Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

A wikilink is not a reliable source

Some folks have gotten the idea that a wikilink is a substitute for a reliable source. WP:UGC couldn't be much clearer that it is not. Toddst1 (talk) 15:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Navigational lists have always been just blue links. Such as List of American film actresses or a thousand others like it listing anything imaginable. As for the specific section you tried to change without discussion A company or organization may be included in a list of companies or organizations whether or not it meets the Wikipedia notability requirement, unless a given list specifically requires this. If the company or organization does not have an existing article in Wikipedia, a citation to an independent, reliable source should be provided to establish its membership in the list's group. This is how it is for everything, not just companies. If its a blue link it does not a reference proving it belongs there. Dream Focus 15:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

When a navigational list asserts membership in a group it is more than just navigation. For example, List of designated terrorist groups or List of people with bipolar disorder. Toddst1 (talk) 15:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

That's done for WP:BLP reasons. For legal reasons, you can't put someone on a list with that without a reliable source to back it up. Dream Focus 15:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

The reason that a link to another article in Wikipedia is acceptable is because it is not a source, it is a link internal to the organism that is Wikipedia. If the article at the other end of the link is not adequately supported, it would be flagged to require additional support or flagged for deletion. If it is deleted, the link to that article would change from blue to red, which would then indicate that a reliable source was required. Don't think of the stand-alone list as the whole of the information flow. Each link is the same as a footnote, that causes you to flip to the back of the book and look up what each footnote states. You can challenge individual listings as being inadequately supported, both on the stand-alone list and at the article, but avoiding painting all linked articles with a broad brush of unreliability. Mburrell (talk) 20:08, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Ask the folks over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Days of the year how well that worked out. They had 366 pages full of garbage following exactly that logic and it's taking years to clean up. Toddst1 (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Rather vague. Were there things listed that you couldn't just click on what was linked and confirm the information? If so, totally irrelevant here. And the text you attempted to remove from the guideline page is about list of companies, something specific and undebatable what they are. So you don't need a reliable source citation for companies. That's why the text in question has been in the rules for years now. Dream Focus 23:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Fairly vague. Went over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Days of the year and there is no current discussion going on about 366 pages full of garbage and years to clean up. Please cite specifics, not generalities or feelings of grievances. Don't make others do research to prove your point, bring up specifics. You might have a point, but I couldn't reach it from your statement above. Please help me by showing what the problem is, with specific edits and repairs. Thank you. Mburrell (talk) 04:06, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• Since that section is about companies in particular. List of film production companies, List of companies of the United States by state, and many others. No references are needed to prove something belongs there, the information can be verified in their linked to articles they are a company of that type, location, etc. If however you listed the revenue of a company on a list, you'd need a reference for that information, but that has nothing to do with it being on the list. Dream Focus 16:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

A wikilink is not suitable for verification. Ever. It's specifically called out in the policy. We use real sources not Wikipedia UGC with the hope that it's backed up on the linked page. Toddst1 (talk) 20:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

You don't need to verify common sense information. You can tell a dog is a dog, an actress is an actress, a film company is a film company. The guidelines all have a disclaimer at the top: This page documents an English Wikipedia content guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page. If you can put something in a category, you can put it on a list article for things in the same group as the category. You don't need a reliable source for either. Dream Focus 21:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• Note... there is a difference between “everything must be verifiable” and “everything must be cited”. We can say that “Albany is the Capitol of New York State” because that fact is obviously verifiable... and is in fact SO verifiable that we do not need to cite any of the millions of reliable sources that verify it.

That said, such “obviously verifiable” facts are limited. What may be obvious to you may not be obvious to someone else. And... should someone request that a source be cited, remember that it will take much less time and effort to pick one of the many sources, and slap it into the article, than it will to argue that a source isn’t needed. If a Wookiee wants a source... don’t argue... just let the Wookiee win. Blueboar (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

That depends on the request. If a Wookie wants sources on a list like List of American film actresses mentioned above, it's easier to just argue with the Wookie. —El Millo (talk) 22:49, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• WP:LISTVERIFY explains the situation well. Don't need a citation to know that apple belongs in a list of fruits. Dream Focus 23:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

  Well, someone did once fact-tag a sentence about the human hand normally having five digits, so maybe there is an editor who'd pretend that he doesn't know what an apple is. (Strange how those editors always seem to want someone else to provide the sources, instead of doing the work themselves, isn't it?)

  I have two related thoughts. One is that if anyone can dig up a diff of the long-ago prohibition on citing sources for lists, it'd probably be a good idea to spam it into a {{FAQ}} at the top of this page, with a question along the lines of "Why doesn't every single list entry always have an inline citation?" One reason many old lists don't have citations is because we used to ban them, and that tends to set a precedent for what people expect.

  The second is specific to the premise of this discussion: If a wikilink is never-ever-ever a suitable source of information, and if everything needs an inline citation (despite the actual policy saying that's not true...), then why bother with the small potatoes here instead of attacking the entire navbox system? This page at least encourages citations under some circumstances, but NAVBOX encourages omitting them in favor of placing them only on the template's /doc pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Selection criteria (32K?)

In WP:CSC, can someone please add at least one (good) example for Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group? And does List of chocolate bar brands fall under that category (as it includes both notable and non-notable items)? I'm essentially wondering where the 32K limit applies, hence my question. Zach (Talk) 14:07, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@Zacharie Grossen, I'm doubtful that anyone can make a complete list of chocolate bar brands. There used to be hundreds of brands making thousands of products just in the US (especially before refrigerated transportation options were widely accessible).

Some examples of "short, complete lists" might be:

• all the people who held a particular position (e.g., all the mayors of a city, all the presidents of a university, all the heads of an organization)
• all the works produced by an artist (e.g., all the music albums by a band, all the paintings by a painter, all the poems by a poet)
• all the types of a plant (e.g., a list of grains, a list of apple varieties, a list of poisonous plants)

Perhaps more relevantly: Lists aren't required to use the common selection criteria. That section describes the three "common" choices, not "the only three permissible options". If you feel like the discussion on the talk page isn't making progress, then you might ask for help at a relevant WikiProject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:28, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping and response. In WP:CSC: "These should only be created if a complete list is reasonably short (less than 32K)". Does anybody have an example of a list that should *not* be created? Zach (Talk) 13:46, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: I'm not sure to understand you properly: do you think that List of chocolate bar brands should be deleted? Zach (Talk) 15:02, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that list should be deleted. I think it needs some work (is it a list of brands, in which case it needs to say "Cadbury" and not two dozen specific varieties of Cadbury chocolate, or a list of individual products, in which case it probably needs to be split?), but I don't think it should be deleted.

The "32K" thing was originally about a web browser problem ('way back in the day, one moderately common web browser sometimes wouldn't load really long pages), and now it's about accessibility for people on mobile phones/limited data connections. It better to interpret the spirit of the rule rather than the exact numbers. One would not, for example, want a List of New York residents in the 1910 census, even though it would be possible to make a verifiable and complete list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:36, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Notability of glossaries

We have quite a few "glossary of Foo" type of articles. For example, Glossary of professional wrestling terms, Glossary of mathematical symbols, Glossary of French expressions in English, etc. Please consider on commenting on their notability at Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Notability_of_glossaries. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:06, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Feedback requested at List of co-princes of Andorra

Your feedback would be appreciated at Talk:List of co-princes of Andorra#List criteria for inclusion. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:02, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Feedback requested: do MOS:TRIVIA and MOS:POPCULT apply to stand-alone lists?

There is an ongoing discussion happening at Wikipedia talk:TRIVIA to determine whether there is consensus that MOS:TRIVIA and MOS:POPCULT apply to stand-alone lists. You are invited to contribute. Thanks, Pilaz (talk) 19:53, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Lists of (university name) people

This website has many "lists of (university name) people" such as List of Harvard University people, List of Princeton University people, etc. IMO a general guideline is required for such lists. Those pages should include alumni (graduates and attendees), faculty members, researchers, and visiting professors affiliated with those universities. The purpose of universities is to educate, teach, and perform research. Thus, alumni and those who assumed employment level duties, namely teaching university-level courses or performing research, should be included in those pages. Ber31 (talk) 17:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

• Assuming there are reliable sources to substantiate inclusion, I would say yes. Personally, I would break it into several smaller lists (one for alumni, another for faculty, etc), but that’s just my own preference. Blueboar (talk) 19:03, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

  Lists of (university name) people come in various "flavors". For instance, List of Princeton University people (government), a sub-page of List of Princeton University people, contains both alumni and faculty. Your idea of breaking them into smaller lists is a good one! Lists of (university name) alumni can contain alumni (graduates and attendees). Lists of (university name) faculty can contain researchers and faculty members. Introducing this guideline will benefit this website. Ber31 (talk) 15:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I've created a general guideline. Here is the link: Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists#Lists_of_(University_name)_people. Ber31 (talk) 17:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Editors such as User:ElKevbo, User:Sdkb, User:Doug Weller, and other interested editors should join this discussion! It would be nice to have a lively discussion on this issue. Ber31 (talk) 13:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ber31: do you really mean all "Former students (alumni) and employees, including faculty members and researchers, should be included in such lists". That would be hundreds of thousands for big universities. I think you need to add "notable" to that. That would match the earlier statement "For instance, articles about schools often include (or link to) a list of notable alumni/alumnae, but such lists are not intended to contain everyone who verifiably attended the school." Note that "school" includes University. Doug Weller talk 13:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

That's a reasonable suggestion. I read it as implied (as it's already part of this guideline) but making it explicit can't hurt. ElKevbo (talk) 22:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this change? The lists are arranged in a variety of ways, with separate lists of alumni, alumni of specific divisions, faculty, presidents, athletes, and even at least one IMO absurd list of non-graduates. All of them fall under WP:LISTPEOPLE, so what does a new subsection add? Are there a lot of disputes over whether to include just tenured faculty vs. researchers, too? Disputes about people with a brief relationship or honorary degree recipients? I suppose it's better to be consistent than to leave it up to a case-by-case basis, but if there are many such disputes and the effect of this change is to say "no honorary degree recipients or non-graduates" then it will affect many articles and should probably have discussion before creating a new subsection, potentially with an RfC listed at WP:CENT. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I would also appreciate a clear answer to this question. I can offer some guesses but it would be helpful to have a clear guiding purpose for this addition. ElKevbo (talk) 22:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• I appreciate that Ber31 took the step to write this and add it, but unfortunately I don't think it's necessary, and I suggest it be reverted until consensus to add it is established. It doesn't say that much—just that we should include non-graduates and shouldn't include honorary degree recipients—making it pretty WP:CREEPy. What it does say would be better placed in WP:UNIGUIDE, the centralized resource for college articles. I should also note that the current example articles are very poor choices—they represent only large, elite, U.S. institutions, and none are featured lists despite the fact we have several. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  Seeing no emerging consensus, I've removed the section to restore the status quo ante. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:54, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Minimum number for List?

What is the minimum number where it is appropriate to create a list? For example, there is no point in creating a list where there is only one known: List of planets where humans live, List of stars around which the Earth orbits. But is it appropriate to create a List where there are only two known members? (List of elements with less protons than Lithium, List of natural bodies in the Earth-Moon system) Should there be at least three? At least four? Is there a policy? -- Eliyahu S ^Talk 06:04, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@Eliyahu S: I came here wondering if the answer to that question could be 0. List articles in the form "List of something of/in some county" could be part of a group of lists for every country on the topic. The number of items within some of those lists could fluctuate, including going to zero.

For example, in Category:Lists of airlines by country there are lists with just one airline; e.g., List of airlines of the Central African Republic, and zero airlines, List of airlines of the Federated States of Micronesia. --DB1729 (talk) 00:05, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Appropriate topics for lists

One of my concerns about the recent addition is that a list which isn't nearly as specific as the given example about "one-eyed horse thieves from Montana" might be too subjective to interpret as "reasonable". For example, if the list was just about "horse thieves", then the addition isn't really compatible with what the section talks about in the first sentence about being too specific, but rather starts talking about this subjective type of judgement that we are expected to guesstimate about readership. This follows into my second concern, which is that a subjective judgement is not policy based like other areas in this guidance that reserve judgement based on what Wikipedia is WP:NOT or some other policy. Huggums537 (talk) 09:54, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

What raised this in my mind is running across a lot of lists at New Page Patrol which are unlikely ever to be used and combining that with what the note in this guideline noting that the possibilities for lists are infinite. These aren't absurd like "one eyed horse thieves" but just some of the trillions of possible lists that could be invented. To make up a hypothetical example, a list of aircraft carrier visits to Sydney Australia since the year 2000. One of trillions of possibilities like it. Not absurd, but has a near-zero chance that a reader would seek that particular grouping. There really is a lack a guidance either here or in other core policies and guidelines regarding this. I believe that good guidance would be that there be a reasonable expectation that a reader would want to see this particular grouping of items. Like most guidance in Wikipedia, it is not specific / explicit. This allows this consideration to be taken into account along with other considerations when deciding whether to create an article or what to do with one that has been created which ~98% of the time is how things work in Wikipedia decisions. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:53, 10 May 2022 (UTC).

I certainly understand your concern, but I feel like the response doesn't address any of my own concerns. What do you say about my assertions that I think the proposed guidance is too subjective, or that I see no policy supporting guidance telling editors we should or (in this case) should not have any lists based on personal guesstimations about if we *think* readers will like/want them or not? Huggums537 (talk) 20:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, for reference for others, I'll start by listing the proposed addition which was/is "There should be a reasonable expectation that readers will seek to see that particular grouping and selection of list items." And then to avoid repeating, note my rationale described above. On your first point, this is admittedly not specific and subjective. But such is common in Wikipedia policies and guidelines. This is a "screening" type statement and so the net effect of that is that it would merely put a "finger on the scale" towards that expectation. And the net result of that would be that it would only screen list that fall really far short in that area. On your last point, this really isn't the broader "basing" article on such assessments, it's a screening function which is narrower thing. And it's net effect would be to screen out only the ones that are unusually lacking in that area. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Do you have real world examples other than the hypothetical aircraft carrier visits to Sydney Australia, and is this related to the lists in this discussion? Huggums537 (talk) 05:38, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

A real world example that brought the question to mind was/is a set of articles that I ran into at New Page Patrol, and the thought that the potential for such cross-categorization lists is infinite, and that guidance in this abstract area is lacking from Wikipedia. About all that it says is "don't do obviously absurd ones" . This is just a case which brought this to mind where more guidance is needed, not an inference that these should be excluded. This was seeing, during New Page Patrol, an editor creating a whole series of articles, each of which was "A list of executions at the xxxx prison." And them on a path to prepare one of those articles for each prison. So this is NOT an illustration of problem articles, it's an illustration where wikipedia fails to give any guidance other than "don't do absurd ones". North8000 (talk) 14:05, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Your thoughts? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Glad you brought these up. I have big concerns. I think if subjectivity is common on Wikipedia guidance, then that needs to change in as many places as it possibly can. How do we know the net effects will be restricted in the way you say they will if people have their "finger on the scale"? Some people have a heavier finger than others. I have a very good reason to suggest that this kind of guidance is more of an inference that these lists should be excluded, and not so much good guidance for prevention. It goes back to my issue with the whole subjectivity of it all. It works both ways. If New Page Patrollers can use this kind of vaguely defined guidance as a very broad measuring stick for what counts, and put their "finger on the scale" to tip in favor of getting rid of bad lists, then new page list creators can read the guidance, and just as easily take their own fingers completely off the scale to justify the creation of their lists in the first place so this kind of guidance will do absolutely nothing whatsoever in the prevention of these lists being created. The only real world useful purpose this kind of guidance would serve would be for New Page Patrollers to have a broader measuring stick for removing "bad" lists. The problem I foresee with this is the endless debates it will also produce about who decided what regarding whose finger was on what scale, and if it was pressing too hard or not. Huggums537 (talk) 02:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Proposed addition to 'Citing sources' section

See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lists#List refs

Length of entries within a list article

I came here looking for some guidance re the length of individual items in a "list of" page, but don't see anything about it. For "list of" articles where each item is sufficiently notable to have its own article, it seems to me that the following advice might apply:

Entries are supposed to have an article of their own, and that's the place to elaborate; a list article is best when the entries are short synopses rather than the definitive exposition on the subject.

Comments? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 21:04, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

RfC potentially of interest to editors watching this page

See:

Talk:List_of_common_misconceptions#RfC_concerning_the_relationship_between_List_of_common_misconceptions_and_List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:25, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

RfC about lists of [inhabitants of a certain region] by net worth

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Although there is a slight consensus (3 and a weak support against 1 and a spoiled ballot clearly not in support, as well as a "no lists at all" !vote), there is not enough participation in this discussion to make or change any sort of policy. Additionally, this would all need to go through AfD and in such cases the lists would be weighed against WP:NLIST, which has a much stronger community consensus than this discussion. In this circumstance we have a slight local consensus that these lists don't belong on en.wiki in the wrong venue to actually affect such a change. Without a much larger turnout to this RFC I can't see four editors overcoming NLIST, but of course any editor can bring any of these lists to AfD. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:52, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia carries a number of stand-alone lists of individuals ranked by financial "net worth" for certain regions.

Examples: List of Europeans by net worth, List of wealthiest Americans by net worth, List of Canadians by net worth, List of Arabs by net worth, List of Saudis by net worth, List of British billionaires by net worth, List of Japanese by net worth, List of Pakistanis by net worth, List of Filipino billionaires by net worth, List of Indian people by net worth, List of Italians by net worth, List of Greeks by net worth, List of Portuguese by net worth, List of Ugandans by net worth, List of Romanians by net worth, List of Kenyans by net worth, etc.
Recently, an AfD was opened for "List of Asians by net worth" and the decision was to delete the list (see here).
Question #1:
We should continue to have these net-worth lists in Wikipedia. Yes or no?
Question #2:
In accordance with the consensus on question #1, we either allow all such lists to remain in Wikipedia unchallenged by AfDs or respectively delete each and every one, old and new. Yes or no?
-The Gnome (talk) 08:59, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment and question: I note that the most common rational for deleting at the linked AFD was that the list was based on one single source (Forbes). Is this the case for all these other lists as well? Blueboar (talk) 11:42, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Most of these lists have references mostly to Forbes and/or Bloomberg. (The Canadian one seems to be an exception with its numerous sources but at a closer look most of these are again to Forbes and its domestic equivalent.) Note similar practices that are then copied and posted up as Wikipedia articles, e.g. Forbes' list of the world's highest-paid dead celebrities. -The Gnome (talk) 15:44, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

• 1) No 2) Yes. The sourcing is problematic - a spot check indicates it's mostly single-sourced (Forbes) or other sources reporting on the Forbes list. And if there are other sources, how are the editors going to decide which ranking to include?

Another problem is it's a maintenance headache since the rankings are constantly changing. We're not a newspaper so it's not our role to provide a current list of the standing. The Italy article has a section of rankings for each calendar year, which I suppose partially solves the problem, but it includes no references other than a few links. Seems to fall under the category of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:19, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

• A weak no on #1 and a weak yes on #2 The "weak" is because there lists in Wikipedia which are far more abstract and far less likely to be useful. But these are both subjective (a selection between many different criteria with widely varying results) and hard to maintain. And the latter indicates being in wp:recentism territory. North8000 (talk) 16:01, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

• The argument that Forbes is "just one source" seems misleading. Like arguing that demographics-based lists should be deleted because "the census is just one source". Yes, Forbes, Bloomberg, and the census all receive a massive amount of coverage at the national and international level. I wish we didn't glorify billionaires like this, but there it is. The relevant question is do these lists typically pass LISTN, and furthermore at what level should they be divided. I suspect there's going to be LISTN-level coverage for most, but should they be divided at the continent/regional level, the country level, etc.? I suspect the latter based on coverage, but I could be wrong. I'm not going to boldtext !vote, though, because this RfC is asking for flat yes/no, when neither is sufficient. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:44, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

• Maybe there's a special need here for more sourcing because it can be so subjective? Some sources (including Elon musk) say that Putin is the richest person in the world. I've heard others say Queen Elizabeth because she technically owns all Crown lands. Other variables are estimates of hidden wealth. North8000 (talk) 17:20, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, sure, we'd need to cite reliable sources for such claims, and not "Elon Musk said...". Forbes publishes [at least part of] their methodology, for example. Forbes does include monarchs, but it's based on their personal wealth (what they directly have control over). The Sunday Times, which publishes it's own list (just the UK, though), estimates the Queen's wealth at 370 MGBP. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

• Greetings, Rhododendrites. To avoid any reader's misunderstanding, I did not bring into the RfC presentation any reference to the articles' sourcing. In response to the remarks about sourcing from you and others, though, I'll comment that the issue is not so much the sourcing but the worth itself, in many ways, of such lists. The sourcing would necessarily come from few sources, or possibly even one; Forbes would be here the equivalent of some plain fact-supporting source such as the DMV. (If we need to refer to a vehicle's registration number we need not go beyond one single source, the DMV.) The worth could be challenged not just because of the constant need to keep the list updated but because of content per se. An individual's true net worth, especially an individual's possessing an evidently great wealth, is extremely difficult to determine and, thus, a list of many such individuals could well be misleading. And at the end of the day, what possible gain do the lists offer, even if they could be completely reliable in terms of ranking and totality of wealth? (Which they cannot be.) It's the question at the heart of the RfC. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 08:54, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

• For Q1, Yes these are reasonable lists to have but key is that the source for the rankings and comparisons must come from a single reliable source (like Forbes or Bloomberg) and not hodgepodged from multiple sources, as that way we know the comparisons are going to be as equal in the method of calculations and timing. Lists which only can be built from multiple disparate sources should not be included. Whether then this needs to be reviews at AFD for question 2 depends on the sourcing for the list. --Masem (t) 17:52, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
  • To add, it is clear that broadly, the ranking of top billionares in the world or any region is of long-term notability interest, just that most sources that report on elements of these lists aren't publishing the full lists, or are reposting from the Forbes/Bloomberg lists. Its just that the sourcing of the list specifically needs to be a single source for obvious reasons. --Masem (t) 17:56, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Masem, it's unavoidable to have few sources on this subject (lists of individuals by their net worth), though the sources would indeed be reliable, i.e. Forbes and the like. We simply cannot have more than a few sources. Therefore, our suggestions must be based on the lists per se. Allowing for a case-by-case examination would return the same return about sources so the decision should not be about them. The lists are acceptable in terms of sourcing! The question is plain: Do we find it useful for Wikipedia to have such lists? -The Gnome (talk) 16:06, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

• Question (1/2): My reading comprehension is not great – could you please clarify Q2? Something like, "Vote Yes to mean: IF Q1=='Yes' THEN ... " (or that but in human language)? Apologies.
• Comment (2/2): "List of" by ethnicity or race is useful information in some countries and useless or even somewhat repulsive in others. By nationality, same thing. Multiple sources doing the listing, or reliable academic sources referencing one well-researched listing, helps establish its usefulness and/or notability. So my vote for Q2 would be AfDs for each individual list if needed (I think that'd be a No???). For Q1 I'm neutral. SamuelRiv (talk) 20:19, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

• Gladly, SamuelRiv. Question #1 is straightforward: Do we choose 'A' or 'B' about these lists? Question #2 then asks the obvious: Depending on what we decide on Question #1, do we enforce that decision across all extant articles? Or not? In more detail: If we decide we want these lists to exist, then we should never bring up such lists for Deletion in AfD, except of course if they're unsourced. Otherwise, choosing which ones to Keep and which ones to Delete on the basis of which nationality the list is about would be plain racism. On the other hand, if we decide we do not want such lists, then we should delete all existing ones and prod-delete all future ones. Is this more clear? -The Gnome (talk) 09:16, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

P.S. Sources for such lists are typically reliable but few. It goes without saying that the decision to Keep or Delete these lists can only be based on what we perceive their encyclopaedic value to be and, equally importantly, the accuracy of the information such lists dispense. -The Gnome (talk) 09:16, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Forgive my litteralism, but Question #2 is of the form "Should we do A or should we do B? Yes or No?" If you agree with either one, then the answer is "YES" regardless of whether you favor A or B. Some clarity would be helpful. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:51, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Question #2 is not a stand-alone question. It links our preference to our input on Question #1. Suppose we choose No in Question #1. Then how do we proceed? That'd be Question #2. Do we continue to examine lists on a case-by-case basis even though we decided "No" in Question #1, i.e. that we do not want such lists? Or do we delete all lists that already exist and then also all future lists that may appear? Suppose we choose Yes in Question #1, i.e. that we want such lists to be in Wikipedia. Do we then allow existing & future lists to remain in Wikipedia essentially unchallenged? The "unchallenged" part refers to the fact that all these lists have minimal yet adequate sourcing. Question #2 asks, in so many words, whether or not we apply universally the decision on Question #1. We may want to have rich-people lists of Mexicans, for instance, but not Canadians. -The Gnome (talk) 15:50, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

• Sidebar: Every time I've seen the Forbes list they preface in some detail the necessary inaccuracy and imprecision in their estimates (which is great practice). It seems like most of the existing list articles fail to reprint that preface (or some reworded form), which in many ways disinforms the reader, somewhat like reprinting graphed data but omitting massive error bars. SamuelRiv (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

In so many words, on top of imparting no worthy information, the imparted information is, according to the sources themselves, unreliable. -The Gnome (talk) 18:54, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

No, not at all. Having error bars is not the same thing as being unreliable. But error bars must always be reprinted. SamuelRiv (talk) 22:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

• On Q1 No because I completely fail to identify any worth in such knowledge. Plus, information on personal wealth, especially at the highest net-worth levels, is extremely difficult to be accurate, in both absolute terms and hierarchy. There are issues here, as well, that come under WP:BLP's directive to be careful on sensitive personal matters. On Q2 Yes: A few days ago, we decided to delete a "list of Asians" although the list was not different in any way to similar lists for inhabitants of other regions. We essentially found that list worthless, which allowed a descent to unintended racism. So, I believe that what we decide in Q1 should be enforced across Wikipedia in a uniform manner. -The Gnome (talk) 16:06, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
• No, yes – unless multiple reliable sources can be found and agree. The attempted mitigation of the criticism that Forbes is "only one source" because other sources avidly report on what Forbes says is vitiated by the WP:Reliable sources guideline: the first sentence of the body says, "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and multiple sources reporting on what Forbes said, counts as one independent, secondary source. Mathglot (talk) 17:20, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - TBH, all standalone lists should be deleted from Wikipedia. I see them as merely 'trivia' & nothing more. GoodDay (talk) 20:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

• Summing up: The consensus seems to be clearly in favor of respectively No & Yes in the questions posed. No, these lists have no place in Wikipedia. Yes, accordingly, all these lists, about a dozen in all, should be deleted. -The Gnome (talk) 20:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
• Bad RfC. What this RfC is asking to do is to declare inappropriate for wikipedia a certain type of list, which would have the effect of either (a) ammending deletion policy directly, (b) ammending some notability guideline directly, or (c) ammending WP:NOT. As far as deletion goes, there is no valid WP:DEL-REASON for non-compliance with the manual of style, though this RfC took place on a talk page for a section of the manual of style. The RfC was not listed as a not listed as a proposal nor as a policy-related RfC. Per WP:CONLEVEL, [c]onsensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. Unfortunately, that's what this RfC would do; while it's theoretically possible to modify the MoS from an RfC advertised only at this talk page, the fact that this RfC does not appear to have been advertised at WT:N, WT:Deletion policy, WP:CENT nor any village pump makes me think that what this RfC is trying to do with respect to declaring a whole genre of lists as verboten is well out-of-scope for its venue. The only reason I was able to encounter this was because of WP:RFCLOSE, and could only do so fifty-four days after this discussion began. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:28, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

• I believe it is false to claim that this RfC is "asking" the Wikipedia community to do anything. An RfC poses questions and this is what this RfC did, as well. As to the need for more listings and "advertising", feel free of course to advertize this as widely as possible or at least to the pages you named. -The Gnome (talk) 13:30, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

  If I replace the is in What this RfC is asking to do is to declare inappropriate for wikipedia a certain type of list with whether or not, would any of the following logic change? RfC is very clearly asking the Wikipedia community to weight in on this. Just as the Turkish Village stub redirect discussion at WP:WikiProject Turkey was procedurally closed for reasons of venue and lack of advertising on relevant pages, so too should this RfC. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:30, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

  Actually, I for some reason had in my head that this was an MoS page rather than a talk page of a relevant guideline. As such, I don't see any reason that the venue is inappropriate. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:33, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is the prose too much for a list article?

See List of Lebanon international footballers born outside Lebanon. Is there too much prose to consider it a list? 12:01, 13 August 2022 (UTC) Nehme₁₄₉₉ 12:01, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

• Not really… plenty of “list” articles have sections with extensive prose. Also, I struggle to think of a better title... what title would we give the article if we didn’t use the term “list”? Blueboar (talk) 12:44, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Short, complete lists of every item

This section currently reads in part, However, if a complete list would include hundreds or thousands of entries, then you should use the notability standard to provide focus to the list. I feel that is too restrictive - something like: ...then you should use some objective criteria (for example notability) to provide focus to the list. My thinking is that there are going to be cases where some external factor independent of our notability standard provides a logical and useful focus - for example if members of the set of things are ranked in some way (e.g. by the body that maintains the list) then a list of all things ranked above n or the top n ranked things may make a logical and useful list where a list of all would be too large (exact criteria would depend on the list and its sources of course). Thryduulf (talk) 19:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

this is in a different subsection entirely. Seems like it should be a section on this talk page unto itself, as opposed to a subsection under documenting the list criteria. Would you mind if I outdent it one step? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:37, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

go ahead Thryduulf (talk) 19:56, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

thank you! Per your OK, I have out-dented this valuable discussion so that it is a thread unto itself NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:41, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I would be in favor of removing the notability criteria completely. It does not reflect current practice anyway. If there are any delusions about notability having anything to do with list criteria, then I invite them to add a red link including citations which establish notability to any list article deemed "notable only", and see how quickly you get reverted. You will learn in very short order notability has nothing to do with these lists, and everything to do with blue link aesthetics. In other words, notability only counts if it has a Wikipedia article that someone has written about it for the internal blue link. Otherwise, it is a meaningless criteria for lists unless redlinks are also allowed, but the common practice is to reject them. That means in reality we really make the list criteria about something practical, not objective. Linking to Wiki articles is a practical criteria for lists on this platform and I agree notability is too restrictive and we don't follow it anyway. I would support removing notability and replacing the word "objective" with "practical". Also, I forgot to say that the notability guidance was never intended to "provide focus to lists". It was intended to help determine if a topic should have an article or not. Huggums537 (talk) 15:56, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:GNG#2 ("none of the entries are notable") does not appear to be followed very strictly: the two examples given do not actually follow the guideline. — hike395 (talk) 18:05, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

The next sentence expands it to "most or all", however. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:28, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Notability is a reasonable measure for inclusion on a list, but it should be clear it is not the only way to measure it. But notability is definitely used as the sole measure of inclusion in some cases (eg lists of alumni from major schools)

The issue with red links vs unlinked should not be a factor here. Throughout WP there is an unnecessary aversion to using red links where there is likely a good chance the topic can merit an article , which is why we allow them in the first place. That some editors don't like red links on lists is something we should not consider in guidance here. Masem (t) 18:23, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

If there is an aversion "throughout WP" to using red links in lists that is not needed when we know for a fact they are allowed, then why in the world would we not consider that in guidance here and now? Huggums537 (talk) 04:50, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

To clarify, we should consider redlinks while we consider the OP about how notability was never intended to provide focus to lists, but there are cases outside of a restrictive notability standard that provide a very practical, and useful focus to lists as given by the examples in the OP. Huggums537 (talk) 05:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

• I would also like to point out the obvious contradiction in this statement, and respectfully request that the entire portion just be entirely removed: However, if a complete list would include hundreds or thousands of entries, then you should use the notability standard to provide focus to the list. Look, if your complete list requires hundreds or even thousands of entries in order to be complete, then restricting a notability standard to the list is not going to "provide focus", it will defeat the whole purpose of a complete list in the first place. If you don't want a list that is too large, then by all means have it deleted on some kind of WP:NOT or any other "legal" basis, but stop mucking things up with bullsnot like this as "fixing" the problem. Huggums537 (talk) 05:59, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

  Perhaps the advice is unclear. It means "if a complete list would include hundreds or thousands of entries, then" – please reconsider this idea of making a complete list.

  @Thryduulf, I agree with your original suggestion. I also think that we should reconsider the "32K" definition of "short". That was originally based on the size of the page as reported in the page history. This means, e.g., that a "short" list could become a "long" list merely through the addition of citations or images, even if the number of entries or the number of words on the page didn't change significantly. Maybe "200 entries" or "2,000 words" would be sufficiently similar? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:32, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

  Just for the record, I also support the proposal, just not a fan of the notability part, or the part I suggested for removal, and that has a lot to do with the 32k definition of short that you mentioned. A 32k definition is really outdated considering we do have graphics to account for nowadays, but even with that definition, 32k is still roughly 16,000 words without any citations or graphics figured in so that is why I have such a real huge problem with that last sentence somebody added in saying to "focus" the list with "notability" if it contains hundreds of entries? Why would that even be a suggestion if the very definition of a short list allows for thousands? Huggums537 (talk) 07:55, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Ongoing discussions related to "Wikipedia only" list articles

Editors are invited to participate in these discussions related to "Wikipedia only" list articles.

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists#Should "List of people from place" require blue links?

Template:Editnotices/Page/List of web directories Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 07:18, 18 August 2022 (UTC)