Écossaise

Preliminary comments

This draft of a notability-equivalent guideline for stand-alone lists is the result of my reading a ridiculous number of list AfDs (something like 800) and the opinions on the current notability RFC, and attempts to express current consensus on what lists are and are not presently permitted, as well as how they are usually judged. Also, I believe the section clarifying the stance with regard to fictional lists is necessary due to the current lack of a WP:FICT and that they are the primary concern people have with the list exemption proposal at the RFC.

The page is only a rough outline right now, so I assume it's missing elements and needs various clarifications. Feel free to propose additions, wording changes, etc. --erachima talk 10:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Other types of possible fiction lists:

• Lists of serialized media - season articles.
• Lists of fictional concepts - Planets in Stargate, Starships in Stargate, Technology in Stargate.

I am just naming them but have no strong opinion about them one way or another, exept to say that long-running life-action serial works with a big geek following usually have real-world production/conception info that could theoretically be added, but rarely is because in-universe details are so much more exciting to keep track of. It is also possible to limit lists of fictional concepts to recurring elements, which automatically limits the depth of in-universe details. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Season articles are a type of episode list, I think they're sufficiently covered. You're right that the second case is probably worth noting. --erachima talk 15:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I like this, I think there's some potential merging or cross-correlation with my suggested Inclusion Guideline, in that the points about what make a good list can be used to outline what are good topics for inclusion in sub-inclusion guidelines. I would try to avoid starting from FICT and working outwards, instead thinking more global and then having FICT elements fit into that, only so that this doesn't attempt to customize lists for fiction-uses only (see, for example discussion of professional sports players or any named village/town in any country). --MASEM 18:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

This idea behind Erachima's proposal is not new, and follows on from Masem's proposal to make the article inclusion criteria of the General notability guideline (GNG) less restrictive for certain subject areas such as fiction [1]. At the heart of this proposal is the view that lists can be used as a dumping ground for topics that do not qualify for their own article under WP:N by placing the topics, or groups of topics (sometimes known as "aggegates") in lists, e.g. List of New Order Jedi characters.

This proposal is very similar to the inclusion criteria which Masem is proposing follows on the heals of the proposal at WP:FICT#Fictional elements as part of a larger topic to provide exemption from WP:N for topics of unproven notability. What they have in comon is that topics of unproven notability such as fictional characters or television episodes would be allowed to be the subject of lists, provided that it could be demonstrated that the topic inherited from a topic of proven notability. However, this proposal was flawed because notability cannot be inherited/presumed/acknowledgedin the absence of reliable secondary sources.

Even if notability could be inherited, the proposal does not provide any workable rules as to how inhertited notability actually works other than the statement that a list must be "Related to a notable topic", which means that the list's scope should be integrally tied to an existing Wikipedia article on a notable subject. Since every article in Wikipedia is in some way tied to related topics, it is hard to understand which articles could actually fail this criteria. The achilles heal of this prosoal is that could not prevent content forks other than having to rely on "expert opinion", which would mean relying on editors opinions about a topic's notability, rather than on relying on evidence. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this idea is not new. How could it be? Its whole intent is to be a codification of existing consensus with regard to list inclusion, as judged by review of AfDs and the current RfC on Wikipedia:Notability. Aside from that point, however, I'm afraid you are entirely mistaken. This proposal is not aimed primarily at fictional topics, it does not seek to weaken any existing policy, and does not reflect my personal opinion on how things should be, but rather is my reading of how things are. So, Gavin, while you are welcome to point out any disconnects you see between this proposal and the current editorial practice that it attempts to reflect, I would prefer that you refrain from making fallacious insinuations about my intent in writing it. --erachima talk 20:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• I am not so sure you can blame me if for arguing against this proposal, on the basis that I am making "fallacious insinuations". There is a disconnect between the consensus view of what lists are, and what you are proposing. In some ways your proposal reflects the current consensus: that lists are appendicies to articles on notable topics. However, the purpose to which you are proposing to use lists is very different from consensus: using them as a dumping ground for non-notable topics, which is a way of circumventing WP:N.
  If there was some other inclusion criteria that could be proposed that would prevent content forks, then I might view this as a positive proposal. However, since you are not proposing alternative inclusion criteria to WP:N for lists, I view this proposal as attempt to obtain special treatment for fictional topics. The inclusion criteria for lists that you are proposing, namely a list must be "Related to a notable topic", is a classic example of a truism.
  The problem I have with this proposal is that a topic such as Tekli would fail WP:N if it were to have its own stand alone article, as it is basically a content fork of a more notable topic. Your proposal suggests Tekli should feature in a list of similar topics, but fails to recognise that the List of New Order Jedi characters is still a content fork from a more notable subject. I oppose your proposal because there are no limitations on the number of content forks that could be created using the inclusion criteria a list must be "Related to a notable topic". --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

You are aware that these lists and spinout articles are specifically excluded from being called "content forks", per WP:SS? --MASEM 12:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• I see nowhere in WP:SS that says that at all. To go back to the point of my objection, I don't see that it says anywhere in WP:SS that content forks are allowed just because they are contained in lists. In fact WP:SS says that "Editors are cautioned to not immediately split articles if the new article would meet neither the general notability criterion nor the specific notability criteria for their topic".
  To go back to my example, you can see how easy it is to create content forks if ignore WP:N. The article The New Jedi Order is itself a content fork; it should actually be renamed List of New Jedi Order Books, which is not a notable topic per se, nor are the books themselves notable that are listed in it. This is the critical problem with this proposal; it gives rise to enless content forks.--Gavin Collins (talk) 13:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Quoting verbatim from WP:POVFORK, under the section "Article spinouts": Summary style articles, with sub-articles giving greater detail, are not content forking, provided that all the sub-articles, and the summary conform to Neutral Point of View.. --MASEM 13:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• That assumes that the subject of the spinout is notable. If the spinout does not meet GNG, then it is likely to be a content fork. Your reading of the guideline is too narrow by assuming that WP:POVFORK is providing an exemption from WP:N for spinouts, which it is not. The subject of our discussion is a spinout article that fails WP:N; it is these type of articles (or lists, agrregates etc.) where the opportunity for content forks is at its greatest. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• There is no mention of notability in POVFORK, egro it is a red herring here. Content that is split appropriately per WP:SS is not what POVFORK deals with. Now, WP:SS does caution against but does not restrict non-notable spinouts, and thus the goal is to try to make sure that when such spinouts exist, they have consensus, either as the general approach has been approved as a whole, or on an individual basis. --MASEM 15:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• What is clear is that there is no mention of any exemption from the General notability guideline for spinoffs. Again, you are reading too much into WP:POVFORK, in that you are assuming it sanctions a class of article called spinoffs that can be used as a dumping ground for non-notable articles. Just because the guideline does not mention notability, it is not plausible that this is meant to be interpreted as an exemption from WP:N. If an article is split, it is split into one or more articles. Spinouts are articles, just like any other. --Gavin Collins (talk) 01:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Gavin, no offense intended, but your claim that lists fall under WP:POVFORK is something that you have completely made up. It has no precedent within existing policy. It has no acceptance as a deletion argument. As such, your argument that lists are content forks cannot be given any weight within this WP:GUIDELINE proposal, because it is not a significant opinion within the community. If you wish to spread the opinion and possibly get it incorporated into future guideline revisions, I suggest that you write an WP:ESSAY or push for it directly via the submission of AfDs on that ground. But whatever, I didn't ask you here to explain the policy-generation process. I asked you here because I thought you wanted to help keep trivial lists out of Wikipedia. If list inclusion is to be done consistently rather than by AfD dice-roll, we need a documented standard of what is accepted.

You may wish to notice that there is no consensus that notability applies to lists, which means that the inclusion of lists is now specifically governed by nothing whatsoever. We need a guideline to replace N for lists, and we need it a week ago. This problem is what's prompted me to write this proposal, and I've done my genuine best to do it objectively and keep it apart from my personal opinions. I've even gone as far as doping it what I would normally consider unacceptably towards content removal, with the demand that individual entries be sourceably significant to the subject. If you do indeed wish to help keep out trivial lists like you claim, then please get down from your anti-fiction podium and help write me a guideline proposal that reflects actual consensus. I personally notified you of this proposal draft because I'd hoped you would be willing to do the same as me, and we'd be able to work together to push a proposal through. It seems I was mistaken, and that you are not willing to put aside your personal campaign. As such, I'll simply have to ignore your repetition of previously discredited arguments and bring it before the community. I am truly sorry. --erachima talk 08:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• You are mistaken that I am against fiction, but what I do oppose is the idea that lists can be used as a free for all dumping ground for non-notable topics. It is not just me that has this view; have a look at the essay WP:LISTCRUFT, and you will see that opposition to using lists in this way is well established. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no relevance of the GNG or in fact any N guideline for items in lists, just as for content in articles. The use of combination articles for material which is sub-notable is well recognized--how else are we going to treat such content? The use of the GNG does not then not make sense for the article as such: There is no way to tell if a collection of objects is relevant, because people will not usually write about the collection itself, but the individual objects of it. For example, if we are making a list of camera or telephone models, rather than individual articles on the individual models, it is because there is not enough information to make any particular one of them notable--just a little verifiable information on each, such as one or two minor reviews. Than they have not specifically written about the minor characters as a group does not mean that it they do not make together a valid article. Gavin is right, though, that is is not specifically about fiction. But his criterion means that unless there is enough for a full article we should write nothing. DGG (talk) 01:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• In answer to erachima, if my viewpoint is discredited, I have yet to evidence to this effect. I think you will find that notability does govern lists, but in a roundabout way. As I have stated before, the best defence against deletion or merger of a list is always the citation of reliable secondary sources which demonstrate that the list is itself notable. The best evidence you can present that a list is not a content fork from another notable subject is again the citation of reliable secondary sources in order to get a third party perspective. In any case, lists that do not cite reliable secondary sources are also likely to fail other Wikipedia policies & guidelines, which is why there is a steady stream of lists without any notability being nominated for AFD, e.g Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Killer7 characters is just the latest. Notability can also govern the content of list, e.g. Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Lists of people, which is one example of a prohibition against using lists as a dumping ground for topics (or lists of topics) without notability.--Gavin Collins (talk) 17:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• I've presented evidence before (On the RFC page) that it clearly is not the case that any non-notable list of characters is acceptable; there is an unspoken threshold of where a list of characters goes from being deletion territory to being a perfectly acceptable solution. One clear point of disallowance is a list of characters from a single game/movie or other singular work. Killer7 is an example of this. But when we go to series or franchises, there is more allowance for them. Of course if the list can be shown notable (as most of the FF character lists), then there's no issue. We can formulate these criteria to some point for all areas via SNGs. The SNGs can also say when we never create a list either, just as the case with list of people. The problem right now is that the SNGs do not really offer this advice in a consistent manner, but I will say that if you look at the pattern across AFDs, you can see where acceptable and completely rejected lists are drawn, and these can be codified in the SNGs. --MASEM 17:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• I have stated before non-notable list won't work; like weapons of mass destruction, no one will admit to creating them. In order to provide clear cut advice on inclusion criteria for lists, it appears to me that WP:N must be the basis, as it is not possible to distinguish whether or not a list can be classed as listcruft or synthesis without the citation of reliable secondary sources. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Lists

Gavin, if we need to say right out hat it does not apply to lists, that might be the best solution. How can a list as such be notable -- (unless we're talking about the special cases of a list compiled by some group or author that is the subjet of discussion, which does happen, as NY Times list of bestselling books, etc. but is not the sort of thing we are really talking about here). Saying a list must meet WP:N is saying that no combination article is acceptable unless every section of it is N. Is that what you actually mean? It would clarify the discussion. DGG (talk) 23:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• The article New York Times Best Seller list appears to demonstrate notablity because it citesr reliable secondary sources, but there exist many best seller lists competing for attention, so when deciding which one is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, reliable secondary sources should be cited. You refer to such a list as being the exception, but why? Whether I choose to create an article about the New York Times Best Seller list or create a list such as New York Times Non-Fiction Bestsellers of 2000, am I not writing more or less about the same topic? I can see that such a list contains information, but does it contain information worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia? In the absence of a working alternative, it seems to me that WP:N is the inclusion criteria that must be applied to all lists. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you are confused between an article about the NYT bestseller list, and a list of books that are on the list. An article about it as a notable outside list needs sources for the notability of the list in general, and of course they are not hard to find. A list of books that have made the list does not require such sources for the list in general, just an agreement that the list is in some way useful--such as the fact that its a sufficient factor for notability of a book. I agree that in many cases we can do both, but we do not need a references that some particular collection of topics or articles on wikipedia is notable as a set of topics. DGG (talk) 03:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• I think it you who is confused between a "list is in some way useful" and one that is notable. New York Times Non-Fiction Bestsellers of 2001 is just one instance of the New York Times Best Seller list, but that instance does not demonstrate notablity. Other instances of list that do not demonstrate notablity are New York Times Non-Fiction Bestsellers begining with A, New York Times Non-Fiction Bestsellers begining with B, New York Times Non-Fiction Bestsellers begining with C etc.
  I don't think you have realised that the only criteria by which we can distinguish which lists should be included in Wikipedia is notability; vague references to "list is in some way useful" is just not helpful; for instance, the list New York Times Non-Fiction Bestsellers begining with B might be useful to crossword puzzle enthusiasts. Just because a list is useful, does not mean it should be included in Wikipedia (see WP:NOT#DIR for an explaination). --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)