On 29 May 2013 10:58, Sarah Stierch <sarah.stierch@gmail.com> wrote:
Perhaps we can have these lists combined.

Actually, I'd really suggest not doing that, or only having links to smaller lists in a central location.  With the exception of DSP's list, each of these lists is small enough to feel "achievable", but putting them into one really big list makes the task look and feel overwhelming.  Creating 10 articles in a smaller grouping makes a significant dent.  Creating 10 articles on DSP's list barely scratches the surface, and I'd question whether such a redlist actually constitutes a reasonable working list even just considering its smaller chunks.  A passing mention in a single book, or membership in a professional association, does not make for notability, but that does seem to be where several of DSP's sublists are coming from.   (A random sampling of the "women psychoanalysts" shows that many would not to pass even our ridiculously low notability standards.)

In other words, smaller lists are more likely to be done than long lists, and are also much more likely to be "adopted" by one or a small group of editors.  It's how *successful* wikiprojects have operated for years. They have clear focus, they have specific objectives, and they support systems that give their members a sense of accomplishment rather than leaving them feeling as though they could slave away for months on end without having an effect.