Talk:Lists of Australians

message: Wikipedia has a standard for lists at WP:LIST. Some of the lists presently linked from here do not and can not meet it. Rather than scatter conversation across several talk pages, Steve  (Slf67)  and I decided the central place for the discussion is here.
This list of lists was created in response to several lists of Australian people being deleted due to bad criteria and not being maintained. Some lists have already been cleaned up since being put here, some still can be, and some should be removed (my opinion anyway).
My opinion is that if the list membership criteria include "notable", "significant", "has a wikipedia article" or similar, they should be represented by a category, but not a list.
The ones that I don't believe can be made to fit WP:LIST, can not ever be "complete" and have no appropriate objective membership criteria are:
*List of Australian poets
*List of Australian architects
*List of Indigenous Australian musicians - All in :Category:Indigenous Australian musicians --Peta 03:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy to get rid of List of Australian politicians if we can have categories with all members of every state and territory Parliament, and perhaps one each for the Senate and House of Reps, instead. That's a big job, but it's definable and better than that category. JRG 03:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't bother moving it; is hsould really just be merged into the PM article. --Peta 04:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction

message: *I think that, for the most part, you're right with these. Most of those in the top list may be worth deleting - with the exception of List of Australian National University people (which follows a widespread precedent of splitting off alumni list articles when they become too big for the main university article). I also think that most of those in the bottom list could go, with the exception of List of Australians in international prisons and List of Australian university leaders. Rebecca 09:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: General discussion

message: List of Australian National University people has three sections, the first two are "notable" lists. WP:LIST applies to embedded lists as well as standalone lists, so the inclusion criteria don't change just because the list was split out of another article. When you graduate, should User:Rebecca be added to "Notable Alumni" as the "first Australian administrator of Wikipedia"? Notability is predominantly in the eye of the beholder. We can't quickly delete List of Australian politicians as it recently survived AFD. --Scott Davis Talk 13:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't be silly. Everyone on these lists either has an article, or, in a few cases should but doesn't. A list of notable alumni is perfectly relevant content, and I see absolutely no need to get rid of it - or to single out ANU when most decent university articles have the same associated lists. Rebecca 03:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only reason I "singled out ANU" is because it was the only university alumni list in this list of lists at the time I did the review. I'm happy to expand the scope, but this discussion should be general first if possible. Your argument for keeping the top part of List of Australian National University people applies to most of the lists in the top list above, which you agreed could  be worth deleting, too. --Scott Davis Talk 11:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The alumni lists are far more finite than the others and are relatively easy to maintain. I think you're being a bit overzealous here - what is the great problem with keeping it around? Rebecca 02:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I should also say, I think a list of alumni and staff is more useful than a category. This is not the case for many of the lists above.--Peta 23:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Alumni lists

message: I really think that these are better as a category since there is an obvious issue with BLP - I think I remember there being a MoS thing saying that the cats should only be applied if it has been verified - and none of these lists are anywhere close to verified. Any opinions? --Peta 23:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:BLP does indeed state that the article should have a referenced entry that justifies the addition of the cat, and there are further guidelines in WP:Categorization of people.  A list should have the same verifiable reference for each and every entry! It's not just religion though, much of the recent discussion on BLP centred around referencing every detail, and assume that every BLP detail and categorisation is potentially controversial.  --Steve  (Slf67)  talk  01:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Religion lists

message: These are the outcomes on specific lists so far, I've left as redlinks in case any get recreated --Steve  (Slf67)  talk  02:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there's no policy that categories and lists can't co-exist, there's no point in watching these. Editors are more than entitled to recreate them. JRG 12:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not aware of anyone here suggesting that lists and categories cannot co-exist.  Of course editors are entitled to recreate them.  That's the point of watching them to ensure that they are significantly different from the deleted versions and that they are in line with WP:LIST --Steve  (Slf67)  talk  21:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Outcomes

message: I had a look at the Native American and African American lists and one way to improve Prominent Indigenous Australians, would be to break it down into List of... Indigenous Australian politicians; Indigenous Australian sports people; Indigenous Australian visual artists; Indigenous Australian writers; Indigenous Australian performing artists etc. I'm not sure what to do with some of the more unconnected groups of people, like historical figures. Any suggestions, agreement or disagreement? --Peta 03:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Prominent Indigenous Australians

message: From Wikipedia:New articles (Australia), List of Australian scientists was created at 06:50, 25 March 2007 by User:Drinkbeerinpubs.
Seems to be too broad a scope which doesn't lend itself to being maintainable.
Garrie 22:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Garrie that it is too broad in scope, but it appears similar to List of Australian novelists which recently survived AFD. --Scott Davis Talk 14:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, novelist is really quite specific compared to scientist. The entries on the list aren't even just confined to the physical and biological sciences - it also includes social scientists ... --Peta 04:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of Australian scientists]]