Talk:List of vexillologists

List of vexillologists is within the scope of the Heraldry and vexillology WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of heraldry and vexillology. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Heraldry and vexillologyWikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillologyTemplate:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillologyheraldry and vexillology articles

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Inclusion criteria

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

At present, this is an indiscriminate list. As with all "List of" articles, it needs inclusion criteria.

For example, Wikipedia has numerous "List of people from..." articles, like List of people from New York City. The articles do not attempt to list every person from New York City. It isn't a random list of people from NYC that someone bothered to add. Readers do not care that my aunt is from NYC. They are looking for notable people from NYC. Similarly, other articles listing films by type, people by profession, etc. generally limit the list to blue link, non-redirect notable examples.

That is the most widely used of Wikipedia's common selection criteria. The other two don't apply: While we certainly can (and should) list every president of the United States or major character in Friends or whatever, we can't reasonably list every vexillologist. While a list of major characters in Friends invites a list of every character in Friends that doesn't belong on the first list, there is no similar option here.

Unless there are objective sourced criteria to determine who should be included here, blue link, non-redirect notable examples that reliable sources identify as being vexillologists is a logical choice.

Thoughts? - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Still waiting for responses. As this is a thinly edited article, if I don't get any policy/guideline-based discussion, at some point I will become a consensus of one and will make the change. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:02, 10 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

SummerPhDv2.0I agree with you, and given the lack of responses to your post, a consensus of two should be sufficient, s I went ahead and trimmed it as you had suggested.BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 13:48, 10 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

SummerPhDv2.0 Hey there. My only argument against the selection criteria you suggest is that this list is used by news sources to find the current experts in the field. So to only show the ones you've selected (most of which cannot be reached for comment or appear as an expert) makes this page less helpful than the previous version. Having all of the current vexillologists along with their locations and specialties, no matter their years of "notability", seems like a more helpful source for someone looking for a vexillologist in a specific field or area.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aggiemini11 (talk • contribs) 17:11, February 11, 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a directory.

Every "List of..." article needs inclusion criteria: a verifiable, objective set of rules for what should and should not be included. Currently, the thin consensus is to use blue link, non-redirect notability. "Current experts in the field" is both subjective and contrary to the title of the article (with little knowledge of the field, there are clearly entries of people who weren't experts (did Betsy Ross design even ONE flag?) and are quite dead (even if they arn't sure what happened to her body). - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Add topic