Wikipedia talk:Lists in Wikipedia/Archive 2

message: Copied here on January 23, 2006:
I'd like to invite everyone working on this proposal to have a look at:Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and series boxes#Lists and referencesThat is a Village pump (policy) discussion from some months ago, preserved on that talk page.
The ideas I subscribed in that discussion could be summarized:
* Lists are not different from (other) pages in Wikipedia's main (i.e. "article") namespace as far as Verifiability etc... are concerned:
** Avoid "self reference", so: inclusion in a list is not "verified" by the content of another wikipedia article, but by external references in the list (and let these external sources speak for themselves, I mean, what their worth is).
** Avoid "self reference" also in the other direction: mentioning that (e.g.) a composer is gay, with a reference only to another wikipedia page (be it a list with an external reference), is not enough as reference: every article is meant to be stand-alone regarding its references.
* Categories are, by their nature, *only* depending from correctness of references in wikipedia articles: per wikipedia:categorisation of people category definitions need to take care to be formulated thus that they *exclude* doubtful cases (while there's no choice: a "category" name can only appear at the bottom of an article, if that is a characterisation of that person that is broadly supported).
* For lists the definition of the inclusion criteria on the list is of less importance: external reference works may use their own criteria, which may, in some cases, not be interchangeable: the list only notes down what can be found in reputable sources, and leaves it to these sources to use the definitions they think appropriate (wikipedia is not in the position to discriminate between external sources re. which one used the "wrong" definition, and which one used the "right" definition).
* From this follows also that for *many* sensitive topics it is perfectly viable to have as well a category as a list: the category only contains the *non-problematic* examples; the list can contain more names, referring to reference works and their respective inclusion criteria. If such reference work happens to be, e.g., a "newspaper" or "Encyclopaedia Britannica" (with its many factual errors, according to Nature), readers of the wikipedia encyclopedia have to assess for themselves what value they attach to such publications: wikipedia is not prescriptive and can only note down that in such-and-such a publication, such-and-such was contended about someone. Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes says that for many topics several article grouping techniques are used one along another: note that it is clear that it is nowhere said that these grouping techniques are *interchangeable*: for a sensitive topic a list usually can not be converted to a category, neither the other way around (if the external references are not added).
Example of a "successful" list according to the description above: List of gay, lesbian or bisexual composers.
Example of a "successful" category according to the description above: :category:terrorists (well, there was some fierce debate over the category definition, but I remember everyone was pleased with the final result)
:As one of 3-4 main participants, I can barely even begin to describe with words just how unhappy I was with the "final result".  It is true that many weeks of constant and single-minded edit warring by Francis Schonken finally got me to give up and just remove the page from my watchlist.  However, another editor did finally find a phrase that wasn't quite as bad as what Francis Schonken was doing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk • contribs)  diff
::"I'm happy with the proposed text." was your only comment on the category definition that made it. diff --Francis Schonken 10:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  From [[Wikipedia talk:Lists in Wikipedia/Alternative version]] 

message: I tried to improve the wording about the value judgement angle.  Before it had just said "don't make characterizations".  But as I mention in the edit summary, most everything is a characterization.  "List of blond tennis players" would characterize the members of the list; it's just that few people would take that characterization as value-laden.
On the other hand, some lists are going to group things according to criteria about which some people attach value judgements.  The dictators, terrorists, criminals, etc. are clear cases of (generally negative) characterizations, but not ones that are necessarily non-objective.  On the other hand, given politics in the world, some other terms have strong value-judgements attached, but not in a consistent fashion.  Saying someone is Jewish or gay is for some people a way of condemning them; for other people a way of praising them; I personally am entirely value-neutral about these characteristics... but I can hardly command readers of the list to share my value-neutrality.  All I can do is make sure that—however readers might feel about the characteristic—I add or remove it only because of satisfaction of criterial evidence, not because I want to praise or condemn the person/thing listed (this must be true even for editors who feel the trait is either good or bad in some moral sense). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarifying value judgement 

message: I got thinking some more about this, and how to explain it.  To my mind (as I've said before in the talk thread now archived), the long-standing consensus of editor of a Wikipedia article on a given topic is about the best source for a given fact.  Adding an external citation for a fact the "content article" doesn't see fit to mention raises a minor bit of suspicion, in fact.
An example came to mind where I believe this is pretty clear.  Maybe this is better than the GWB/dictator example, since "dictator" has so many complex definitional issues.  If there was a List of murderers, that would not necessarily violate NPOV.  It is a classification usually taken as pejorative, but facts such as criminal convictions are pretty well verifiable (that may or may not be the exact criterion used, e.g. for historical figures).  Well, someone might want to add Hillary Clinton to this list, under the rather widespread (in certain circles), but absolutely unproven and non-consensus notion that she murdered Vince Foster.  I could probably find 500 external sources that made this claim (admittedly, very few of them doing very well by WP:RS).  On the other hand, there's absolutely no way the claim would remain in Clinton's WP article as a consensus fact for more than a few seconds, because... well, it's not consensus.  And precisely that fact that the subject area experts who edit the Clinton article keep this claim out of the article (on purpose), is our best evidence of what consensus is.
I use an example, of course, that is relatively well known, especially to USAian readers.  But for less prominent figures, average editors of the list (who may have never heard of the alleged murderer) really have no basis to judge whether some external citation is particularly reliable.  That's exactly where turning to the collective expertise of Wikipedia's own experts becomes crucial Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I could not have argued it better. Thank you for the explanation. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 03:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why long-standing consensus is ''better than'' external citation 

message: Please, WP:PA is actual policy, not even just a guideline, so let's try to keep to that. 
Aside from the nastiness in the edit history, this insertion is puzzling:
:Until this becomes something more than a proposal (which may never happen) the applicable guideline is Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes
Leaving aside the editorializing, the pointer to that other guideline is hard to make sense of.  It's a perfectly good guideline, but it has nearly zero overlap with the content of this proposal.  It would make about as much sense to point readers to WP:BIO as a guideline... which it is, but also not much related.  This here proposed guideline isn't about the organizational question of when to use lists vs. categories, but rather about how specifically to apply WP:V and WP:NOR in the context of lists (which have a special set of dangers and issues that are distinct from those on "content articles" or even in categories).  Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No flame wars (proposal, guideline, etc) 

message: IMO, the problem appears to arise from a widely-held belief that lists are exempt from verifiability (and verifying based on other Wikipedia articles is just a walled garden argument), and from Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If those two policies were consistently applied and invoked, I suspect that the rather rampant listcruft in circulation would be less of a problem.
Notability for lists is particularly difficult. When we had lists of groups of four, five, six, seven, and eight AFD-ed shortly after the other earlier this year, it was perhaps a minor victory for common sense. I still think that examining the rationale for creating a list is in order. If the rationale is "It would be cool to have a list of these", then the list should not be created. Stifle 11:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What appears to be the problem 

message: I would like to discuss criteria (and form consensus or policy), namely, what entitles a list to have its title occupy the (Main) namespace (as opposed to being relegated to a subpage of another article). For example: Isaac Asimov complete bibliography -- Robocoder 17:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main page vs Subpage 

message: We have an opportunity to expand the knowledge contained in Wikipedia by allowing notable/verifiable items without articles yet to have external links. There are many reasons why article-worthy things may not have articles yet, and adding a link to a list (with some talk page support where needed) is a much simpler procedure than starting a new article. It may even encourage someone to start the article. This will make WP lists a more useful starting point for researchers too.
I mention this because some lists are policed by people who think that only things with existing WP articles can possibly be noteworthy; WP has not reached this point yet. Stephen B Streater 17:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding external links to lists is a bad idea IMO. See WP:NOT. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 18:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is from WP:NOT: "There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article". So which part of WP:NOT in particular are you quoting? Stephen B Streater 19:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia is not a repository of links. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 21:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  WP policy at (Wikipedia is not a repository of links) includes: "There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article". Your stated opinion is out of line with policy. I think it would be better if ant new list guideline reflected this policy. Stephen B Streater 07:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One or more links in an article is acceptable. Many links instead of articles in a list is not acceptable. If a subject is notable, it should have an article in WP. If no article exists, create a redlink New item in list about subject and hopefully an editor will come and create the article. Adding links as itenms in a list is neither encylcopedic, nor useful. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 01:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am interested in your comments on List of live webcams in the world. Stephen B Streater 06:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That list is probably an exception as each entry must be an external link. On the other hand, and unless you specify a tight criteria for inclusion, you will end up with a list that has no encyclopedic value, and open to abuse. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 02:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's an exception - if the cams are independently notable they should have articles; if they are not independently notable they should be removed as being, well, not notable.  WP:NOT a link farm, and it's not a webcam search engine either. Just zis Guy you know? 20:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links in lists 

message: ;Supports upgrading this proposal to Guideline status
# Support A much needed guideline. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 02:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote: Support 

message: :POLL CLOSED BY Francis Schonken
:Per wikipedia:how to create policy#Guidelines for creating policies and guidelines, No. 10: Do not call a vote.
:And per: Jossi, you simply never understood the problems with this guideline proposal. As it is now, it is contrary to wikipedia:verifiability, wikipedia:no original research and wikipedia:neutral point of view. That has been explained to you several times on this and other pages. You have taken so much ownership of this page, that you have reverted anyone trying to bring this guideline proposal in line with these and other policies. wikipedia:neutral point of view is non-negotiable. Period. No vote over this guideline proposal. --Francis Schonken 06:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not refactor material from talk pages. I am polling the community to get a sense for the level of support for this proposed guideline. This is not a vote to create consensus, but a poll to assess if there is such consensus. Read wikipedia:how to create policy#Guidelines for creating policies and guidelines . As for your other comments please remain civil and constructive. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 14:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a second warning: please do not delete or archive current discussions. Also, please do not move this talk page to an archive as we lose the histroy as a result. Cut and paste if you want to archive. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 15:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: This is my third and last warning. I have placed a complaint at WP:ANI for your behavior in this talk page. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 15:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments