Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lists/Archive 2

message: Some lists refer to sublists that already have their own main articles. In these cases, should only the link to the separate sublist be given, to avoid redundancy? Shawnc 17:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of lists 

message: I know that this is a somewhat vague headline, but I'm not really sure how to be more specific in a few words.  I basically have two questions, both of which relate specifically to the current list of U.S. radio programs, although I think that they may also apply elsewhere.
One - The simpler question.  Should all items which qualify for inclusion on the list and already have their own pages in wikipedia be included on the list or not?  
Two - The harder question.  I note that there was a radio program on the Blue Beetle for one season in 1940, and that that radio program is mentioned in passing on the Blue Beetle page.  Should such items, which would not qualify as significant in their own right, be included on the list for the sake of completeness?  If the concensus is "yes", I will do my best to go about finding all such "buried" items and doing the minimal revision of existing pages required to list the full name of the show and include them on the list mentioned above.Badbilltucker 13:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Items to be Included in Lists? 

message: Added important aspects about criteria for inclusion in lists, that are inline with content policies of WP (V, NPOV, NOR and NOT)   ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 03:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additions 

message: Would it be appropriate to have a section in this guideline showing how to make two column (or more) lists? I couldn't find anything in WP explaining how to do that. There are a few ways, including divs and .--Commander Keane 05:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multi-columned lists 

message: I rashly added the text below to the project page at the section, #Boilerplate text.  It has rightly been brought to my attention that it may violate WP:Self.  If so, then does  also violate WP:Self? Can anyone suggest a solution? —Markles 12:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Incomplete-list is more of a clean-up tag, which are approved for use on the article namespace.  A better notice would be something like  added to the section text instead of adding the template.  The message would only need to be seen by someone editing the article, as opposed to clean up tags which point out things that can be missed by both editor and reader. -- Ned Scott 13:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An example of this can be seen on Canada . -- Ned Scott 14:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *I've tried using the "" note, but since it's only visible in the editor, well-intentioned but incorrect users nonetheless go in and edit the list anyway, perhaps ignoring the note or by section-editing.  Maybe a smaller Complete list template could be used?—Markles 15:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|Complete-list}} 

message: * I've removed the following paragraph from the guideline:
:* Identitarian lists are another example where POV may often be incorporated. For example, on List of Jewish jurists and List of gay, lesbian or bisexual composers some editors add names to these lists out of a kind of self-affirmation.  To put it frankly, editors who are themselves, Jewish, born-again, or LGBT (or otherwise wish to affirm the value of those qualities), feel comforted by adding names of famous and respected people to their List of people like me.  In these types of examples, membership in the adjectival category is both contextual and often not obvious.
* I'm shocked that this statement singling out members of minority religions/sexual orientations has stood unchallenged for the last month. The guideline is pseudo-wikipedia policy. It should not be  used to cast aspersions on specific groups (as if Jews and gays were the only groups that enjoy "self-affirmation"). --JJay 14:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just made the paragraph generic, without examples. I may be harder to understand, but at least does not have the chance to offend anyone. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 15:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me. :-) --ZsinjTalk 15:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I was in the midst of writing a long comment, when I saw the latest rewrite to the paragraph in question. I think I can live with the phrasing as it now stands. Good job. --JJay 16:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed racist paragraph

message: :The subject of the list must worthy enough for an article, or obviously and self-evidently related to another subject that deserves an article.  One could write an article List of vegetables, because vegetables deserve an article.  How about "list of legislative buildings by construction material" (brick, stone)?  This cannot be a list because it is unreasonable to have an article called "Construction materials used in legislative buildings". 
and...
:A list is encyclopedic only if the topic of the list is encyclopedic. Hence:
#A list should not be created unless it is directly related to an existing, established, non-stub article.
#Lists should not be initially created as standalone articles. They should always be created as part of the existing article to which they relate. This facilitates oversight by editors with an interest in the topic of the list. Lists should only be broken out into standalone articles when their length becomes disproportionate to the rest of the article.''
* Agree with the above (2nd one). ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 05:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article worthy 

message: :The list must be sufficiently maintainable and not unmanagably vast Something like "List of human beings" or "North American companies" would be impossible to maintain.
* SUPER STRONG OBJECTION - I can't believe you are making the scale of an endeavor the issue here!  Wikipedians don't get daunted by project size.  Look at the size and scope of Wikipedia itself.  If we applied the logic of this proposal to Wikipedia, there would be no Wikipedia.  Wikipedia is an extremely vast collection of data, yet it is still manageable.  By extension, that makes anything on Wikipedia also managable. There are some HUGE lists on Wikipedia, and these are managed just fine.  There is nothing inherent in a list's potential size that makes it unmaintainable.  We have the tools.  We have an army of editors.  "List of human beings" doesn't qualify because most humans themselves don't qualify under Wikipedia's notability requirements.  And most North American companies aren't notable either. Also, Wikipedia isn't a directory.  Because the examples given above do not apply, they don't illustrate what the proposal means.  If a class of notable things exists in the world, then Wikipedia will most likely have a list of them eventually.  Just because there are a lot of them, won't stop editors from creating the lists.  Nor should it.  Remember, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. As lists grow, they can be chopped into multiple pages, and divided into sublists, or both!  General lists are great, because then the topics can be sorted from there into useful sublists.  Take a look at how the lists supporting philosophy have been developed from each other, lists growing out of other lists, lists copied and filtered as a starting point for further lists, etc.  Let lists grow organically, and Wikipedia's editors will find better ways and develop better tools to manage them, regardless of what size they are, and regardless of the scope of the topic of the list.  --Polar Deluge 02:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vastness and maintainability 

message: :'The list is not able to be merged with another, either because of its size, the distinction of its subject or the illogicality of a merger As to the size, merging two rather similar lists would be improper if they were both very long.  As to the "distinction of its subject", it would be improper to merge "African vocalists" with "African musicians", because the two are separate entities.  As for the "illogicality of a merger", this is more for blatant examples, such as merging "Brands of hot dogs" with "Breeds of dogs".
*Question: You didn't actually research your examples, did you?  Nowhere on Wikipedia are vocalists a seperate entity from musicians.  There are no separate lists for vocalists, because throughout wikipedia they are already included (merged) into the lists of musicians.  Also, lists of "singers" seem to have been disallowed.  You've got to use relevant examples, otherwise they are nothing but bad examples, which will confuse readers of the policy who take a look at the examples you've pointed out.  Though I do agree with your illogicality example. --Polar Deluge 03:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging lists 

message: :The list must have a reasonable plausability of usefulness. A list may not contain mere trivia that can not be used in any reasonable circumstance
* I Object - what does "usefulness" and "use" mean here?  This is way too vague. We're trying to develop guidelines that will actually help editors who are in deletion discussions easily discern what kind of list should be kept and what should be tossed.  The above guideline will just leave them scratching their heads in confusion, or they will wind up arguing about interpretations of the guideline. What does the above guideline actually mean? And how can a page be tested against it?  Shouldn't the term used here be "interest" or "notability"?  See Wikipedia:Trivia and Wikipedia:Notability.  --Polar Deluge 19:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No trivia 

message: :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
* 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 its 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 (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 17:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No category substitutes 

message: :Avoid using the name of the list as a way to assert a certain POV. A "List of famous British people" asserts that the people in the list are famous. A better name could be "List of noted British people", or simpler "List of British people", as these will be listed only if they pass the Wikipedia:Notability test. Avoid using terms that are in dispute as the main descriptor for the list. For example, "List of pseudoscientists" may not be appropriate as the term itself is disputed. A better name in this case could be "List of people described as pseudoscientists".
* I object - This goes to descriptor again, and you are confusing POV presented in the title, with POV applied to whether someone is a member of a list.  A descriptor is okay if it isn't POV and if it is verifiable, and it doesn't matter if it is abstract or subjective, as that applies at the member level, and not the list title level.  And there are dozens of lists of famous people and things on Wikipedia.  Famous people do exist, and are reported to exist in other sources, and so there is no reason why Wikipedia should not report them too.  There are dozens of "famous" lists on Wikipedia already.  See:  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AAllpages&from=List+of+famous&namespace=0 --Polar Deluge 19:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no problems in lists that these proposals would fix that are not already covered in existing Wikipedia policies.  Nor do I see any problems with lists addressed here that regular articles don't have.  Lists are articles.  The problems you are addressing are the same ones that plague all of Wikipedia and which have already been addressed in its policies concerning all pages.  The list guideline should only cover issues that pertain only to lists.  We don't need to reinvent the wheel, nor reprint Wikipedia policy.  Most of the policies referenced in this discussion were polished via consensus over a great deal of time by a great many editors and so are very well thought out and very well written.  It would be a major undertaking to write redundant guidelines as well written as those policies, without of course copying them verbatim.  Therefore, we shouldn't - such duplicates have a high probabiity of being scewed, biased, bent, warped, vague, confusing, misleading, and in error.  We should rely on Wikipedia's already established bedrock policies.  They apply the same to lists as to every other page on Wikpedia, and THEY DO NOT NEED TO BE PARAPHRASED FOR THIS GUIDELINE.  Most of the proposals presented in this discussion are entirely redundant and are so poorly written that they could be interpretted in many different ways.  Some are so vague and incoherent that I had to guess at what they meant.  Most include examples that don't even portray the guideline they are representing.  If these proposals were adopted, a great many valid lists would be subject to deletion.  So I'm against all of them.  My advice is to wipe the slate clean, and start over from scratch with an analysis of specific problem lists as test cases from which to identify list-specific problems and then develop editing solutions for those problems.  When a solution has been tested successfully on a sufficient number of lists, then its inclusion in the guideline should be discussed on this talk page. --Polar Deluge 08:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Don't use the name of a list to assert a certain POV

message: :To avoid problems with lists, the criteria for inclusion must comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability. That is, if someone is listed as an X, that person must have been identified as an X by a reliable published source. Also be aware of original research when selecting the criteria for inclusion: use a criterion that is widely agreed upon rather than inventing new criteria that cannot be verified as notable or that is not widely accepted.
:Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources, especially in difficult or contentious topics.  Beware of those cases in which the definitions themselves are disputed. Many lists on Wikipedia have been created without any membership criteria, and editors are left to guess about what or whom should be included only from the name of the list.  Even if it might "seem obvious" what qualifies for membership in a list, explicit is better than implicit.
::Keep this. It's very helpful.Universitytruth 14:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Get rid of it.  It's instruction creep.  To quote the instruction creep page:  "Process is evil."  We should keep the instructions short and simple.  Everything in the above clause is already covered in existing policies, and isn't even written as well as those, making it somewhat more ambiguous (and confusing).  Also, it recommends the wrong solution.  "List of dog breeds" already has clear enough membership criteria that it doesn't need to be explained in any greater detail.  The name of a list in most cases contains explicit criteria for membership - where it isn't explicit enough probably means that the list title should be changed so it is explicit.  All lists are already subject to the policy on verifiability, therefore that policy doesn't need to be repeated on each and every list (which is what is implied above by "compliance", based on the example provided).  What a waste of the reader's time.  Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not already define acceptable article names and subjects for inclusion.  And always beware instructions that include the word "always" (including this sentence).  :-)  --Polar Deluge 07:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Amplification (note that Universitytruth is my former main account, now in retirement): I agree that "List of dog breeds" needs no further instructions. If you could share with us a clear, non-controversial definition of "philosopher," that would need no further discussion, that would be very useful for the various lists of philosophers. If you are unable to do that, I would submit that some unambiguous statement of membership criteria is helpful.--Anthony Krupp 12:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Still waiting for a response to this question.--Anthony Krupp 13:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing?--Anthony Krupp 15:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Always include list membership criteria 

message: :Ensure that the criteria for inclusion in the list are neutral and based on widely accepted definitions of terms. Both clear criteria and adherence to these criteria must take priority over any praise or condemnation an editor may feel is implied by membership. Some lists cover characterizations that can be considered negative. Such lists, if not carefully maintained can be used to promote a certain POV. Opponents of a subject may attempt to include it in the list despite that it does not meet the list criteria; and conversely supporters may attempt to remove that it despite meeting the list criteria.
:Identitarian lists are another example where POV may often be incorporated. For example, on List of Jewish jurists, List of born-again Christian laypeople, and List of gay, lesbian or bisexual composers some editors add names to these lists out of a kind of self-affirmation.  To put it frankly, editors who are themselves, Jewish, born-again, or LGBT (or otherwise wish to affirm the value of those qualities), feel comforted by adding names of famous and respected people to their List of people like me.  In these types of examples, membership in the adjectival category is both contextual and often not obvious.
* Attention:  This was on the project page, having been cut and pasted from the draft "Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia", which never reached concensus, and so I've moved it here for further discussion.  See Wikipedia talk:Lists in Wikipedia/Archive 2 for previous discussion. --Polar Deluge 04:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Identitarian lists, those lists related to religious affiliation, sexual identity, political affiliation, etc., are another example where POV may often be incorporated. Some editors add names to such lists out of a kind of self-affirmation, feeling comforted by adding names of famous and respected people to their List of people like me. In these types of examples, membership in the adjectival category is both contextual and often not obvious."  Universitytruth 14:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It makes a claim ("that some editors add names to such lists out of a kind of self-affirmation") that would take a mind reader to verify.  How do you know what those editors were thinking?  You talk about their comfort level and everything.  Where did all these "facts" come from?  --Polar Deluge 09:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True; actually, I think the whole paragraph could go. My initial intent (as I wrote through my former primary account and now SP, universitytruth) was to just improve the paragraph. But as you say, it is still problematic. It can go, IMO.--Anthony Krupp 19:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Set clear, neutral, and unambiguous criteria 

message: :The principle of Neutral Point of View, declares that we have to describe competing views without asserting any one in particular and that minority points of view should not be presented as if they were the majority point of view.  When dealing with lists, this can become a challenge. If you include leader XYZ in List of dictators on the basis of a mention of XYZ being a dictator by one source, be sure to confirm that this is a widely held opinion, otherwise you will be in disregard of NPOV. Wikipedia:Reliable sources applies equally to a list of like things as it does for the content article on each individual thing listed.
:For purposes of list inclusion, the most reliable source is the long-standing consensus of editors on the content article of the thing listed; the failure of a content article to support list inclusion criteria should be treated as prima facie evidence against its inclusion in the list.  Transient or widely disputed characterizations on a content article should be treated with suspicion by list editors.  List editors should also consider whether a characterization within a content article, even if long-standing, is presented as consensus opinion or as the position of a specific named external source; in the latter case, the citation to an external source is only as good as the external source is.
----
*I object - This is redundant - there's no need to reiterate WP:NPOV.  Also, Wikipedia can't use itself for verification, because that violates WP:VER.  --Polar Deluge 09:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lists should generally only represent consensus opinion 

message: :When creating new lists, think of the reader: Does the list add value? Is the list's criteria so open-ended as to welcome infinite results or abuse? Is there a category in Wikipedia already for the same subject? If so, could the list add something the category can't? Is there a reason for creating the list other than "it would be cool" or "just for the hell of it"? Lists should enhance the encyclopedic value of content rather than diminish it.
*I object - This is too obvious and just wastes space (and the time it takes to read). It also pertains to the Lists vs Category conflict, which is already posted above on this page as No category substitutes.  --Polar Deluge 17:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Think of the reader 

message: :Categories are self-maintaining.  If you aim primarily to collect all the articles on foo, consider adding them to category:foo; project infoboxes can automatically add articles to categories (and bots can be written which automatically collect from categories and present lists sorted by other criteria; Mathbot is one such).  Lists which consist solely of links and nothing else are liable to speedy deletion under criterion A3.  Conversely, if you have a short list of people related to a given subject, it may be simpler just to include it in the main article.
* I object: Categories are not self-maintaining, and are in fact can be very cumbersome to maintain.  For some categories, there is widespread disagreement over which articles belong in them,  and this is usually policed at the page level by each page's watchers.  As mentioned above, this has created many holes in categories.  If you are trying to complete a category by going around adding tags to all the relevant pages, and you come across maintainers who disagree with you, adding those pages becomes an uphill battle.  Add the links to a list and be done with it.  The guideline above is redundant with the no category substitutes guideline above.  --Polar Deluge 04:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explore the alternatives 

message: Hence:
:Each item on a list is an individual fact and requires an individual source. 
:Each item needs its own citation allowing that item to be traced to a published source which confirms that the item belongs on the list.
:For some lists, many items may have the same source. Nevertheless, each item needs its own citation. A single blanket statement will not do, because future editing may add items to the list that are not contained in that source.
:Wikipedia articles are not considered reliable sources for other articles. Therefore, in the case of a list item that is linked to a Wikipedia article, regardless of what that article may say, it is still necessary for the list to include its own source that confirms that the the item belongs in the list. For example, even though the article on Walter Mossberg states that he is a graduate of Brandeis University, Walter Mossberg should not be included in a list of Brandeis alumni without also including a direct source citation such as http://ptech.wsj.com/walt.html . If the linked article contains a source that confirms that the item belongs on the list, that citation should be copied to the list so that the that list item cites it directly.
* Agree with the above. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 05:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Verifiability should be strictly enforced for lists that include names of living people===
In the case of names of living people appearing on lists:
*If there is any reasonable possibility that a person could object to their inclusion on a list, the verifiability policy should be enforced strictly. This means that unsourced entries should not merely be tagged as needing citations, but should be removed immediately.
Dpbsmith (talk) 13:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Only that we have now WP:BLP that forces us to pay specific attention to articles about ;living people. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 15:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lists are subject to the [[WP:V|verifiability]] policy, just like all other Wikipedia content.

message: :Verifiability should be strictly enforced for lists that include names of living people===
In the case of names of living people appearing on lists:
*If there is any reasonable possibility that a person could object to their inclusion on a list, the verifiability policy should be enforced strictly. This means that unsourced entries should not merely be tagged as needing citations, but should be removed immediately.
Dpbsmith (talk) 13:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Only that we have now WP:BLP that forces us to pay specific attention to articles about ;living people. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 15:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Verifiability applies

message: :There are exceptions, but, in general, a "list of X" should only be created if X itself is a legitimate encyclopedic topic that already has its own article. The list should originate as a section within that article, and should not be broken out into a separate article until it becomes so long as to be disproportionate to the rest of the article. It is very appropriate for the article on Zoology to include a list of notable zoologists within it, and for the article on the fictional series character Rick Brant to include a list of the Rick Brant books. Valid examples of standalone lists would include List of University of Chicago people and The Oz Books. In both cases, the lists correspond closely to encyclopedia articles—University of Chicago and L. Frank Baum, respectively—and in both cases the length and detail of the list justify breaking them out.
:On the other hand, topics such as List of small-bust models and performers, List of songs that contain the laughter of children, and List of nasal singers should be considered highly questionable because there are no articles on Small-bust models and performers, Songs that contain the laughter of children, or Nasal singers.
:Dpbsmith (talk) 15:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  There should not be a "list of X" unless there is an article on the topic "X" 

message: A new proposed guideline has been created at List Guidelines Reborn. Feel free to read it, consider it, and state your opinions on it there. AdamBiswanger1 03:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All of the clauses from the proposed guideline are included above on this talk page.  I humbly request that we continue the discussions here, as the most comments on each topic have been written here, and because it is standard practice on Wikipedia to discuss proposed changes to a guideline on the guideline's talk page.  --Polar Deluge 09:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. -- Ned Scott 10:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New proposed guideline

message: Sorry, no, the above is not conform to Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. Think about print is only one of the aspects of WP:ASR. Hiding a self-reference in a piped link, like it is done in the example above (reputable and reliable), maybe doesn't bother print versions, but is still a unacceptable self-reference. --Francis Schonken 20:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for clarifying that. But otherwise: what about the idea of having the guidelines there at all? Again, I think they're useful, but per discussion above, PolarDeluge may not agree with that. I'd be interested in hearing from PD and other editors on this question. Thanks, --Anthony Krupp 21:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, I'm usually clear, I think, but am not doing a good job of being so here! What I meant was: what about the idea of having any text whatsoever at the top of a list? If the list is called List of brown dogs, probably one doesn't need a statement at the top of the list saying "This is a list of brown dogs." Nor would I recommend having text like "This is a list of German-language philosophers." (That has self-reference.) But my question is: should there be no text whatsoever at the top of the list I'm putting forward as a test case (or at the top of any list)? Or could there be some kind of statement like the one I've suggested?--Anthony Krupp 14:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ASR?

message: I've revised the two paragraphs that are listed above (here and here) as well as on the article page itself (currently as points 2.1 and 2.2). In the interest of improving and building consensus, I submit the following for discussion as a rewording or even a replacement of those disputed paragraphs. (My German-language philosopher example can be replaced with something else; I add it just to give us something to discuss.)
Statement of list membership criteria
When the List's title already unambiguously states the membership criteria, e.g. "List of dog breeds", no further statement is necessary. But when the List's title involves a debatable term, e.g. "List of German-language philosophers," a short statement at the top of the list is advisable, e.g. "The following individuals have written philosophical texts in the German-language. Many are categorized as German philosophers or Austrian philosophers, but some are neither German nor Austrian by ethnicity or nationality." 
I think the preceding responds to PolarDeluge's suggestion not to reinvent the wheel by referring to WP:VER etc. in these guidelines. I think it also makes an important point about reducing instruction creep in lists where instructions are superfluous, and giving a clear indication for the reader of other lists that can truly help him/her make sense of them. Comments?--Anthony Krupp 15:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No response?--Anthony Krupp 16:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: WOW, what an oversight. There's no article on philosopher.  Heck, there's on for carpenter, plumber, electrician, scholar, professor, mathematician, psychologist, pilot, and butcher, baker, and candlestick maker.  Well, not that last one.  But still, none on philosopher.  I'm on it!  Bye!  --Polar Deluge 13:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lists and criteria for inclusion of list members (revisited)

message: Jossi,
Anthony, please stop being impatient.  New sections have no place on the guideline page until they've acquired consensus.  You are skipping the most important step of the process of creating guidelines:  that of building consensus.  You are trying to apply the process in reverse: requiring the building of consensus to remove the changes you've made to the guideline page.  If you keep going straight to the guideline page with your changes (which have failed to reach consensus here so far, and in a previous proposal draft), then this matter will have to be reported on the Administrator's notice board, as you keep violating WP:POV, which is especially serious when it pertains to the foundation upon which Wikipedia is built:  it's policies and guidelines.  Your actions will not survive the scrutiny of several administrators, so please, do not force the matter any further.  Continue to press your points of view on this talk page, and if they have merit, others will support them.  --Polar Deluge 03:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me, Polar Deluge, but what "new sections" are you referring to? Is it possible you're confusing me with someone else? I have not added anything to the list guideline, ever. Today I removed one paragraph (for which consensus was not reached) from the guideline: that paragraph remains legible in at least two versions on this talk page. You have removed that same paragraph three times in the last month, when you moved the section on including membership criteria to this page. What in the world are your accusations about? (See Polar Deluge's talk page for further request for clarification.) Thanks much. --Anthony Krupp 04:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies, for the typo.  I've corrected it above. Sorry for the confusion.  --Polar Deluge 05:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: PD: Please tone down the rethoric and the silly threats. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 03:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attention: Jossi 

message: This page references Wikipedia:Embedded list, which does not seem to get much traffic (judging by its page history).  Therefore, I wanted to post here to notify people that I have proposed 2 changes at Wikipedia talk:Embedded list.  Please stop by if you would like to participate in the discussion.  Thanks, Johntex\talk 21:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Embedded lists

message: I'm concerned that the Guidelines, as they currently read, provide little to no advice regarding list criteria. Is it really the case that we have no further collective wisdom to share? In the discussion above, as I read it, roughly three users agree with me that some language about a statement of list membership criteria should be on the guideline. One user made some comments on my proposal, but hasn't provided a rewording I've requested from him yet. I'll attempt one now, taking his comments into consideration, and invite discussion again. I hope that we can collectively come to some agreement about this, whatever the result is. This is still a rough draft, but I hope that it takes into account the points raised above. I have also tried to keep the tone advisory rather than prescriptive. I hope that is clear, and where it is not, someone could edit to make the tone more advisory. After all, this is a guideline we're talking about, not a policy.
Statement of list membership criteria
If the list's title itself unambiguously states the membership criteria, e.g. "List of dog species," then the introduction to the list should restate the main concepts using wiki-links, e.g. This is a list of dog species. However, one should not over-wikify, e.g. This is a list of dog species. If the list's title involves a term more open to interpretation, e.g. "List of analytic philosophers," the introduction should briefly describe what items are contained in the list, e.g. This list contains the names of philosophers who worked in the analytic tradition. Since wikipedia is a tertiary source, the list should not define these terms (e.g., A philosopher is a person who...). Rather, per WP:V, any name added to such a list should be traceable to a reliable, reputable source. Thus, for example, one could add A. J. Ayer to a "List of analytic philosophers" because Macmillan's Encyclopedia of philosophy states that he was an analytic philosopher. One could not add Martin Heidegger to that List because no reputable source names him an analytic philosopher. While there is lack of consensus among editors on whether every item in every wikipedia list must have a reference, WP:V states clearly that "[a]rticles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources." When new items are added to a list without an accompanying reference, an editor may (1) remove that item, or (2) tag the item with , which results in this, pending a reference being provided. Discussion on the Talk page of contentious entries is encouraged.
Can we hammer this out and bring it into the guideline in some form? --Anthony Krupp 12:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (For the record, I made edits subsequent to that comment). Dpbsmith (talk) 00:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  Yes indeed, looks good. Small nitpicking, point 5 doesn't work with (negative) information on living persons. Garion96 (talk) 00:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, looks good from here, too.  Amerindianarts 00:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good. Thanks for drafting this. -Will Beback 04:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I like Anthony Krupp's version also, and I've substituted it in the article.  It is very important in my mind not to leave this section blanked out while some wording tweak is hammered out.  There might well be room for further refinement in the wording, but Anthony's words are a heck of a lot better than an empty space. LotLE×talk 15:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Let me repeat: Anyone with concerns about those two points, please state them here for discussion. This is not the same as ignoring WP:CONSENSUS and blanking these two points from the guideline.--Anthony Krupp 11:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement of list membership criteria: two points

message: I've just taken this from the guideline, so that we can discuss it here.--Anthony Krupp 16:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm all in favor of discussion, but let's really leave the "current best" version in while discussing. Especially since the above paragraph (or something like it) is what gives sense to the section title. LotLE×talk 17:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes. Let's leave this version in. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal

message: Proposing following addition to  Wikipedia:List guideline#List title:
----
For a navigational template used as an embedded list (often called "series box", see for example , ,...):
* Make the title section stand out with an appropriate background color (see ).
* Make the title link to the "main" or summary style article of the series.
----
Anyone having a problem with this? --Francis Schonken 10:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed addition to [[Wikipedia:List guideline#List title]] 

message: I am attempting to establish standards for the lists of municipalities (:Category:Lists of municipalities), for those lists have multiple variations (naming, structure, content, etc.). I thought that it could be a good idea to make them more alike. I have created a discussion concerning that. Is there a more adequate place for that discussion? Should it be advertised somewhere?--Húsönd 22:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:RFC is usually a good place to start. This probably falls under Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography, so you could make a listing for your discussion there. There's also Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities and it's list of related projects, you might want to post a message on their talk pages asking for comments to be listed on the talk page you set up. You can also check their pages to see if maybe this has been brought up before, or something similar that might help you. You can also post a message at the Village pump. Hope that helps! -- Ned Scott 00:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much.--Húsönd 00:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lists of Municipalities

message: Question: Is there any standardized and acceptable way to let drive-by-editors add entries to a list according to a specific agreed-upon convention (i.e. to maintain uniformity)?
For example, if the list is a timeline, and the maintainers agree on a 'present tense' style for each event (vs. past tense) and wish to keep all new entries in the same format, what is the recommended way to achieve it? Obviously something could be on the top of the Talk page, but many drive-by editors may not bother to read it. Putting a small guide on top of the article page or even a link to the Talk page may violate all kinds of WP principles. Whatever the solution, there should be a common way to achieve it across WP. Any help here would be appreciated. If this is mentioned somewhere and I missed it I apologize in advance. Thanks, Crum375 01:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For those that are interested, we are trying to solve the issue this way. Any comments would be welcome. Crum375 13:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standardized list entry style 

message: A discussion is going on here to introduce seperate namespace. A request to bugzilla (7561) also have been made for this. Your response is invited on the proposal page. Regards,  Shyam (T/C) 20:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List Namespace