Wikipedia talk:Overlistification

message: Instead of creating multiple guidelines dealing with essentially the same subject, why don't you expand Wikipedia:Overcategorization by adding a section specific to lists, and maybe consequently change the title of the guideline. CG 21:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  There seems to be very little here that isn't already covered by policies about notability, NPOV, citations, etc...  This page potentially does serve the purpose of explaining precedents when inappropriate list have been removed. (See comment below about precedent).  Often CFD discussions are about how a category would be better served as a list.  If the list satisfies standards of notability, NPOV, verifiability, etc... that seems sufficient.  Categorization is a different can of worms and is constrained in ways a that a list is not.  I hope that list deletion policies and practices can be more inclusionist than those for categories. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 21:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I very strongly disagree with the statement that much of this is covered elsewhere. There is absolutely no clear information on WP:LIST about when it is appropriate and when it is not appropriate to create/delete a list and tons of afds have had this problem, with numerous people asking for help and clarification on the subject. Satisfying notability NPOV etc is not that easy to determine. If it was, then much of the information on WP:OCAT wouldn't be necessary. There needs to be some sort of guideline. I would support major tweaks, additions, etc...even a merge to WP:LIST, but to say that much of this information is already covered is very untrue. Within the last few weeks there have been two to three requests on the Village Pump about what to do with certain lists. Bulldog123 06:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry if it seemed that I was saying that this information is not necessary.  I agree with what you are saying, but "notability" is a problem all over Wikipedia. If there isn't a clear understanding at AFD or the discussion pages at WP:LIST about what makes a notable list, then discussing it here would not be an effective way to reach a consensus. I guess "covered" was the wrong word.  The issues are being discussed and debated elsewhere, not that the policies and guidelines are clear.  They are not.  I think WP:OCAT was possible because there was already a clear consensus that we had to exclude non-notable, POV categories to keep the categorization system functioning.  Is there is that sort of consensus about lists?  Frankly, I wish people would ease up on the notability deletions.  If something is minimally notable, tag it.  If it is uncited, tag it.  But if it isn't blatantly ridiculous or embarrassing I don't see why it has to be deleted.  One person's trivia is another's doctoral thesis. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 06:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As you can see, there are actually very few overlistification instances that are listed on this page -- very different from WP:OCAT, where there are dozens. Only four so far, and they mostly overlap. so nobody has to worthy about making OLIST as non-inclusive OCAT. Mainly, I hope for improvements to this page - better examples, better wording, to make it more like OCAT and get it as a guideline for lists. Bulldog123 20:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: My proposal was not to apply every line in Wikipedia:Overcategorization to lists; but because the existing policy about categories and this proposal about lists definetly contain some overlapping guidelines, it would be silly to create two separate pages that deals with similar subjects which is a listing of articles. See Wikipedia:Overlapping policies and guidelines. I would be cleaner to, instead of creating two pages, to include lists, as a separate section, but as part of Wikipedia:Overcategorization (which might have a title change). (Look at WP:CSD for example). CG 13:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to merge 

message: The overcategorization guideline is based on the clear repeated precedents set at CFD.  This guideline, if it is to exist, should be based on clear repeated precedents set at AFD.  Examples of those discussions should be linked.  Since there are already discussions about criteria for deleting articles, this guideline should address how those guidelines (NPOV, notability, etc...) apply to lists.  I also hope that the standards for being an acceptable list are more liberal than those for the acceptability of a category.  If there is to be a listing here it should be for lists that cannot be made acceptable, and not cite discussions where lists were removed because of other defects (like being unreferenced) -- ☑ SamuelWantman 07:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My proposal was not to apply every line in Wikipedia:Overcategorization to lists; but because the existing policy about categories and this proposal about lists definetly contain some overlapping guidelines, it would be silly to create two separate pages that deals with similar subjects which is a listing of articles. See Wikipedia:Overlapping policies and guidelines. I would be cleaner to, instead of creating two pages, to include lists, as a separate section, but as part of Wikipedia:Overcategorization (which might have a title change). (Look at WP:CSD for example). CG 13:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use precedent 

message: This page is an attempt to set guidelines favoring one particular outcome of debates about lists--the view of those people there who seem to dislike many lists.  Their view often, but not always prevails, and I see this is an attempt to cast in stone their preferences, especially as it uses for examples some lists about which there was sharp disagreement. Guidelines such as these should be based upon a general consensus, not a possibly temporary victory on some examples. More specifically
*"List of songs about suicide, List of films with female leads, List of Celebrity's pets" There is almost certainly consensus about the second and third examples--but there is no real agreement about the first. Personally, I support most such lists, especially when the items do correspond to real classes--there are songs specifically about suicide, while most songs are not. I see this not as trivia, but an appropriate subject distinction, and one that is usually fairly obvious. I think we need more of a justification in any particular guideline.  
*"List of University of Washington honorary degree recipients" This is a proposal ignoring the result at AfD -- the article List of University of Alberta honorary degree recipients was discussed on  4 June 2007., and the decision was no consensus" Another similar (and in my opinion more distinguished) list, [[List of recipients of Honorary Doctorates at the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven  was deleted there at about the same time. It is obvious that there is no real agreement on such lists.  DGG 17:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: (Almost) Totally disagree

message: Yes, this page is a good idea, but like WP:OCAT it should be based upon existing and accepted AFD outcomes. Incidentally you may want to borrow some of the wording from OCAT, in particular wrt arbitrary and unclear inclusion criteria. I'd suggest keeping the two pages separate, although they should cross-reference; for instance, OCAT mentions in several spots that a list is better for that kind of information. The best approach is to only make entries on this page for which you can find three or four semi-recent AFD debates that indeed favored deleting them. >Radiant< 15:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I am trying to look for examples, but going through all the AFD archives is taking a while. Please feel free to add whatever is missing from here, like the wording from OCAT. Bulldog123 21:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some thoughts 

message: I added a bunch of real examples. I still need real example of Agenda-Oriented lists. So far I could only find a few without digging through the thousands of archives. Can anyone help? Bulldog123 04:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Recently, I've been calling for and working towards  complete overhaul of the D&D wikiproject, which is full of unfiltered fancruft. Some people aren't happy with the elimination of fancruft, and instead have been proposing that we turn it all into lists, which would be standalone lists, and although this is already against policy, something like ovverlistification would allow for a better guideline in making lists, not just deleting them. It would be good to have a policy that makes people think twice about adding in another list. Yes, it helps people after AfD's, but so many of the lists on Wiki need to be deleted due to simple worthlessness. Piuro 19:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Real Examples

message: Since this guideline is proposing to tweak the Overcategorization guideline for use with lists, this guideline needs to be more integrated with Wikipedia:List guideline and Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists). Categories and lists are similar but separate beasts and this guideline needs to reflect that. As it states at Wikipedia:List guideline, lists have three main purposes: Information, Navigation, and Development.
This guideline doesn't reflect any of this and appears to being developed separately from the list guidelines, using only category specific info. That said, there are some good things in this proposed guideline. In particular, the Irrelevant Intersections by Race, Gender, Beliefs, Sexuality, Ethnicity, and Religion Lists appears similar to what I've proposed at Wikipedia:Proposed guideline for lists of people by ethnicity, religion, and other cultural categorizations. Some tweaking of language would be needed, but the similarities are there.
Unfortunately, there is the appearance that this guideline is being created to bolster one side of the debate around the deletion of certain types of lists. I'm sure the same could be said for my proposed guideline. Perhaps we should try to fix this perception. As people may know, the guidelines and policies which succeed at Wikipedia tend to be the ones which reach consensus from people on both sides of a debate. Perhaps we should merge info from Wikipedia:Proposed guideline for lists of people by ethnicity, religion, and other cultural categorizations with this proposed guideline, bring in info from the current list guidelines, and see if we all can't reach a general consensus on this issue. Any thoughts on this from people?--Alabamaboy 18:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *A merger of the proposals seems prudent. Murcielago 18:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: ** I continue to believe that both of these proposals need to be merged with WP:LIST there's no reason to add additional list guidelines to a location other than "List guidelines". --JayHenry 20:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: *I agree, a merger seems to be acceptable to provide a concrete system for lists, the current policy being a bit hit and miss at the moment. SGGH speak! 21:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: *I'm for a merger of the proposals. To me it seems as the most logical way to go. Tony the Marine 00:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bulldog, the simple fact is that you and I have both been working on proposed guidelines which intersect. Merging them seems logical and, as I said, if opposing sides on an issue can reach consensus, then the guideline has a great chance of passing. If you are interesting in doing this, please let us know. But if you're not interested, please state so now so we don't waste our time. But do realize that unless we try to achieve true consensus on all this, these guidelines will likely fail. --Alabamaboy 11:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I might be willing to combine parts. Depends on what. Bulldog123 06:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with proposed guidelines, possible ways to achieve consensus 

message: I find it unacceptable to refer to this proposal as a basis for non-notability of articles.  I don't understand why this proposal was submitted shortly before the List of journalists killed in Russia was filed for deletion.  The Wikipedia:Categorization of people guideline allows for intersections of occupation and residence categories such as "Journalists" & "Russian".  I don't think intersecting that with the "Murdered" category will make the sub-category non-notable.  I can't find a matching example in Wikipedia:Overcategorization. ilgiz 01:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Enlisting articles for deletion based on compliance with this proposal

message: I'm converting this from a proposal to an essay. However, I do very much want other people to contribute to this essay, whether it be deleting or adding material, because I don't want it to just be seen as a deletionist standpoint. Thanks to Sam, JayHenry, and DHowell for being thorough commenters. Please do consider implementing revisions. Bulldog123 21:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Transferring into Essay: For Now

message: There is a bit of controversy at the moment about such articles as List of Rajputs and List of Poles. What do we think, would this be better represented as a category, or as a list, or both? Perhaps we can add something to either this page or OCAT. >Radiant< 11:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lists of... 

message: Tweaking the overcategorization guideline to apply it to lists doesn't make any sense. As WP:OC says in its introduction,
:"not every verifiable fact (or the intersection of two or more such facts) in an article requires an associated category. For lengthy articles, this could potentially result in hundreds of categories, most of which aren't particularly relevant. This may also make it more difficult to find any particular category for a specific article. This trend is also known as overcategorization." (emphasis added)
That is the only reason to avoid overcategorization given in the guideline. It is a practical reason, based on the limitations of the software. If we could display arbitrary intersections in a usable way, they would actually help rather than hinder the navigation and usefulness of the project. But as it is, adding too many categories result in a cluttered and nearly-useless footer at the bottom of the page.
The reason above does not apply to lists. Inclusion in a list article does not clutter any other articles, as the only effect shows up in the "What links here" tool, which is very minor. Lists can be useful for navigation. I don't know where people get the idea that every single page on Wikipedia has to be "encyclopedic" (whatever that means), when it is quite obvious that we do have many pages that are not encyclopedia articles but just navigational aids (think about disambiguation pages, for example). Lists can also be seen as navigational aids, similar to categories but without some of the limitations of categories. --Itub 12:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I agree, but that does not answer my concern that it makes no sense to try to apply to lists a guideline that was written for categories based on practical limitations of categories that lists do not have. --Itub 06:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Lists and categories overlap, and increasingly so over time.  One reason for this is that there are editors who work primarily on lists to the exclusion of categories, and vice versa.  It's idiotic to get rid of the works of one group in favor of the other.  Both are viable core navigation systems!  The two sides often leapfrog each other -- and that's a good thing.  The competition should be kept to leapfrogging, which is healthy, rather than let devolve into the fiercer cut-throat competition of deletion, which is unhealthy for Wikipedia because actual work is lost.  For example, sometimes a well-developed list gets deleted because a category could conceivably do the same thing, even though the category is practically empty.  Well, that's a poor strategy for developing an encyclopedia.  Let lists and categories co-exist.  Together they are synergistic, because people are synergistic.  Don't alienate your listmakers or your category builders.  Live and let live.  The Transhumanist 21:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lists are not categories! 

message: While I do support WP:OCAT, I don't support this Overlistification proposal in its current form.  Here are some of my problems with it:
- The proposal appears to imply that "tweaking" the category guidelines should apply to lists.  However categories intentionally are supposed to have a higher barrier against creation than lists because a bad category can affect a hundred articles while a bad list is just a single bad article.  Valid categories generally make for valid lists, but not all valid lists make for valid categories.  So the restrictions on creating lists are intentionally looser than the restrictions on creating categories.
- In the section "Irrelevant Intersections by Race, Gender, Beliefs, Sexuality, Ethnicity, and Religion Lists", the proposal says that "There must be a reasonable amount of solid, mainstream articles, books, or documentaries specifically addressing the issue of a connection between the intersectees and showing how that relationship is manifested, for it to have some notability as an intersection. The existence of the intersection outside of wikipedia is not proof enough that it is a notable intersection." I actually am not sure I entirely believe that statement is true.  That's because lists serve dual purposes.  One is to present a combination of entries to inform the reader on a broader topic.  The other, though, is to serve as search indices for related articles on a topic, much like categories serve as search indices for their articles.  
It is quite possible, I think, for a list to serve a useful function as a navigational list for the reader without the "overall topic" of the list being specifically notable.  There are probably useful ways of organizing navigational hub articles within broad topics that haven't been discussed, and these hubs do not always constitute original research since they do not necessarilly constitute an original opinion or rely on primary sources for their reliability.  
Therefore I don't currently accept the general notion that overall list topics need to have been thoroughly discussed by outside publications.  Rather, the list needs to be properly referenced, having an easily and objectively determinable inclusion criteria (to avoid the list actually being original research) and serve some sort of useful function for readers on the topic.
- Under "Trivia/Trivial lists", the section says that "This is essentially expanding upon what wikipedia is not: an indiscriminate collection of information."  That is an incorrect statement because WP:IINFO does not deal with trivia at all.  The word trivia doesn't even appear in the section, and that is intentional. Rather, IINFO is the catch-all for WP:NOT that includes various specific types of information which Wikipedia can discriminate against.  
Now that being said, there is a proposal on the WP:NOT page to introduce a new section to WP:NOT that outlines what the five pillars mean when they say "Wikipedia is not a trivia collection."  There is also the "Not a directory of loosely associated facts" section that is sometimes relevant to trivia lists.  And there's also WP:TRIVIA as a style guide. So my advice would be that if you want to mention trivia at all you should reference any or all of those sections and not "indiscriminate collection of information".
- In "Over-extensive Lists" the section appears to contradict itself by saying that "When a list is prone to having many listees that can never have an article written about them, or that simply fail notability, the list can usually be deemed as over-extensive and would probably function better as a category." The problem with that statement is that clearly if a large number of entries on a list don't have articles then you can't use a category for it because the category will be missing a large number of entries.
It is quite possible for a list to contain both a mix of entries which have their own separate articles and entries which do not have their own articles.  For example, I think the odds are good that many song lists will contain songs that do not have their own articles but that, in order to be complete, those songs must be included in the list.  Similarly not all sporting events have their own article, but it's quite possible to have lists of related events within a season or for a team or player which is a necessary data adjunct to a discussion on the topic.  Even with non-notable entries, though, the list as a whole can still serve a useful navigational or informative purpose for readers on the topic, especially when it contains at least some notable entries with their own articles. 
So in summary I can't support this proposal as written, and even possibly as it is currently intended to function.  It would take a serious rewrite for me to consider this as a guideline. Dugwiki 15:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with many of the sentiments against this proposal in large part. I also see that many editors assume that red links equal a sort of lack of notability, and therefore a list that contains a subjectively "high number" of red links would work better as a category. I also agree with previous posts that this is something WP:LISTS should be considering, if it were ever to become a guideline. I find it troublesome, also, that many AFD voters state "indiscriminate collection of information" as a rationale, then fail to state what part of that section the list fails. It seems as though they are basing such arguments on some instinctive gut intuition rather than policy or guidelines when they vote like that. Personally, I believe anyone who cannot point to the specific violation in detail who votes should not be counted, as their informed judgment cannot be at all discerned. Finally, I find it very unfortunate that deletionists have been referring to this page as a justification for the deletion of lists. It is not policy. It is not a guideline. It is the opinion of an author that is striving to gain consensus for their essay (which is fine by me, despite my disagreement with it). (Mind meal 22:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: *I honestly don't see how that statement is extreme. It just prevents people from assuming obscure mentions of trivia are to be listified immediately, which is the case very often. Bulldog123 20:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do not currently support this proposal 

message: It would seem to me (in looking over the discussion examples) that all but one of the entries on this page are essentially saying the same thing:
*Intersections by Race, Gender, Beliefs, Sexuality, Ethnicity, or Religion require notability.
The other entry concerns "trivia", which is, of course, subjective anyway. (Which is also explained more clearly in other guidelines, style guides, and the like.)
It would seem to me that, since this is merely 2 ideas, that the two ideas be merged to some more appropriate page (for ease of reference, at least). For example, the essays Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Listcruft seem to cover similar perspectives. 
Or as an alternative, remove the trivia entry (or merge it elsewhere), and refactor this page to be about:
*Intersections by Race, Gender, Beliefs, Sexuality, Ethnicity, or Religion in Categories, lists, and series boxes.
This could be clearer, cleaner, and likely be less controverial that way. - jc37 18:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Please do that. I'd support it. Bulldog123 20:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The entries

message: I see that this proposed, and possibly unfinished page has been worked on by basically a single editor, who contributed extensively in June, not so much in July, and whose last contribution was 2 months ago. I also see a fair amount of recent opposes by established editors above. Has the time come for a final discussion on whether to accept, reject, or amend this proposal? - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 04:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine with me. My current opinion is to delete, or at least refactor into an essay involving: Intersections by Race, Gender, Beliefs, Sexuality, Ethnicity, or Religion in Categories, lists, and series boxes. - jc37 07:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree, deletion or essay.  Wikidemo 15:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text: **It's kinda silly how everyone keeps complaining I was the only contributor to this essay instead of just CONTRIBUTING to it by themselves. I've said millions of times I wanted people to change what they didn't like but nobody did anything, and quite frankly asking for it to be "deleted" (which, all in all, is totally unnecessary for an essay) sounds a lot like a radical inclusionist standpoint. So no wonder, AlabamaBoy's proposing to delete an essay, as his proposal is much more liberal than mine was. Besides, I didn't reopen this essay for proposal status- that was done by someone else. Bulldog123 19:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Status

message: Nor is listification. (Is it possible that its meaning might be found in some obscure reference somewhere.) Why is this a problem? Because it may make this article original research (WP:NOR ) and since it is not a word then it lacks notability (WP:N ). Perhaps renaming the article to perhaps "Over listing" or perhaps "excessive listing" might solve the problem and make finding the article easier for those unfamiliar with the Wiki..I'm making the point for your consideration; I'll leave any discussion of this point to those concerned. --User:Warrior777 (talk) 19:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overlistification is not a word 

message: I asked on the talk page of List of unmanned aerial vehicles whether the (hugely overblown) list should be reduced by removing all red-linked and non-linked entries - even if they had references (which are typically only links to the manufacturer's website). So far nobody has responded. Should I boldly go ahead and trim it right down? 10mmsocket (talk) 10:42, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advice