Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Requested move at Talk:List of films featuring prisons#Requested move 20 August 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of films featuring prisons#Requested move 20 August 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:13, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Huge batch AfD nomination

I've nominated a whole lot of silly lists here, along with a request at WP:AWBREQ to add the other very similar ones. Since this is a large nomination, just notifying what appears to be the most relevant Wikiproject. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:04, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

AFD discussion ongoing, about List of future tallest buildings

Please consider participating at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of future tallest buildings. --Doncram (talk) 04:46, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Requested move: List of fictional child prodigies

It is proposed that List of fictional child prodigies be moved to to List of gifted children and teenagers in fiction and entertainment media. For the proposal, and to make any comments, please see the proposal here. --Smerus (talk) 11:58, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:List of ways people dishonor the dead#Requested move 8 December 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of ways people dishonor the dead#Requested move 8 December 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:21, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

List of places named Mallory

Would some members of this WikiProject mind taking a look at List of places named Mallory? This probably some value to an article like this, but the term "place" seems to be being very broadly construed. Not only towns and geographical feature, but also private business and bulidings have been added over the years, and many of the entries are unsourced. I'm not very familiar with this type of article, but it seems as if the scope of the article should be better defined; otherwise, there would be a seeminlgly endless possiblity of "places" named "Mallory" which could added. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:51, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Merge proposal

It has been proposed that List of fictional librarians be merged into Libraries and librarians in fiction. Seeking your feedback at Talk:List of fictional librarians#Merger proposal. Thanks. --Historyday01 (talk) 13:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Remarks about Laplace Transform

Not sure if it was enough, so mentioning it here: I added remarks to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Laplace_transforms and to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Laplace_transform#Frequency_domain? -- two pages that independently list Laplace transformations, with some overlap. One names "Frequency Domain" which I think should be "s-domain" and the list page misses entries both in the other page and in a textbook that I quoted. I am not going to make the changes because I am merely a user of these formalisms; that is, I can state inconsistencies but feel cautious about resolving them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:980:93a5:1:2bd:56d1:1e92:3c2a (talk • contribs) 07:17, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(lists)#Renaming_names_of_pages_that_start_as_"List_of_Vietnamese_people"_or_"list_of_people_from_Wyoming"

For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:32, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

List of events in a plane crash as an acceptable list?

Hi all,

Seeking some advice and opinions:

The article Korean Air Lines Flight 007 details the 1983 incident when a Soviet fighter jet shot down a South Korean passenger plane that had deviated from its assigned flight plan and crossed Soviet territory. At one point (~2010) the article contained a detailed list of events related to the incident, including transcripts of radio communications and cockpit voice recorders, etc. Due to length concerns this list was split out into a stand-alone list at Korean Air Lines Flight 007 transcripts. And, partially, I surmise, because they unfortunately used "transcripts" in the page name the content was then proactively moved to Wikisource, at s:Korean Air Lines Flight 007 transcripts, under assertions such as There's honestly little chance that this article would survive an AFD ….

Unfortunately, Wikisource's inclusion criteria are previously published and as published, explicitly excluding amalgamations of multiple sources, and this list is a combination of information from ~10 different sources released at 6 different times by multiple entities. Consequently it will (eventually, not immediately) be deleted there.

But when I looked into this a bit I'm having trouble seeing why the content currently at s:Korean Air Lines Flight 007 transcripts could not be a perfectly compliant, if slightly uncommon, list article at Chronology of Korean Air Lines Flight 007 or some similar title. Granted it is a little heavy on the transcripts and should be enriched with more event entries, and I'd guess the formatting needs updating to "post-2010" standards. But the information is sourced (meets WP:V) to high-quality reliable secondary sources (meets WP:RS/WP:NOR) and neutrally presented (meets WP:NPOV), and lists events and communications from the incident in a chronological order. It is notable (WP:N) and fits in well with the cluster of articles on the topic (Korean Air Lines Flight 007 and Korean Air Lines Flight 007 alternative theories). If it were shorter and included as a timeline in the main article nobody would bat an eyelid.

The best counter-argument I can come up with is that lists at this granularity (a span of hours) are atypical and not really mentioned in WP:SAL and related guidance.

What do y'all think? Would this be a viable stand-alone list / chronology for enWP?

My main goal here is finding some way to preserve this content that contributors obviously spent a lot of time and effort creating, and which is a valuable addition to the information in the main article (but obviously too long and detailed for including directly). It's definitely outside scope for Wikisource, and so far as I can tell no other sister project is a match, so a list type article on enWP seems to be both the best and last option within the Wikimedia universe.

(PS. I'm mainly active over on enWS just now, and may miss things on my somewhat excessive watchlist here, so I would appreciate pings on replies.) Xover (talk) 14:14, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Request for feedback on creating a new list

Not sure how active this talk page is, but if anyone is watching that has experience creating lists, we could use some assistance at Talk:Amusement Today#Splitting the article. We need experienced editors familiar with lists and naming guidelines to weigh in on the best course of action here. Thanks in advance! --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:22, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Dependent/overseas territories

Should most if not all dependent or overseas territories have their own Lists of something in Foo for any lists on any specific topics or subjects? Discussion has been kick-started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lighthouses#Dependent/overseas territories. 219.76.24.210 (talk) 08:44, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

List of links to files

Is it appropriate to have a list of links to files hosted on enwiki and Commons, as in List of works by Edward Robert Hughes? Thanks, Vexations (talk) 12:32, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages in a list article

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation#Disambiguation_pages_in_a_list_article. I have started a discussion at WikiProject Disambiguation with this post:

Is it standard practice to use a disambiguation page in a list to substitute for listing the articles individually even when there are only two or three articles on the disamb page? For example in Lancaster (surname), the disamb redirect "Mark Lancaster (disambiguation), multiple people" is used to substitute the two articles, Mark Lancaster, Baron Lancaster of Kimbolton and Mark Lancaster (artist). This seems to me to be making it more difficult for the reader to find the articles they want for little gain. If a list article is becoming unwieldy, and/or if there are many articles on the disamb page, as in the case with List of people with surname Brown and the disamb pages Aaron Brown, Adam Brown, Alex Brown, etc, listed at List_of_people_with_surname_Brown#Disambiguation_pages, then using that system seems appropriate. But for disamb pages with less than five entries, I am unsure of the benefits. If this matter has been previously discussed, and consensus is to include disamb pages of less than five articles in a list article, then fine - it's just that this is not an area I travel in frequently, and it looks a little unwieldy to me. I have notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists and Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy (as it seems to be mainly lists of people's names where this happens) of this discussion.

Please add comments at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation#Disambiguation_pages_in_a_list_article so discussion is in one place. SilkTork (talk) 13:36, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Index of Country-related articles

There's a whole genre of articles that consist entirely of a flat alphabetical list of articles related to a given country. These exist for most countries out there and are found in Category:Indexes of topics by country. They appear to mostly be a legacy of the early days of Wikipedia, when they were used to keep track of articles before the wikiprojects machinery took over that role. Still, they receive some page views (not a lot: [1] the median is 3 views/day, and only 23 such articles get more than 10 a day), which means that readers apparently stumble upon them as well. And this is a problem, as the lists usually only contain a small fraction of the relevant articles and so have the potential to mislead.

Over the past two years I've started AfDs for the indexes for China, India, Pakistan, Romania and Brazil, and the strong consensus has been that they're not useful and should be deleted. However, in the last one (the one for Brazil) it was suggested that these could instead be converted into disambiguation-style gateways to the relevant country-related lists. So, for example, the Brazil page could look something like:

Lists of Brazil-related articles can be found at:

• All articles tracked by Wikiproject Brazil
• Category:Brazil
• Outline of Brazil
• Category:Brazil-related lists

What do others think, is this going to be of use to readers? Is it preferable over deletion? – Uanfala (talk) 18:49, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

List of Iranian Armenians--and tables, and excessive detail, and etc.

Just ran into this. One problem, it has a table, which is awful and difficult to edit (and the first one has one "|" edit in it). In addition, "occupation" is problematic--not everyone is defined by their job, and not having a label for that is another argument for a simple list. The "key" is even more problematic: "People who were born outside of Iran but worked or lived in Iran highlighted in boldface". "Worked or lived"--for some part? the most part? for a verified notable part? There's not many of them, but it's not even necessary--in all articles with "Notables" we take this liberally. "Iranian" doesn't need to mean "born in Iran" or "with an Iranian passport" or whatever. Can we please simplify, across the board, and get rid of tables and fancy stuff? Drmies (talk) 23:54, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Excessive?

Hi. I wonder if the following list is excessive? Could the list be removed based on WP:NOTDATABASE? Thanks. fgnievinski (talk) 03:06, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

It depends. In an article about an organization, I would say current and past holders of the very top position in the org (whether that's president, CEO, editor, whatever) should be generally presumed noteworthy information that's worth including in the article. But more detailed lists of personnel like this are something I'd be inclined to remove unless there are secondary sources that attest to their noteworthiness. Given that article seems to currently lack any secondary sources, it might be worth starting with the more immediate question of whether the subject is even notable. Colin M (talk) 03:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and I culled it. With all organizations, we typically lists presidents/chancellors/etc. (no, provosts, we're not going to list you), and so we should in this case. Colin M's concerns about secondary sourcing are duly noted, but please see my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Society for the Study of Social Problems. Drmies (talk) 00:00, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Assistance Required Gathering Sources for List of indigenous peoples

Please see the discussion at Talk:List of indigenous peoples regarding the absence hundreds of sources in this article. If possible, contribute to discussion and provide input.

List of indigenous peoples is a massive list of which the majority of entries are are without citation. The article is in need of a team of editors to procedurally review each entry and identify reliable sources--or lack thereof.

There is also an ongoing discussion regarding the terms of inclusion in this list, which you are welcome to get involved in.

01:02, 30 December 2021 (UTC), KaerbaqianRen^💬

List of last World War I veterans by country

There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:List of last World War I veterans by country#Blank rows about the scope and presentation of this article. All contributions would be welcomed. —Brigade Piron (talk) 12:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Improving List of coupled siblings

Could I have assistance with improving the List of coupled siblings article on Wikipedia? It could use some work, especially with formatting and attribution, and I would be very grateful to anyone willing to help out. Thanks, Tyrone Madera (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Classification of List of United States presidential assassination attempts and plots as Incomplete...

I can't quite figure out myself, there doesn't seem to be a definition of what actually makes a list "incomplete", but do member sof this WikiProject think this List is incomplete? Would it be better classified as "Dynamic"? Should is even *be* classified. The List just doesn't seem incomplete to me, sure things can change as time progresses - who knows what is in the future - but right now it's complete so far as history goes... Shearonink (talk) 21:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United Kingdom § Category:Lists of Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom table markup

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United Kingdom § Category:Lists of Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom table markup. -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 14:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC) -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 14:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List of fictional characters with disabilities#Sexual orientation and disabled characters

There is an ongoing discussion about including sexual orientation as a descriptor of disabled characters on Talk:List of fictional characters with disabilities#Sexual orientation and disabled characters. Feel free to participate. --Historyday01 (talk) 21:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Help?

Hi. I have a problem, and I don't know the best way to address it. Can someone help?

I've added a fellow to half a dozen lists. Richard Fellers. Notable, both because he is an Olympic athlete (though he did not win a medal, so that is not automatic). And because he has GNG coverage of his multiple suspensions by SafeSport from practicing as an equestrian, and related legal issues. All this was RS covered in the article- though an editor has deleted much of it.

At pages like the list of his given name (Richard), the first of these 3 or 4 editors acting quickly and closely in time, deleted the entry completely. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard&action=history

You can't see what the entry was, because someone (I can't tell from the article history), has hidden it. Why hide it? I cannot imagine a proper reason.

But the rationale of the deleting editor was clear. He wrote: "Unsourced. Does not improve the article"

Astonishing. He deleted Richard's entry in the list "Richard" -- because there was no source?

And if he does not like the addition of a person named Richard, he just deletes it, saying "Does not improve the article"?

When I reverted pointing that out, two other editors descended, within hours. Both to chip away at the descriptions of Richard. (Although others on these lists had much longer descriptions.)

Or to eviscerate the article. As here. Only one of his two suspension was left. And the widely RS covered legal matters were deleted as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rich_Fellers&action=history

I get that all of these editors have overlapping edits at the project, so they seem to be very much aligned. But the net result with all of these lists (and the article in question .. I mean they deleted almost everything that was IDONTLIKEIT despite RS sourcing) .. suggests to me that having a continued conversation with the three or four of them, though I have posted on relevant talk pages, in addition to my edit summaries, would not be one in which one could have as impartial a hearing as with a seasoned editor from outside the group who seem to edit quickly together on a series of articles.

Any thoughts? Where would I find such a seasoned editor or editors? I may of course be wrong, so if you think that lists of people named Richard need a ref saying their name is Richard, please tell me now. Thanks. --2603:7000:2143:8500:A45B:E4AA:91E9:A3F9 (talk) 06:52, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I hid the edits, because they contained language that was factually inaccurate and it seems likely it could be considered defamatory. I don't have a clear position on whether or how much of the information about the indictment, which is also an allegation, or the arrest, or the suspension, should go in the article. But any language that implies that the person has lost the court case, admitted guilt, or been found guilty, is to be avoided. I think Wikipedia's rules and the common practices observed by news organizations are pretty clear. The edits I deleted blurs or confuses the distinction between allegation and conviction. As far as I can tell the matter is still being litigated. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 07:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

One other comment: speaking for myself, I will expend very little energy in discussion with an editor who does not maintain an account or reveal anything about themselves, but appears to be focusing all of their energy on negative information about one, or a very few, people. I don't even have a reliable way to reach you. I'll explain my edits for the benefit of those working on the articles, but if you're looking to have a sustained conversation, I'm not your guy. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 07:49, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Questions on WP:LISTVERIFY

I'm looking for some guidance on when it is appropriate to add sources to list articles. Another editor & I are disagreeing (see Talk:List of fictional firearms#Partial RV) on if the article needs to be sourced. Since this is a list of fictional objects, my understanding is that there should be a least one source per object to verify that the object exists in the stated media. In attempting to verify the objects, I went down the rabbit hole of looking for sources & found that many of the linked articles (ex. Weapons in Star Trek) are poorly sourced; that those articles need improvement is a completely different issue. I think that this list can be improved if it is sourced. While the amount of unverified fictional lore in the list has been reduced, this editor's preference is that the list be unsourced as it is a directory. Since we're not coming to a consensus, I wanted to get outside opinions. Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I've chimed in at the article in question, but TL;DR we provide sources for list items not just to confirm their existence but also their significance. DonIago (talk) 19:29, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

List of largest cities by U. S. state historically

Fresh off a trip to Key West, I am wondering if there is a list of largest cities by state historically. I.E., a list that shows which city was the largest in the state at the time of each census. A museum tour taught me that Key West was the largest in the state of Florida in 1880 and Pensacola was the largest in 1860. I think it would be interesting to see a list of the largest historically in each state so I am suggesting such a list. P.S. Also a top 10 in the United States for each census would be interesting.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC) (struck because List of most populous cities in the United States by decade was found)-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:07, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I just found List of U.S. states and territories by historical population. Basically, what I think might be interesting is to have in place of the state population, the largest city and its population.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Pinging the top editors of List of U.S. states and territories by historical population: @Cmglee, Potosino, Tcr25, Epicadam, X5163x, Funandtrvl, Wocket5280, Paintspot, Yellowdesk, and LumaP15:-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Pinging additional top editors of Talk:List of U.S. states and territories by historical population: @Malcolmmwa, Sion8, and Bemcfarland:--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:43, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for reaching out. As the tables have states as rows and years as columns, where do you propose adding the city populations? I feel that interleaving either extra rows or columns will make it difficult to see trends. Perhaps a separate article such as List of largest cities of U.S. states and territories by historical population might be more readable. Cheers, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 11:50, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@Cmglee:, Yes I think a separate article would be best. That title sounds good. The largest city's name and its population in List of largest cities of U.S. states and territories by historical population could be in the population position of List of U.S. states and territories by historical population. I think there is lots of history to be learned from such an article.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:00, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Interactive timeline and map

Hi TonyTheTiger, Let me know when you complete the page. I might be interested to create a visualization similar to this map. Instead, the cities could be represented by circles linearly proportional in area to their populations. As the viewer moves left and right, the circles expand and shrink, and jump to different cities, should they take over as the largest cities. Any thoughts?
cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 10:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

User:cmglee, User:Tcr25 is doing all the work at User:Tcr25/sandbox. I am not quite sure I understand what you are proposing, but it sounds like it might be interesting.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:38, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

@TonyTheTiger: Are you thinking something like this? It's doable, but I'm not sure how easy it will be to collect all the data from older Censuses... —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 14:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, digging this up isn't fun (User:Tcr25/sandbox) ... —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

State, federal district, or territory	1970		1980		1990		2000		2010		2020
	Name	Pop.	Name	Pop.	Name	Pop.	Name	Pop.	Name	Pop.	Name	Pop.
Alabama	Birmingham	300,910	Birmingham	284,388	Birmingham	263,555	Birmingham	242,840	Birmingham	212,237	Huntsville	215,006
Alaska	Anchorage	48,081	Anchorage	174,431	Anchorage	226,338	Anchorage	260,283	Anchorage	291,826	Anchorage	291,247
American Samoa	Pago Pago	2,451	Pago Pago	3,075	Tāfuna	5,174	Tāfuna	8,409	Tāfuna	7,945	Tāfuna	7,988

• @Tcr25:, Yes that is it. See! There is great information there because in 2 of the 3 states we see a transition in the last 50 years. I would like to be able to look back and see things like that, like the Florida content I mentioned above, like when San Francisco lost its primacy in California, etc. I imagine if you folks who are expert at this stuff get together, it will get closer and closer to complete over time. P.S. I had not even imagined the sortability. The sortability might make a second list of state capitals interesting too, but you are right on track with this one.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:59, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
• Looking in your sandbox, I see you have already dug up 2 primacy changes in 2020.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:11, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
• Wow! Wow! Wow!. Your latest changes had some shockers. I can't believe how long it has been since St. Louis or Cleveland has had primacy in their respective states. Lots of other good stuff. I wonder why Louisville kept slipping until Lexington, KY passed it in one census and then it started booming.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:36, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Louisville and Lexington both merged their city with the surrounding county; Lexington did it first and jumped ahead, then Louisville did it slingshotting back into the lead. This is one of the potential issues with this list; going with the straight reported population doesn't capture how things like changing boundaries affects population. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 22:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

In addition to realizations above about St. Louis and Cleveland, I still thought of Hartford as the big city in Connecticut. I see List of most populous cities in the United States by decade has lots of footnotes explaining things like the Kentucky stuff. Could there be a notes column for each state added?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:59, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Are any of the 2020 flips (AL, SC, TN) related to geographical expansions?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:05, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think so; just changing demographics. I've filled in everything from 1970 to 2020, but it's just grabbing numbers from the cities' wiki articles. Most of it has not been sourced directly to Census documents, which ideally it should be. Instead of adding a notes column, I'd probably just use endnotes to mark things like the city-county mergers in Louisville and Lexington (more efficient use of space since most places won't need notes). I'm not planning to work on this much more at this point, but the framework is there in my sandbox if anyone else is interested at taking a stab at things. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 00:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Tcr25, I have never worked on WP content that relied on census data in this way. What is the difference between sourcing this and sourcing List of most populous cities in the United States by decade and List of U.S. states and territories by historical population. What do you mean you were grabbling numbers from cities' wiki articles? Does that mean that you may not be sure you have the top one? E.g. if you did Florida there are past years where Key West and Pensacola were number one (and years in which Miami was higher than both of these and Jacksonville). Would you have been sure to have checked all of these? It is possible Orlando or other cities have been atop the Florida numbers? Also, how do we get from your sandbox to a mainspace article in this case? Having 1970 to present seems to have encyclopedic merit. Can we go to mainspace with an {{underconstruction}} tag now or soon? I have never collaborated in another person's sandbox. It might be the case that by having it there, it intimidates others out of contributing.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

It just that the sourcing isn't indicated. Making it clear in the text and/or references the pre-2000 numbers are coming from here, for instance, and identifying a clean source for 2000 to 2020 data are needed. As for pulling numbers from city wiki pages, that was mostly where, for example, the List of most populous cities in the United States by decade would give me 1970, 1980, 2010, and 2020, I'd compare the list of historical population on each page for the 1980 top city and the 2010 top city, as well as checking the current second or third largest city to see what was the top for 1990 and 2000. It's not impossible that I would have missed an oddball population swing, but I don't think it's likely. It also is WP:OR without a clean source to point to. (I was mostly going for proof of concept and then got carried away...) Going further back in time using that methodology would likely lead to some misses, but the Census files linked above are a good base for building out the older tables. I'd consider moving to draft space, but until the sourcing is in place and some more lede text, it's not ready for mainspace. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 12:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@TonyTheTiger and Cmglee:: List of largest cities of U.S. states and territories by historical population is now complete and live ... —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 01:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Letting everyone who tinkered with List of U.S. states and territories by historical population or spent time on its talk page that List of largest cities of U.S. states and territories by historical population has been completed by User:Tcr25 @Cmglee, Potosino, Epicadam, X5163x, Funandtrvl, Wocket5280, Paintspot, Yellowdesk, LumaP15, Malcolmmwa, Sion8, and Bemcfarland:--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:56, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Converting to a list

Hopefully someone here can provide some guidance. Roller coaster element should probably be renamed "List of roller coaster elements", but in making that change, looking for suggestions on how to reorganize the article. I was thinking of keeping the level 2 sections intact, but then moving all prose in each section into a simple chart like the one at List of cat breeds. The chart would have three columns: name, image, and description. Thoughts? Open to hear other ideas, thanks! --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Short descriptors of lists, is a link to all available?

Have been changing 'Wikimedia list article' short descriptors to 'Wikipedia list article' for accuracy when I run across them, is there a way to see a category or other form to see the remaining short description 'Wikimedia list article' listings all at once? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

List of fictional characters with disabilities has an RFC

List of fictional characters with disabilities has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of feature films with LGBT characters

Hello! Advising the project of this AfD which may be of interest to members of the project. Thank you.--Historyday01 (talk) 14:32, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Feedback requested about a possible list article regarding Jewish humor

I'm looking for opinions on whether a prospective list article on "Jewish humor" or "jokes" would be a good idea. This came up when I noticed and responded to the discussion at Talk:Jewish humor#Original research. I started to add something to the end of my comment there, to the effect of:

You could perhaps create a list article instead, with a list of Jewish jokes.

but then I thought better of it and didn't add the comment, as there are probably thousands of jokes and what would be the selection criteria? Also, WP:NOTGUIDE, and it wouldn't be encyclopedic if it were just a random list, and would tend to attract cruft.

On the other hand, there are serious studies of Jewish humor (they tend to be funny reading, but they still have a serious purpose and an academic basis and analysis), so maybe something like, List of major themes in Jewish humor with an example or two of each one, or if there are iconic jokes that are constantly referred to in serious analyses, maybe something like List of iconic Jewish jokes. (I can think of two or three that constantly come up.) Here are a few "Google scholar" searches with plenty of serious (and no doubt funny) articles:

• Jewish jokes
• themes in Jewish humor
• list of Jewish jokes

I was uncertain about whether suggesting a list article at the discussion was appropriate, so I didn't, but I wonder whether regulars here think there is room for a list article of some sort touching on Jewish humor which would be both encyclopedic and conform to guidelines for list articles, as well as provide some additional material that might not be appropriate at the main article Jewish humor. Thanks in advance for your thoughts. (please  mention me on reply; thanks!) Mathglot (talk) 20:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Monuments of National Importance of India#Requested move 26 February 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Monuments of National Importance of India#Requested move 26 February 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 03:39, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at List_of_companies_that_applied_sanctions_during_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War to Companies_reaction_to_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War

Justification: 1) both titles carry the same meaning but word "Sanctions" usually applies to state-level/governments, not private companies. 2) Reactions are not uniform, and "Sanctions" is very misleading in most case (e.g. pull out Russia is not sanctions). It is just an opinion what can / cannot be called "Sanctions", so "Reactions" is more appropriate. More changes needed on the page - see talk. Thanks. DmitryShpak (talk) 06:29, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:List of current constituent monarchs#Requested move 8 March 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of current constituent monarchs#Requested move 8 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 17:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:List of Hotstar original programming#Requested move 18 March 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of Hotstar original programming#Requested move 18 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TheRubyP (talk) 05:55, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Need help on Draft:List of Great British Menu chefs (series 1–4)

I created Draft:List of Great British Menu chefs (series 1–4). Now I'm unsure how the list must go. Your contributions to the list are welcome. --George Ho (talk) 23:21, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Members of the Senate of Southern Ireland#Requested move 14 March 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Members of the Senate of Southern Ireland#Requested move 14 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 20:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:List of motorways in the United Kingdom#Requested move 16 March 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of motorways in the United Kingdom#Requested move 16 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 00:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

FLRC for List of Computer Criminals

I have nominated List of computer criminals for featured list removal. 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. Hog Farm _Talk 18:01, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:List of linear algebra topics#Requested move 21 March 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of linear algebra topics#Requested move 21 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Favonian (talk) 18:37, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

List of Mathematical Uses of Latin Letters

Dear WikiProject Lists,

I am working on an article called the List of Mathematical Uses of Latin Letters. I am quite passionate about improving this article since it's the first article I have set out to improve. I have come to your WikiProject because I would like to understand if a list like this could reach featured list status with some work. I am not sure if the content would ever be worthy. Any help would be much appreciated!

Thanks for reading, Kabiryani (talk) 18:40, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Input needed at Category talk:Sports national records

A discussion has been started at Category talk:Sports national records#List articles that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Any input would be helpful. Thank you. --DB1729 (talk) 18:37, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:List of badge-engineered vehicles#Requested move 16 April 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of badge-engineered vehicles#Requested move 16 April 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 08:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Featured list removal candidate notification

I have nominated List of Jacksonville Jaguars first-round draft picks for featured list removal. 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. Hog Farm _Talk 20:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Looking for additional input on List of military alliances

Hi all, myself and others would like the additional input of others in reaching a consensus for determining what to include/exclude on List of military alliances as there have been some minor disagreements recently when attempting to clean up the List. I would like to invite everyone to contribute to the discussion here. Thank you, —  dainomite   20:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

List of wars involving Iran

Dear editors, kindly share your input over a simple content dispute regarding "why the battles of Seleucid empire are not being retained on this article?" at Talk:List of wars involving Iran#Seleucid Empire. 117.99.55.72 (talk) 03:52, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch § RfC: Relative time references - 'today' or not 'today'?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch § RfC: Relative time references - 'today' or not 'today'?. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:48, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

MOS:DL vs MOS:DL in lists of supercentenarians

I noticed MOS:OL was applied incorrectly at the List of Danish supercentenarians, since MOS:DL states that:

Duplicate linking in stand-alone and embedded lists is permissible if it significantly aids the reader. This is most often the case when the list is presenting information that could just as aptly be formatted in a table, and is expected to be parsed for particular bits of data, not read from top to bottom.

I corrected it, only to be subsequently reverted. I was then adverted that this was the consistent format across all supercentenarians lists:

• List of American supercentenarians
• List of Belgian supercentenarians
• List of British supercentenarians
• List of Canadian supercentenarians
• List of Danish supercentenarians
• List of Dutch supercentenarians
• List of Finnish supercentenarians
• List of French supercentenarians
• List of German supercentenarians
• List of Irish supercentenarians
• List of Italian supercentenarians
• List of Japanese supercentenarians
• List of Norwegian supercentenarians
• List of Portuguese supercentenarians
• List of Spanish supercentenarians
• List of Swedish supercentenarians
• List of supercentenarians by continent
• List of supercentenarians in the Nordic countries
• List of supercentenarians

Indeed it is, but it's still in contravention to MOS:DL, is it not?— Guarapiranga ☎ 23:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Guarapiranga, just FYI for the next time you need a list like this: append #bawledit to the URL (or since you have section editing enabled, just click the blue marker next to "Search results"), click the magnifying glass and click "Generate bulleted list of links". — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 17:50, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposed change to List of fictional non-binary characters edit notice

You are invited to join the discussion here, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Presently, the edit notice for the List of fictional non-binary characters states that only character "is eligible for this list if the character or work they appear in is notable, specifically if the character is a main or recurring character. This is meant to keep the list meaningful and useful." This replaced the previous version which stated that only characters are eligible for the list if "their gender identity matches in some way human experience of gender." Comments from members of this project would be appreciated. Historyday01 (talk) 13:00, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Use of the word "notable" to describe list entries

There is a dispute at List of vegetarians regarding how to describe members of the list. It is a basic list, listing people who have been identified as vegetarians. The inclusion criteria is limited to subjects who have an article on Wikipedia (blue links). Another editor wants to describe the subjects as "notable vegetarians" to "prevent spam". The list is stable and sourced, and addition of people without articles is minimal (unsourced additions are a bigger problem). I have opposed the use of the word "notable" because I don't think it is helpful to use Wikipedia terminology in an encyclopedic context. The discussion is going in circles, and I would welcome some third-party input at Talk:List of vegetarians#Adding "notable" to the lead. Betty Logan (talk) 00:54, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Women Divers Hall of Fame

There's a discussion about listing inductees as redlinks based on the org itself. Your input is welcome. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:07, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

(List) articles about localities in Malta

Please see the discussion at Talk:List of towns in Malta#Reverted prod. We appear to have three articles, and a history of a fourth, on overlapping topics, and wider and locally knowleadgeable participation in the discussion about what to do is desirable. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:08, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Assistance requested with SYNTH issue in country demographic lists

Your assistance is requested in this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries, regarding a SYNTH issue in several dozen country-related demographic list articles. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:46, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Merger proposal

There is a proposal to merge Just Sam with List of American Idol finalists. If you are interestexd, you may join the discussion here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:52, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

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? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:02, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Feedback needed at list article regarding official status of Tamil

Should India be considered "a country where Tamil is recognized as an official language"? In a list article, this may depend on how the list criteria are defined or interpreted. Your feedback would be appreciated at this discussion. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:29, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposal to change how list criteria are documented

There is a proposal for changing the way list criteria are documented in stand-alone lists. Please feel free to join in the discussion here. Thanks! — hike395 (talk) 11:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

List of crossings of the James River (Virginia) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for List of crossings of the James River (Virginia) to be moved to List of crossings of the James River. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 15:46, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Discussion related to topic above

A discussion I started related to the discussion above which editors are invited to participate in:

Template:Editnotices/Page/List of web directories

Since this discussions, and the one above will also be related to the guidance at Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists, I will post a notice about these discussions there as well to invite editors to participate above, and in this discussions too. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 07:12, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:List of Canadian tornadoes and tornado outbreaks#Requested move 1 August 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of Canadian tornadoes and tornado outbreaks#Requested move 1 August 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 15:11, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:List of Australian High Commissioners to India#Requested move 18 August 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of Australian High Commissioners to India#Requested move 18 August 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 07:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Assistance requested at List of Cars characters

Hello! I am currently attempting to cut down the size of the above article (as of writing it's at 237,801 bytes which is after I"ve cut a bunch of characters that aren't significant and only appear in the background or aren't really notable at all). I'm currently attempting to create a list criteria for the article so it's easier to determine what should and shouldn't be included. I'll be notifying other Wikiprojects related to the article as I'd like as much help as I can get because... oh boy this article really needs it. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:44, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List_of_people_killed_while_running#List_scope

Requesting input at the above linked discussion regarding the scope of a list about people who died while running. The article was brought to AfD with the nomination being withdrawn when the scope was narrowed. Now a user wants to broaden the scope again. Feedback is appreciated. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:49, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of light transport aircraft

The article List of light transport aircraft has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No sources, Undefined criteria

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. EngineeringEditor (talk) 15:08, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikidata lists

Please comment at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Wikidata lists if you have time — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:56, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Draft list of Survivor finalists

I created Draft:List of Survivor (American TV series) finalists (seasons 1–20). Your contributions there are welcome. George Ho (talk) 10:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Did the earth run out of talent?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of pornographic performers by decade#Did the earth run out of talent?.Guilherme Burn (talk) 16:19, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

List of television series that changed networks

Not sure if this is the right place to propose a new project, but I came across this page and I feel that the data here can be tabulated, with more info added (eg, country of origin, lifespan on a certain network, etc. 194.80.232.69 (talk) 11:09, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Should "List of people from place" require blue links?

As background, there are roughly 130 "List of people from place" articles (like List of people from Providence, Rhode Island) that have list criteria defined in an HTML comment. For example, List of people from Chicago has a comment

Note:
· Only people who already have a Wikipedia article may appear here. This establishes notability.
· The article must mention how they are associated with Chicago, whether born, raised, or residing.
· The fact of their association should have a reliable source cited.
· Alphabetical by last name please.
· All others will be deleted.

I've made a new template {{People from place list criteria}}, which places the list criteria from these comments into the Talk people, to increase visibility for editors.

Huggums537 raised an objection, which led to the following discussion (copied from Template talk:People from place list criteria):

Criteria not in line with guidance

The template says: Only people who already have a Wikipedia article may appear here. This establishes notability., and then links to Wikipedia:Stand-alone list and Wikipedia:LISTCRITERIA, but none of the list criteria say that establishing notability criteria is about just only Wikipedia articles. In fact, WP:CSC says red links are allowed. See Template:List entries are all notable for a good example. Establishing a list based on "Wikipedia articles only" violates WP:SELFREF, WP:CIRCULAR, MOS:OVERLINK, and is not encyclopedic since it doesn't allow other notable entries such as redlinks, redirects, or other plain text notable mentions. We need to make the template fall in line with guidance. Huggums537 (talk) 16:57, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

@Huggums537: Thanks for bringing this up: it's a worthwhile discussion to have. A few points:

• This is a new template: probably very few people are following the Talk page. Can we move the discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists so we can get a consensus on the list criteria? May I copy our discussion over there?
• I created {{People from place list criteria}} by copying the list criteria out of the HTML comments in the corresponding list pages. For example, open List of people from Chicago for editing. The template doesn't establish the list criteria, but brings it to the Talk page so that more people can notice them.
• The comments on the Talk pages seem to be put in place by several editors many years ago:
  • The criteria for List of people from Chicago was established in 2012 by Dkriegls
  • The criteria for List of people from Portland, Oregon was established in 2008 by EncMstr
  • The criteria for List of people from Tucson, Arizona was established in 2014 by Onel5969
• I believe that the criteria is thus stable and is supported by (implicit) consensus. I can't find any centralized discussion, however, so it's worthwhile to discuss now.
• I believe the relevant guideline is WP:LISTPEOPLE. That guideline says that a list of people must only include notable people. A person who has a Wikipedia article must be notable (because of WP:BASIC). The list criteria in {{People from place list criteria}} thus follows the guideline.
• One point which might be confusing: WP:LISTCRITERIA do not specify exactly which list criteria should be used. Editors can decide to use more restrictive list criteria than those specified at WP:LISTCRITERIA, as long as they are unambiguous and objective. The editors who placed the list criteria in the comments appear to have decided to be stricter: to allow only blue-links in these list articles, rather than simply any notable person.
• I don't believe that WP:SELFREF is violated here. WP:SELFREF discourages linking or mentioning Wikipedia in the articles. The {{People from place list criteria}} is put on the Talk page to avoid this.
• I don't think that MOS:OVERLINK is violated here. WP:OVERLINK discourages linking to common terms. These lists contain names of people who are not commonly known (unlike "inch" or "August").
• You bring up an interesting point about WP:CIRCULAR. Is relying on the existence of a WP article for notability the same as using WP as a source? I'm thinking not (because it isn't a citation), but I'm not 100% sure and I'm curious what other editors think.

Thanks again for raising the issue, it's very helpful! — hike395 (talk) 01:55, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I guess some suggestions I would have to start off with is to link to the actual relevant guidance in the template so adding LISTPEOPLE to the template would be good. The main problem I have with the template is that the only option it offers is the stricter, and more contentious option of Wikipedia articles only rather than also allowing the option for the more accepted and common criteria listed in the guidance about notability. I guess my issues about using just Wikipedia articles only for lists of people are with the actual guidance itself so yeah please copy the discussion to the list project. The reason I say SELFREF is violated is because we use links as references so telling people to strictly use Wikipedia links to the exclusion of all other references is a massive self reference. For example, you could provide a notable text entry to a list with some references to establish notability of the entry, but a Wikipedia articles only list prevents other mentions other than exclusive Wikipedia self references. I brought up CIRCULAR for similar reasons. My pointing to OVERLINK was meant to point to something more like MOS:SEAOFBLUE, and Wikipedia:Blue Sea with a sea of blue because using just blue links from Wikipedia is something just like that if notable redlinks or notable text entries are not allowed. Huggums537 (talk) 05:33, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I think this is a very worthwhile discussion to be had, but I also agree that it is more pertinent to have it on the talkpage of the lists project. If you do move it there, please ping me. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:25, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Continued discussion

What do other editors think? Should "List of people from place" articles require people to have existing Wikipedia articles, or should we use the criterion in WP:LISTPEOPLE of notability?

courtesy ping (Dkriegls—EncMstr—Onel5969) — hike395 (talk) 13:27, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Later --- implemented changes to {{People from place list criteria}} suggested by Huggums, above. — hike395 (talk) 13:40, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for implementing my suggestions. That looks very good. If you did one final thing and switched the options around so that the default option would be new choice, and the usage section would show the basic usage as the new choice and the optional usage as the stricter standard, then I think that would be more in line with actual guidance because the guidance actually says the notability requirement is what is "typical" and the more stringent criteria is just "in other cases". We would be completely done with the discussion about your template as far as I'm concerned, and the only issue I would have then is with guidance that restricts lists to "articles only". Huggums537 (talk) 16:00, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

That is a reasonable request: I'd like to see how the discussion goes before finalizing the template. — hike395 (talk) 06:33, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

• My thoughts… every entry in a list should contain a citation to at least one source that verifies the fact that the entry belongs in the list. In the case of “people from X” lists, there should be at least one citation to verify that the person is actually “from” the place. Lists (like every other article) should be able to stand on their own regarding sourcing. Blueboar (talk) 12:34, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
• tl;dr... WP:Notability is not measured by blue links or by fact an article exists. WP:Notability is a characteristic of the subject matter measured by reliable sources, regardless of existence of an article. Editors may agree, if they want, to use something like sufficiently WP:Notable that the subject might have an article on Wikipedia. Such a consensus has long been contemplated by our policies and guidelines and there is nothing "wrong" with it. But I do think it should be carefully phrased to allow WP:Redlinks in the list for WP:Notable entries even if no one started a stub. Such links are a useful way to organize the project's effort to cover qualifying subjects. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:31, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
• This is on the right track, and thanks for creating the template. I agree with NewsAndEventsGuy that we should clearly connect the concept of a blue link with a notable, let alone suitable article. A suitable article will comply with Wikipedia policies including WP:NOT, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV. It's helpful to state the obvious. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:01, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I advocate "disconnecting" the notion of blue links and lists. The operative criteria that has long been an option under our P&G is that editors may agree to use a criteria saying that a subject could have an article and therefore could have a blue link even though it might only have a red one (or none at all).NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:59, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

It looks like consensus has changed over the last 8 years, and, for these ~130 articles, we should not require blue links. There appears to be skepticism that having a WP article establishes notability. The consesnsus appears to be to have inline citations for notability and allow people without WP articles to be in the list. I'll change the template to default to WP:PEOPLELIST. It may take longer to have the HTML comment match the new template wording. — hike395 (talk) 16:53, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

• Sorry I missed the earlier ping when this discussion was moved here. While it is technically correct to say that "having a Wikipedia article does not establsih notability", having a WP article essentially establishes that the subject pass WP:GNG, and would survive AFD, which signifies they are notable. When I added the "criteria" back in 2014, it was during a period I was breaking a lot of these type of sections out from the main city articles. I copied those from another list article (I can't remember where). At the very least, the line, "Only people who already have a Wikipedia article may appear here. This establishes notability." Should be amended to read something like, "If the person has a WP article, that is a good indication of notability." If a person does not have a WP article to establish whether or not they pass GNG, then they should have at least 3 references which show that they pass GNG. If the references don't meet the requirement of significant, secondary, independent reliable sources, then they should not be included on the list. Finally, I can't come up with any specific examples, but I guess I have a couple of dozen of these lists on my watchlist, and whenever someone's article is deleted via AfD, their name is usually deleted from the list by the Admin who closes the discussion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:30, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

  I mostly agree with this, but I would never say (and I know you aren't either) that having a Wikipedia article presumes notability since CIRCULAR says Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and common sense tells us that with all the articles that get continuously created, and (who knows how much) subsequently later deleted for not being notable, we certainly can't rely on Wikipedia for notable articles either unless we redefine what notable means to us. Huggums537 (talk) 08:07, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

  WP has its own definition of notability which is what the GNG is. Whenever "notable" is used it should in ref to WP:N so that we aren't confusion the different definitions. (WP v real world) Masem (t) 02:15, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

  Exactly, so according to WP:N: On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. This means it qualifies for, not already has an article. IT goes on to say: This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. That means notable topics could be redirects, redlinks or other things besides articles. Huggums537 (talk) 01:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, lists of people from a particular place should be limited to blue links. Practically speaking, it's the easiest way to ensure we're following WP:LISTPEOPLE, rather than debate notability at the level of an article and the level of a list. There are some cases when I could see adding a redlink with a bunch of sources to demonstrate notability, but not when we're dealing with people, and really... if you're going to go to that length just to include something in a list, why not create a stub? I've never seen a list of examples (as opposed to a complete list or ranking) that was better for including redlinks among notable items. I'm sure it exists, so I wouldn't support disallowing it sitewide, but for "list of people from X", yes definitely. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:46, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

To support Rhododendrites' position (which I lean toward), WP:BLPNAME has a strong recommendation against including living people in our Encyclopedia who are not notable, to protect them. Even notable people who are only known for a single event. "Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value." There's a few other lines in BLP about strongly protecting privacy. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 19:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Except we are not talking about adding people who are not notable. We are talking about only adding people who have Wikipedia articles. People can be added with redlinks or black text who are notable, but don't have articles yet. That is the difference. Huggums537 (talk) 14:57, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• I've worked on a lot of lists. Though, I'm not as active as I used to be. From what I recall of the discussions, was that consensus was solidly in support of the OP position that someone who is WP:Notable but did not yet have a dedicated biography page could be included in Notable people from lists. The debate was always about how that got communicated. Redlinks without citation are in bad form and violate policy. They should be avoided.

Simply adding a citation doesn't prove WP:Notability, nor does it really allow for proper per-review of the subject's notability because the editors of these pages are very rarely dedicated to researching the subjects of those lists other than to verify their connection to the article's topic. Additionally, some people get mentioned in other Wikipedia articles but are not actually WP:Notable themselves and should not be mentioned in these lists. That's a violation of WP:Biography and our caution toward maintaining the privacy of non-notable subjects.

With all that said, many of us agree that, for most novice editors, the easiest way to get peer review of any WP:Notability claims is by simply creating a stub article for the subject and adding the supporting references. In practice, when I came across red-linked names on these lists, I would do that myself, and only rarely would leave a name red linked with just a supporting citation. Although, I 100% did do that for some names.

Simply cautioning for Notability, instead of recommending the peer review of a biography page, led to a lot of novice editors filling those lists with uncited redlinks. I think the current recommendation can still say something about "the best way to get any claims of WP:Notability peer-reviewed is to create a biography stub". Dkriegls (talk to me!) 18:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

It's funny you talk about having to create a whole new article just to get some evidence from sources for a notable topic peer reviewed because WP:NRV touches on this subject where it talks exactly about getting evidence for notability on topics saying that, "Sources of evidence include recognized peer-reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally." So, it sounds like it is saying you can just consult the sources themselves for the evidence. Then, WP:NEXIST suggests that it is not the presence of an article that determines notability, but the existence of the sources themselves. A redlink could just as easily be peer reviewed as a blue one, and they sometimes have to be in discussions to determine if an article is probably forthcoming or not. Huggums537 (talk) 15:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

. This reminds me of the (as yet unclosed) RFC at WT:NOT, although that dealt with whether to expand what should be on lists. I think my thinking is much the same, the best way is to have a linked article but that shouldn't exclude the inclusion of some that don't. Some people don't have an article but are notable, but it should be on whoever is wishing it include the entry to show it's notability. If the entry is only a name (whether red or black) with no other text or ref for explanation, then it should just be removed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:26, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Just to update that discussion was closed as no consensus. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:13, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the view expressed by @ActivelyDisinterested. Huggums537 (talk) 18:37, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

To be clear I believe in general alll included entries should have a Wikipedia article to be included. I've only ever seen two instances where I believed an entry without one shpuld be kept, a photographer who won a Pulitzer prize and is notable in no other way (name in plain text, wikilink to article about event in which they were named) and a Ghanaian activist who was notable (name as a redlink with three refs covering notability). That last one could have been turned into an article by anyone interested, so I left it.

My point is that inclusion without an article should be seen as the exception, and the bar for inclusion without an article should be very high. All of which is already covered by WP:IAR. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:50, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of athletes from Chicago

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of athletes from Chicago may be of interest to some editors here. 2603:7000:2143:8500:8812:BE3:223A:316D (talk) 17:42, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

List (information)

FYI, I have just promoted List (information) to mainspace. It is in good enough shape for that, but could always be improved. Cheers! BD2412 T 05:23, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Featured list removal candidate notification

I have nominated List of Cleveland Browns first-round draft picks for featured list removal. 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. Hog Farm _Talk 18:01, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Article renaming proposal

There is a proposal about the proper scope and naming of an article at Talk:List_of_winners_and_shortlisted_authors_of_the_Booker_Prize#Requested_move_16_November_2022 where outside input would be very welcome. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:21, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:List of genocides by death toll#Requested move 22 December 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of genocides by death toll#Requested move 22 December 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. echidnaLives - talk - edits 04:02, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Request for a list to be updated

The page of Wikipedia List of In Our Time programmes desperately needs updating. YTKJ (talk) 21:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Eponymy

Please see here. Ema--or (talk) 23:57, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Listing Americans by ethnicity and occupation

Several more intersection categories of American people are probably going to be deleted at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_December_19#American_people_of_European_descent_by_occupation. Please feel free to make lists where useful, or request a list from a particular category at the end of that CFD discussion if you would like me to do so. – Fayenatic London 13:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List of sibling pairs#Non-pairs

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of sibling pairs#Non-pairs. DH85868993 (talk) 09:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:NRHP § List of historic places in Allentown, Pennsylvania

 You are invited to join the discussion at WT:NRHP § List of historic places in Allentown, Pennsylvania. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:30, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at WikiProject_Television#Source_it_or_nom_it_for_deletion

 You are invited to join the discussion at WikiProject_Television#Source_it_or_nom_it_for_deletion Zinnober9 (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Feature list removal discussion

I have nominated BBC Young Sports Personality of the Year for featured list removal. 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. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List of Chinese Canadians#Vincent Li

Vincent Li is a Chinese Canadian who became notable for a high-profile murder. Another editor removes Li's name from the List of Chinese Canadians, using edit summaries such as "This list is for people who have made the news because they have made contributions, not for the killing of other people" and he was judged "not criminally responsible". It would be helpful if some experienced list-maintainers joined in and helped establish a consensus as to whether Li belongs on the list. (The discussion opened in 2020, but recently became active again.) -- M.boli (talk) 12:42, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Ministry of Foreign Affairs#Requested move 16 February 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ministry of Foreign Affairs#Requested move 16 February 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 12:20, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film § Creative lists

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film § Creative lists. Jovian Eclipse (talk) 10:59, 25 February 2023 (UTC)