Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Non-notable list - proposed deletion

Special:Random brought me to List of tallest buildings in Haaglanden, a list of the 20 tallest buildings in the metropolitan area around The Hague. There's one reference, which seems to be a wider list of tallest buildings in the Netherlands. Seems non-notable, but I'm still pretty uncertain about list notability. I've PROD-ed it, but like I said, I don't know how obviously non-notable this is, so maybe AfD is a better choice here. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 01:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

List of tallest buildings in major metropolitan areas is pretty standard fair for Wikipedia lists. Much like "Lists of people from...", there is no need for an independent citation to verify notability of the group. With that said, I would imagine finding a reliable source for tallest building in the Haaglanden shouldn't be all that hard. See: Emporis: tallest-buildings-the-hague-netherlands --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 21:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason why this is not necessary? I feel like if it doesn't have an unusual number of tall buildings, then it's just basically cruft. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 00:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Tulsa Oklahoma has only one more building over 100 meters than The Hague and the List of tallest buildings in Tulsa was a featured list. There's a pretty wide consensus on Wikipedia for inclusion of lists of tallest buildings in major metropolitan areas. Also, 9 buildings over 100 meters is still fairly uncommon in the world today. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 04:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

List of mathematical shapes

NOTE, List of mathematical shapes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been greatly expanded by 200kB this month, by users occupying IP ranges 99.xxx.xxx.xxx and 108.xxx.xxx.xxx who have also been reverting each other. Some of the new additions are not mathematical shapes at all, and a proposal to rename the page exists at talk:List of mathematical shapes. Up until this rash of activity it was only 2.5kB large -- 70.51.46.146 (talk) 05:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Christopher Walken FLRC

I have nominated Christopher Walken filmography for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Potential concerns with a list article

Hi. I have just blocked a user for adding content without sources; because of this, I do not feel like I should engage on content with him. However, noting that higher on the page he had been warned about adding sources that don't actually support the content he's placing, I took a glance at a few of the sources used in List of awards and nominations received by Beyoncé and while the sources I looked at do support the content, I'm really unsure about the content. For instance, it is sourced that Beyonce is "Bing's Most-Searched Celebrity", but is this really an award or nomination? It wasn't really a competition, was it? Similarly, Guinness Book of World's Records evidently names her and her husband as a power couple; is that an award? The article is littered with such information. While this may be standard for such articles, I'm unsure due to my lack of involvement in the area, and, again, since I blocked the editor I do not feel I can become involved. I wanted to make a note in case there is an issue with bloat and somebody wanted to take a look. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Adding content without sources is something you block people for?? Why not just remove the content or put a "citation needed" tag on it, if you think it's dubious? W. P. Uzer (talk) 10:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, indeed it is. Continuing to add content without sources after being told of the need for sources is disruptive; see WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. I'll add that this particular editor has received multiple warnings that sources are needed including two final warnings that if he persisted in adding unsourced content or citing sources that do not support content he would be blocked. The block is a temporary one, but such blocks are generally lengthened if problems persist after the block. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you're right in this case, but most of us, if we have disagreements with other editors about content, are told we have to discuss it with them and reach consensus. Seems the rules are different for administrators. Of course, if the editor's blocked, then we can't even ask him what sources he has for his additions (who knows, he may actually have some this time). I agree with you about the bloat, however; a list of awards and nominations should be restricted to those things. W. P. Uzer (talk) 12:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not involved with this editor on content issues, and I brought this here because I think that's a line I need to keep to. :) I will not modify the article - although I did revert vandalism from one article where he inflated a sales figure to 118 million even though the source he cited to support this said (in clear text, not even potentially confusing numbers) 15 million. You can, however, ask away - his block is temporary, and his talk page is not blocked. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I should add, you have to work to reach consensus with people on good faith content disputes. If you find people vandalizing content, you can treat them according to Wikipedia:Vandalism and, if necessary, request blocking at WP:AIV. If they are blatantly and obviously violating core content policies, even if not technically vandalizing, you can ask for assistance at WP:ANI. The rules are not different for administrators; the tools are. Administrators are as constrained by policy as anyone else. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I would like to know what a "solo" means to the list maker who names best guitar solo as 2 people. I have always thought a "solo" was a piece by 1 person and a "duet" was 2, so therefore the guitar corroboration of 2 people should be removed from guitar "solo" and noted that it is a "duet". I am not trying to discredit their efforts, but applying a proper label to it. Chunyin 13 March 2015

Woody Allen filmography FLRC

I have nominated Woody Allen filmography for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Content dispute on Spanish profanity

Greetings. There is an ongoing content dispute at Spanish profanity regarding the removal of unsourced entries. At the moment, there are very few editors involved, so assessing consensus is difficult. While this article is not tagged as being in your project's scope, it is essentially a list of Spanish words, so it is probably relevant. Your thoughts on the matter would be much appreciated. 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 13:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

see also sections are not mini-outlines of the article

With regard to the guideline that "the 'See also' section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes", let me point to this discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Outlines#outline sections (not articles). Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 04:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

List of circulating currencies

The list of circulating currencies now sorts properly when sorted by name of currency. Previously, e.g., "Thai baht" sorted under T; now it sorts under B. See the Talk page there under Sorting the table by "Currency".

If you would like to discuss this with me, please {{Ping}} me. Thnidu (talk) 07:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of songs recorded by Ariana Grande/archive1

For anyone who's interested? Thanks.  — ₳aron 12:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

automated list building

Hello,

This is about lists. And it's always an exhausting job that to create and update them. Couldn't this be done by a sql query ? https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/DBpedia

I think a lot of lists would gain making this transition.

If you want to read more about it I suggest you the PhD thesis of Christopher DAVIS. http://enipedia.tudelft.nl/thesis/ChrisDavisPhD_MakingSenseOfOpenData.pdf

--RP87 (talk) 21:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

There are lots of bots around Wikipedia. And yes, some lists could be created by sql query bot. But generally they are compiled from discordant information from various web citations which does not make for easily programmable search queries. However, if you have a specific set of lists in mind that you think could be created in this manner, feel free to bring it up here. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 06:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Lists of people - notability for each subject?

(Note: I posted this at the Manual of Style/Lists by accident.) I've tried reading archived discussions about redlinks in lists and notability requirements for list items, but I am still at a loss for how it applies to lists of real people. I have seen many "lists of" for musicians, groups, and singers from certain genres or geographic locales. Of those I've examined, they include almost entirely subjects which are notable, i.e. have or may soon have articles on Wikipedia. Additionally, they include either just each subject's name, or perhaps include active years and/or a short explanation of who they are. The following series of lists (List of South Korean idol groups (2010s), List of South Korean idol groups (2000s), List of South Korean idol groups (1990s)) attempts to include ALL "idol groups" that have ever existed within South Korea, including those for which notability does not and will not likely ever exist. The list also includes an extraordinary amount of extra information on each subject, all of which is already included in the notable subjects' articles. We've attempted to have discussions about these lists, but editors seem to be divided into two camps: the "keep everything because kpop fans like it" and "make these lists like other wikipedia lists" camps. I think it's hard for us to see these lists in the wider scope of Wikipedia because, like any fandom, kpop fans tend to be insular and very passionate. I've tried to do my research, but I'd really like other eyes to look at these lists and give some guidance about the appropriateness of their length and inclusiveness. *note: I know sourcing is an issue at the moment, so no need to bring that up right now. Thank you - I just want to get better ideas of Wikipedia standards so some of these arguments can stop. Actually, the list of possibly-overly-inclusive lists is an issue for many, many kpop articles, but I'll start with just this set of lists.  :) Shinyang-i (talk) 04:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Shinyang, I'll try to help you out. Lists need information. It is the rare list of mathematical equations or the like that is just a list of names. There are also navigational lists that may just have names, but these lists of pop groups are most definitely not a navigational list. An easy way to cater to both sides would be to create a category that would be just names and easily navigable. The tabulated versions of the lists (recently deleted) look great to me and not overly informative. I think it would be a shame to lose them. The guidelines at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists clearly call for prose (text) explaining why each entry is a member of the list. Simply listing them does not accomplish that. It's nice to add a little depth, and like I said, I think the tabulated version of these lists does that nicely. As for notability, WP:LISTPEOPLE clearly states that lists of people need to be lists of WP:Notable people. With each entry requiring its own citation that verifies not only their notability, but their connection to the list. There are rare exceptions, but this doesn't even come close. Also, the editor who just did the page wipe of all but the names is definitely in the wrong. They're trying to turn a list into a category. Just go create the category. WP:Lists are WP:articles in every way and require content just like an article. I hope this helps. Feel free to ask me for more help. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 07:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Lists with only one item

Is a list with only one item acceptable on Wikipedia? See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of massacres in Jamaica -Arb. (talk) 15:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

No. Best to redirect to a list of items of similar content. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 06:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

If it was an isolated list I'd agree with you and likewise advocate redirect. However, lists that are part of a series seem like a special case. Think of it from a reader's point of view. Suppose a reader is working through the {{Massacres}} navbox (go view it anyone who hasn't) looking at various entries; after two or three their expectation is that each will take them to a List of ... article. So what are the possibilities with a list of one:

• Delete; they see a red link in the Navbox.
• Redirect; they are taken to an article. And have to pause from the task in hand to wonder why. If they are experienced in Wikipedia they may eventually figure it out but they may not. In user Interface design jargon we've "confounded their expectations"; something to be avoided where possible.
• Keep; they are taken to a list of one item. They can immediately see that Wikipedia only has one Massacre article for that country and continue with whatever it is they are doing without a diversion into meta-think or puzzlement.

-Arb. (talk) 18:16, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

References

Then just add this massacre to the list and eliminate the problem. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 03:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Title formats, List of foos by criteria bar or List of the barest foos in the world

As I see the first title format generally works with conciseness and adaptability in many situations.

One way of doing things is to use the format "List of foos by criteria bar"

• the first title I found in this format was:

Lists of organisms by population and I also found the likes of: List of countries and dependencies by population

other "List... by population" articles

other examples are:

List of mountains and hills of the British Isles by height

other "List... by height" articles

List of lakes by depth

other "List... by depth" articles

List of Solar System objects by size

other "List... by size" articles

List of rivers by length

other "List... by length" articles

List of languages by number of native speakers

other "List... by number ..." articles

Word lists by frequency

other "List... by frequency" articles

List of South Korean surnames by prevalence, List of countries by prevalence of cocaine use

other "List... by prevalence .." articles

List of lakes by volume

other "List... by volume" articles

List of U.S. states by elevation / List of mountains by elevation

other "List... by elevation" articles

List of countries by incarceration rate

• Many other articles follow a "List of barest foos .." type format with examples including:

List of the heaviest people

List of largest libraries

List of deepest caves

List of longest bridges in the world

List of most expensive buildings in the world

List of the world's busiest airports by passenger traffic

List of most visited art museums in the world

One of the difficulties with the second format is that, when you specify a location, the superlative grammatically needs to be preceded by a "the" and, in many cases there may be an inconsistency in presentation. I think that if a title format to say, "List of X by criteria" can be used then this will provide a firmer basis for grammatically sound and consistently formed titles. GregKaye 22:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your comment or concern, particularly given that the organizing concepts of the two groups of lists are substantively different. Nor do I see anything improper with any of the current lists. Perhaps if you'd lay out how you think the second group should be renamed, it would make things more clear. postdlf (talk) 00:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

postdlf I'm really trying to get my head around it myself. While words like "heaviest", "largest" and "most" have descriptive value their use may either results in erroneous grammar (not using "the"), inconsistent presentation (with or without "the") or use of arguably non essential wording (such as ".. in the world"). I was thinking that contents such as fitting in Category:Lists of largest airlines might have gone in something like a "List of airlines in X by size" but, even in these cases, the listings are often in the "wikitable sortable" format. There are a whole range of "List of tallest buildings and structures in X" type titles currently in with RM proposing to add a the on a purely grammatical basis but I'm wondering whether I should have proposed "List of buildings and structures in X by height". GregKaye 12:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

That would completely change or obscure what these lists are. The whole point is to gather only the Xs that are the FOOiest. Form must follow function, so we can't "fix" grammar in a way that changes meaning. Whether the lists should or shouldn't include "the" or whether "in the world" is superfluous are fair questions, but they certainly shouldn't be renamed to remove the superlatives. postdlf (talk) 13:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

postdlf Thank you. This is something you have definitely helped me better understand. Certainly an article entitled List of people by weight would itself have the potential to gain huge proportion not withstanding the difficulties involved in maintaining accuracy of content on a day to day basis.

However, in examples such as the airline example and with articles such as List of islands by area it works. Some of the airlines and islands are relatively small. In such cases I'd personally question the value of the Fooest description.

Admittedly a format such as "List of buildings and structures in X by height" may not work as well as List of islands by area even though, to some extent, similar principles are involved. GregKaye 15:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

RfC at WikiProject Film

There's a discussion that also concerns this WikiProject at WT:FILM#RfC: Do list items need their own WP article in order to be sourced in list articles?. More input is appreciated. Lapadite (talk) 14:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Bot Request

There is a request by Pigsonthewing at Wikipedia:Bot requests#Redirects to lists, from the things they are lists of, I am thinking of taking this on but just wanted to ensure there was some consensus or at least no opposition to it here. Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 12:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

List of Disasters by Death Toll Possible Creation

I've been thinking of creating a list of events in human history by death toll. First would be World War II, followed by The Black Death, then The Taiping Rebellion, etc. Does anybody know is this exists already? If you don't think it does, please say that. Compassionate727 (talk) 12:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

What would be your basis for grouping these together as "events"? A multi-theater global war, an epidemic... We can compare death tolls from occurrences of the same general kind, but beyond that you're comparing apples and kangaroos. postdlf (talk) 12:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Good Lists

There is a proposal to set up a new classification level, Good List. Please add your comments there. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

That would probably be good. I was never fond of list articles not having a quality rating. Compassionate727 (talk) 12:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: Per WP:MULTI, please add your comments there, not here. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. I wasn't paying that much attention. I had left a comment on this page and was leaving when this caught my attention. Compassionate727 (talk) 14:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)