From: Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] listcruft
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 16:41:22 +0300, "Jussi-Ville Heiskanen" cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
Not so much a case in point, but a touchstone. Do *you* think we are better or worse than Britannica for having "List of songs about masturbation". Stand up and be counted...
No, a case in point. There is no encyclopaedic topic "songs about masturbation" because there is nothing about masturbation which has any logical connection with songs, and vice-versa (although I suppose one could stretch a point and say that, for example, Whitney Houston's "I will always love you" gives more pleasure to the performer than anybody watching). The connection is an arbitrary one, and pretty much every entry in the list was also unsupported by references, because in the end what constitutes being *about* something, rather than simply mentioning it in the lyrics somewhere? I am all for setting up a sister project, triviapedia or whatever, for collecting such examples of word association gone mad, but there's no question in my mind that a neutral, verifiable encyclopaedia is not the place for them.
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.
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.
The reason why references are needed is that in many cases list inclusion involves a matter of judgement, and the judgement should be that of an authoritative third party, not that of Wikipedia editors.
On 7/15/07, Daniel P. B. Smith wikipedia2006@dpbsmith.com 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.
That wouldn't be workable as an actual rule.
No "parent article" has ever existed for this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Governors_of_Alabama http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Governor_of_Alabama&redirect=n... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Governor_%28Alabama%29&redirec...
But it's a featured list candidate (which seems to be failing, but only due to lack of pictures): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_Gove...
And here's one that passed over a year ago and still no companion article has been created. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chief_Ministers_of_Tamil_Nadu http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chief_Minister_of_Tamil_Nadu&r... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chief_Minister_%28Tamil_Nadu%29&am...
—C.W.
Indeed, that seems to be the preferred way. [[Governor of New York]] has been redirected to [[List of governors of New York]], probably on the basis that the list comprised most of the article.
On 7/15/07, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/15/07, Daniel P. B. Smith wikipedia2006@dpbsmith.com 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.
That wouldn't be workable as an actual rule.
No "parent article" has ever existed for this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Governors_of_Alabama http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Governor_of_Alabama&redirect=n... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Governor_%28Alabama%29&redirec...
But it's a featured list candidate (which seems to be failing, but only due to lack of pictures): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_Gove...
And here's one that passed over a year ago and still no companion article has been created. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chief_Ministers_of_Tamil_Nadu http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chief_Minister_of_Tamil_Nadu&r... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chief_Minister_%28Tamil_Nadu%29&am...
—C.W.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
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.
On 15/07/07, Daniel P. B. Smith wikipedia2006@dpbsmith.com 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.
For some topics, I would suggest that there shouldn't be a need for a list within the main article (except perhaps as summary), or a list article. Instead the content should be arranged as sections and paragraphs, e.g. going through things chronologically or such. In other words, an encyclopaedia article rather than a trivia look-up chart.
Zoney
On 16/07/07, Zoney zoney.ie@gmail.com wrote:
On 15/07/07, Daniel P. B. Smith wikipedia2006@dpbsmith.com 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.
For some topics, I would suggest that there shouldn't be a need for a list within the main article (except perhaps as summary), or a list article. Instead the content should be arranged as sections and paragraphs, e.g. going through things chronologically or such. In other words, an encyclopaedia article rather than a trivia look-up chart.
It really depends. e.g. [[Canon Digital IXUS]] and [[Exilim]], which I add new models to as they come out - the big table is the most compact and useful way of putting all the info for me. Also contains all the info from what used to be several articles on the individual models - there really wasn't enough special about the models to add more info. (If there ever is then spinning them out again is easy enough.)
- d.
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.
In many cases that's fine.
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.
That gave you an opportunity to add the references to the linked articles.
The reason why references are needed is that in many cases list inclusion involves a matter of judgement, and the judgement should be that of an authoritative third party, not that of Wikipedia editors.
A lot depends on the saus that you accord to "List" articles. I tend to treat them as a combination Index and To-do reference. Until standard practice in books requires references to the index of the book, I don't see why we should be so taken with ourselves as to require references there.
Some exceptions would still need to be made such as or lists where membership would be derogatory.
Ec
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 09:02:06 -0700, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
A lot depends on the saus that you accord to "List" articles. I tend to treat them as a combination Index and To-do reference. Until standard practice in books requires references to the index of the book, I don't see why we should be so taken with ourselves as to require references there.
I would say that it comes rather from the way the list is compiled. Some lists are compiled from the editors' best guess at whether they meet the criteria, or are sourced form the International Journal of Everybody Knows, which as you will be aware is a notoriously unreliable source.
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 09:02:06 -0700, Ray Saintonge wrote:
A lot depends on the saus that you accord to "List" articles. I tend to treat them as a combination Index and To-do reference. Until standard practice in books requires references to the index of the book, I don't see why we should be so taken with ourselves as to require references there.
I would say that it comes rather from the way the list is compiled. Some lists are compiled from the editors' best guess at whether they meet the criteria, or are sourced form the International Journal of Everybody Knows, which as you will be aware is a notoriously unreliable source.
By treating IJEK as a standard reference for lists we are able to keep a significant inventory of work to be done.
Ec
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 15:09:17 -0700, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
By treating IJEK as a standard reference for lists we are able to keep a significant inventory of work to be done.
Work like deleting crap lists of songs meeting arbitrary criteria and with members added on personal whim, yes.
Guy (JzG)
On 7/16/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
sourced form the International Journal of Everybody Knows, which as you will be aware is a notoriously unreliable source.
When I create my own wiki I am so going to name it that. Thanks Guy.
—C.W.