The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Support A.4[edit]

1. Support I added this proposal based on a number of comments to earlier proposals, which indicate this may be a useful talking point. The idea is as follows: A list usually groups information which would be perfectly acceptable to present in a parent article, yet for both space considerations and presentation, they are usually better served presented on their own in list format. It therefore makes sense that list-form articles be allowed to source from trivial sources such as television listings and fan guides, as well as from the work itself. The list itself is merely another way of presenting information about a topic already deemed notable given an article exists. The topic of the list is typically the work itself, a work which will be demonstrably notable through reliable sources. Therefore this isn't really an exemption. Hiding T 16:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Should it really come under 'support', then? Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Eh? Hiding T 10:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   If it isn't an exemption, then the answer to "should lists be exempted from the GNC" is "no", surely? What you're proposing, as I understand it, would be that "List of Xs" would be acceptable if and only if "X" is acceptable; but it seems to be a fairly common interpretation of "topic" in the GNC that if "X" meets the GNC, then so does "List of Xs". So, as you say, you're not supporting an exemption, just a specific reading of the GNC. Unless you're actively in favour of allowing "List of Xs" when "X" doesn't meet the GNC, then you actually oppose your own proposal, as listed. Perhaps you didn't mean "Lists may be exempted from the GNG"? Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Sorry, I still don't follow. Here's my thinking: a list of episodes in a television series wouldn't have notability issues if it was part of the article on the television show. Split it into a list and all of a sudden, how does the GNG apply? I'm arguing such a list should be exempt of the GNG. Whether it already is or not is what I am seeking to clarify with this proposal, isn't it? What I'm arguing isn't that list of "X" but list of "Y" in "X" or some such configuration. So X may be notable, and Y, for specific values of Y which you would expect, if not for space considerations to find in an article on X, is okay. The issue is this. The Olympics is a notable topic; but because of notability not being inherited, it would seem not every Olympic gold medallist is notable. Therefore, the situation is unclear as to whether lists of gold medallists can be compiled. Is that a correct assertion? This proposal is seeking to clarify such instances. Is that any better? Hiding T 12:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   OK, I think I see where we differ. If I understand right, you'd like "List of Olympic gold medallists" to be included because "The Olympics" is notable; that is inherited notability, so I dislike it; but I see why you'd call that support for an exemption. I'd be happy for "List of Olympic gold medallists" to be included because there's sufficient coverage of "Olympic gold medallists" overall for me to believe that the GNG would include that article, whereas some people think that the coverage that the GNG requires would have to cover the list itself rather than its subject. I'd propose that we clarify what counts as coverage for lists, rather than exempting them from needing coverage, but there's enough complaining already about scope creep. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Well, my point grows from the fact that opinion on how to interpret the GNG with regards list articles varies, and that we need to work out how it does, as you say below, in order to show people what good lists are and what bad lists are. The consensus at the pokemon poll all that time ago was to merge them all into lists. I accept consensus may change, but feel that was a strong consensus and we need to move more in that direction. I also feel that's where consensus likely lies. As I've tried to point out, bad lists are fairly easy to spot just by their name, and will be caught by WP:OR and WP:NPOV long before we have to worry about WP:N. Hiding T 18:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   That's fair enough; I just think you may have shot yourself in the foot by describing that as an 'exemption'. Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   That indicates an issue that may not be my own. The problem seems to be this; we all agree the GNG applies except in rare instances here, through community consensus, the application of ignore all rules is applied because keeping verifiable information improves the encyclopedia in its goal to be comprehensive. But we're not allowed to openly state that there are such exemptions, because that's the elephant in the room. Odd. I don't know how to delineate consensus then, because to me it is quite clear where the consensus lies. Hiding T 09:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I don't think you'll get very far selling this as an IAR issue - if you say "the rules should be weaker in order to include lists" then you'll get a lot of agreement; if you say "the rules should be discarded in order to include lists" then you'll get a lot of opposition. But consensus does seem to be on the side of including lists at a lower threshold, which is why I've tried to push the idea of 'aggregate notability' in the past. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Do you have a write up of 'aggregate notability'? One thing that is starting to bother me is the practicality of implementing the consensus determined here, whatever it is. I think it is fair to say that there's a fair group of editors who would oppose the GNG but who never seem to find their way to these forums. But I guess that's a worry for another day. Do you think we should move this thread to the talk page? Hiding T 12:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   OK, see you there. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. Strong support due to encyclopedic and almanacic nature of lists to organize and clarify textual information. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Qualified support I think we need to hash out a little bit more explicit guidelines to prevent articles like Weapons carried by blonde cyborgs in the Ballpeen Hammer 70000 video game series, but the concept here is agreeable.Kww (talk) 17:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Fully agree. I was going to limit to characters, cast and episodes, but I thought there may be other needs as well, I could perhaps see location lists as something that could be of merit, but certainly we should not be listing trivial characteristics. I would think we should only have lists which sit as a supporting part of a main article, rather than seeking to group obscure elements. I think there's scope for consensus here, if we can get the right guidance we should even be able to address most of Gavin's concerns. Hiding T 19:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4. Support with some strong qualifiers The guidelines "exempting" lists should be clear, concise and readily applicable. We should not write a guideline that allows us to spin out content (which isn't covered by WP:N) arbitrarily into lists (which under this proposal would still not be covered). WP:SYN should be primary in the writing of this guideline. HOWEVER, I agree with Kww that the general concept is agreeable. Protonk (talk) 17:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Fully agree. See response to Kww. Hiding T 19:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5. Support fr33kman (talk) 22:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support - I support more than just lists, but I do support lists. Reminds me of WP:FICT where this all started. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support the idea behind it, oppose the wording (but my support !vote is stronger). For example, WP:VG have found lists of video game weapons to generally violate WP:GAMEGUIDE at the core, so this proposal should not counteract this consensus. On the other hand, lists of characters and episodes should IMO only be merged or deleted under rare conditions (e.g. redundance, crufty sublists of legitimate articles/lists, simple non-existance of any reliable sources). There is also the issue of bullet-point lists (e.g. lists of countries) versus section-based lists (e.g. list of characters with short summaries), where the GNC obviously applies differently (i.e. is an entry a legimimate part of the list versus has the summary due weight). – sgeureka ^t•c 16:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Addendum: I just noticed that I am already (mis-)applying the GNC for entries within lists, but I take this as another sign that the GNC and lists do not go hand-in-hand as the GNC and articles IMO do. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

8. Extra-Strong Support - This is related to what is probably my greatest concern with WP:N. It actually runs counter to the accepted use of primary sources as listed in WP:OR. Also, what's the point of merging all of these stand-alone stubs to lists, if once there, the list is deleted? Nice bait and switch there, folks. The whole point of merging stubs to lists is the idea/hope that if a section is sufficiently developed, then it can be split into its own article. Lists are our oyster beds, where we hope to eventually find pearls. - jc37 05:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support especially the comments made by Sgeureka and Hiding. Jc37 also makes a very good point in that lists can also serve as a nursery of sorts. -- Ned Scott 04:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. Strong Support - GNGs do not mesh well with lists in general which are really navigational tools first and articles second. When a list is comprised of entities that are WP articles (inherent notability), how can the Notability of the list be challenged. It is rare that you find sources on the "Title of the List", but most lists have sources related to the entities in the list. IMHO, the most importance aspect of a list, and the aspect that should be the focus of any deletion proposals or improvement proposal is the list lead-in. The lead-in should be strong, and clearly delineate the inclusion criteria, and the list in general provide a logical but annotated navigational source for the larger context.--Mike Cline (talk) 22:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support This proposal seems to make sense. Captain panda 02:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support with a caveat The list, be it in the parent article or a spinoff article, must be supported by either first-party or third-party sources, or obvious from inspection. A list of characters in a TV series may use the primary source of the TV show itself or the non-third-party source of the TV studio's promotional materials rather than a third-party source. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support as long as lists may be exempt, not are exempt.Petero9 (talk) 03:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support; insofar as a list that would have been appropriate in the parent article can legitimately be spun off on its own page for presentation purposes. — Coren ^(talk) 03:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
15. Weak support. I believe that some lists can be made from primary sources and still meet V, NPOV, and NOR. I don't like the wording that they are "exempt" from GNG, they might be allowed a weaker standard, however, on independent sources if it can still demonstrate a NPOV. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support but not for trivial lists. The list needs to be considered acceptable within the parent article and split off only for the reason of being to long to be embedded in the parent. Dbiel ^(Talk) 04:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
17. Qualified support as per Kww, Protonk, Mike Cline; very nice idea, but the details need clarification. This would allow creation of useful lists as a default, but I'm sure trivial lists could still be deleted easily. Walkerma (talk) 04:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support yes. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
19. Strong support. Most lists can be sourced via the primary source or via secondary sources in the parent article. And many lists should consist of bluelinks to articles, which in turn establish notability. 23skidoo (talk) 05:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support Though we certainly need some clearer guidelines for lists, the GNG is designed to evaluate topics, not ways of presenting information. Zagalejo^^^ 05:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support per my (currently ongoing) analysis of the AfD discussions on lists. Essentially, precedent is that lists are deleted for being unmaintainable, not connecting related subjects, covering an invented classification (original research), or for being (for lack of a better word) generally stupid. Not for notability problems, at least not in the same sense as articles. Therefore, per the descriptive nature of policy, WP:N should reflect this. --erachima talk 08:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support. Lists are often a supplement to articles, that ideally would be included as a box or section in the article but are split out for reasons of space. --Itub (talk) 09:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support Purely a formatting issue. No-brainer. SP-KP (talk) 09:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support Often for things like this, primary sources are more reliable than secondary or tertiary ones anyway. Waggers (talk) 10:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
25. Possible Support I would be fine with List of characters or Specific episode articles being allowed to waive the "third-party" part of sourcing, assuming there are strong non-independant sources. So franchises that produce guidebooks would pass this, or TV series that give lots of commentary on DVD's, while not necessarily passing the current rules. But a list must still have some sourcing, or how will any editor know which entries are true, or vandalism or wishful thinking? It should still be possible to challenge entries in a list to force sources (even if not third party sources) I would at least like to see this proposal go further to become more specific, hence possible support. Many current lists wouldn't pass the current rules, even when clearly encylpedic (eg, List of works by massively famous authors: Author is notable, but "Lists of works" may not exist independantly).Yobmod (talk) 11:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support. Sounds like common sense to me. Abyssal (talk) 11:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support for lists which don't pass the threshold of originality. A list of episode titles of a TV series which could have been copy&pasted (and reformatted) from a primary source needn't cite secondary sources; but if it included other commentary, such as a summary (even if three-lines long) of each episode, then it would still need to comply with WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NOR. -- A r m y 1 9 8 7 ! ! !  12:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
28. Conditional Support While lists have a tendancy to be more encyclopedic in nature than prose, there still exists the possibility that a list consisting entirely of cruft will be created and kept under this rationale. I think we could reword this to be a bit more like proposal A.3 and we will be good here: as long as the list adds to the depth of coverage of a notable topic, then the list is notable. A list about a non-notable topic is of no use to anyone. bahamut0013♠♣ 12:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support, provided the lists do not contain non-obvious commentary. Warofdreams talk 12:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support Why is this even up for discussion?--EchetusXe (talk) 12:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support But this is already my understanding of the way things currently work. Jclemens (talk) 15:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support. A weaker standard in these cases is sensible. Ford MF (talk) 15:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support Again on balance. Davewild (talk) 16:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support The whole concept of notability guidelines is hurting Wikipedia, not helping it. Hans Persson (talk) 17:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support - I think lists are a reasonable exception to WP:NOTINHERITED. They're more for organization than actual content; we don't need sources for the text added to Categories either. --Explodicle (T/C) 19:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support; the purpose of lists is usually as much related to organization as content and shouldn't usually be judged by the same content standards. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support. You can't prove notability for lists, you can only prove that they and the general topic covered is verifiable and that the items are verifiable and the general subject is notable. ~AH1^(TCU) 01:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support - Lists are a methog of grouping written Articles, If the Article is NN, it will remain a redlink, but it can still exist in a List to show relationships. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support Lists exist to organize information about a topic. This is a case where people need to remember that information in lists still needs to meet verifiability and trivia guidelines. Those exist to prevent abuse of this type of system.--Marhawkman (talk) 03:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support Lists provide useful, encyclopedic info. FieldMarine (talk) 03:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
41. Strong support. Lists can be useful resources for people creating notable articles without needing to demonstrate their own intrinsic notability. Let us not destroy potentially useful information. Maias (talk) 03:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support - Again, geography should not change our inclusion policies. Lists of characters and the like are suggested for inclusion in articles. There should be no reason that these are a good thing to have only on topics which have only a few characters, but forbidden on topics with lots of characters because the list (properly) gets split out to a sub-article. --CBD 11:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support - sensible, as these lists will be comprised of uncontroversial and easily verifiable information. Chubbles (talk) 15:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
44. Strong Support - Sounds very reasonable. Lists based on the general topic are automatically as notable as the general topic and much more difficult to establish notability separately. Trying to prove notability on a list would be arduous and counter-productive. --Willscrlt (Talk) 16:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
45. Strong Support - Open any printed encyclopedia and you find lists - they most certainly have a place in Wikipedia, and this makes sense. Timmccloud (talk) 20:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support - Again, reasonable, and is current practice anyway. Bearian (talk) 20:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support - I've always generally supported exempting lists from the same rigors of individual articles, as it provides a compromise and at the same time the lists has to still keep up with the general quality standards of any article. My philosophy has always been, it's better to have 1 article that isn't perfect, than to have 50 articles (that could have been contained in that 1 article) that are even less perfect.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
48. Absolutely Lists are extremely useful and there should be more of them.  Grue  17:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support – current practice more or less. A list that is not suitable for Wikipedia would be one that fails WP:NOT#INFO, WP:NOR, WP:WEIGHT, and to some cases, WP:NOT#PLOT (in the case of tertiary lists on minor characters in a series for instance), not necessarily failing notability requirements. —sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 02:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support - A few days ago I was somewhat neutral on this topic however over the last 24 hours I have been convinced there is a strong need for the obvious. A spin-out article/list from a topic about an obvious subject should be "extended components" of the main article. But while I support this I still feel that a list will need it's own subject specific guidelines to limit its scope. Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support in some cases. I'm rather torn on this one:
    1. I absolutely very very strongly support this with navigational lists: lists where the contents are blue-links, and the name of the list is a defining or prominent characteristic of the list's members. List of dogs, for example does and should derive its notability from Dog. There should be no need to find reliable secondary sourcing for "list of dogs".
    2. I oppose the idea, however, where the list is itself interpretive: an encyclopedia article which happens to be better formatted as a list. If Differences between the director's cut of I Was A Teenage Heffalump and the director's cut (2008 re-release) of I Was A Teenage Heffalump is not encyclopedic, then it cannot become so by renaming it List of differences between the director's cut of I Was A Teenage Heffalump and the director's cut (2008 re-release) of I Was A Teenage Heffalump and claim that it derives its notability from I Was A Teenage Heffalump, however notable that film may be. AndyJones (talk) 11:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose A.4[edit]

1. Oppose This proposal is virtually the same in effect as Proposal A.1: Every spin-out is notable, as GNG would no longer apply to lists, which in the case of episodes lists with plot summaries, is more or less a type of spin-out. There are no agreed rules or mechanism that exempts lists from WP:N at present, but WP:LISTS states that they not exempt from any other Wikipedia content policies such as Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view, and others. Since the rationale for a list must originate from a particular source, ideally a reliable secondary source, then lists are for all intents and purposes governed by WP:N. Those lists that are based on a synthesis of primary sources are of doubtful provenance, since there is no way of knowing they are either comprehensive or correct. Lists that are not based on criteria that are widely agreed upon (i.e. they are not notable), or are based on invented criteria that cannot be verified tend to become deletion candidates e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of nations finishing at the top of the medals tables at the Summer Olympic Games. I cannot agree to this proposal as it would open the flood gates to list cruft.--Gavin Collins (talk) 18:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose. I believe that the criteria should be somewhat looser for lists, in that items in a list can be added based on trivial coverage in independent, reliable sources. For example, I think we should allow lists of episodes in season 1 of XXX show IF those episodes each had coverage in independent, reliable sources. However, I do not believe that using primary sources to create a list should be allowed. That fails WP:V and potentially WP:OR. Karanacs (talk) 19:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   It doesn't actually breach WP:V or WP:OR. WP:OR allows primary source material to be used for sourcing in this manner, so there is no issue there. It wouldn't breach WP:V either; the topic is the work itself; if we have no sources on the work, we have no article; therefore no list. Hiding T 19:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   This is a very, very important point. Primary sources for plot summary are not a problem for any policy other than WP:N. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   A few key points: there is no way that we will be able to encode exceptions to the list notability ONLY for fiction (and the proposal doesn't appear to try to do so). And, while a list may contain a plot summary, it is not a plot summary itself, or should not be. Therefore, we should be able to have independent, reliable sources that mention the items in the list (at least trivially). We could then use primary sources to supplement particular list items, but we should not rely solely on the primary source to establish whether an item belongs in the list. Otherwise, this proposal allows the List of episodes in which Homer Simpson said "D'oh! - after all, that's a plot point that we could easily cull from the primary source, and, after all, The Simpsons has proved notability and the List of Simpsons episodes has as well. Karanacs (talk) 20:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Actually, any article which relies on primary sources violates WP:V as well, as it states Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Any article which is a list of plot summaries can't be said to be in accordance with that statement. I think that having an exemption is necessary to keep the peace, but it isn't isolated to WP:N.Kww (talk) 20:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I think that any claim that a plot summary is unverifiable has fallen so far into a rabbit hole of terms of art that it is no longer meaningfully discussing reality. At best that sentence in WP:V can be read as a restatement of WP:N and of WP:NPOV, which demands that we address all perspectives on a topic (which by necessity involves going beyond the primary sources). But given the degree to which, throughout our policies, a carefully worked through (if, to my mind, often flawed) policy on primary sources exists, that line of WP:V becomes incongruous if treated, as you seem to be treating it, as an even stronger version of WP:N. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I just read the words, Phil. That's a pretty straightforward statement, and not one that is subject to a lot of interpretation.Kww (talk) 20:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   That you just read the words of policy pages without considering their implications for the project, their logic, or how they interact with other policy pages explains, I think, why your view of policy is so characterized by a destructive dogmatism that treats the actual end goal of serving our readers as, at best, an afterthought.

   Quite the contrary, the statement is not at all straightforward, and is subject to a great deal of interpretation. First of all, "should rely" is a strangely vague formulation. What normative force is it intended to carry? It was, presumably, chosen over stronger formulations - must rely, for instance, or "Articles should not rely on" the opposite. Furthermore, the formulation "reliable, third-party published sources" is a strange awkwardness - why not just use the more familiar phrasing "secondary sources?" The phrasing makes it more an attack on self-publishing than on primary sources. By no standards is a television show self-published. Furthermore, the idea that it doesn't require a lot of interpretation is ludicrous. For one thing, it requires the basic interpretation of figuring out what its practical weight is. What follows from that statement? The "should" clearly implies that many do not. What is the appropriate course of action there? What does "rely" mean, exactly? Other policies set up very careful discussions of how various types of sources should be used. Does "rely" simply mean "follows our other guidelines in this area," or does it impose some numerical percentage? Is this sentence a restatement of other policies? Or does it carry new weight separate from similar policies? In what way does it differ from WP:N or WP:NOR? None of this is answered clearly by the sentence. All of it comes from a careful process of interpretation. So do not try to tell me that the sentence is clear, interprets itself, and presents an unambiguous duty. No amount of policy magically makes writing articles, organizing content, and selecting the depth of coverage for a topic easy, clear, or doable by simple and reflexive reference to a user's manual. Writing an encyclopedia is hard, and requires careful, nuanced thought. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I certainly do consider the meanings of policies, and consider their implications. It is a very good thing that every article be based on material derived from third-party sources. It is a very good thing that articles are not derived from primary sources, and, just to be clear, it is a very good thing that we don't have articles about TV episodes derived from watching those TV episodes. Don't accuse me of not thinking it through. There are gray cases where deciding whether or not an article relies on third-party sources is a judgment call, but a list of plot summaries derived from watching the episodes is not one of them. To follow WP:V, each and every article must contain material from third-party sources, and must do so in a way that it can be said to rely on it. An article derived solely from primary sources fails WP:V, plain and simple.Kww (talk) 22:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I think it may be fair to state WP:V is open to interpretation on this matter, because I certainly interpret the following to mean something a little different: Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Reliable sources are necessary both to substantiate material within articles and to give credit to authors and publishers in order to avoid plagiarism and copyright violations. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require high-quality sources. I take this to mean that articles should rely on third party sources, and this is especially important when claims are of an extra-ordinary or exceptional nature. Where the claims are mundane, the need for exacting standards to be applied to sourcing is not so burdensome; where something is listing episodes in a series, the bones of contention are going to be over episode names; the best source in this instance is going to be official releases, or primary source. I'm not getting into the issue of plot summary here, I don't really think there should be much more than a paragraph of plot per episode, in all honesty. But my reading of WP:V, when taken as a whole, is that if you're proposing a theory of everything you need citations on every word. If you're claiming the sky is blue, ignore the trolls. I know this is an old debate and a cite for the sky being blue was found, but I hope you get my drift. It's the exceptionalness which determines the sources required. I think a grouping of blonde gun-wielding characters in Western fiction needs at least a reference to an academic study on the topic to show the notability of such a grouping, but I think a grouping of episodes per series/season is not a definition of exceptionable content; TV listings, dvd releases and fan guides are enough to cover on this basis. That's my take on it. Hiding T 23:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm not arguing that an exemption shouldn't be granted for lists, I'm simply arguing that modifying WP:N alone isn't sufficient to permit them.Kww (talk) 00:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   In what sense is it a "very good thing" that we don't have those articles? What good does it serve? I continue to think that the intent of that sentence is far from clear, particularly in the context of other pages. Most significantly, the location of the statement - at the head of the section on reliable sources - to me introduces a great deal of ambiguity. One thing that you often find if you go through the history of policy pages is that meanings get introduced accidentally. What's the history of this statement? It is telling that the phrase "third party" is never defined or expanded on in WP:V. How separate does it need to be? Is an interview with a writer for a show third party to the show? An interview published in a newspaper? For that matter, is a television show, edited, commented on, approved by, and aired by different people than its creators, already a third-party source? Who is the first party for Star Trek? What does party even mean when you are dealing with something that is not clearly possessing an agenda?

   Furthermore, it is in no way clear to me what it means that an article "fails WP:V" in this context. What follows from that? The article's deletion? The article's being tagged for improvement? Two for one burger day at McDonalds? What is the normative force of the "should" in this case? What do we do with the fact that a massive amount of television and periodical publication from the lifespan of television exists - almost certainly non-trivial commentary and reviews can be found for the vast majority of shows with fandoms devoted enough to write episode articles of. So what do we do with an article that currently "fails WP:V" but presumably or possibly could be expanded? None of this is obvious. None of this is straightforward. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   If you're trying to write guidance which will stop List of episodes in which Homer Simpson said "D'oh! but allow List of Simpsons episodes, why not state that the list should not be seeking to group trivial characteristics. We could pretty much draw up a decent set of lists which would be useful in scope, and allow AFD to take care of the slippage, with IAR when and if needed for plausible exemptions we can't seek to catch. Guidance isn't supposed to be a locked barn door; it's meant to be a net. If it was a locked barn door we wouldn't have AFD; we'd just have CSD. Lists of episodes by series: Good Lists of episodes in which: bad. Lists of characters in: Good. Lists of characters with blonde hair in: Bad. Let's face it, lists are probably the area we can afford to relax somewhat; it's pretty straightforward to spot any funny business in them. Hiding T 21:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3. Weak Oppose per WP:LISTS, which says that "lists, whether they are embedded lists or stand-alone lists, are encyclopedic content as are paragraphs and articles, and they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies". Lists of notable articles are notable, but then they'll also be appropriately sourcable. Lists of non-notable material would not be notable. A bunch of trivial mentions might support a list where a notable article would not be possible (e.g.: "road X exists, road Y exists, road Z exists"), but I worry this would open the flood gates to significant coverage of topics without reliable third-party sources. Randomran (talk) 22:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   You've missed the flaw in your argument, unless you are suggesting WP:N applies to paragraphs. As to worrying about flood gates, I would suggest that is actually a myth. We're not actually that flooded at present, and there is not a lot preventing people creating such articles as we speak. WP:N is not a bar to article creation; bad articles get created regardless of policies and guidance. Ever since the pokemon poll this has been the very spirit of consensus; to remove this plank from Wikipedia is to effectively strand the project in the sea. Hiding T 23:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Writing an actual article is definitely a separate concern. I'm all for making exceptions to notability for certain classes of articles, especially lists. But they have to be somewhat specific. The way I read this, virtually any list would be exempt from the notability requirement. I'm definitely sensitive to instruction creep and being overly prescriptive, but I'm just as sensitive to making blanket exceptions that open up a lot of unexpected results. I think a far better compromise is to make exceptions for certain kinds of lists on a case by case basis in the SNGs, rather than creating a general exception for lists. Randomran (talk) 00:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   And here we are again. We obviously support exactly the same thing, and yet we can't agree on the wording.; This is my fear for Wikipedia; that we will refuse to find consensus because we are so closed on our own separate goal of defining the solution word perfect to match our own specific concerns. At no point was the proposal written to be a general exception for lists; I quite specifically used the term "specifically" to guard against trivial groupings, but obviously I have failed. I don't know what the magic phrasing is, but I'm astonished people are opposing an idea they seem to support. Hiding T 10:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   A lot of the proposals in this RFC were vetted by a smaller group and had a chance to refine themselves. I'm not surprised that the proposals that were added after the RFC started are having a lot of trouble. I see the term "specifically", but I'm not sure what is "specifically suited" to list form. You should find some comfort in the fact that there is a good chance this RFC won't be the final word. If the opposition to this proposal is truly based on some misinterpretation or technical flaw, then it should be reasonable to propose a V2 of this same proposal. That's exactly the kind of success this RFC should be able to produce -- weeding out the truly wrong proposals, and finding which proposals are close to gaining a consensus of support (if not actually gaining a consensus of support, but I'm not holding my breath). Let the RFC play itself out, I suppose. Randomran (talk) 14:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4. Oppose - although I'd accept a weaker interpretation for lists; a list article should be able to show notability for its topic (the bit after 'list of') by showing that the list is notable on aggregate: that there is either a non-trivial amount of coverage of elements of the list, or non-trivial coverage of the overall topic of the list, or both. That seems to me to be the way to keep the good lists without opening the door to the bad ones. Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Again, I have my head in my hands because this is exactly what I thought I was proposing. I'm not sure how to modify this proposal within this RFC, but would it be fair to state you'd accept there is some form of consensus for some sorts of lists being interpreted more weakly than strict adherence to the GNG? Hiding T 10:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I think you may have invited opposition by using the word "exempted". While I wouldn't favour an exemption, I'd be very much in favour of clarifying what coverage means for list articles, in such a way that we get to keep the good lists. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   • I agree with Percy: any proposal which seeks an exemption won't fly. What is needed is a set of inclusion criteria that will either supercede or supplement WP:N for lists in order to clarify what coverage is allowable and what is not. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5. Oppose I agree with the thrust of the proposal but I think it is too broad, a list of characters from a tv show is normally acceptable, a list of the places Steve Coogan has been on holiday would probably not be. Even though the parent topic (Steve Coogan) clearly is notable. Guest9999 (talk) 13:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   What is it about this proposal that makes it appear as though a list of the places Steve Coogan has been on holiday would be acceptable? And how would such a list comply with WP:NOR and WP:NOT? Hiding T 14:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I've often seen the celebrity's holidays appear in what is usually regarded as the mainstream press, so no original research would be required, I assume the applicable sections of WP:NOT would possibly be WP:NOTDIR and possibly WP:IINFO but frankly a lot of the time sections of WP:NOT almost seems to be ignored on what are effectively notability grounds, we have articles which are directories of places, list of statistics and television schedules when the information within those articles can be verified and the particular statistics,directory or schedule is considered to be worthy of note by enough people. Guest9999 (talk) 00:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

6. Oppose. As currently written, it's to broad, as the previous poster said. I don't deny that supporting "non-article" material, say in list or tabular format, is warranted in some cases, and that it needs space. However, if it's not an article on an independent topic, we should not treat it like one - in all organizational, procedural, technical aspects. Some time ago, I wrote up some thoughts regarding that; see User:B. Wolterding/New subarticle concept. (It doesn't seem that this approach meets general consensus, but perhaps it's good input to the discussion.) --B. Wolterding (talk) 19:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Your proposal looks similar to the thought underlying A1.2. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

7. Oppose as written. No different from "every spin-out is notable" and far too broad and open to excessive abuse. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose The topic of the list must be notable, but the contents do not. That is; it must be established that the relationship between the subjects of the list is notable, but the individual points of the list should be regulated less strictly, but still with common sense. Themfromspace (talk) 03:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Oppose. Proposal is too open to abuse as written. Every list should be notable on its own and no list should be given carte blanche to bypass normal oversight. Binksternet (talk) 08:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. Oppose. This seems to legitimise "Every piece of content Bart wrote on the blackboard at the start of every episode" type lists. --Blowdart | ^talk 10:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. Oppose - Same as my argument in A.3. --:Raphaelmak: [talk] [contribs] 11:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. Oppose. Wikipedia already has a tendency towards listmania, yearmania, and monthmania. This proposal will only accentuate the tendency. Correlating articles by trivial characteristics is unecyclopedic, and decreases the signal to noise ratio. There are non-autistic people reading Wikipedia. VG ☎ 11:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. Weak oppose While I might tend to agree that list articles spun-out from notable topics don't independently need to demonstrate notability, I can't support the phrasing that appears to explicitly exempt the list from verifiability requirements. But then again, perhaps it is just confusingly phrased -- if it were clarified that the content of the list must be verifiabl (independent of notability) then I support this. older ≠ wiser 12:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14. Oppose I would rather see something like this added into the topic related notability guidelines. Otherwise you have the potential for many lists to be created that are not legitimate for articles, like List of clothes in Jennifer Aniston's Closet. (Interesting though that may be) It seems to me if that was published in People, then by this policy it would be a legitimate list... Charles Edward 12:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
15. Blows a hole in the wall wide enough for a listcruft truck to drive through. Stifle (talk) 12:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
16. Oppose List should be (and are) treated differently than articles, but to exempt them entirely is just plain foolish. Lists of episodes and characters are almost always okay, but we certainly don't need something like "List of student council members at East Podunk Junior High" and the like. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
17. Oppose per previous comment. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 16:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
18. Oppose Well intentioned, but mistaken. No mainspace page should be exempt from policy and consensus. It may even be the case that lists require even greater scrutiny and stiff criteria because they can be amongst the most trivial and geeky of all the mainspace pages that are produced. SilkTork *^YES! 17:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    That we might need even greater scrutiny for lists is bourne out by the observation that people are supporting this proposal under the misunderstanding that lists are already exempt from Wikipedia policy. SilkTork *^YES! 17:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Do you not see that it is possible to have a list article that is V, NPOV, and NOR and yet use primary sources? DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Any proposal which suggests we avoid the common sense consensus we have already built up is not going to get my support. Primary sources are great for supplying information, but not for judging notability, as there is nothing about a primary source which reveals its importance. I am a primary source for my own life. A bus timetable is a primary source. These things by themselves are quite obviously not evidence of importance. We have guidelines against using primary sources as evidence of notability for very good reasons. Meanwhile there are various other ways of grouping information. We have a very flexible and effective category system, and we have navigation boxes. If the type of standalone list being considered does not meet the criteria, the other options can be considered - but making a special rule to include non-notable lists because some editors (for example) would like a list of porn stars with a penis length over 12 inches, is not the way to go. If there is a reliable source for a list (rather than just the items within the list), then create it, if there is not, then use a nav box or create a category so people can find the information. But be aware that nav boxes and cats are also scrutinised for appropriate use. SilkTork *^YES! 12:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    A reasonable stance for opposition; though I disagree since the notability of the subject has already been shown by the parent article. Importance, of course, is not a Wikipedia policy. The Core content policies are V, NPOV, and NOR. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

19. Absolutely not. What makes a list any different from an article, apart from the way it presents information? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
20. Strongest oppose My telephone directory is "useful" but that doesn't make it encyclopedic material. If one category needs standards for notability, it's lists. (Note to self: Find out if there is a group of editors opposed to lists. Join.) Iterator12n ^Talk 01:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
21. Oppose I cannot support this without the addition of a list-specific notability guideline. Wronkiew (talk) 02:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
22. Oppose If it can't be supported, it shouldn't be included. Period.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 12:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
23. Sympathetic oppose. I'm sympathetic to the spirit of this proposal, but believe strongly that blanket exemptions to notability guidelines are the wrong way to proceed, and don't make much sense anyway. If, say, a TV show is notable, then surely some reliable secondary sources might happen to mention that the show has episodes, or even that characters appear in the show – indeed, the RSS might even go so far as to name some of the characters (shocking!), or review some of the episodes! Hey presto, we have a source which demonstrates notability for both a list of characters and a list of episodes. If there is no such source, then where is a bloated article on the show getting its verifiability from? The right way to proceed is instead to use SNGs to amplify and clarify what the notability requirements mean for particular types of articles. Geometry guy 16:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
24. Oppose - Some lists should be permissible, but only lists that are clarified by a SNG. Just blanketly saying that all lists should be permissible as a spin-out opens the doors to a bunch of lists that aren't terribly useful. —  X  S  G  18:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
25. Oppose - Lists should have the same notability criteria as any other article. If the list of characters in a semi-notable TV show isn't notable then we shouldn't have an article about it, even if the TV show is barely notable. JRP (talk) 21:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
26. Oppose per many of the above comments. There's no demonstrable need to compromise our notability standards by giving lists some kind of special status. Eusebeus (talk) 23:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
27. Oppose A list is just a collection of links to articles - if it's more than that, it's an article in its own right and needs to show notability in its own right. The linked artciles should be able to show notability in their own right. If only a handful pass that test, a lis tartcile is unnecessary since the spin-offs should be linked by "further information" entries in the parent article.
28. Oppose per many excellent arguments made above. Too easily abused and manipulated to allow vast collections of indiscriminate information on non-notable topics to accumulate. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
29. Oppose per Charles Edward and Silktork. Lists don't have a magical exemption from policies guidelines, and this opens the door to many bad lists. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    From which policies does this proposal exempt lists? DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    From WP:N, as it says that you can skip the GNG when deciding if you make the list or not. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:N is not policy; it is a guideline to aid interpreting WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Good point there, I changed my comment. Still opposing, thought, as skipping WP:N still leaves the door open to bad lists even it's "just" a guideline :) --Enric Naval (talk) 17:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

30. Oppose. Open to listcruft abuse. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
31. Oppose. This would make Wikipedia into a collection of random facts, which it is not. We should not have a List of People Thomas Jefferson Corresponded With just because Thomas Jefferson is notable. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 17:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
32. Oppose. Lists make bad encyclopedia articles as they become monotonous catalogs which violate WP:NOT#DIR. The content should be in the articles and the lists should be mainly navigational, like contents pages and indices. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
33. Oppose: This implies that lists do not need to have reliable sources. I very much disagree. In the case of character lists, that source is the work of fiction (book, comic, TV show, movie, etc.) itself, but the source has to be there. I agree that the bar for notability in lists should be lower that of a full article, and will depend somewhat on the notability of the main article's topic, but this proposal is the wrong way to define it. Blueboar (talk) 17:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This proposal explicitly states that the list must have sources; just not the significant coverage in reliable third-party sources that is needed to show WP:Notability. Using the work of fiction itself to make a list of characters would be an example of using primary sources. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

34. Strongly oppose All main space content should be able to stand on its own merits for notability and verifiablity. Many lists as they currently stand are crap. Many do not explain what they are and how they relate to any tangible work knowledge. Many have erroneous content. Keeping them inside their real article would solve a lot of these problems. If they must be subed out for what ever reason then they need to be notable and veriafiable on their own. If article size is a problem, then just make them collapsible. Peet Ern (talk) 07:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
35. Oppose. At first it sounded reasonable, but then I thought of the implications. As it stands, it would allow for inclusion of pretty much all lists, something which I oppose. Shinobu (talk) 13:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral A.4[edit]

1. Neutral I find stuff like List of mayors of Hamilton, Ontario enormously helpful when trying to cross-verify that an article referring to a Hamilton mayor spells his name correctly, or to find an article about him if it exists, so I'd like to encourage more such lists, but cannot support the proposal as written; we can't have a blanket exception for lists. And lists have to have WP:RS sources, too. --Alvestrand (talk) 12:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   After sleeping on this for a few days, I think I'd change to "support" if the proposal read "can be considered to inherit notability from the concept that they are a "list of". If the office of Mayor of Hamilton, or the TV series "902010", is considered notable in their own right, I'm happy to see the list be considered keep-worthy. But the words "excempt from the GNG" just make it impossible for me to go in support of this one. --Alvestrand (talk) 14:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. Neutral as redundant. This is entirely redundant. How is the information compiled for the list? It either a) exists somewhere outside of Wikipedia, and can thus be referenced or b) Someone just made it up. If a) is true, its not a problem if b) is true then why is it an article? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Neutral. The best of an undistinguished crop of ideas. Lists have both a navigational and a reference function. Lists with short annotations and references can contribute in various ways to the encyclopedia. If a surname page like Smith (surname) is a surrogate for List of people with surname Smith, then we already have something like this all over the place. Lists good in case the topic has a certain coherence, pseudo-lists bad. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neutral, I think lists should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Lists of episodes from TV series are an appropriate way to contain and organize the content from the work without letting it fester into hundreds of permastubs, but would be unwieldy in the main article. On the other hand, many lists are unnecessary, redundant, or an attempt to sneak non-notable content in by clumping it together. I don't think overarching guidance is possible here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Neutral. I'm sympathetic with the motivation for this proposal, as it is frequently desirable to split a list from an article. I have been dismayed to see many split-off lists targeted for deletion that never would have been considered for removal if they had remained in the parent article. However, I believe that lists split off from articles can and should be judged on the same basis as any other split-offs -- that is, by the test proposed in A.1.2. --Orlady (talk) 17:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Neutral: I find lists to be a confusing species of article. On the one hand they serve a useful purpose: they can accurately and succinctly provide factual information in a manner that categories cannot (since some items in a list will not have their own articles and therefore would not be present in a category). For example I find discography articles, which are a type of list, to be quite helpful, as well as episode lists in most cases. However, lists have a tendency to be viewed as a dumping ground for trivial info and excessive plot summary (List of characters in the Alien series, for example). I find the Featured List criteria quite helpful, and I'm glad there is a review and criteria process for improving lists, but I'd like to see some basic issues solved such as the ones we are discussing here. I do agree that the subject of the list should be notable, and that the article should show some evidence of that notability. In some cases this is obvious, as without episodes a TV series would not exist, and without albums a musical act would hardly be notable, but in other cases the issue of notability is fuzzier. I also find the wording in this proposal confusing: if a list article relies on primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, then hasn't the notability threshold been met? Don't we define notability as coverage in secondary sources? I would argue, then that a list article that has secondary sources passes the test for notability, since if secondary sources exist then the subject must be notable. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.