Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists/Archive 3

Question on lists
There is an AfD on List of Fresh Mex restaurants, it is my contention that if a list contains links to articles that contain proper citations, the list items do not need to cited. The contents in the lead do need to properly cited. Am I correct in this interpretation?

--Jeremy ( Blah blah... ) 00:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

List of Rachael Ray guests
I need your views on the section here Wikipedia_talk:Lists. Thanks --Anshuk (talk) 21:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Need some input
If anyone has time, please look in on Talk:List of converts to Judaism. We've got an ongoing dispute regarding whether clergy who convert from their religion are notable enough for inclusion, and RfC hasn't been pulling in many fresh eyes. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 18:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Incomplete lists
Hi all! I've been slogging through and I wonder whether a  sub-cat would help at all. I keep running across them, and I think it might help list-sorters and -makers to create the category. I defer to your judgment on it. Cheers, Her Pegship  (tis herself) 20:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

template:flatlist
Anybody know how to change the separator in flatlist? Regards&mdash;G716   00:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Main discussion was at Wikipedia talk:Accessibility/Archive 10#Horizontal list|Wikipedia talk:Accessibility#Horizontal lists. I don't have time to reread/summarize (please do!). -- Quiddity (talk) 20:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link - that discussion was addressing whether | or &bull; was a better separator for text readers for visually impaired users. No consensus.  No mention of making the separator an optional parameter. &mdash;G716   22:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of all lists of businesses by geographic region
See Articles for deletion/List of companies of the Bahamas. An AfD nominator proposes to delete all lists of businesses by geographic region because WP:NOTDIR. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 11:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk page template
I've created this template to be used on the talk pages of problematic list articles, especially those where editors often add subjects with no evidence of notability:

The idea is to direct editors to WP:SAL, and to provide a direct link to WP:Notability so that the editors become aware of it as soon as possible, along with an authoritative statement of what belongs in a list (based on the simplest possible summary of SAL). Obviously it won't help with new editors who don't visit talk pages, and won't stop all bad additions, but it may help to reduce them somewhat. If this meets with the approval of the project, perhaps it should be listed on this page somewhere. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Alignment within lists or tables
Is there a guideline or Manual of Style entry regarding the alignment of different types of data within tables or standalone lists? I'm sure I remember reading somewhere that text should be left-aligned and numbers right-aligned (can't remember about dates). Can anyone confirm? Thanks. --Jameboy (talk) 22:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

World record progressions in swimming - article naming query
I'm after some advice from this project - should the world record progression in swimming articles (full list in this Template:World records in swimming) use the naming convention List of ___? If so, what would be the preferred title? How about: List of world record progression in swimming - 50 metres freestyle. Thanks, Yboy83 (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the article names are fine the way they are. &mdash;G716   21:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. &mdash; Delievered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Articles about lists
How should articles about lists, such as Hollywood blacklist and Index Librorum Prohibitorum, be categorized? Currently, the main lists category has no category for articles about notable lists. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 00:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to advise against short lists
See Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Lists of protected areas by region
Currently, the lists of protected areas by region include such title formats as "List of protected areas of x" (such as List of protected areas of Estonia), "List of protected areas in x" (such as List of protected areas in Kazakhstan), and "List of protected areas within x" (such as List of protected areas within California). I'd like to standardize the titles so that one format is used for all the lists of protected areas by region. My natural choice would be "List of protected areas of x", simply because all the corresponding articles employ the title format "Protected areas of x". Are there any opinions either way? Neelix (talk) 00:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree - Although I have not seen either general consensus or a guideline, I think most lists are gravitating to "List of things of placename" Regards&mdash;G716   04:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Saw this discussion as a result of List of protected areas of British Columbia. The problem with that new title (the old one had been "in British Columbia") is that "of British Columbia" implies that they're designated by the Province of British Columbia, but the list includes those designated by the Canadian federal government, by regional districts, and by municipalities; theoretically native-designated parks may also be included in their own section, though I'm unaware of any current articles (except those that are alreadysimultaneously federal/provincial parks).  List of provincial parks in British Columbia yes, already exists; the "in British Columbia" wording was meant to included non-provincial parks.Skookum1 (talk) 18:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Question about a specific list. Article Josie Maran. Now without that list and ip-semiprotected
Summary: Does the "Work" part of the Josie Maran article fit into "Tables of information and short lists can also complete articles [...]"? And it is additionally a "children" of the career section of the text?

Hi!

I'm tired of some user who keeps removing the most important information about someone who is model (and nowadays has a cosmetic line too). The most important information is the reference to a model's work.

I pointed out to him that according to Embedded_list "Tables of information and short lists can also complete articles [...]".

He just ignored that. But even what he said why he is deleting the lists is wrong.

As I now have asked him why he ignore "Tables of information and short lists can also complete articles [...]" he just asked an admin to semiprotec the article. (Of course the admin's edit summary when semiprotecting is just a primitive offense, but I don't want to waste my time with that person.)

What do the people who have written the article "Wikipedia:Embedded list" and the people who activly participate on this here project page say: Does the "Work" part of the Josie Maran article fit into "Tables of information and short lists can also complete articles [...]"? And it is additionally a "children" of the career section of the text?

I clearly say yes.

Greetings —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.121.136 (talk) 08:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * As WP:EMBED says: Most Wikipedia articles should consist of prose, and not just a list of links. Prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, while a list of links does not...In an article, significant items should be mentioned naturally within the text rather than merely listed. You're still failing to see that your list (which you divided into columns and now refer to as a table to try and avoid the EMBED policies) is just a list of links, which is exactly what Wiki policy warns against, and which no other fashion model article contains. The article was semi-protected because your constant ignoring of Wiki policy to return the lists using various IPs, even after an admin removed the lists, and your tactic of insulting people in an attempt to validate your views on the matter, are disruptive.  I've said it before, and I'll say it again: if you want the info in these lists in the article, give them their due attention in prose in the main article, as an encyclopedia would do.    Mbinebri   talk &larr; 13:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In the interest of clarity, here is the original list the IP user in question is defending.   Mbinebri   talk &larr; 14:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Attention! The link give by Mbinebri isn't the last version with the lists. As I said in the answer (below this) already I adjusted that lists so that they match perfectly the example in WB:EMBED. Quite the usual style of Mbinebri again only to see and say what fits his task. What a sad contributor to Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.121.125 (talk) 18:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

1.) What do you mean with "avoid the EMBED policies"? So I adjusted the representation so it fits to the guideline, that's all. The example in the EMBED-policy fits *exactly* to this case.

2.) You are still ignoring the guideline: In over 2 months you didn't once say anything about the guideline's sentence "Tables of information and short lists can also complete articles [...]".

3. )You didn't put a tag on the page. That's no wonder: You are deleting in hundreds(!) of models' articles. Did you once only write anything on the discussion pages before your first edit to those articles? Reading your "Talk-Page" it's obvious you are never doing this.

4.) Furthermore I even was friendly enough to point out to you that even your wished requirement upon the lists to be "children" of a previous "prose"-section is met: The lists are clearly in connection with the section "career".

5.) And however you followed me here you are here now and so just tell me: What is the most important information anyone with a professional background (that includes the model herself) would like to know? Isn't it clearly her work references?

Overall I wonder why you have answered to my question here, though it was explicitly directed to the people who are involved in creating and maintaining the EMBED-guideline.

BTW: I know that Mr Wales himself said once (it's somewhere in the million pages, I won't search for the link now) that information in a not so good style is preferable to no information. And instead of deleting that information people who come across such an article should instead improve the style.

As I told you already quite some month ago: I prefer important information in a not optimal style over no information at all. (Of course I'm sure you could tell us a webpage where we could find that information. Don't you participate on another webpage too?)

List of liqueurs
Hello. I seek guidance on a list article, in particular regarding external links. The article List of liqueurs includes the names of many liqueurs about which we have no articles. The question is: is it appropriate, for red-link liqueurs, to include next to the red link a link to a site selling the liqueur, where readers can verify information as to ingredients, etc.? An instance of exactly what I'm talking about can be found here. Thanks in advance for any opinions, whether here or at the article talk page, where we've been going in circles, it seems. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * According to WP:EL, there should not be any direct external links within the text of an article.
 * Adding them as ref'd footnotes should be a workable compromise (as long as actual information, such as ingredients, can be found at the link - purely commercial pages without significant detail would not be helpful (to future article development or to current readers)). -- Quiddity (talk) 16:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Footnotes are just fine. I like them very much but when in a hurry simply use square brackets. Those can easily be converted to references if another editor wishes, rather than wholesale, enormous summary deletion of references. Badagnani (talk) 23:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Adding them as footnotes the first time is quite easy. You just put tags around it instead of single brackets. References that are questioned may be deleted by any editor, and only those agreed to meet our criteria should be re-added. Actual agreement from other editors is necessary in such cases. However, I would object to footnotes that no nothing other than link to a commercial site in order to verify information about a commercial product. That kind of linking is outside of the purpose of Wikipedia, which is to be an encyclopedia, not a link farm. According to Badagnani's logic, it is always appropriate to link to a site selling any consumer product if the editor linking claims that no non-promotional link could be found. That interpretation would quickly lead to Wikipedia becoming a tool for every marketer. Therefore, we do not link to promotional sites when those are the only links we can find to document something. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * As a proponent of comprehensive lists in WP, the inclusion of red-linked (article-less) liquers is appropriate as long as they are properly cited. The problem of using on-line sources will always be the inherent problems with WP:EL.  That said, a quick google book search shows there are dozens of books on liquers and their history out there from the 1960 onward.  Most likely a great many of the red-linked liquers are mentioned in these books and thus easily cited.  All it takes is a bit of research at some libraries to find the citations you need.  They are out there. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This seems reasonable (as the wholesale deletion of links without prior discussion and careful consideration of each one at "Discussion" was not). In fact, some of the redlinked liqueurs are mentioned at Google Books, but some of the newer and rarer ones are not (yet), but their existence, ingredients, and nation of production can be verified by online sources. Badagnani (talk) 18:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that this is reasonable. It's still not clear to me what the best thing is to do when there is a product that can only be verified by a commercial site, i.e., by a page selling that product. I don't think it's appropriate to link in that situation. Other opinions on that? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think those are mainly the newer liqueurs, which haven't made it into books. As mentioned before, although people like to drink them, they don't generally write about liqueurs, at least as much as wines or spirits. Thus we use the best sources we can find to thoroughly document the varieties that are available. Badagnani (talk) 02:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, you've certainly stated that position a few times. It's clear to me that your position is quite reasonable, and yet that a different, contradictory position is also quite reasonable. Here, I'm hoping to hear from multiple reasonable people, and see if any determination may be made about consensus. I thought it might be useful to do that, because if it becomes clear that your position is supported by consensus, then your edits become much more powerful and likely to stick. That's what I was talking about when I suggested you approach the situation as a content dispute. I should probably shut up now, though, and let people comment. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

List up for deletion
We're having a severe problem at Articles for deletion/List of Chinese music ensembles in the United States, where a user is attempting to delete an entire list. Would list-minded Wikipedians please look in, and comment if you wish? See also Talk:List of Chinese music ensembles in the United States. The two editors in question are the same ones who have been following my edits across Wikipedia (discussed in the List of liqueurs article in the section just above), attempting to delete content or entire articles. Badagnani (talk) 21:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

cfm
Please comment on the proposed merger of Category:Environmental lists into Category:Lists of environment topics here  &mdash;G716   14:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

List up for deletion
Please see Articles for deletion/List of gamelan ensembles in the United States (2nd nomination). Badagnani (talk) 03:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite of List of Washington & Jefferson College people
I am currently rewriting List of Washington & Jefferson College people, and I want to make sure I have a decent table format that would pass FL, if that ever is a possibility. I'd hate to do all the work and then have to re-code the table, so can someone check out my sandbox version at User:Jwilkinsen Jr/sandbox? --Jwilkinsen Jr (talk) 04:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Reference question for lists
I'm new to lists, but I'm thinking about bringing List of matrices to FL status. I do have some experience in creating good and featured content, but only with articles, not with lists so far. Is it necessary to give a reference for every row in the list? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 15:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

List for deletion
Please see Articles for deletion/Convicts on the First Fleet if interested. Article concerned is: Convicts on the First Fleet Smartse (talk) 12:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

GA-class lists?
Hi all. Just a very quick question - are lists eligible to become good article candidates? Bettia  it's a puppet!  14:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Although many articles are within multiple projects, and may well have a GA status for another project; this project will automatically change the GA to List for the WikiProject Lists template. This inappropriately tagged FA article talk page is an example of the need for a custom mask.   The edit page clearly shows the FA class; however, the display changes it to List, and our bot counts the article as a list.  All previous incorrectly classed articles now conform with the WikiProject_List/Assessment.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prapsnot (talk • contribs) 23:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC) Edit mistake forgot to sign~ Prapsnot (talk) 23:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I see. So if I was able to get List of American football teams in the United Kingdom to GA-class, it would be show as GA class (for WP:SPORTS) and List class for this project? Many thanks for your help! Bettia   (bring on the trumpets!)  11:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

List of World Heritage Sites in the Netherlands
I requested a peer review for List of World Heritage Sites in the Netherlands to find out what improvements it needs to pass as FLC. Your comments are most welcome. Thanks, Rubenescio (talk) 09:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Featured lists on the main page
I recently started a discussion about nominating featured lists for the main page, and wanted to know if perhaps some of you more active list editors would consider contributing to the discussion happening there. ---kilbad (talk) 20:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

New-look Manual of Style
A few weeks ago there was extensive discussion on FAC talk about the vast size, complexity and instability of the Manual of Style, which concerns the FLC process through the operation of its criteria. On reviewing the text of the MoS, I agree that the Manual is much larger than necessary to cover the areas it does: about 20 thousand words. In particular:
 * it is often wordy;
 * it provides more examples than necessary;
 * it lectures around some of its points in a way that is not strictly necessary;
 * it is a little repetitive and disorganised.

As a service to nominators, reviewers and editors at larger, I've created a new, user-friendly version of the MoS that is only 40% of the size of the full version. There are no intended changes in substantive meaning. The new version has the following features:
 * 1) brevity and directness of language, including the default use of active voice and contractives;
 * 2) new inline headings for every point, for ease of navigation;
 * 3) the removal of highly specialised points about numbers and dates, which are treated by MOSNUM;
 * 4) the removal of a few other sections that appear to be on the fringe, including Blason;
 * 5) the addition of a Currency section, summarised from MOSNUM.
 * 6) improvements in structural organisation;
 * 7) the use of links by asterisk, to reduce clutter.

Any changes to the full MoS as reflected in the new version will be notified here, at the start of each month. Your feedback is welcome on the talk page. Tony  (talk)  02:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Template talk:WikiProject Lists
I've made a few comments on this page regarding the project banner. Notifying the project here in case it gets overlooked. PC78 (talk) 12:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Capitalisation in titles of long lists
There is a new debate at the naming conventions for long lists guideline (here) regarding the use of caps after the colon when naming sub-lists. Input is appreciated! — Skittleys (talk) 18:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Should specific variants of Template:Expand list exist?
In Category:List notification templates there are some templates such as Inc-transport and Incompletepersonnel that are basically specific variants of Expand list. Is there any purpose to these? --NE2 14:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Using the "what links here" link allows editors who are part of the relevant wiki projects (Transport and Music, in these cases) to see the lists that would benefit from expansion and are within the scope of their WikiProject. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Another purpose they serve: the category into which feeds—Wikipedia list cleanup—is very big and needs to be subdivided into categories. I think that's supposed to be the main purpose. — Skittleys (talk) 20:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:OUTLINES
Hi, there is quite a heated debate on various talk pages regards outlines, it is (hopefully) centralized at Wikipedia talk:Outlines, there are some entrenched editors there but some rational input would be useful (and welcomed) from other editors experienced with lists. Lee&there4;V (talk  •  contribs) 14:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * See my comment at WT:Lists. I think that WT:OUTLINE is the wrong venue, and we should establish what the dispute is before asking for more input. Verbal chat  15:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

help with expanding list of peaks
I started List of peaks on the British Columbia-Alberta border of today, but only a very small start, it will eventually be huge; see Talk:List of peaks on the British Columbia-Alberta border for to-dos and instructions on how to expand it....too big a job for one person.....Skookum1 (talk) 17:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

suggested incomplete template
In making a lot of lists, and looking at the available templates for incomplete lists so far, I think inc-geo for geographic items would be useful.Skookum1 (talk) 17:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Bibliography page guideline proposal
Your input about a guideline proposal is requested here. Any constructive contributions would be welcome. Neelix (talk) 20:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of people who died on their birthdays
An article covered by your Wikiproject, List of people who died on their birthdays, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Racepacket (talk) 12:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 03:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)