Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lists/Archive 3

message: How would you go about formatting a list where the list is interrupted by text?
Thanks,
The freddinator 16:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interrupted Numbered Lists 

message: I think the guidelines ought to cover the adding of lists to "see also" entries. I see many cases where the links are tenuous and where the reader value is questionable (e.g. why would somebody reading about, say, a singer who happens to be mixed race - and whose career hasn't been defined by that - want to click through to a list of mixed race people?). --kingboyk 12:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They shouldn't. Delete it unless it is directly relevant and not mentioned in the article. --Flex (talk|contribs) 18:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linking to lists 

message: to use when a list is being considered to be turned into a category? maybe something along the lines of "This list is being considered for Categorization, blah blah blah April 2007, discuss on the talk page" or something? --Piemanmoo 06:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  is there a template 

message: When creating a standalone list which contains only existing wikipedia articles, how is attribution handled? Should references be left to the individual articles in the list, or should they be transcribed over to the list page? I ask because a list I am working on has been tagged as unreferenced, but looking around for examples I haven't yet found a List which includes references. Marasmusine 06:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that the references should be in the articles themselves unless some particular item is disputed (or likely to be disputed). --Flex (talk|contribs) 18:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attribution 

message: Are unannotated but complete bibliographic lists of notable authors encyclopedic under WP:NOT if the vast majority of the books wouldn't qualify for independent articles under WP:BK? If so, what is the threshold for making the list a separate article? See for instance John Piper bibliography. Compare also :Category:Bibliographies by author. --Flex (talk|contribs) 18:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bibliographies

message: Please see Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29#Mass_deletion_of_obsolete_lists.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mass deletion of obsolete lists

message: The notice at the top of guideline pages states This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia. It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow.
But Jossi, you posted changes directly to the guideline without it becoming generally accepted first.  That renders the guideline notice totally false.
There are over 8,000 lists on Wikipedia, which in turn contain hundreds of thousands of listed items and links.  So any change to the guideline pertaining to them has wide ramifications.  A single individual should not be allowed to unilaterally and single-handedly change a well-established guideline.
Changes to the guideline should be made after consensus has been reached concerning the proposed change.  Sincerely, The Transhumanist    23:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. I agree. I added the wording as I believe that it was a worthy addition. Another editor reverted (and that is fine) but did not engage in a discussion. So I reverted again to force a discussion. Now hopefully people are engaging in a discussion and that is good. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You've still got it wrong. The editing cycle for ordinary articles is bold, revert, discuss, not bold, revert, rebold-and-discuss. You could have, and should have, started the dicussion without the re-bolding edit. Since I explained my action in the edit summary, I think it is optional for me to start the discussion; I've seen many reverts accepted without discussion. But since, by two opinions, you improperly used "bold" in a discuss-first Wikiguide, I decided to give you the option of letting the improper edit drop from sight, rather than face your present embarrassment. Milo 05:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the only one being embarrassed is you, Milo. It is sad that you do not notice it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Such a change needs wider discussion 

message: Quoting that policy...
Wikipedia works by building consensus.  Consensus is an inherent part of the wiki process.  The basic process works like this:  someone makes an edit to a page, and then everyone who reads the page makes a decision to either leave the page as it is or change it.  Over time, every edit that remains on a page, in a sense, has the unanimous approval of the community (or at least everyone who has looked at the page).  "Silence equals consent" is the ultimate measure of consensus — somebody makes an edit and nobody objects or changes it.    Most of the time consensus is reached as a natural product of the editing process.
So the arguments above and the guideline change they support, which would require "overwhelming consensus" prior to including them in a list (or even creating a list in the first place) violates the essence of "silence equals consent".
Therefore, I oppose Jossi's changes to the guideline.
Note that guidelines and policies do riquire the building of consensus first.  But to require that articles be subject to the same procedure would create a terrible bottleneck in their development.
Sincerely, 
The Transhumanist    23:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You objection is noted. Now let's discuss the merits or lack thereof of the addition. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The change contradicts [[WP:CONSENSUS]] 

message: First, I'm not happy that once again, the text was added back (I'm talking about yesterday before the dispute tag).  You can't revert on the basis of someone else's argument, or on the basis of NPOV policy, because not having the text there doesn't change NPOV policy.
Some people think that adding a reminder about NPOV here, and talking about how it applies to lists will help.  Not having it doesn't abandon policy.  The issue is that there are two parts of the text that overreach.  Do not continue adding stuff in or removing dispute tags or whatever until there is consensus.  That's not conforming to NPOV or anything else, that's called WP:OWN, and refusing to recognize that your opinion is only an OPINION.
Now, I added a dispute tag--this has been going on so long, that actually it's the first section which was most contested, and that part has already been rewritten slightly if I recall correctly.
Let me tell you what I think is exactly the problem with the text.
My problem with the first section is the phrase "value judgments".  You can prove that someone is a demagogue--just because it isn't nice to call someone that doesn't mean that we shouldn't make factual lists.  Secondly, we have all sorts of lists based on public perception.  List of iconic drinkers.  Iconic.  It's based on public perception.  Verifiable, but certainly a value judgement.
My issue with the second section is as follows:
"be sure to confirm that this is a widely held opinion, otherwise you will be in disregard of NPOV"
Widly held opinion.  Widly held by whom?  Any list having to do with anything political or religious will have multiple widly held opinions.  I'm concerned that this text will be cited as saying that certain lists can't exist because a "list of religious terrorists" doesn't give the other side of the story.  Religious terrorists are only called terrorists to one set of people.  The system should work fine--they can go on any list technically applicable.  People could add the same names to a list of religious terrorists and a list of religious martyrs.  But people either don't or kick up a fuss.  But I can't see how getting rid of lists that show a widely held opinion, but only one widly held opinion is the answer.
Any solutions? Am I wrong about the intent of the second section, or how I think it will be interpreted?Miss Mondegreen  talk  06:39, May 8 2007
*Perhaps we should take a leaf out of WP:OCAT and talk about lists with arbitrary or not objectively definable inclusion criteria. >Radiant< 09:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is an excellent idea, Radiant. There are many parallels between Lists and Categories, in particular when we are trying to categorize opinions of third parties about people or organizations.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Mondegereen, you say "Any list having to do with anything political or religious will have multiple widely held opinions." and that is exactly my point. Such lists are POV magnets, fail NPOV as competing opinions will be disallowed, and in many cases fal NOR as well, as the criteria for inclusion in the list is often time concocted by editors in a futile attempt to fix what cannot be fixed in relation to violation of content policies. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but it doesn't mean that these lists shouldn't exist--they just have to be done as more than lists of names, they have to be done as list articles.  If you want to place emphasis on NPOV, then you need to place empahsis on the proper way to write a list. Miss Mondegreen  talk  08:33, May 9 2007
=== Please do not skip the proposal process ===
The policy for the establishment of policies and guidelines (and changes to them) is covered at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines.  First you propose, and if it is accepted by the community, then it becomes part of the guideline, not the other way around.  Jossi, you just went straight to the guideline and changed it, which is a blatant violation of Wikipedia policy.  Policy requires that consensus be reached via discussion first.  Please follow the proper procedure here, and wait for a consensus to emerge from discussion of your proposed addition to the guideline.  Thank you.  The Transhumanist    22:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: You can spare me the "blatant" part. Yes, I added the text in a attempt to describe what I believe to be existing policy and to generate a discussion which we are having. Many editors supported the addition. Rather than pass judgment on other editor's  actions, I would expect you contribute to the discussion. What is your position on the matter? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't allude to "official processes" that don't actually exist. WP:NOBOOK. People edit guidelines all the time and that is not in principle a problem. >Radiant< 09:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  disputed content 

message: The policy for the establishment of policies and guidelines (and changes to them) is covered at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines.  First you propose, and if it is accepted by the community, then it becomes part of the guideline, not the other way around.  Jossi, you just went straight to the guideline and changed it, which is a blatant violation of Wikipedia policy.  Policy requires that consensus be reached via discussion first.  Please follow the proper procedure here, and wait for a consensus to emerge from discussion of your proposed addition to the guideline.  Thank you.  The Transhumanist    22:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can spare me the "blatant" part. Yes, I added the text in a attempt to describe what I believe to be existing policy and to generate a discussion which we are having. Many editors supported the addition. Rather than pass judgment on other editor's  actions, I would expect you contribute to the discussion. What is your position on the matter? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't allude to "official processes" that don't actually exist. WP:NOBOOK. People edit guidelines all the time and that is not in principle a problem. >Radiant< 09:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please do not skip the proposal process 

message: See Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28lists_of_works%29#Necessity_of_forking_bibliography_from_main_article
-BillDeanCarter 01:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Please chime in on a discussion over the forking of bibliographies