situation with all of this rhetoric. Address the disagreement - don't focus on retribution. (FWIW, I would suggest that quoting guidelines at this point doesn't address the disagreement since the other side can do the same thing just as well (but has restrained themselves). It doesn't solve the problem.) (2) Do I think the hidden links is the best solution in the long run? No. But the change was made and several editors supported it. Does that mean it will stay that way? Probably not. But, as it stands right now, the information is preserved so that if the final outcome of the discussion is to keep to the links, the info will still be accessible. The links are contentious, and in most instances, contentious edits are removed to the talk page for further discussion. (3) The removal of external links for items that have their own WP is not a compromise - its a widely accepted practice. My compromise was, even though the links aren't really citations, I find that there is no good mechanism for dealing with the situation, so lets utilize the ref system. Embedded link references? That's fine, but then it has to use a references section at the end of the article (and a way to do that satisfactorily without double linking remains to be seen.) But, this is all just my opinion, and the discussion appears to have moved far beyond this proposition. Nposs 04:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Please avoid the uncivil "troll" namecalling. I am not the one parachuting into wikipedia lists and charts and deleting/blanking the source links, and many of the entries.


 * (Timeshifter (me), Belorud, Quiddity, and Argey have spoken out against removing source links at List of mind mapping software. Nposs wrote: "I would suggest that quoting guidelines at this point doesn't address the disagreement since the other side can do the same thing just as well (but has restrained themselves)." Both the spirit and the letter of the wikipedia guidelines/policies on this issue is that info needs open sourcing on wikipedia. This is so that average readers can verify the info on wikipedia. See Verifiability.


 * Nposs wrote: "Do I think the hidden links is the best solution in the long run? No. But the change was made and several editors supported it." That is not enough to radically change wikipedia guidelines/policies.


 * Nposs wrote: "Embedded link references? That's fine, but then it has to use a references section at the end of the article (and a way to do that satisfactorily without double linking remains to be seen.)" It is common to see reference sections without any clickable links. Next...--Timeshifter 04:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It feels like you are trolling me because you keep quoting me out of context and inferring meanings in the statements that don't exists. Also, I thought Wikipedia was 'the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.' Perhaps I did arrive by parachute, but I that doesn't prohibit me from contributing. Nposs 05:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Your group seems to be on a "mission from god" to fight spam, rather imagined or real. Wikipedia is not a fundamentalist organization with true believers. We operate by wikipedia guidelines which have flexibility and can be adapted by article editors after discussion. We also operate by wikipedia policies which are more binding. --Timeshifter 06:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The warning template Timeshifter added to my talk page was rude and uncivil. This is the second time Timeshifter has templated me in an attempt to whack me into submission. Using templates as a debate tool is highly inappropriate. (Requestion 16:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC))


 * See, that is your problem. Everything is a plot to thwart you from your "mission from god." To you the forces of evil are trying to "whack me into submission." Maybe a warning template is just a warning template. Maybe you should slightly consider that you might be wrong. That you might actually be breaking some wikipedia guidelines. --Timeshifter 17:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Project banner
Considering the nature of this WikiProject putting a WikiProject banner on ALL articles that are list articles is a bad idea. This is a scope of style and not a scope of article topic. -- Ned Scott 01:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * What we should tag is the talk pages of list guidelines and list templates, which is what is done for other similar projects (such as WikiProject Fair use, WikiProject Infoboxes, etc). -- Ned Scott 02:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Now, we can and should still have a method of article collaboration, but more of in a notice-board type of way. A WikiProject such as this functions differently than some of the more topic-orientated ones. -- Ned Scott 04:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * IMO, the Assessment scale ratings help contributors see the status of the list. If we want to improve stubs, how will we know specifically which are stubs, rather than going to each list page and say yep that's a stub...few more clicks...nope that's not a stub. Having an articles by Quality list would help contributors who want to make major additions/improvements to move lists up in rank. In making lists to be FL status, it would be much easier to work on an A-class list rather than a Stub or Start class list if people dont have time to work up stubs, then they can work up A-class. How would we organize this then? - A M K 1 5 2 (Talk • Contributions • Send message) 14:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The reason I wanted the template on all articles is so that we could, while rating them, go through and delete the ones that did not meet inclusion status, why was it decided to change the purpose of the template? The Placebo Effect 14:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That's one possible way to do things, yes, but we're talking about tagging over 58,000 articles (and growing fast), and in many cases over-lapping with other WikiProjects. What we should do is help other projects know what criteria they need to be setting for lists. It would be far more efficient to work via more direct projects, allowing them to do the bulk of the work. We're talking about an entire type of article, rather than a topic or location. We're not a normal WikiProject, and tagging articles directly really won't be practical or helpful. We can work with existing WikiProject banners to even keep track of lists statistics if we need to. -- Ned Scott 18:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Many of the wikiprojects use "List-class" instead of a quality-class rating. See Category:List-Class articles, or an example at Talk:List of Egyptian dynasties. If we could get the wikiproject-banner-code people to make List-class an additional variable (instead of a replacement variable for the quality rating), we could possibly use that to coordinate ourselves? We'd just need a bot to cross-reference the 2 category types (list-class + quality-class) and propagate a table. (easier said than done ;) --Quiddity 18:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Note the existence of WPDAB and WikiProject Redirect

This is needed
To make lists successful in Wikipedia, we need a strong foundation and in particular a good "criteria for inclusion" in WP:L. Many lists end up violating WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV because it is more difficult to apply these to lists than to articles. See this essay for the rationale Lists_in_Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

List with potential
I think the List of notable organ transplant donors and recipients has potential to be a featured list, but it still needs some work. I'm too busy right now to work on it right now, but I thought I would bring it to this the attention of this wikiproject. Remember 16:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Idea for list and suggestion for featured list
(Originally posted at Wikipedia talk:Featured lists - is this place more active?)
 * I recently jotted down a list of the known burial places of English monarchs. It doesn't feel like a real list, but is it the sort of thing that has potential or not? See the Reference Desk question (and answers) here for more details. Carcharoth 09:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I also came across List of islands by area. What would have to be done to improve this towards featured status? It look interesting, but needs a fair amount of work done on it. Carcharoth 09:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Most wanted articles
There are several lists included at WP:WANTED that might be of interest to this project. --Sapphic 16:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Policy/guideline discussions about lists and charts.
There is discussion at the village pump about lists.

See also the discussion at Wikipedia talk:External links. --Timeshifter 17:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

List assessment
As I see there is a WP on Lists, what are your project's thoughts on assessment of List articles? I know there is a FL class, but do you normally then assess all lists as List class unless they are FL, or do you use the normal assessment scale: Stub, Start, B, GA, A, FL? Any insight would be great. Aboutmovies 19:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Similar question asked by me above, at the end of, but unanswered. Needs a code guru I think, to either implement or explain why it's not possible. Perhaps, if you felt so inclined, you could summarize and ask for input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council. I would, but I've got a headache coming on.. --Quiddity 20:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this was discussed before, but we just didn't have the people to do the job.-- Ed  ¿Cómo estás? 20:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, a bot can go add the template; then those who work on the specific list can assess it. Assessing all these lists isn't going to happen over night. - AMK152 (Talk • Contributions • Send message) 01:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

In most cases one can just remove the "list-class" value from project banners and then use the normal assessment scale. -- Ned Scott 04:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Comparison of time tracking software
Most of this chart was deleted. See this diff of the deletion.

Can some list and chart editors comment at Talk:Comparison of time tracking software.

It seems that almost 2 years of work was deleted for no particularly good reason.

Here is the chart before the blanking:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_time_tracking_software&oldid=129342155

I think the main problem with the chart then was that the wikilinks were mixed up with the embedded citations. A minor problem was the inclusion of some specific prices in some cases.

The wikilinks should have been the only links with text labels. The embedded citation links should not have had text labels. They should just be numbered automatically by the wikipedia software. See WP:CITE and Embedded citations.--Timeshifter 05:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Except that the links don't really constitute proper citations - as is being discussed in a new section of previously linked ongoing discussion. Nposs 05:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I see what you are saying. Many embedded citations on wikipedia do not have the additional info that should be in a references section. But that is no reason for deletion, though. And some spam fighters may not like the duplicate link in the references section. --Timeshifter 06:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comparison of time tracking software. Current status
Chart page destroyed by group blanking by editors parachuting in.

Please see:

Note the edit history, and the talk page. Ever since two-thirds of the chart was deleted by a blanking crew, the main editors of the chart seem to have left. What remains are mostly a few random attempts to add new entries by passersby, and some haphazard formatting attempts.

Most of the new entry attempts get slapped down by the current guardian User:Mrzaius who I have seen in other discussions with the previously-mentioned blanking crew.

Here is the version of the chart before most of it was deleted:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_time_tracking_software&oldid=130227200

Think of the months and years of effort down the tubes. --Timeshifter 05:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

help with list-related things
I've been getting hounded/harrassed by the powers that be regarding disambiguation and lists--even banned for a day because of it, and I tire of it. See Talk:Darker (disambiguation) (and the article I created based on it, List of titles with "Darker" in them), Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation, and Talk:Mystery (disambiguation). Basically, all of this recent nonsense started over linking to DAB pages (at Talk:Discover Magazine (TV series)). It's just getting ridiculously out of hand and more support needs to be added in favor of disambiguation lists in Wikipedia. ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ 15:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I agree with you on this one. It's silly to add indices to DAB pages. I doubt many people look for lists of movies with the word "Darker" in the title. If you really need to, make seperate pages for the indices, or, better yet, categories. I'm open to discussion, though. --Birdman1 talk/contribs 16:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, that's just it; I tried to make a separate set index article for the "Darker" titled articles but it's also proposed for deletion. I don't think it's silly to add an index of related articles to a DAB page considering that's all they are in the first place--a list of articles about the title; I simply expanded the list to include a wider relationship. ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ 18:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Notability concerning lists and charts.
I think this little essay summarizes many of the problems I see on list and chart pages. Feel free to copy or adapt this anywhere. Please see some relevant wikipedia guideline/policy quotes in a section near the top of my user page titled "Notability concerning lists and charts." See: User:Timeshifter.

There are conflicting guidelines on notability of items in lists and charts. But common sense allows article editors to reach a balance. It is obvious that some lists such as List of English writers could not include all writers. Wikipedia editors alone number in the millions! It is equally obvious to many that technology and software lists should include more than just the big corporate products. Some lists even have separate sections for freeware, shareware, and/or open source.

All 3 of those forms of software are notable in themselves. The topic of the lists are notable. Basic WP:NPOV encyclopedic fairness requires some balancing by the article editors for any list. There has to be a balance between corporate and non-corporate entries on lists. There have to be decisions made as to notability in the community of freeware/shareware/open-source -- versus notability in the corporate press where previous ad money often talks in getting press and reviews. Decisions need to be made as to the number of users using a program, product, or entry. Sometimes long lists may require limiting list/chart entries to certain thresholds of number of users for each category. Also, decisions as to whether an entry is fading into disuse, and therefore unworthy of taking up an entry slot if a list or chart is already long.

So, editors should not just parachute into a talk page, make a few muddied wikipedia guideline/policy declarations, and then delete/blank large parts of the articles, entries, or sources/citations. All without participating in the long consensus process that preceded them on the talk page. There is no rush.--Timeshifter 03:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

What do editors think of this template?
I'm looking for comments on this template User:Nil_Einne/Template:NOTE-L. Do editors think it's clear & properly phrased? Properly designed? Do you feel it's helpful? If you wondering why I made it, continue reading...

I'm coming from Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming which as you might guess has a large amount of debate about who shouldnt & shouldn't be on the list. A month or two back, we deleted all red links, to end the chaos of people adding every single name they could find and as per WP:NOTE requirement that only notable entries should be added. This has cause some controversy and for a while we were mentioning the noteability requirement in the prose including a self ref. After looking at a few featured lists a (Featured list candidates/List of HIV-positive people, List of notable brain tumor patients and List of people with epilepsy) I decided it was definitely unacceptable to include a self ref and also unnecessary to mention the notability requirement since from what I can tell, the consensus is that this is implied. Therefore, I removed the self ref and mention of notability requirement as per above. However this leaves us with the problem with how to avoid the perhaps well-meaning attempts to add non-noteable people to this list. To this end, I've added a bunch of hidden comments. However I also thought it might be helpful to mention the requirement on the talk page so designed the template Nil Einne 19:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I like the look of it. I removed a comma already.  The first sentence might be juggled to indicate that lists and their entries are subject to the same Notability guidelines as any other article, but I didn't take a crack at that. -- JHunterJ 19:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment (RfC) at List of mind mapping software
Please see:
 * Talk:List of mind mapping software

The version with footnoted references that people are referring to is at this revision:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_mind_mapping_software&oldid=136992148 --Timeshifter 06:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion in embedded lists: notability
Wikipedia has scores of embedded lists that include a criterion, implicitly or explicitly, of notability. "Notable residents", "notable alumni", or "notable contributors" are typical examples. My feeling with these is that they should mostly be limited to links to existing articles because those have proven notability. Red links should be to topics that meet our criteria for notability, and be to articles that "should" exist. In those instances an additional external link to a reliable source establishing notability is helpful and may prevent an otherwise obscure name from being deleted. However if an editor objects to the inclusion of a red link then the best answer is to create an article on the topic rather than to keep re-inserting the link that goes nowhere. I suppose that on lists where notability is not even implictly one of the criteria then simply including the name without linking it would be the best approach. For example, a list of schools in a school district might list, but not link, elementary schools while red-linking high schools. I can't find any direct mention of this issue in the various applicable guidelines: List guideline, Lists in Wikipedia, or Embedded list. Is this covered anywhere? If not, should it be? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see there's a current discussion about this on Wikipedia talk:Notability. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, that talk section and its subsections are a thoughtful discussion of the issues. See also the top sections of my user page: User:Timeshifter. --Timeshifter 10:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That discussion is now archived here:
 * Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 15 --Timeshifter 13:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Phenomenal popularity of List of Pokémon
Since its merger, "List of Pokémon" has been unbelievably popular for the whole of 2007 with the viewing audience. In the rank tables, this list came: 4th in June, 4th in May, 4th in April, 8th in March and 14th in February. Consistently being the fourth most popular in an encyclopedia of articles is an impressive feat. May I suggest that in the interest of public opinion, attentions be focused intensely on this page, in particular improving it to Featured List status? - 82.16.7.63 03:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Template:makelist
See Template:makelist. It creates lists. What do people think? -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 03:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Lists versus categories: a very particular case
I have been watching the following: All of the above proposed a mass deletion of the articles listed under Category:Lists of companies by country. The debate is not getting anywhere - one keep verdict is leading to another delete-all proposal. I have been asked to go to DRV with this, instead of a second nomination. But, since it seems to be a bigger issue than a simple-minded DRV I think it should be discussed here first. It is highly possible that an editor with diligence and enough understanding of the policies can go article by article to get them deleted through the proper process. But, it is always better to have broader consensus on a class of articles that keeps harassing the intelligence of many editors.
 * Articles for deletion/List of Companies in Bangladesh
 * Articles for deletion/List of Greek companies
 * Articles for deletion/List of Japanese companies
 * Articles for deletion/Lists of companies (2nd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/Lists of companies
 * Articles for deletion/List of Vietnamese companies
 * Articles for deletion/List of Peruvian companies
 * Articles for deletion/List of British companies
 * Articles for deletion/List of Singapore companies

The appropriate reasons for keeping the articles in this category as well as deleting them have already been, mostly, discussed on the pages I provided the links to. Therefore, I am not repeating them again (WP doesn't have infinite server space and we all can make time for the few seconds it takes to go the linked pages). My proposition is simple - either have policy on inclusion criterion or delete them all. Help Wikipedia from turning into the yellow pages. Aditya Kabir 09:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

 Factored in from Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Lists versus categories: a very particular case, which got removed by the bot.


 * The current format doesnt have any significant difference from the categories, the question is how a list should be displayed IMHO list should really include basic information, like name,ownership,turnover/revenues/profits,primary/core business, head office. Even red links should be required to have this basic to remain on the list. Gnangarra 10:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * In this case I concur with the suggestion to take it to DRV, in particular per the difference between this outcome and this one.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  13:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's the easy way out. But, DRV may not be the right place to discuss the annihilation of an entire class of articles, especially if it's possible to create a guideline to keep the articles encyclopedic (i.e. inclusion criterion, such as - "no red links, please" - and, organization method, such as - "by existing business organizations categories, please" - and, referencing responsibilities, such as - "unbiased notable third-party references, please"). DRV would only mean only a delete/no-delete verdict, without any scope for further discussion on other prospects. Aditya Kabir 15:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * One more question - how to take measure of WP:NOT and WP:NOT. I also have found an interesting essay. Aditya Kabir 15:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, lists of companies AND basic facts about them would really be useful---but extremely hard to compile and maintain, if possible at all. If the lists are only supposed to be directories of company names, just get rid of them all and use categories. ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 19:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

 Factored in from Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Lists versus categories: a very particular case, which got removed by the bot.

I have been trying to discuss this for quite sometime now at different places, without much success. But, the issue still remains at large - the company list articles seem to be quite wild. Most are either useless or powerful spam magnets, some are way too long with some more promising to become so, and all are growing without the slightest notion of guiding principles. For details please check the discussion here. Aditya (talk • contribs) 19:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I would bring this up at the talk page for WP:CORP which is the notability guidline for companies and organizations. I would support inclusion of your concept there. --Kevin Murray 19:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have trying to get this serious issue across for along time now, but no one seems to be interested. May be instead of bundling those lists in I should go list by list and get them deleted. After the first few debates it would not be difficult to figure out most, if not all, the keep arguments, as well as the counter-argument. But, I guess that would go against WP:POINT. Well, after seeing so much ignorance, while this silly lists proliferate, I'd rather igonre that policy and concentrate more on WP:BOLD. Please, advise. I am posting part of this to the policy discussion page as well. Aditya (talk • contribs) 23:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:POINT essentially says that you shouldn't do something that hurts the encyclopedia just to prove your point that (for example) a policy is wrong. I strongly suggest starting with a couple of lists that you consider "useless", rather than (say) proceeding alphabetically, or listing dozens of articles in a single deletion nomination (the latter two approaches could well be considered WP:POINT violations).  And make the nominations separately, not together, so the merits of each case are debated individually.  (And finally, I suggest not raising the policy issue in the AfDs; rather, let the discussion focus on the merits and problems of each list, and from there, see if you can find some basic criteria to use.   -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 12:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Since the problem is inherent to the whole idea of "list of companies", I'd consider my actions as WP:POINT even if I go case by case in an order of problem-judgment. It'd be infinitesimally more useful if the community could have a consensus on, at least - (1) intro and organization guidelines; (2) inclusion criterion policy; and (3) external link control. It's terrible to see adverts, spam, redundancies and endless lists taking hold of the idea. Besides, why do we need such a list at all, when there's a way to put relevant companies bunched together in categories? Aditya  (talk • contribs) 18:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, saying "I think we should have a policy" and actually having a policy get written and put into place are quite different. If you're not willing to raise the issue via AfDs (you don't seem to agree with my interpretation of WP:POINT as forbidding damaging actions, which AfDs - in good faith - would not be), and you're not willing to post at WP:CORP, then nothing much is likely to happen.
 * And the issue of lists that should be categories has been discussed before: see [[Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes, and Category:Lists that should be categories.  The general guidance for lists, of course, can be found at Lists and Lists (stand-alone lists) (Manual of Style); if the lists you are complaining about are not in compliance with these existing guidelines, that's another reason to take them to AfD.  -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 23:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think I am not willing to take it to WP:CORP, I am apprehensive that this discussion will do any better there, since it is stated as a tool to help determine whether an organization (commercial or otherwise) is a valid subject for a Wikipedia article. Do you think that one is the right place to discuss this? This discussion is rather about lists, not company articles, and a very specific type of list at that, probably making the overall list vs. category debate a bit too all-encompassing. I have seen those debates, and those don't really call for a guideline to maintain critical lists. AfDs are for deleting improper articles, not raising issues on guideline/policy or whole category of lists. Do you think AfDs are the right place to do this? Not all complaints or observations have to be about not being in-compliance with existing policies. You'd notice that WP is an evolving project, and now we have a lot more guidelines than even a year back. I know having a policy get written and put into place is quite different from talking about the necessity of one. But, I really don't believe that policies are created without people asking for them and discussing the needs. Thanks for taking an interest. Cheers. Aditya (talk • contribs) 07:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Deleting them has already been proposed ad nauseum and failed to win consensus. I'm developing one list here List of Cambodia-related topics and maintaining 4 of the company lists from the various AfD's above - partly because of spam concerns raised in a much earlier AfD. So, what inclusion criteria do you have in mind? Paxse 16:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your efforts. But, that doesn't tell why these lists should exist when categories like Category:Companies by country are perfectly able to serve the purpose. And, that doesn't tell what should be included and what shouldn't be in those lists. And, finally that doesn't tell why these lists are encyclopedic (as opposed to a directory, a yellow page or plain advertisement). Failing to win consensus once may not be a good reason always, as there is a process for 2nd or 3rd nominations, and there is a process of DRVs as well. In fact a lot of the debates I linked here rely heavily on a simple rationale - "the other debate had a keep verdict" - even if the other debate failed to address the issues that were being discussed. Aditya Kabir 15:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You say above either delete or have an inclusion policy - I'm interested in your ideas for an inclusion policy or discussing same - I'm really not interested in rehashing the AfDs. One idea that I have begun to do with the list I linked above is add a one line description for each entry - I think this will aid navigation for readers (which categories don't always do).Paxse 16:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Which lists are you watching over or have put a descriptor on the top? Aditya Kabir 16:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the fundamental issue is a combination of overlap and oversight. The lists of companies are all less complete than their categories are, so the lists are really nothing but a smaller and less complete version of the cats.  The lists also requier oversight; clearly, if the issue is "no redlinks", then the category serves the purpose - nothing at all in a cat is redlinked, and there's no way to turn a cat into an ad or directory, which is not the case with a list.  for that reason, I think cats are more useful and easier to maintain than lists. MSJapan 13:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Reset indent. Hey MSjapan, Aditya. I tend to agree with both you and you make great points. However, I have also cleaned spam off category pages, and  for example - cats  tend not to be watchlisted like articles and spam can often sit there for a long time. I also think categories require oversight and maintenance (I've been struggling to sort out some cats for the last few days). And I'm not convinced it takes more work to fix a poorly maintained list than it does to sort out an ungodly tangle of misused categories and then recat all the articles. In fact the category mess is often so bad that there are a couple of wikiprojects devoted just to sorting out categories. I think the bottom line is that lists (if well maintained) CAN be an invaluable centralised index for articles. All the WP articles of one particular flavour (list of companies, list of Pokemon ;) in one place where it is easy for readers to find things they want and navigate either using the back button or using tabbed browsing. That's one reason I started working on List of Cambodia-related topics after a previous AfD. I'm part of Wikiproject Cambodia, which is fairly new, and we'd like to know where all the articles about Cambodia are - how many are there, on what topics and what topics are missing. So I started going through the categories and watchlisting them to keep them spam free and make it easy to find them again. Check out this 'list' of categories I've found so far User:Paxse/Sandbox5. Scary isn't it? There are still some I haven't checked out and watchlisted and I've seen 3 NEW Cambodia categories created in the last few weeks. Compare that with List of Cambodia-related topics. Which is easier to navigate and maintain? I think the real problem is that some lists tend to be badly neglected. In that sense the AfD's have been very positive in raising the issue of spam and vandalism in poorly maintained lists. But that's a relatively easy problem to fix - add a couple of lists to your watchlist, clean 'em up and keep an eye on them. Better still expand them with good links to notable things. That's my take on these lists anyway. Sorry for the belated reply and the long rant :) Cheers, Paxse 14:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice work on Cambodia-related categories. But, if you really need the lists to maintain a vigil on Cambodia-related articles and make that work for the Cambodia Wikiproject, you could try making the lists a part of the Wikiproject. Right? Aditya Kabir 15:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) 'Cambodia related categories' did you see all those blasted categories? - some of them have ONE article in them, hell some of them have NO articles. That's what happens when categories grow unchecked. The Cambodia related lists are already part of the Cambodia wikiproject - we're working on them to expand, make them more useful and better maintained. During the last of the AfD's (list of Greek companies) one editor said that she/he was working on setting up a business wikiproject. They also said they may take all of these company lists under the project umbrella. So, once again the AfD process is working as a catalyst for positive change - wierd. Paxse 18:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, I was the user that mentioned the wikiproject (which is now up and running) and do think that if the lists are to stay then they should be under the remit of that project. However as we are fairly new I'm not sure there is the bandwidth to undertake the overhaul and ongoing maintenance required right now.  My personal view is that all of the lists should be deleted, as they will invariably become duplicates of the categories once logical inclusion criteria are applied, and nothing links the companies in the list except that they just happen to be incorporated in the same country.  But as has been said we've been through AfD a couple of times, so I'm not sure where we could go from here. Richc80 04:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Where do we go from here? I guess a policy discussion. But, no one seems to be interested. And, the lists remain as is. It's so boringly easy to fill WP up with not-right stuff! Sigh. Aditya (talk • contribs) 13:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Someone has put an interesting list here. Check, please. Aditya (talk • contribs) 19:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm baffled. Why is an encyclopedia collecting lists of "companies"?  What purpose does it serve?  Maybe if it was one definitive list of companies that existed on a particular date it'd be useful for 'the future people', but a list of ill-defined objects that change rapidly seems to be exactly the kind of thing that should not be here.  A company that is verifiable enough to have an article could be part of some cat, but even that seems a bit daft to me.  Dan Beale-Cocks  12:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

List of former members of the United States House of Representatives
This list is the largest article on Wikipedia (600k in size). To ensure centralised discussion on what to do with it, could any interested editors please discuss the issue over at the list's talk page. → AA (talk) — 16:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Two articles that could be lists
Two new articles, Mountain peaks of the United States and Mountain peaks of North America seem to be excellent candidates for lists. Responding to my suggestion, one of the authors said that they did not meet the criteria. Maybe a reader here could weigh in one way or the other. Thanks.--Appraiser 21:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

New sections in the Manual of Style: dates, numbers, etc
Dear colleagues

WP's Manual of Style has been expanded to include a summary of the recently overhauled MOSNUM submanual. Featured List candidates are explicitly required to follow these guidelines, as are all WP articles.

At issue are the new Sections 9–14:
 * Non-breaking spaces
 * Chronological items (Precise language, Times, Dates, Longer periods)
 * Numbers
 * Decimal points
 * Percentages
 * Units of measurement
 * Currencies, and
 * Common mathematical symbols

More detailed information on these and other topics is at WP:MOSNUM. Tony 06:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Repeatedly unanswered question about categorical lists
Quoting myself from Wikipedia talk:Lists -

Are there any guidelines about categorized or hierarchical lists, specifically "Unsorted", "Miscellaneous" or "Other" headings? IMO this is far worse than a trivia section in an article, as the whole point of a categorized list is to organize by topic. For a specific example, I would like to point out List of vegetable oils (a featured list), with an "Other oils" section. This section will not be interesting for people to read. Just glancing at it, I see that further headings could be made for "Medicine", "Cosmetics" and "Insecticides".

These sections can make the article look unreliable (see:List_of_edible_seeds), and can also mean that the item does not meet the requirements of the list (see:List_of_fruits). I did put the Template:expert in those, which I know makes it look worse.

Could some guideline be made about this? I would love to have an unsorted template (like Template:Trivia) to put into such lists. My basic idea is this: if an item cannot be categorized then it probably does not belong on that categorical list. ~ JohnnyMrNinja  05:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm unsure if a guideline is necessary, but I'd say that such sections are definitely an indicator that more work needs to be put into an article. Maybe a template would be useful. Something like "This list contains items that are not sorted into useful  classifications. It is suggested that the structure of this list be changed to accommodate these items." --Monotonehell 06:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed, a guideline is too far. I have added Lists (although the wording could use some fine-tuning), just common sense stuff, but it would be useful for referencing. ~ JohnnyMrNinja  21:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

RfC on Lists and Contents pages
Please see a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Contents concerning the Contents subpages, and specifically on the namespace they belong in. Thanks. --Quiddity 17:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed addition to Lists; seeking feedback
Given the confusion I've seen in AfD discussions, I'd like to add the following sentence to Lists: "Review Lists (stand-alone lists) for further clarification (see also WP:NOT)." My reasonings are set out in full at User:Sidatio/Conversations/On_list_guidelines. I'm bringing it up here before implementing such a change to see if there are objections. :) (And also to ask anyone else interested in joining the conversation at User:Sidatio/Conversations/On_list_guidelines to please chime in. The conversation is flagging. :)) --Moonriddengirl 12:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:FLC
Hi folks, WP:FLC is an important process and is currently suffering from a lack of reviewers. If anyone would be interested in helping review some lists, it would be much appreciated. Thanks, Scorpion0422 18:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for archiving
Is it alright to archive the discussion thread "Lists versus categories: a very particular case"? It only has archival values now. Thanks. Aditya (talk • contribs) 09:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)