<P>Is there something FORCING you to read these lists you dislike so much? Don't you have the option of ignoring them?
<P>Zoe
<P> <B><I>rednblack@alum.mit.edu</I></B> wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid"><BR>Okay. People are actively editing [[List of songs whose title does not appear<BR>in their lyrics]]. Four or five people have assured me I am a rotten git for<BR>daring to question the necessity of this article, but I can't help it. I think<BR>the fact that people created, discussed, and edited this article is just wrong.<BR>Even worse, people I respect (e.g. Tannin and Tarquin) are working on this<BR>article. I'm willing to tolerate most lists, even [[Lists of Americans]], or<BR>whatever it's called now. But this just caps it for me.<BR><BR>I'd like to point out "What Wikipedia is not" #11:<BR><BR># List repository of loosely associated topics such as; quotations, aphorisms<BR># or persons (But of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their<BR># entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly<BR># contributed to the list topic).<BR><BR>This may not be definitive, but it at least suggests that we have some<BR>guidelines for what sort of lists should be considered appropriate, and what<BR>are total trash. I feel this particular list tips over into total trash. I have<BR>been assured that this list is valuable as an article, because people might be<BR>interested in it for its own sake (i.e. someone might want to know what songs<BR>have titles that don't appear in their lyrics), but I have a hard time taking<BR>this seriously. Are we going to insert every absurd contortion that the human<BR>mind can come up with into Wikipedia in the form of a list? E.g. [[List of<BR>left-handed Presidents]], [[List of towns with forty-story buildings]], [[List<BR>of drinks that contain banana]], etc., etc., etc. <BR><BR>At some point this has got to stop. Can we draw a line in the sand, here? The<BR>trash lists have got to go. If there's not a clear organizing reason for it,<BR>then it shouldn't exist.<BR><BR>Saurabh<BR><BR>------<BR>"Slugs! He created slugs! They can't hear, they can't speak, they can't operate<BR>machinery... I mean, are we not in the hands of a lunatic?" <BR>-- The Evil One describes the Supreme Being, "Time Bandits"<BR><BR>In message <200302281914.OAA22276@TheWorld.com>, Tom Parmenter said:<BR>>Lists serve as an organizing tool. They show what we have and don't<BR>>have. [[List of people from the United States]] is too broad to be of<BR>>much use, but [[List of boogie woogie musicians]] is invaluable, both<BR>>as an aid to those of us working on the topic, but also the reader.<BR>>There may never be a full article on Drive'em Down, the legendary New<BR>>Orleans piano player, but he's in the Wikipedia, and in a place where<BR>>his contributions can be best understood.<BR>><BR>>In addition to their use as indexes, the "Related changes" and "What<BR>>links here" are helpful to writers working in a particular area and<BR>>the talk pages serve as a meeting place. <BR>><BR>>There are all kinds of lists. <BR>><BR>><BR>>The best lists are:<BR>><BR>>- confined to a single graspable topic. If the topic is vast, the<BR>>better lists will have been largely assembled by some outside<BR>>authority, Hall of Fame or the like. <BR>><BR>>- annotated, why is the person place or thing on the list?<BR>><BR>>- organized in a useful fashion. They can be grouped by topic, in<BR>>alphabetical order, or chronological, whatever helps make the list<BR>>more useful. <BR>><BR>>Further observations: <BR>><BR>>- [[List of novelists]] is barely tolerable. It is huge, but at least<BR>>it is grouped by an amalgam of language/country identifiers that is<BR>>not intellectually rigorous. but works for the reader.<BR>><BR>>- [[List of gay movies]] is in alphabetical order and unannotated. I<BR>>have been arguing on thetalk page that if it were annotated (why is<BR>>''Rebel Without a Cause'' a gay movie) and in chronological order<BR>>(showing changing attitudes) it would be more useful (and interesting,<BR>>always a big number with me).<BR>><BR>>- [[List of musical topics]] is vast, alphabetical, and unannotated, but<BR>>it shows the scope of Wikipedia and give music-minded writers<BR>>something to chew on. <BR>><BR>>- The alphabetical biography lists are much more useful if they are<BR>>annotated, which has been a side project of mine. <BR>><BR>>- [[One hit wonders]] went immediately off the tracks. It started as<BR>>a list ofthose odd but classic numbers but was quickly mired down by<BR>>objections that so-and-so had had two hits (one of which was never<BR>>heard of and did not matter) and also by diligent folks with reference<BR>>books listing every song that had ever been on any hit parade for at<BR>>least a week. <BR>><BR>>I'm very pro-list, and willing to take the good with the bad.<BR>><BR>>If [[List of Mexican restaurants in Los Angeles]] shows up, so be it.<BR>>[[List of glass harmonicists]] will soon be along to make up for it.<BR>><BR>>Tom Parmenter<BR>>Ortolan88<BR>><BR>>_______________________________________________<BR>>WikiEN-l mailing list<BR>>WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org<BR>>http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l<BR>><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>WikiEN-l mailing list<BR>WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org<BR>http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l</BLOCKQUOTE><p><br><hr size=1>Do you Yahoo!?<br>
<a href="http://rd.yahoo.com/finance/mailtagline/*http://taxes.yahoo.com/">Yahoo! Tax Center</a> - forms, calculators, tips, and more