Wikipedia talk:Lists

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style articles WikiProject Manual of Style v • d • e This page falls within the scope of WikiProject Manual of Style, a drive to identify and address contradictions and redundancies, improve language, and coordinate the pages that form the MoS guidelines. ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles WikiProject Lists (Rated B-Class, Top-importance) Lists portal v • d • e This page is part of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.  B  This page has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.  Top  This page has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives
Archives Archive 1 (24 August 2003 – 13 February 2006) Archive 2 (14 February 2006 – 22 December 2006) Archive 3 (23 December 2006 – 24 June 2007) Archive 4 (25 June 2007 – 1 January 2008) Related archives Wikipedia talk:Lists in Wikipedia/Archive 1 Wikipedia talk:Lists in Wikipedia/Archive 2

Contents 1 List of wikis 2 Unitedstatesian's recent changes 3 Please comment on new proposal concerning list articles 4 How many lists ? 5 Horizontal lists 6 Notability of lists 7 Automatically sorting columned lists?? 8 RFC: Victim Lists 9 Added Bibliography as a Specific Type of List 10 Repeated links within list articles 11 Village Pump (proposals) link 12 Lists and Notability Guidelines - A Proposal 12.1 Lists and Notability (WP:Notability) 13 Differences with ordered lists and wikimedia software 14 Tracklists 15 List of news anchors in India: Help with Interpretation 16 Single Column Lists - are they needed? 17 WP:N regarding Lists? 18 avoiding the verbatim repetition of list titles in the opening sentence 19 List of Rachael Ray guests 20 Thumbnails instead of bullets 21 Editintro for lists 22 New bullet 23 Deletion of list articles is much more like deletion of categories: proposed fixes (persecuted list-makers unite!) 24 Sorting exponents 25 Request for comment at Talk:Comparison of wiki farms 26 Topic outline? Some guidance. 27 How much prose can be included in a list? 28 Removal of longstanding guideline info 29 Alphabetization and collation 30 Formatting of the lead sentence in lists 31 Splitting a bulleted list 32 User:Scorpion0422/State of the FL process‎ 33 Proposal to advise against short lists 34 images in lists 35 People by city in the United States 36 List of liqueurs 37 Stamp list 38 Lists/Tables 39 List of gamelan ensembles in the United States 40 List of digital library projects 41 Notability of an entire list 42 Blank lines in lists

[edit] List of wikis

List of wikis has received unusual amounts of traffic lately; long-term editors seem to support that the page should be comprised of blue links only (i.e. uses 'notability' as a criteria) and not link directly to external wiki pages. Is this unreasonable? Is it unusual? There's discussion at Talk:List of wikis but given the objections that have been raised recently I'd love some advice from experts :) WLU (talk) 19:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

OK. I found some people are mixing up with the difference between:

• creating a new article
• adding an entry within the article

The standard sets in WP:Notability are to deal with page creation! This rule doesn't indicate that the same standards of notability or the same degree of notability has to be applied to every statement we add. Clearly the degree of standards when creating a new page will be lower when we just mention them in a line or two.

The Wikipedia is not a directory page states:

“

Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic, for example Nixon's Enemies List. Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference.

”

Finally we should ask ourselves this question. Why do we want cleanup the list? We initially don't clean the list that often. It is until the page contains too many spams. We should keep this in mind and don't do overkilling. -- OM 12:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a longstanding guideline on this, not at WP:N, but at the guideline for stand-alone lists: "Ideally each entry on the list should have its own Wikipedia article but this is not required if it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future." UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Quote below is from Wikipedia:LIST#Lead_section_or_paragraph as of today's version [1]. The section titled "Lead section or paragraph" has been stable a couple months. Here is a quote below of part of that section.

[Quote begins. Emphasis added]

Stand-alone lists 

Stand-alone lists should always include a lead section just as other articles do. Even when the meaning of a list's title seems obvious, a lead section should be provided which briefly and clearly describes what the list is about. In other words, it should present the inclusion criteria items must meet in order to qualify to be added to the list. For example:

• If the meaning of the list's title seems obvious, e.g. List of dog breeds, the article may open with a simple statement using wikilinks, e.g. "This is a list of dog breeds." (The inclusion criteria is that an item must be the name of a dog breed in order to be added to the list).
• If the list's title does not seem obvious, e.g. List of scholastic philosophers, the lead section should clarify the meaning of the title, e.g. "This is a list of philosophers working in the Christian tradition in Western Europe during the medieval period. See also scholasticism."

Non-obvious characteristics of a list, for instance regarding the list's structure, should also be explained in its lead section.

Lists should not be used to create content forks between a topic that has a separate wikipedia article (e.g. "republic") and a list complementary to that topic (e.g. "List of republics").

[End of quote]

Here is the tricky part though with lists. From Wikipedia:LIST#List_naming_and_list_contents. Quote begins (Emphasis added):

The contents of an article that is a stand-alone list should be obvious. If the title does not already clarify what the list includes, then the list's lead section should do so. Don't leave readers confused over the list's inclusion criteria or have editors guessing what may be added to the list.

Review Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) for further clarification. See also WP:NOT#DIR (Wikipedia is not a directory) for the suitability of material to make a list about in an encyclopedic context.

For technical advice on how to format lists, see Help:List.

[Quote ends]

If one carefully reads Wikipedia:LIST one sees that the key to lists are the inclusion criteria. Notability of each item in a list is NOT always an inclusion criteria. But with many lists the editors of the list have agreed on the talk page to require notability for each item in that particular list in order to keep that particular list to a reasonable length. For more info see Wikipedia:LIST#List_content. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you are qouting selectively, TS, and there are plenty of other guidelines that support the position that lists should have blue links only. For instance, there is this from WP:BIO:

Several articles contain or stand alone as lists of people - for instance, usually an article on a college includes or links to a list of notable alumni. Such lists are not intended to contain everyone (e.g. not all people who ever graduated from the school). Instead, inclusion on the list should be determined by the criteria above. [i.e. the Notability criteria]

[Quote ends]

Where editors have agreed to require notability, it is because they are following long-standing WP guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the excellent replies, it's much appreciated! From my reading of the above comments (and I could be wrong or missing nuance as I often do), it looks like there's mixed consensus for what I and a couple other editors have settled on for List of wikis. Judging from when I first got involved in the page, by allowing external and red links, the list rapidly fills up with spam and reds. My personal criteria (not necessarily other editors on the page) is based on a combination of WP:RED (don't add a red link unless the article is likely to be created), WP:N (try to have notable wikis) and WP:EL (don't link externally unless you've good reason). I understand that WP:N is for new pages, not necessarily entries on a list, but it opens the door to a page that's mostly redlinks, which isn't useful or encyclopedic in my mind. If someone is going to create a page anyways, then create the page first, then add the link to the list. But basically it comes down to consensus on the talk page. I think that's about it, thanks for the discussion. Overall however, I think (because this is an area of wikipedia that doesn't get much traffic, not like WP:OR, V, RS or other big policies and guidelines) the list articles and accompanying policy/guideline pages aren't particularly clear - this leaves lots of wiggle room for individual pages, but it makes it harder to get guidance when you're new to lists. Thanks for the info and comments. WLU (talk) 14:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) List of wikis sounds like a list that needs some selective inclusion criteria, or it would become huge. You might consider breaking out some "List of [add topic here] wikis" pages. See WP:SPINOUT. Even then you will probably need some selective inclusion criteria.

Some lists are short enough that no additional selective inclusion criteria are needed.

As for lists of people the Wikipedia is not a directory page states:

Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic, for example Nixon's Enemies List. Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference.

Not everyone on that Nixon's Enemies List will be notable. See also: Master list of Nixon political opponents. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, everyone on Nixon's Enemies List is notable: all of the links are blue. I agree with the approach that WLU is taking with the List of Wikis page, and editors who are facing this issue may want to see the essay I just posted at WP:WTAF (comments and changes are of course welcome). UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The full list is a spinout from the main article. The full list is at Master list of Nixon political opponents, and not all the entries are notable. The entries in the main article, Nixon's Enemies List, are mainly just those people listed in one memo. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

There's no guarantee that NEL would all be blue, but given who he was, it's not surprising they are. Anyway, the page isn't long enough to spinout anything, but I am contemplating turning it into a sortable table here, incomplete, but right now it looks pretty ugly. It really sounds like the whole set of list pages and guidelines could do with some harmonization or at least explicit discussion of the issues we're hitting here - I found them virtually useless and pretty muddy, hence posting on the talk page. WLU (talk) 16:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

As with many wikipedia guidelines there are contradictions with other guidelines. Plus there are people who purposely muddy the waters. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unitedstatesian's recent changes

I think he's done a fine job improving the format and readability of the guideline. The Transhumanist 23:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please comment on new proposal concerning list articles

(moved from Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Policy_amendment_request_-_addition_to_what_Wikipedia_is_not)

A list content needs to be expanded for an ecyclopedic entry so it conveys information other then its entries. Without the standard encyclopaedic entry, a list can become a catalogue.

I am going to suggest that all lists in Wikipedia must have, like all other articles:

• the encyclopaedic purpose (what does it inform the reader?)
• an introduction
• a definition
• a statement of scope
• a statement of notability

--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I have made a new proposal here Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Policy_amendment_request_-_addition_to_what_Wikipedia_is_not, and woudl welcome comments and discussion.--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 08:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that the section on Lead sections in stand-alone lists is adequate if my proposal is considered.--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 04:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be gaining any steam over at WP:NOT. However, it seems very reasonable advice to include in this guideline -- though as a set of recommendations, not as a mandate. We mustn't shouldn't use 'must' when 'should' will do.--Father Goose (talk) 05:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, you are welcome to make suggestions to the proposal. Indeed, if you have a point of view more focused them mine, then you must should ;o)

I find that Wikipedia sails along at a leisurely pace, except when encountering a storm of opinions. WP:NOT is one of the less "windy" places. However I have now on advice posted the notification to other ares, so that may invite more comments.--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 05:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose all except the intro requirement, and that can be extremely brief if appropriate. If a "List of Blah" article refers to "Blah" in its intro, its purpose is obvious, its definition should already be clear from what "Blah" is, its scope would be covered by the intro, and its notability is established by the "Blah" article. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 09:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Its not a vote or a poll. You are only asked for a comment! In any case, I suggest you go and have a look at a few lists before commenting.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

My comment is I oppose everything except the intro requirement. What makes you think I haven't seen a list before? —Torc. ^(Talk.) 19:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Have you looks at many lists across many different projects and portals? List of people born at sea for example? My proposal, when proposed would apply globally. In any case, the usual "intro" in a list is the incorporation of the list title into a sentence. This is not an "intro" IMHO.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 21:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, your proposal would apply globally. That's why I oppose it. These should not be "required" for every single list article; instituting this would result in abuse. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 23:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

In what cases would application of the proposal to a list would not be required?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

"List of X" articles where "X" is an accepted notable topic. The list is essentially content of the main article that exists on a separate page due to size or readability concerns. Notability applies to the topic. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 23:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Torc2. A list after all is nothing more than that. It is how it is used that is important. WP Aviation would be a very sad project if it were not for the humble list. Whilst I agree that the AIM of a COMPLETED list is to have no red entries, it will ALWAYS be impossible in say List of Aircraft whilst aircraft are being built, and the ratio of 'aircraft types' to 'editors/contributors' is so ridiculously high.

As for notability, I have exchanged typeset over this in the past. IMHO ALL aircraft are notable due to the fact that they are aircraft. So I would oppose this opinion. In any case most of what is proposed would be in the Title, so re-iterating it in the body of the list would be superfluous!!Petebutt (talk) 11:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] How many lists ?

Is it possible to know roughly how many lists are there in English Wikipedia? Or alternatively what percentage of English Wikipedia articles is represented by lists? Thank you ! Tavilis (talk) 10:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Horizontal lists

I noticed that there is not much information about horizontal lists in this style guideline. Since it is a style guideline I don't want to be bold and add to it without asking here first. I would like to add the following to the "See also" section:

• {{·}} and {{•}} - Dots and bullets for horizontal link lists, such as in navboxes.
• Wikipedia:Line break handling - Covers among other things how to properly handle the line wrapping in horizontal link lists.

Any objections? Or perhaps should those links in some way be added to the section named "Streamlined style or horizontal style"?

Those links do not cover the entire subject, but they are a good starting point and they link to all the other pages and templates I know of that are relevant to horizontal lists.

--David Göthberg (talk) 05:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Probably would be fine just as "See also" links. -- Ned Scott 09:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I came to the talk page to request the same. There is much misuse of vertical lists on WP because people do not know better ways to list items. Please include information about horizontal lists in a prominent place in the article. Mention {{·}}, {{•}}, {{flatlist}} and line breaking, and making multi-column text. Those are useful for lists embedded in the text of an article, not just for navboxes. -Pgan002 (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Notability of lists

Continues to be a problem as this guideline does not say anything about Notability nor links to anywhere that says about notability of Lists. ChessCreator (talk) 14:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Appropriate topics for lists. -- Wavelength (talk) 13:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Automatically sorting columned lists??

Can that be done in articles? ie

a m R c n T g P Z

Which would automatically resort to three columns if you added b,j, q and y??

If it can that should be added to this article, plus any links to how to do it. thanks Carol Moore 16:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

[edit] RFC: Victim Lists

Wikipedia:Victim Lists is an attempt by me to create community consensus on the inappropriateness of lists of victims on Wikipedia. As they are lists of sorts, and I feel the list guidelines say they are inappropriate, I felt it appropriate to inform those who watch this policy page that this discussion was occuring. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Added Bibliography as a Specific Type of List

I've added the following statement to the guideline as bibliographies are often discussed as lists in debates, but not actually mentioned in the list guideline.

• • A Bibliography page presents a list of relevant books, journal or other references for a subject area. Bibliographies are useful for expanding Further Reading topics for Summary style articles.

--Mike Cline (talk) 14:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Repeated links within list articles

I would appreciate any guidance or advice that could be offered with regard to repeated wikilinks in Lists, and how (if at all) the approach differs from articles. I am working on West Bromwich Albion F.C. seasons (currently at peer review), and would like to know what would be an appropriate level of linking within the list. For example, if a player is top goalscorer for five seasons in a row, would it be appropriate to wikilink five times or just the first instance? What about repeated names of competitions such as the Charity Shield, where the user may need to scroll down a long way between instances? Thanks. --Jameboy (talk) 12:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure. If you don't get an answer here, try WT:FLC. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Village Pump (proposals) link

I'd like to draw attention to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Lists#Village_pump_proposal_-_a_link, itself a synopsis and link to a Village Pump proposal to have bot monitoring of certain selected list articles or list sections of regular articles. Pseudomonas_(talk) 21:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lists and Notability Guidelines - A Proposal

In reviewing this discussion page, as well as many AFD, it is evident that many Lists are challenged on Notability guidelines. Additionally, the List Content section of the guideline does not address notability. To deal with I this I propose the following sub-section and verbage to the List Content section:

[edit] Lists and Notability (WP:Notability)

Lists that are compilations of entries which reflect and are linked to existing Wikipedia articles should not be subjected to WP:Notability guidelines as each individual entry is inherently notable while it remains in WP. If an individual list entry does not have its own article, or it inclusion in the specific list is questionable, then its inclusion in the list should be subjected to WP:Verify, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR policies.

--Mike Cline (talk) 17:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

This issue comes up from time to time on WT:V. As long as WP:V says that any material can be removed if it's challenged and you don't provide a citation for it, changing this page wouldn't do any good; WP:V would overrule it. If you want to tackle this issue, the first step should be a large, random, careful survey that describes what type of material tends to be challenged; obviously, lists of links to established articles tend not to be challenged. (I don't personally know of any DAB links or See also links that have been challenged per WP:V, for instance.) After you've got your survey results, the next step should be WT:V. Let us know if the discussion moves there, please. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Dank55 - I tend to disagree with the notion that: lists of links to established articles tend not to be challenged. They do, but should not be challenged on Notability grounds, but they are. The intent of the proposal was to instill the idea that lists of already notable articles should not be challenged on Notability grounds but rather on V, NOR and NPOV grounds if appropriate.--Mike Cline (talk) 17:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant "tend not to be challenged as unsourced". - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:V is a very general policy, and the interpretation of it is complicated, subject to many related policies and guidelines, and often disputed. I think you need to distinguish that the entries will not be challenged as unsourced if they are clearly pertinent. The notability of the list as an overall matter can always be challenged. The pertinence of an entry can also be challenged--as when it is disputed whether or not someone comes from a particular area or is a member of a particular ethnic group. A good careful clarification of all this would be very helpful. There is also the problem of distinguishing liIsts meant to include the notable people from X, and the list meant to provide information about people or whatever not sufficiently notable for a individual articles. DGG (talk) 19:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I find the following comment perplexing: The notability of the list as an overall matter can always be challenged. I selected a list at random: List of battery sizes and am wont to find any notability of the subject. There are no primary or secondary sources cited that say anything about Lists of Battery Sizes. All the sources cited are about specific battery sizes, not a List of Battery Sizes. I would submit that if you applied WP:Notability guidelines to the title of most any list article it would not be notable. However, applying those same guidelines to the contents of the list is entirely prudent. When one applies the General Notability Guidelines to any list title it will almost always fail, whereas applying the same guidelines to the list content may or may not indicate notable content. I think we are too quick to say a List is not notable because its content is not notable, whereas logic says if the content is notable, the list is therefor defacto notable.--Mike Cline (talk) 01:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with the statement that The notability of the list as an overall matter can always be challenged. The only way to sucessfully defend a list against merger or deletion is to demonstrate that the list is itself notable and worthy of its own article by citing a reliable secondary source that contains the list. Lists which are not cited in reliable secondary sources, but are compiled by one of more editors from primary sources, is a type of original research known as synthesis. Unless you can demonstrate that the list is notable, it is likely to be viewed as a content fork from the overarching topic. For instance, the list List of New Order Jedi characters is a classic example of synthesis as it has been compiled from disparate primary sources, and there is no way of knowing whether the list is complete, or whether it contains characters which are actually related in any way to each other. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Appropriate topics for lists. -- Wavelength (talk) 13:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Differences with ordered lists and wikimedia software

As far as I can tell, while Ordered list details a way to start a list from a number other than 1 (which would be useful for Tri-Danielson!!! (Omega) as it starts with 14), there's no way to indicate in wikimedia software that the list should start with a number other than 1. Is there a solution for this other than the current way of just writing out the list longhand and using linebreaks? --TIB (talk) 15:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Help:List#Specifying_a_starting_value. But that's more trouble than just spelling out the numbers.--Father Goose (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tracklists

Considering the regular, on-going arguments regarding where tracklists should and should not be included (in a main article about another topic, in a list of soundtracks, in a discography, etc), should this guide be updated to address the issue? Right now, you have to go all over the place to find stuff, and then you have people arguing that the discography guideline doesn't specifically cover lists of soundtrack so it doesn't apply and they can have a tracklist, or that if an soundtrack album is merged to a main article that its tracklist should be included because no guideline says otherwise, etc. It seems some of the issues might at least be helped by a clearer guideline somewhere? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of news anchors in India: Help with Interpretation

Please see this edit by me and this explanation by User:IndigoIntentions. Please advise on appropriateness and interpretation of lists criteria ChiragPatnaik (talk) 03:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Single Column Lists - are they needed?

I'd like to have a discussion on whether or not these types of lists are needed. This would be lists which are only formed to list an entry by a single criteria. For example, List of Sports games on the PSP, or List of cities in China. Since the typical agreement is that lists on wikipedia should only include notable items (which typically means they should or can have an article on wikipedia), what benefit do these lists serve over a category, and are they redundant to those same categories? sure, we could pretty up the lists by adding a lot of extra information that isn't really needed (population, release dates, review scores etc) but the case could be made than that in some cases its not longer a list but a comparison. Lists shouldn't have a lot of text on them other than to describe the criteria for inclusion if necessary. So what benefit does a single column list serve over a category and why do we really need them if they're presenting the same information?--Crossmr (talk) 08:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, do you think a "Double-columned" list is acceptable? Can you give me an example of what you mean by that? By double-columned, would you mean charts? Bulldog123 (talk) 19:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

As long as there are two stringent categories for inclusion then yes. I find 90% of the lists on Wikipedia to be fairly pointless and not do anything that a category couldn't do. Lists should be used to create organizations of things that might be relevant to something but have multiple necessary criteria for inclusion that would seem unusually narrow as a category.--Crossmr (talk) 07:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say we don't have categories that are too narrow though: Category:Russian-American Jews. Bulldog 18:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:N regarding Lists?

Hey, i posted this over at WP:N and they sort of directed me here. I am looking for some sort of notability guidelines on a list, regarding List of Bloc Party awards. I don't think that this is a notable list, as i think there are too many nominations from non-notable awards ceremonies as well as too few wins. Where would i find such criteria? --^{SteelersFanUK06} ReplyOnMine! 04:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I've come here wondering the same things. I've been spending a little time at WP:AfD, and here is the argument I keep seeing: "Everything on the list is notable and sourced, therefore the list is notable and should be kept". (As far as I can see, that logic wins every time). It seems to make no difference that the list itself is ridiculous. By this logic, I could start "List of things that are green", as long as everything on it is notable and has a source. My point being, it seems that guidelines for lists need to be spelled out a little better, unless there is something I'm missing, which is entirely possible.--Susan118 ^talk 03:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Appropriate topics for lists. -- Wavelength (talk) 13:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] avoiding the verbatim repetition of list titles in the opening sentence

For some time now, it has been the policy and practice of the FLC Directors and many reviewers to discourage nominators from opening their lead sections with a straight repeat of the title "This is [title]". Matthew Edwards has raised the issue of the lack of consonance between this page and current practice. I see that Shonken has reverted my reinstating of text that I originally put here on 16 September to address this issue. His justification in his edit summary says, persuasively, "this is the current guideline". It's reasoning that resembles "this is the way it is, and I don't like your change". We'll need something better than that, I'm afraid. Tony (talk) 14:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

1. Don't agree this would be made into a general principle. Note that not every list needs to be a featured list, and that then even the rule is not spelled out thus on the featured list criteria. The proposed change here disallows the short definition, while for a featured list it is only *encouraged* to do something more with it. In other words this is not a Wikipedia-wide rule, in which case one needs consensus to make it one (agreement on FLC-related pages is not enough, most people may want to live with the idea that this is an improvement recommended for featured lists, but not something that should be imposed on all lists).
2. I never very much liked the dog breed example. The new spinning out of that example based on the proposed additional rule, takes the inappropriate travesty to the next, and now completely unacceptable level. Maybe take a look at the current intro paragraph of List of dog breeds, which is way more acceptable than the current example, but also shows that this list is not a good example of a "short" list definition (for that reason I never very muched liked that example, but I succumbed to consensus at the time it was proposed).
3. The dog breed article doesn't mention the number of dog breeds, or any approximation of that number. Starting the list article with "There are more than 200 recognised ..." is at least WP:UNDUE ("policy" breach for the reason of a style issue without general consensus...), looks like a WP:content fork, diverts the attention from the basic facts of what a dog breed is, and on the level of style, it is not OK with WP:MOSNUM#Unnecessary vagueness

In sum: find a more appropriate example, point to the POV fork and content policy breach aspects for list intro paragraph elaborations, and then find CONSENSUS for the proposed update at guideline level. In the mean while I'll revert, the current proposed change is worse then what the guideline was until a few hours ago.

PS, try to get the spelling of my name right. BTW, Francis is my first name. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia talk:Featured list criteria#Compliance to general list-related guidelines. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't accept these arguments, which make clear that Schonken has serious ownership issues at WP:LISTS. He has reverted two editors numerous times over the past day on this matter, and at one point said "this is the guideline" (strong argument, isn't it) and required, as it were, the FL Directors to come over there if his guideline were to be changed (see his edit summaries). Tony (talk) 16:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

"Note that not every list needs to be a featured list". I don't understand this logic, Mr Schonken; featured lists are the best lists that we have, and all of our lists should be aiming to such a standard of quality. In any case, this is a guideline, which means that it can still be ignored should it be necessary. This is not the oppressive enforcement of a decision; "disallows" is as relevant as the extent to which this guideline is followed. Waltham, The Duke of 03:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Schonken, we'll have to agree on some kind of recommendation against the verbatim repetition of article-title text in "List of X" lists. The FLC community, including the Directors, wants the change, and nominators have been largely weened off the practice over the past few months. We still have the odd nominator pointing to text here in support of the practice. You are expected to cooperate in good-faith alterations to improve practice, rather than acting like some lord-keeper of what you see as The Guideline, an attitude that I find disticntly unwiki (see your previous edit summary "this is the guideline"). Now, here is a suggestion by His Grace, which I've tweaked a little without substantive change in meaning. Do you have suggestions? Feel free to edit, perhaps in italics so the changes are clear, or by pasting in your own version. BTW, as I said in the edit summary, I find the Philosopher example problematic, and the distinction between "obvious" and "non-obvious" unclear. I also feel that the text is not sufficiently explicit in a few places, especially for newbies (can a brief glossing of "content forks" be given on the spot? Newbies to this page will find it hard-going to have to divert to another article for such a definition, at least on their first reading.

Stand-alone lists should always include a lead section just as other articles do. Even when the meaning of the title seems obvious, a lead section should be provided which briefly and clearly describes what the list is about; it should present the inclusion criteria (those that items must meet to qualify as list members). If the meaning of the title is obvious, e.g., List of universities in Quebec, open with a statement using wikilinks that does not merely repeat the title, but engages the reader with further information about it; e.g. "There are 14 public universities and three private universities in the largely French-speaking Canadian province of Quebec." The inclusion criterion, that an item must be university in Quebec, is in the title, and the lead moves on to explain the structure of the list. Lists should not be used to create content forks between a topic that has a separate Wikipedia article (e.g. "republic") and a list complementary to that topic (e.g. "List of republics"). 1:24 PM

Tony (talk) 04:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I prefer this version:

For more details on this topic, see Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Lead and selection criteria.

Stand-alone lists should always include a lead section just as other articles do.

Wikipedia:Featured list criteria recommends that "[a list] has an engaging lead section that introduces the subject, and defines the scope and inclusion criteria of the list."

Further, non-obvious characteristics of a list, for instance regarding the list's structure, should be explained in its lead section (example: List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach), or in a separate introductory section (example: List of compositions by Franz Schubert#How Schubert's compositions are listed).

Lists should not be used to create content forks between a topic that has a separate wikipedia article (e.g. "republic") and a list complementary to that topic (e.g. "List of republics").

Are there any problems with it?

I mean, most of the problems mentioned by Tony are no longer present in it.

As for an elaboration of the "content fork" issue: I think we used to have a version of the guideline that spelled out the issues with republic/list of republics (someone must have dramatically shortened it): the republic article explains several definitions of the term "republic" (quite diverse if you see the history of it). There were some problems with list of republics when some editors wanted to use a single definition (some preferred a "current" definition derived from CIA fact book or the like; others went for a definition derived from historical Enlightenment practice) for the purposes of the list. In the end none of that happened of course, some people got blocked, and the intro of the list article is what it is currently.

As for short definitions (I mean really short ones, barely more than a repetition of the title with links): for contentious topics sometimes not much more can be done to make the list feasible. For example list of dictators got deleted: the main problem (in my view) is that the list tried to use a separate definition for the purposes of the list, as any reduction or summary of the dictator article would be a travesty. IMHO starting the list with something in the vein of "This is a list of dictators, as confirmed by multiple sources in high esteem", without any detailed elaboration would have, at least, made the list possible. I do think it a pity that Wikipedia does not have a list of dictators article.

As for "non-obvious characteristics", I think they're sufficiently clarified by the examples, or does this need more elaboration? --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Francis: this seems to be good. My main concern is that it doesn't provide succour to FLC nominators who want to cite this page as supporting the old-style formulaic and very unengaging repetition at the opening of the lead. My secondary concern is that the text here be sufficiently explicit for newcomers. I'm confident that your text satisfies the first concern; as for the second, I'm stressed for time right now, so perhaps we can look at it later (as Matthew Edwards, FLC Director, has suggested) in the larger context. Thanks for your input. Let's see what His Grace thinks of it. Tony (talk) 16:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

For your second concern I'd refer to Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists anyhow. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

No objections from me, gentlemen. Time for that section to rest for a while. Waltham, The Duke of 01:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Rachael Ray guests

This is a list of guests which appeared on Rachael Ray (TV series). I just wanted to know the views of fellow editors on the encyclopedic usefulness of this article. I am not yet convinced about the same. I have discussed with the author here ( 1, 2)--Anshuk (talk) 21:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thumbnails instead of bullets

I'm not sure where to publicize this, but I'd like the community to look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inglewood,_California#Born_in_Inglewood. I've used thumbnails to replace the bullets and feel that it adds more zest to the page. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC) (P.S. That is not me; I am not that good-looking.)

That violates multiple guidelines and possibly some policies, I'd say. We do not load up articles with images for decoration and its not an appropriate use of the images of living people. That sort of thing does not look professional at all, it makes the article appear like someone's personal website. It has been reverted. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Note, the edit has since been reverted, so to see it in action, see it at[2]. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with Collectonian, and would like to add that it reminds me of a forum or blog page that uses emoticons in threads rather than an encyclopedia article. The implementation that was reverted is poorly laid out and distracting. This usage is strongly discouraged at MOS:ICONS. It also invites a new type of vandalism in which politicians and other controversial personalities could have images swapped with unsavory subjects and which would need to be viewed by patrolling editors to verify appropriateness. Sswonk (talk) 03:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Photographs are not flags. Photographs add information. If a reader is not sure who Esther Williams is, well, a small photo can really be helpful. Click on the thumbnail and it takes you to a bigger version. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The first line of the style guideline reads:

For the purposes of this guideline, icons refers to any small images, including logos, crests, coats of arms, seals, flags and similar graphics, unless otherwise stated.

Sswonk (talk) 05:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so. Thank you for pointing that out. I appreciate your guidance. It would be best, then, to hold this discussion at MOS:ICONS, don't you think? — since I believe the style should be changed, and I don't believe we can reach a decision about it here. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The discussion has already started here, so it might as well continue here as it also applies to this guideline (a note has been left at MOS:ICONS however). Additionally, your continuing to revert anyone's attempt to remove your images is inappropriate, as was your personal attack on your talk page. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

cross-posted to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons)#Images as icons in lists dispute as I'm unsure where the conversation's going from here.
Yikes, no! Aside from the aesthetics (or lack thereof), checking out the thumbnail to the right, who's who? Taking into account different browsers and screen resolutions, that's a confusing and/or misleading at best. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 05:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

As 'pd_THOR says ,their are far too many techincal issues and they also look terrible Gnevin (talk) 01:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons). Kaldari (talk) 02:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• MOS:ICONS is already mentioned above multiple times and quoted as well. Sswonk (talk) 02:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Editintro for lists

It may be worthwhile to have, similarly to disambiguation pages (see Template:Disambig editintro and MediaWiki talk:Common.js#Disambig editintro), an editintro for lists, with reminders of guidelines on lists. Lists can be detected by the software, when they are in Category:Lists. The difference with disambiguation pages is that they are multiple sorts of lists. I don't feel strongly about this, only adding for consideration. Cenarium ^Talk 03:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New bullet

Should not we add some new bullets in making belleted lists? And I have noticed another problem with bullets of bulleted lists and also in numbered lists.

• Bulleted list normal

• Bulleted list big

1. Numbered list small

1. Numbered list big

In the three lists above it is noticed that the size of bullet and number does not change with the size of text. Does it look good?

--Myrecovery (talk • contribs • count • global contribs)

1. We already have a section about bulleted lists (Wikipedia:Lists#List styles). What are you suggesting we add/change there?
2. The bullets/numbers themselves are created/styled by your browser. They look different to anyone using a different browser/operating system. We have no control over that.
3. Why would anyone need to fiddle around with manual font sizes in articles? That's not a good idea.
4. Why have you colored all your text red? (That's a mess of ugly code, and a rude visual highlighting akin to SHOUTING)
5. Please do not use templates in your signature (See WP:SIG#NoTemplates)

-- Quiddity (talk) 19:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of list articles is much more like deletion of categories: proposed fixes (persecuted list-makers unite!)

In light of the discussion at WP:CLN it is apparent that lists and categories complement each other on Wikipedia, and are often used to do many of the same things. There is much overlap and duplication between them, and that's good. It is not good when deletion discussions involving them are not handled by the same people. Which is occuring now.

When somebody has a problem with a category they don't like, they come to category-for-deletion WP:CFD, because the criteria are not the the same as for articles (we also have separate deletion discussion boards as you see in WP:XFD, eight in all, for other things). However, when people want to delete a list article (list of ships, List of trees, List of birds), which is essentialy the same thing as a category, but in list-form, they go to the article deletion discussion page, WP:AFD. That's not good, because the criteria for notable articles are not the same as those for list-articles. The latter only need a header paragraph to explain themselves (see WP:LIST), and then elements which are individually notable. As in List of birds. But other kinds of wiki-articles normally put up for deletion have more stringent notability requirements, and their verifiability methods are not of the same type (a list article many only have hyperlinked elements and nothing else).

All this produces very WP:LAME edit wars, as you see on the WP:DRV page. For example, List of bow tie wearers has been up for deletion 4 times, and has only survived by now having many, many in-article cites, which makes it look very much unlike List of birds. All that because nay-sayers demanded article criteria for what is essentially a category in list-form. You can see much the same type of problem with List of notable people who wore the bowler hat, which is now up for deletion review on WP:DRV on the grounds that some people are arguing that the existence of the list itself needs defending as a point of WP:V, when in fact, this is really a "what categories are natural?" discussion.

• I propose that a separate page be created for proposed deletions of list-articles.

• OR I propose that WP:CFD be renamed Categories and list-articles for discussion in recognition of WP:CLN and the need to treat lists in line with category criteria on WP. Deletion discussion for list articles would then go on HERE.

Comments? I'm going to repost this around on the several TALK pages which deal with this matter. SBHarris 01:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I would wholeheartedly concur with either of these proposals but would probably prefer the separate page option as the best. There are differences between lists and categories.--Mike Cline (talk) 14:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sorting exponents

Is it possible to make exponents sortable? Serendi^podous 18:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

See List of Solar System objects by radius to see what we are asking about. Is there a way to make the "Mass (kg)" column sortable with exponents? -- Kheider (talk) 11:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand what you are asking. I think you are referring to List_of_Solar_System_objects_by_radius#List. That section of the document contains two tables and no lists. Neither of these two tables has a column like "mass (kg)", but one has "Mass yt" and the other has "Mass Zg". Both tables are already sortable. I do not think that there is a way to automatically sort a list that is not a table. -Pgan002 (talk) 19:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comment at Talk:Comparison of wiki farms

Additional input is requested. We are discussing inclusion criteria and reference links at Talk:Comparison of wiki farms.

We are also discussing Alexa rankings as a possible inclusion criteria. See: Talk:Comparison of wiki farms#Alexa references. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Topic outline? Some guidance.

Mainspace classes of articles, such as proper articles, lists, and disambiguation pages, are all delineated rather thoroughly in the Manual of Style. Here is a new kind of list, the "Topic outline", whose purpose only seems to be documented rather vaguely in talk pages and portals controlled by a rather limited set of individuals (particularly User:Transhumanist). I have no idea what role a "topic outline" is supposed to play in the main namespace, since it seems like the sort of thing that the portal space was intended to fill. But clearly some direction is needed concerning how they are to be constructed and referenced, and what should be included in a "topic outline" and how it should be organized. Personally, I think that at the minimum, the organization of topics in a "topic outline" absolutely should be verifiable. Then again, this should have been discussed and consensus obtained prior to certain editors implementing it on a massive scale. I have added a section, with an {{expand section}} request here. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 05:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

This type of page is not new. The set of pages has grown one page at a time over a period of more than 3 years. Since there is no requirement to get approval to create (implement) a page on Wikipedia, regardless of type (articles, lists, portals, etc.), none was sought. The Transhumanist    21:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Partially answered at Portal_talk:Contents#Topic_outline_description_in_WP:MOS. -- Quiddity (talk) 06:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply there. I was aware that this proposal was discussed on various and sundry talk pages. However, no one seems to have taken it upon themselves to develop an appropriate guideline for such articles. They have no MoS entry, and consequently their quality is essentially unregulated. Accordingly I have added a dummy entry to this particular Wikipedia guideline. Please add content to it according to whatever consensus has developed out of the volumes of discussion to which this proposal has been subjected. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 00:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The pages have been and are currently regulated by Wikipedia's general guidelines (verifiability, lists, etc.), and these have served very well so far (3+ years). Though credit for the quality of these pages really goes to the editors who have worked on them - they've done a fine job and I for one have enjoyed working with them very much. I've removed the empty section from the list guideline. The reason I've done this is because the instructions or guidelines for creating and maintaining outlines will be extensive enough to require a page of their own. I'm in the process of creating a draft, and will post it for comment when it's done. I'm also working on articles for the encyclopedia about the various types of outlines, and this is slowing me down. The Transhumanist    01:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] How much prose can be included in a list?

I was wondering how much prose can be included at the top of a list before:

• It stops being a list and becomes an article? (e.g. List of Oldham Athletic A.F.C. managers has more prose than list, so I'd say it is an article and should drop the "List of" if it is to remain in its current format).
• It becomes a content fork of its parent article? (List of Football League Cup winners has a History section, which says "For more details on this topic, see Football League Cup." But that article's History section is the same size as the one in the list.

I agree that a list needs a good lead to introduce it, but additional prose sections?? There seem to be increasingly more of these pages that are kind of article-list hybrids. My opinion is that they should be clearly one thing or the other. I would appreciate people's thoughts on the two example above. Thanks. --Jameboy (talk) 17:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It depends. Character lists, to reach FL, should have multiple prose sections, including a creation/conception section and a reception section, at minimum. It depends on the topic and whether there are main articles that cover those topics. However, for those two articles I really see no valid reason to have history sections when there are main articles on both topics that should be covering that. In List of Oldham Athletic A.F.C. managers, the history really looks like a lengthy prose repeat of the list, which isn't very useful either. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Football League Cup winners is currently up for Featured List if any one would like to leave comments about this, though I suspect it may need to be part of a wider discussion. --Jameboy (talk) 22:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of longstanding guideline info

Please see this diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ALists&diff=267077779&oldid=267059279

User:GeorgeLouis. Please get consensus before removing info from a guideline page.

Please explain why you want to remove the info. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems like it could be replaced with something more useful, like that it is commonly used, giving examples of where it is used. --Ronz (talk) 01:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Alphabetization and collation

I am proposing that Wikipedia have a set of guidelines for alphabetization and collation. Here is a permanent link to a preliminary discussion of the topic: User talk:Noetica - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia [section 4: "Alphabetization (given names, surnames, domestic name order, thorn)"].

Initial discussion with Noetica

I would like to alphabetize the entries in each of the subsections of Esperantist#Lists of famous Esperantists, but I am unsure of whether to decide the order according to given names or surnames. Also, Kálmán Kalocsay is in Hungarian name order Kalocsay Kálmán. Also, Þórbergur Þórðarson begins with the letter thorn. I am unsure of how to alphabetize those two Esperantists' names. I consulted the following pages but did not find an answer to any of my questions. Wikipedia:Manual of Style Wikipedia:Layout Wikipedia:Editor's index to Wikipedia What do you advise me to do, and which page(s) (if any) has/have the answers? -- Wavelength (talk) 00:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC) You have raised good questions, Wavelength. I find these matters hardly addressed at all in WP's guidelines, even though there is a great deal of attention paid to lists of various sorts, and we even have featured lists (like featured article). That omission needs to be addressed systematically. The best article for alphabetical order is Collation. See the whole, but especially the section Collation#Alphabetical_order, where some of your specific concerns are dealt with. I have also checked New Hart's Rules, and after some reflection I would answer your questions, and some other possible ones, specifically like this (bearing in mind that your list keeps the conventional English order of elements within each name): Order by surname, regardless of where the surname occurs among the elements of a name. Use the conventional English adaptation in the order of elements, which sometimes matches the original language's order (Mao Zedong) and sometimes alters it (Béla Bartók). Use the most common standard English transliteration or variant where foreign characters occur. (I have just now made redirects from Thorbergur Thortharson and Thortharson to Þórbergur Þórðarson, by the way. And I advise a move to Thorbergur Thortharson.) Generally ignore de, von, van and the like in determining alphabetical order, unless they are fixed to the name without spaces (as in Degas, Vanderbilt, d'Alembert, l'Anglais) or are conventionally treated as an essential part of the surname (as in McDonnell, O'Connor). French le and la, often capitalised in French names, are considered in alphabetising (so Delacroix precedes La Croix). When a prefix is naturalised in English (as in De Quincey, inconsistently spelt with de or De at our article; and Walter de la Mare, name of an English poet), alphabetisation should begin at that prefix. Treat Mc as if it were spelt Mac. Use other conventions that might be laid out at Collation. Allow for conventional exceptions (such as Charles de Gaulle, alphabetised on de; mentioned specifically at CMOS). So: Karen Attwood Étienne d'Angers Annette Davidson Charles de Gaulle Walter John de la Mare Thomas De Quincey Ernő Dohnányi Antoine de Gascogne Julien Offray de La Mettrie Yves La Roche Jean de La Rochelle Jean Le Maingre Jean-Marie Le Pen Craig McCulloch Avril MacIntyre Mao Zedong John Mountford Thor Rasmussen Thorbergur Thortharson I hope that helps. If you want more, let me know. –⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 02:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC) Thank you very much for your answers. I suppose that I am ready to do the alphabetization now, with the edit summary containing a permanent link to this talk page, and with the text "section 4". (I consider it to be likely that some editor in the future will see the new orderings, and will change some of them to more "correct" orderings.) I would like to introduce at WT:MOS essentially the same message that I have here (my first message in this section), possibly with a link to this discussion. However, I want to respect your wishes not to participate at WP:MOS or WT:MOS. Also, I am unsure about what might constitute participation by proxy, and what your thoughts are about that. Therefore, I am awaiting your comments on those matters before I proceed with the alphabetization, or with a possible discussion at WT:MOS. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC) That's all fine, Wavelength. If you want to link this discussion at WT:MOS go right ahead. Or you could put the text of it in a navbox and paste it directly onto the page there: Initial discussion with Noetica RAW TEXT OF THE DISCUSSION HERE Something like that. I think navboxes should be used a lot more. They certainly can keep things orderly. Don't hesitate to come back here for more technical discussion as needed. I have a few resources to consult, and the topic interests me. –⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 20:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC) I've refined and corrected things a little in my post above.–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 22:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC) I have done the alphabetization of Esperantist#Lists of famous Esperantists. Ba Jin (listed at Esperantist#Writers) is a pseudonym, which I alphabetized at Ba. Pope John Paul II (listed at Esperantist#Others) is a titled name, which I alphabetized at John. This reminds me of Cardinal, which is used as a middle name/title. It also reminds me of Esquire, which is mentioned last in a name (or maybe I should say "mentioned after a name"). Some telephone directories have all Mc and Mac (and maybe M' ) names in a section between the L section and the M section. Also, Mackenzie (with a lowercase k) could be analyzed as being in the M section, rather than in the section for Mc and Mac. Several Mac names have two forms which differ only as to the capitalization of the next letter. In my previous work on Wikipedia, I have listed items in ASCII-code order, with numerals before letters. If numerals are ordered as the words they represent, then there is ambiguity with 1492, which could be read as "one thousand four hundred ninety-two" or as "fourteen (hundred) nineteen-two", and likewise with 2009. See User:Wavelength/Articles started, sections 2 to 7. Recently, when I added M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak Case) to List of environmental lawsuits, I left the order as I had arranged it before, but I noticed another problem: the new entry differed from another one (M. C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath) in the spacing of the initials. Perhaps one is right and one is wrong, according to a guideline somewhere on Wikipedia. (All of this is giving me images of crazy quilting.) -- Wavelength (talk) 07:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC) Yes, I can understand your experiencing the crazy-quilting effect. I have edited the lists on the page myself. I do urge a move of Þórbergur Þórðarson to Thorbergur Thortharson; and even without that move, Thorbergur Thortharson would be much better for standard English usage, as in these lists. Such an adaptation is quite normal. We don't refer to Thor Heyerdahl as "Þór", or whatever the original form would be! I have also fixed some punctuation, capitalisation, and the like. The Esperanto word Internacio is best translated as International (SOED, "international": [B. n'] 3 (I-.) Any of various socialist organizations founded for the worldwide promotion of socialism or Communism; spec. = First International, Second International, Third International, Fourth International below. Also, a member of any of these organizations. L19.). One entry was an error, due to confusion with an almost exact namesake. I removed it (see edit summaries). There are articles for several Russians with that same surname, as opposed to first given name and also surname; and while there is a disambiguation page there is not, so far, a DAB tag at the top of every affected page. Language and languages were not designed for strictly rational collation such as alphabetising. We do the best we can, in an imperfect universe. I think we have it sorted out well enough this time. The larger matter of making WP guidelines to deal adequately with alphabetising is separate and more problematic. –⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 00:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is a permanent link to a subsequent discussion of the topic: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia [section 42: "Alphabetization and collation"].

Second discussion on Manual of Style talk page

Recently, I made some editing decisions involving alphabetization in the article Esperantist, and I discovered that Wikipedia has few or no guidelines for this process, which is probably important enough and comprehensive enough to deserve its own subpage. Here is a permanent link to a discussion of the topic: User talk:Noetica - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia [section 4: "Alphabetization (given names, surnames, domestic name order, thorn)"]. -- Wavelength (talk) 00:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC) As for Icelandic names, my impresson by taking a look on Iceland, Icelandic name, Icelandic language etc. is that most articles about people with Þ or Ð in their name are titled that way. And the redirect Thortharson is quite pointless: Icelanders aren't usually referred to by their patronymic alone (e.g. Björk, not "Guðmundsdóttir"); so a redirect from Thorbergur might be more useful. I won't insist on this as I'm not an Icelander, but if you want to do a large-scale renaming of articles with þorns and eðs in their names I suggest you ask the opinion of people at WP:ICELAND first. (More generally, articles should be at the name the person is most commonly referred to as by in English, even if this leads to inconsistences as Strauss rather than Strauß but Schrödinger rather than Schroedinger; as a rule of thumb, modern names tend to be translitterated less often than old ones.) As for surnames beginning with prepositions, at least in Italy they are considered part of the surname (and in more than 90% of them they start with a capital, mine being one of the few exceptions), i.e. nobody would alphabetize De Felice under F, or even de André under A, nor would anyone ever refer to them as Felice and André, either. So conventionally treated as an essential part of the surname is a good advice, but it should provide at least one example containing a space, such as De Felice. The point is, alphabetize under the surname the person is most commonly referred to, e.g. Ludwig von Beethoven under B because he's usually referred to as Beethoven, but Vincent Van Gogh under V as he's usually referred to as Van Gogh; spacing and capitals should be irrelevant to this. As for numbers, I think they should be sorted by value (e.g. 10 BC before AD 10 before 100 before 1492 before 2009), it would be awkward to have to spell out each number mentally in order to locate 1492 in a list of years. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 02:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC) To add to Noetica's nice list above, St. and Mt. should be alphabetized as Saint and Mount, right? Reywas92Talk 19:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC) From the archives, here are 23 related discussions, of which seven of the most relevant are in boldface italics. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 20#British vs U.S. Alphabetising Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 23#German eszet Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 29 (one section: "Ð and Þ") (one subsection: "Unicode collation charts") Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 30#Icelandic transliteration Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 31 (one section: "German eszet") Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 33#Transliteration Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 50#Transliteration convention Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 53#Alphabetical order Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 54#Alphabetical Order (part II) Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 56#Stränge diaëresës Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 58#We need a consensus on Unicode symbols Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 68#Foreign language titles Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 69#Romanization Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 69#Alphabetization Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 78#Standard to alphabetize lists? Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 79#Foreign Language Translations list Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 83#Transliteration of Greek characters Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 88#Alphabetization Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 95#Alphabetization Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 102#Diacritics with words imported from other languages Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 103#Excess non Latin script usage Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 103#Apostrophes in surnames Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 107#Mixed and non-capitalization in personal names -- Wavelength (talk) 23:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia has the article Collation, which discusses alphabetization. One definition of alphabetize is "to express by or furnish with an alphabet" [3], hence, there is Alphabetization.org - Easily fighting illiteracy! Besides those two examples, five of the leading results of my Google search for "alphabetization" are as follows. Martin Tulic, Book indexing - About indexing - Alphabetization Frothing at the Mouth: Alphabetization Roman Alphabetization American Society for Indexing: Information Retrieval History Joho the Blog: History of alphabetization -- Wavelength (talk) 04:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC) From the five external links listed above, I have learned that there are two major methods of alphabetization: word-by-word alphabetization and letter-by-letter alphabetization. In the former method (my preference of the two), word in print precedes wording, whereas, in the latter method, wording precedes word in print. Besides that "major" distinction, methods of alphabetization differ in various other respects, involving: abbreviations (such as St. and Mt.), surnames (with Mc, Mac, and M' ; and with da, de, di, do, du, van, von, and so forth); name order (of given name and surname), capitalization (A to Z before a to z, or A before a to Z before z), punctuation, numerals, and other features. At this moment, I am inclined to favor a system of collation based on the very thorough outline at Martin Tulic, Book indexing - About indexing (with its list of linked pages), and supplemented by the following. Unicode collation algorithm UTS #10: Unicode Collation Algorithm European ordering rules European Ordering Rules (EOR) -- Wavelength (talk) 23:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC) I would favor the word-by-word method also, as humans tend to think in word units rather than letter units. The Martin Tulic resource looks like a good reference. As for the diacritics, as a mostly-English cataloger, I have no opinion, although the use of redirects on WP is a life-saving procedure for instances with spelling variants. My 2¢. Pegship (talk) 20:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC) I agree with what has been said so far, namely that word by word is best as is using the commonly found form. I also think that some names (Walter de la Mare) might be better off alphabetized in natural language order instead of an inverted form that is difficult for users to remember. If you wanted to have the inverted form you could use redirects. This is especially true of medieval names (e.g. Willam of Occam).--FeanorStar7 (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC) Word by word, each abbreviation should be spelled out when alphabetizing, no opinion on diacritics. Nowimnthing (talk) 13:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC) The standard alphabetization methodology in the Anglo-American library industry is 'word by word', otherwise known as 'nothing before something'. I favour this on the basis of my own professional experience in the information industry. The American Library Association Code (Rule 6), follows this methodology, and further notes 'abbreviated words should be filed as if they were spelled out in full, with one exception, that is, the abbreviation Mrs. St. is therefore filed as if it were spelled Saint, and Mc... as Mac'. --Taiwan boi (talk) 14:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC) I adhere to the ALA's word by word rule (Rule 1) in ALA Rules for Filing Catalog Cards. Rule 6 covers abbreviations. Here's a link to a preview of the book:http://books.google.com/books?id=mCg-ZNG2llUC&dq=american+library+association+alphabetization+rules&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=4_QnGRcepx&sig=VVGIQmIRFvK6uL2xzYKRXRP131c&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result#PPP1,M1 Kmzundel (talk) 17:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC) I also vote for word by word, for NOT putting numbers alphabetically as if they were spelled out (e.g. 14 under "f") but rather in numeric or chronological (BCE before AD) order as appropriate, and for treating abbreviations as though they were the full word (e.g. "St." would be alpha'ed as "Saint"). As for the perplexing questions of Mac and Mc (do we put them at the front of the M's? do we pretend Mc is actually spelt Mac?), I vote that we not do either as it does nothing but confuse the average person. I mean really, who's going to think to look for "McDonald" between "MacDaniel" and "MacElhenie" ?? The original purpose of this was to simplify locating a name when the reader couldn't be sure whether it was spelt Mac or Mc, but in these days of ctrl-f and search, it seems an unnecessary and artificial refinement. I vote we simply alpha those exactly as spelt. So for example: ... Mabon... MacDuff... Maddox... Mbutu... McDuff... Merrill... and so on. --Bookgrrl holler/lookee here 00:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC) Noetica’s suggested protocol, and other editors, may have alluded to the following issue, but the examples don’t address it explicitly. I’m concerned about (usually French) names starting with Le and La. Some Le s and La s are separated from the next part of the name – Le Boucher, La Roch, etc. Others are not – Leboucher, Laroche, etc. Currently, all the names that have a space after La/Le appear earlier on in a category, and the names without spaces appear later. Hence, Maurice Leroux could be at quite some distance from Maurice Le Roux. In this particular case, these turned out to be the same person, so they have to be merged (I have no idea which is the correct spelling). This would have been picked up much more quickly if they’d appeared together in the first place. My intuitive way of ordering names in the real world does not just focus on the first element of a multi-part surname, but ignores spaces utterly and considers all the letters as if they were contiguous. I know that WP has decided to use only the first element for sorting purposes, but that has always seemed an odd decision to me. It feels like a decision made by a computer whizkid who's all tied up with primary and secondary sorting keys. That's good in theory, except that that's just not the way names work. We don’t think that the principal part of Maurice Le Roux’s surname is merely "Le", with some less important letters appended merely to distinguish him from Pierre Le Roy. No, Roux and Roy are, if anything, more important than Le, so they deserve to be fully taken into account as integral parts of name. There should be no "primary and secondary sorting key" idea with surnames. The whole surname is the primary - and sole - sorting key. The only real issue is deciding what exactly is the surname - and cases like Charles De Gaulle and Vincent van Gogh are classic examples. Is it "De Gaulle" and "van Gogh", or merely "Gaulle" and "Gogh"? But that's a completely separate issue. Once we decide that Vincent was Herr "van Gogh" and not Herr "Gogh", then he would be listed as a V name, after a putative Vangoff and before a Van Goit. See the discussion here that brought me to this page. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC) Most indexing systems I use regularly ignore spaces, so Le Roux and Leroux would be found together under LER. I find this easy to remember (no need to remember an exhaustive list of strings to ignore or spacing conventions) and leads to a fairly logical ordering. I've also noticed a growing convention not to spell out abbreviations, which I find also improves accessibility. Knepflerle (talk) 11:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC) This is a very odd discussion, since in France "de Gaulle" would be under "g" and "le Roux" under "r". −Woodstone (talk) 11:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Of course that is true - in French. It's asking rather a lot of our readers to know which particles are ignored in languages they may not have any acquaintance with. Our readers also shouldn't have to know what language a name stems from in order to find it in an index. It's a lot easier to remember the simple rule that we alphabetise every letter, rather than try and remember a list of exceptions on top of that. Knepflerle (talk) 15:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

-- Wavelength (talk) 22:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
[I have updated the permanent link and the archived discussion. -- Wavelength (talk) 02:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)]

[edit] Formatting of the lead sentence in lists

I'm assuming WP:BOLDTITLE applies to all lists as well as articles.

If for example the list is titled: "List of some things", then in the first sentence should the "list of" part be bolded too? as in:

"This is a list of some things."

or just the subject of the list, as in:

"This is a list of some things."?

Is there a specific guideline or is it just whatever the editor prefers? Because I couldn't find mention of this in the MoS. -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 23:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

At FLC, we've moved away from the verbatim repetition of the title in the lead; instead, we have encouraged a more engaging start to leads that introduce the topic better. See for examples of recently promoted lists that use this format. I find it much better than before, and there has been no opposition over there. One of these days, we will fix this page to be consistent with what goes on at WP:FL. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Splitting a bulleted list

Is there something in the media Wiki-mark up that allows you to create a spilt list? E.g. when a reflist gets bigs big you use {{reflist2}} see this. Is there something equivalent you can use for a bulleted list? --DFS454 (talk) 10:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean something text1 text2

like this? text3 text4

-- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 00:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes exactly this. Thanks --DFS454 (talk) 09:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

There's also {{div col}}, which doesn't require the break point to be manually specified. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User:Scorpion0422/State of the FL process‎

I believe the Featured List process is in trouble, and I have stated my opinions here. All opinions and comments are welcome. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to advise against short lists

See Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists#Proposal to advise against short lists. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] images in lists

Is there a policy, guideline, or style guide that excludes images in lists as referenced in this edit? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 22:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] People by city in the United States

Are these lists adding anything to the encyclopedia?

Wouldn't adding the appropriate category (e.g. Category:People_from_Nashville,_Tennessee) to each person's article be more organized and easier to maintain?

Also, it seems that this category contains a subcategory of...

Lists of people by U.S. cities

 --StaniStani  23:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• As we know, lists are different from categories. Lists can contain redlinks for people who do not have articles--so long as there is a reference showing the person was 'from' the city. Hmains (talk) 00:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Would it then follow that any unreferenced item on the list should have a reference added or struck from the list? I'm not trying to stir anything up, just wondered what to use these lists for. --StaniStani  02:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

That is what some people say that WP:LIST means, at least for people in a list. You can check. Hmains (talk) 05:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm being a bit too meta. Thanks for the discussion. --StaniStani  07:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of liqueurs

Hello. I seek guidance on a list article, in particular regarding external links. The article List of liqueurs includes the names of many liqueurs about which we have no articles. The question is: is it appropriate, for red-link liqueurs, to include next to the red link a link to a site selling the liqueur, where readers can verify information as to ingredients, etc.? An instance of exactly what I'm talking about can be found here. Thanks in advance for any opinions, whether here or at the article talk page, where we've been going in circles, it seems. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

replied at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Lists#List_of_liqueurs. -- Quiddity (talk) 16:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It's true, you answered, and I appreciate that. I would, however encourage anyone else to contribute to the discussion, whatever your feelings on the matter. We're at a point in the discussion where more outside perspectives can only help. Thanks for any feedback on this matter. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Stamp list

Is List of United States airmail stamps‎ an appropriate list for this wiki. Perhaps it should be merged to the wikibooks:World Stamp Catalogue/United States because it seems like a stamp catalog to me, essentially based on the Scott catalogue, a copyright publication, who protect their own numbering system. ww2censor (talk) 05:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone have any comment to make on this question? ww2censor (talk) 13:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think this list is appropriate: it seems to violate WP:NOT, as it is a non-encyclopedic collection of informaiton. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Lists/Tables

In tables (like infoboxes), there is no standard rule for capitalization. There seem to be four standards we could follow regarding this:

...	...
1. Genre:	Heavy metal, Death metal
2. Genre:	Heavy metal, death metal
3. Genre:	heavy metal, death metal
4. Genre:	Heavy Metal, Death Metal

Many sites (like amazon, allmusic, imdb) use either option (1) or option (4) (capitalizing each phrase or word in the list). This would be advantageous to us, as if wikipedia conforms to a common standard, then wikipedia style-lovers would have less corrections to make. Some people argue that it should follow sentence-capitalization rules - though there is some debate as to whether the sentence contains "Genre" or not, so these people may like either (2) or (3). Everyone one of these standards appears with some frequency on wikipedia, and none seems to be most common. Are there any thoughts here about setting a standard across WP? Luminifer (talk) 23:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Luminifer (talk) 23:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyone know how to make this table go in the proper location, rather than at the end of this page? --Ronz (talk) 18:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about my tag screw-up... Luminifer (talk) 17:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

So, are there no real thoughts here about this? Luminifer (talk) 17:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to propose a rule for "comma-separated lists". Clearly, if they are in-sentence, then normal capilization rules apply, but if they are not in a sentence (like the above examples), it may (or may not!) make sense to have other capitalization rules. Thoughts? Luminifer (talk) 17:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The only guidance I know of offhand is at Template:Infobox Musical artist#Genre, which seems applicable elsewhere. I suggest you ask wikiproject music for confirmation/suggestions. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of gamelan ensembles in the United States

Editors are seeking help in regard to use of official sites as references in this RfC. The article includes over one hundered gamelans, only a few of which have their own articles. The question is: when is it appropriate to use the official sites for gamelans as sources? --Ronz (talk) 18:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Which, as I understand it, is equivalent to using http://www.stuy.edu as a reference at Stuyvesant High School, or http://www.royalsociety.org references at Michael Faraday Prize, or the http://www.juniper.net references at List of acquisitions by Juniper Networks. They are all primary self-published sources, that are reliable about certain things. Hence, can be used with due care. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the equivalence. Q's examples are single sites sourcing single articles, and only one of them is a list. The List_of_gamelan_ensembles_in_the_United_States article has over 100 separate links in the article. I think the WP:EL guidline is more relevant here, becuse that article's links are behivng more as a list of links and less than sources for the list. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

If you read through the (large) discussion on the gamelan list's talkpage, you'll see we're trying to collaborate on going through the various links, and ascertain whether they are helpful references individually. When they are not acting as references, we have deleted them.

The main concern of those advocating mass-deletion of the links, seems to be their "directory-ness", and that concern has been negatively impacting the potential "reference-ness" that the majority of the links there are currently providing. This seems to me to be an example of cutting off the nose to spite the face.

Also, it should be clarified that that there are only 80 links in the article (not "over 100") and that around 30 of them are to independent (non-official and non-self-published) sources. Please try not to exaggerate figures when dealing with an issue that appears to have numbers-of-items as a central concern. Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Links should be wikilinks to Wikipedia articles, or citations to reliable sources, or in an WP:EL section. Self-published sources must meet the criteria listed in WP:SELFPUB. Dlabtot (talk) 23:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and yes, and yes. And yes, they meet all the criteria in SELFPUB - except potentially #1 which is utterly ambiguous/subjective (and really intended more for getting rid of psuedoscience "references", than it is for getting rid of university music dept and music ensemble references). Remember, the information these references are citations for, are items including: genre played, year established, director's name, translation of ensemble's name, types of instrument played, base location. This isn't controversial, debatable, dubious, or fluff/cruft. They are simple facts. However, many of the sites contain further information, which may be useful to some readers.

The only thing that seems to be irking people (after the unhelpful links have been removed) is the quantity of links. (and I'll repeat, this article is not primarily based on these references - they are supplemental). I understand the concerns that this is not a common method, but I disagree that it is a problem. -- Quiddity (talk) 04:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of digital library projects

List of digital library projects is undergoing discussion over a rewrite at Talk:List_of_digital_library_projects. The rewrite is at [4]. The page has been in breach of Wikipedia:LINKFARM#LINK and Wikipedia:List for many years. We could do with help reaching a consensus. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Notability of an entire list

I apologize in advance for repeating something I mentioned earlier; I had responded to an old comment but then realized I should have just started a new topic at the bottom.

It seems there is absolutely no standard for determining whether a list is notable (as opposed to the contents of the list. A good number of the lists on WP seem to fail the standard of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Yet here is the argument I keep seeing whenever a list is put up for AfD: "Everything on the list is notable and sourced, therefore the list is notable and should be kept". As far as I can see, that logic wins every time. It seems to make no difference that the list itself is ridiculous. By this logic, I could start "List of things that are green", as long as everything on it is notable and has a source. My point being, it seems that guidelines for lists need to be spelled out a little better, unless there is something I'm missing, which is entirely possible.--Susan118 ^talk 22:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Appropriate topics for lists. -- Wavelength (talk) 00:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Blank lines in lists

I've just done some expansion of the "List styles" section to more closely match common practice and last year's discussion (Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 102#List formatting) about avoiding blank lines between list items. Specifically, I removed the initial blanket warning, which I felt was too terse and a bit awkward in that spot, and added info on the effects double-spacing has on each type of formal list. I believe I've not only summed up the informal "consensus" from the old discussion, but explained a bit more about why the general rule might be broken and how to avoid breaking it when possible. If anyone has any problems with this, please let me know. Thanks. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)