Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 11:29:06 -0700, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
It's not like we don't have lots of other arbitrary criteria for inclusion already, both in lists and in article retention. But in this case as long as the list's criteria can be evaluated reasonably objectively I see nothing inherently wrong with it.
OK, so try this:
<snip list of various situations where someone may be notable for their height while not being very tall in absolute terms - not disagreeing with any of these possibilites, just saving space>
So: the list is completely arbitrary in that it excludes many who are notable for their height while including many who are just - well, tall.
Well, so what? The list's criteria are based on _absolute_ height, not _relative_ height, and as long as this is pointed out explicitly in the description of the list I don't see the problem. We've got a list of the largest asteroids in absolute terms too.
If you're concerned enough about the lack of recognition for tall ballerinas, pygmys, and such, you're free to create another list titled something along the lines of [[List of tallest people by profession]], [[List of tallest people by ethnicity]], or [[List of tallest people by century]], or whatever. Those can all have explicit criteria spelled out in their descriptions that take these sorts of things into account. This can even help ameliorate your objection about the existing list's fudge rule, by having a ''See: [[list of tallest basketball players]]'' in the main list; it's common practice to split out specialized articles to relieve clutter in general articles.