Wikipedia talk:List guidelines reborn

message: * Move this page to Wikipedia:Notability (lists);
* Then, list it in the "active proposals and essays" section of Template:Notabilityguide;
* Change the boilerplate & shortcut template from  and  to ;
* Add the  template to the page;
* Have a look at Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia, a comparable prior attempt (no consensus reached) - non-contested parts of the content of that prior proposal might be merged with this new proposal;
* Add  templates to both guideline proposals.
Actually, I think I'll already proceed with the 3rd and 6th of these ideas. --Francis Schonken 08:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some suggestions 

message: *Lists may not center around a subject that contains necessarily controversial value judgments.
This provision is a minefield and I suggest that it be removed. It would effect many lists that have survived AfD and which are entirely reasonable, such as list of dictators or list of groups referred to as cults. -Will Beback 17:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, my reason for including this was that, for one, it already is part of an existing guideline (here), and I want to exclude blatant and controversial subjectivism while keeping lists that require "value judgments", but are clearly and obviously so.  This was inspired in part from an AfD argument on List of car flops.  One user contended that the definition of "car flop" is inherently POV, and therefore was welcome as an article.  I, however, felt that a "car flop" was straightforward and required no formal and exact definition, and any controversial entries could simply be explained within the list or removed.  I still stand by that, and I simply see no reason to delete lists like that because of a remote chance for controversy.  (That explains the wording of the criterion.)  As for the "List of dictators", I realize that it is a contentious issue, but truth cannot always be achieved through consensus, and no matter how many Mussolini-loyalists there are, he still was a dictator.  Of course, we can have a paragraph next to each entry describing the controversy.  That's the beauty of a list.  You are probably in agreement with me here, so perhaps instead of removing the list, we can rephrase it somehow to assert that logic reigns on Wikipedia.  What do you think?
AdamBiswanger1 02:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That part of the guideline was added recently with no discussion. I think the matter issue is that lists should have clear, objective criteria. -Will Beback 03:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True--it's hard to do that, though, and I fear that many legitimate lists will be tossed asunder because of their inability to be defined. AdamBiswanger1 04:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If "car flops" had an objective criteria (# sold, for exmaple) then it wouldn't be a bad list. It isn't the "value judgment" which is a problem, it is the lack of a verifiable criteria. -Will Beback 04:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Value judgments 

message: It would be nice to something about categories. I see lots of lists being deleted (quite sensibly) on the basis that "that's what categories are for", but WP:CLS doesn't lay down any guidelines on this. Perhaps something on the lines of Can not be reasonably duplicated by use of categories Yomangani 23:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually criterion #5 addresses this. "The list must not be containable in a category, either because of the number of red links that could be articles, the organization of entries not being alphabetical, or because of explanation needed beside each entry" AdamBiswanger1 01:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I can't believe I missed that: it's in there twice - that's exactly what I meant. Yomangani 09:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries : ) AdamBiswanger1 02:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I already addressed this issue on the existing guideline's talk page, but you seem to be bypassing the established process for changing a guideline.  Therefore, I shall repost my reply to this issue here:
* I highly object, as lists are much more versatile than categories, and can be made use of in ways that categories cannot.  You can't cut and paste a category very easily (it's a real pain actually), while lists are a breeze to do this with, and are in this sense quite modular.  I don't see redundancy with categories as a problem, but instead I see this as a benefit to Wikipedia.  
#First, lists are centralized link depots, categories are decentralized.  You can't directly edit a category's membership, you have to go to each page to do this, but lists can be created and maintained on the spot on the page itself.  
#Second, a page's membership in a category is often opposed by the page's maintainer, who removes the category link from the page.  I've run into this a lot, and it results in ommissions throughout the category system.  Lists don't run into this problem, because lists don't modify any pages other than itself - it's links are non-intrusive, because it links to the page and not the other way around.  
#Third, when a page drops off a category (because someone removed its link or the page got deleted), there's no way to track this from the category.  You have to either recognize that the page is missing, or (ironically) check an independent inventory list for that category.  All changes to lists, on the other hand, are recorded in the list's edit history, while deleted pages show up as redlinks.  
#Fourth, list construction and development is an ongoing process, and just because a list doesn't have any extra features yet (like annotation), doesn't mean those can't or won't be added in the future.  To delete a list because it isn't augmented, duplicates effort when someone is ready to make an augmented list - it's much easier to annotate an existing list than it is to rebuild that list all over again from scratch, which is exactly what is forced to happen when a list is deleted.
#Fifth, with respect to reference tools, redundancy is a good thing.  With lists and categories, if one subsystem doesn't have what you need, there's a complementary subsystem to check.  And because of the nature of wikis, and its quirks, no system of classification is ever going to be complete (e.g., the ommissions problem previously mentioned), so having two overlapping categorization systems is actually quite helpful.
Way too many lists have been deleted by listkillers who are biased in favor of the category system.  Unfortunately, the category system doesn't do a good job of replacing the list system as an indexing tool.  We need to include a guideline that "because it duplicates a category" is not a valid reason to delete a list.  --Polar Deluge 10:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Categories

message: It is standard Wikipedia practice to propose changes to a guideline on that guideline's talk page.  I've addressed each issue from this draft as well as a previously proposed draft on Wikipedia talk:List guideline, and humbly request that you continue this discussion there.  --Polar Deluge 10:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ongoing discussions are already underway on the existing guideline's talk page

message: I know this is just an example, but still: "it would be improper to merge "African vocalists" with "African musicians", because the two are distinct entities". They are? I know quite a few opera singers who would be very angry at the suggestion that vocalists aren't musicians. User:Angr 10:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While being a vocalist involves musical talent, perhaps even to the degree of a regular musician, to me, the word "musician" implies someone who plays an instrument. If you would like to find a better example, feel free to be bold and change it. AdamBiswanger1 16:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vocalists aren't musicians?