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