Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 11:29:06 -0700, Bryan Derksen
<bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
It's not like we don't have lots of other
arbitrary criteria for
inclusion already, both in lists and in article retention. But in this
case as long as the list's criteria can be evaluated reasonably
objectively I see nothing inherently wrong with it.
OK, so try this:
<snip list of various situations where someone may be notable
for their
height while not being very tall in absolute terms - not disagreeing
with any of these possibilites, just saving space>
So: the list is completely arbitrary in that it
excludes many who are
notable for their height while including many who are just - well,
tall.
Well, so what? The list's criteria are based on _absolute_ height, not
_relative_ height, and as long as this is pointed out explicitly in the
description of the list I don't see the problem. We've got a list of the
largest asteroids in absolute terms too.
If you're concerned enough about the lack of recognition for tall
ballerinas, pygmys, and such, you're free to create another list titled
something along the lines of [[List of tallest people by profession]],
[[List of tallest people by ethnicity]], or [[List of tallest people by
century]], or whatever. Those can all have explicit criteria spelled out
in their descriptions that take these sorts of things into account. This
can even help ameliorate your objection about the existing list's fudge
rule, by having a ''See: [[list of tallest basketball players]]'' in the
main list; it's common practice to split out specialized articles to
relieve clutter in general articles.