Daniel P. B. Smith wrote:
I wish there were widespread general consensus that there should not be a "list of X" article unless there is already a high-quality article on the topic of "X." And the list should begin as a section within the "X" article and should not be broken out until it becomes unmanageably long.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_auxiliary_Interstate_Highways - there's no [[auxiliary Interstate Highway]]. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_defunct_Canadian_railways - there's no [[defunct Canadian railway]]. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_CSX_Transportation_predecessor_railroad... - there's no [[CSX Transportation predecessor railroad]].
I wish there were widespread general consensus that every item in a "list of X" article should be individually referenced. A year or so ago I tried checking out such lists, particularly those of which it was asserted that a reference was not needed because "references can be found in the linked article," and my experience was this was usually not true.
Same example (auxiliary Interstates): the FHWA Route Log and Finder List has everything but the most recent changes. There's no need to individually reference it for each entry.