Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists

	Lists Project‑class
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles Project This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16

User:Shyam/List Namespace, archived debate, and summary of prior proposals (all rejected)

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of wealthiest animals#Disputed worth, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Spinixster (chat!) 06:24, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that there are a number of talk pages - currently 320 - that are in a subcategory of Category:FL-Class articles, indicating that they have been assessed as featured lists, but which contain class=List (rather than class=FL) in their use of the WikiProject Lists template. This results in them being sorted into Category:List-Class List articles, rather than Category:FL-Class List articles.

I'm planning to fix all of these so that the featured lists currently in the former category are sorted into the latter category instead - however, as {{WikiProject Lists}} belongs to Category:WikiProjects using a non-standard quality scale, and given the number of pages involved, I thought I should check in with this project before doing so.

Let me know if you have any queries and/or objections to this idea. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 00:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 03:45, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NmWTfs85lXusaybq: thank you, I appreciate you doing the work, but (by way of explanation) I was planning to wait to see if there was any objection from any members of the WikiProject before taking the action. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 03:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was this written by a bunch of lawyers? These guidelines are torturous to read and circle around and really don't help. Is there some legit reason they are not written in direct and clear English? 136.36.180.215 (talk) 15:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think if you're hoping for the guidelines to be changed it would be helpful to provide examples that illustrate your concerns and suggestions for how they might be improved. In my experience, vague complaints that aren't accompanied by suggestions for improvement tend to be overlooked. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 18:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of Balliol College, Oxford people#Requested move 4 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated List of Washington Commanders seasons for featured list removal. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated List of Cleveland Browns seasons for featured list removal. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated List of Tampa Bay Buccaneers seasons for featured list removal. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to include some more names on a list of people and put a citation number after their name to confirm they belong on that list of professionals. The list is divided into columns using a column template and so I can't use visual edit to insert the citation number and reference as when I am in Edit, it is tin the template and I can't inset a ref after the name in the template LPascal (talk) 08:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

if another editor wants to work out how to do this for me, the List is List of Christian theologians#20th century and the person is Yolanda Pierce. LPascal (talk) 08:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yolanda Pierce already appears on that list. I'm not particularly familiar with the Visual Editor, but if you edit the source it would be as simple as adding the citation immediately following the name. DonIago (talk) 20:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When a list is presented in columns, it is pretty difficult to edit from visual editor. If your only experience adding citations is through visual editor, it can be next to impossible. If you have a lot of citations to add to section, you could temporarily remove the code forming the columns, added your citations as per normal, and then restore the code for columns. Rublamb (talk) 12:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of fatal dog attacks in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been nominated for deletion, project members are invited to comment on the the AfD discussion page. Veritas Aeterna (talk) 21:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to ask if there's a concrete rationale on how much should be provided in a list article. My concern is with lists of characters articles since there seems to be no strict policy on that, thus, the questions are mostly about them, but this can probably apply to other lists as well.

1. How much detail should be provided in these articles? Comparing, say List of Fresh Off the Boat characters to List of Brooklyn Nine-Nine characters, there is a big difference between the details in the article. For consistency purposes, I will only be using the details given on the main characters (Eddie Huang for Fresh Off the Boat and Jake Peralta for Brooklyn Nine-Nine). While Eddie Huang only has 1 short paragraph, Jake Peralta has a whopping 7, with an additional infobox and some trivia on the police awards the fictional character received. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Writing_about_fiction#Summary_style_approach does say The spinout article should concisely provide details of the topic or topics covered in the work – just because the spinout article is given more space to grow does not mean that excessive plot summaries or fictional character biographies are appropriate. but it seems like there isn't a limit on how much fictional details you can add or a Manual of Style on how it should be formatted.
2. A reception section? See articles such as List_of_The_Legend_of_Vox_Machina_characters#Reception, List_of_Clone_High_characters#Reception and List_of_Hazbin_Hotel_and_Helluva_Boss_characters#Rulers_of_Hell, the latter of which I removed the reception section for due to me considering it to be out of scope for a list article on characters, but was reverted. I believe these lists do not need these sections. For the examples I gave, I think it's more "reception of the whole show in general which coincidentally includes the characters" and fits better in something like the main page. Plus, again, this seems out of scope for a list of characters article.

Waiting for your input. Spinixster (trout me!) 04:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand the concerns about unevenness across different list articles, I'm not sure a concrete answer is necessarily needed. Wikipedia's broad principles can allow for us as editors to construct different articles differently as the sources, reader needs, etc. warrant. Some lists have topics that are covered in sufficient detail to warrant more detailed description on Wikipedia; other lists' topics are less covered, or are more easily understood through more concise summarization. Some of these seem like content questions to resolve at the article level rather than at a project level.

By way of aside, I would bet that at least some of the longer list entries in the Brooklyn Nine-Nine list are the result of merges from character articles that were longer. Especially if there are infoboxes, I wouldn't be surprised if some of those used to be standalone articles. While Wikipedia can have flexibility with how much detail is in one list or in another, naming all the police awards Peralta receives in the show is almost certainly an excessive amount of detail, and it I don't think it helps the reader understand the character any better (it communicates that Peralta is portrayed as a skilled officer in the setting, but that's information that a single sentence could get across more concisely and straightforwardly).

As far as reception goes, I would be interested to hear more from folks more familiar with the list side of things, but from the character side I'm open to character lists including reception sections. Reception and interpretation ground character articles in reality through the reaction of audiences and the analysis of journalists/scholars. I think a character list is less than what it ought to be (or at least could be) if all it offers a reader are plot/character summaries of a work's cast. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 05:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my thoughts:

1. I do not find either list to be good quality for Wikipedia, and I would consider List of Brooklyn Nine-Nine characters worse because there is barely any out-of-universe context about the characters. It would be completely justified to cull a lot of in-universe content from that list. Maybe there is a better list of characters, but I've often referenced List of Smallville characters as an ideal list. For a character that does not have their own article, their appearance throughout the series is summarized and is followed by out-of-universe context. WP:PLOT is the core policy that applies here: " Wikipedia treats creative works... in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works." That means that writing the in-universe context should be a small part compared to the out-of-universe context. If the latter isn't being provided, the in-universe content should be very minimal. And if it's very minimal, maybe a list of characters is not worth having and should just be an embedded list in the franchise article, no spinoff being warranted.
2. I think how independent parties have described certain characters can be worthwhile, especially since when we as editors write about characters, we can only provide basic descriptions. Like we shouldn't describe a character as "quirky", we should reference someone describing them as such. I don't know if "Reception" is the best section heading for the example you provided, and the constant fragmented quoting reads badly, but the content is generally fine and could warrant more paraphrasing and tying together. In general, it's fine to have different scopes to allow for different focuses. Like let's say a critic reviewed a show, and they had a lot to say about the show overall, plus some comments about certain characters. We can only sample some of a review (which is more difficult the longer it is), so a critic's comments about the show can be in the show's article, and their comments about characters could fit better in the characters article.

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Speaking of, why is List of Smallville characters a GA? Shouldn't it be FL?) Spinixster (trout me!) 01:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Presently there is a discussion here about whether Kino, the protagonist in Kino's Journey, should be included on the page listing non-binary characters (including all those which fall under the non-binary umbrella). I've responded to the original post, which asked in part, "Can someone familiar with this character please clear up the confusion? How is Kino's gender identity best described?", and challenged Kino's inclusion on the page, among other comments. However, your views would also be useful in this discussion. Thanks! Historyday01 (talk) 20:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Lists of Michelin starred restaurants

Improvements welcome! Thanks ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the orphan issue. Rublamb (talk) 13:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]