Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists/Archive 5
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
List article vs a regular article
How do we define when something is a list-article vs. a regular-article? From what I can tell, a list article is defined in the first sentence of the MOS:
- articles the main components of which are one or more embedded lists
"Main components" is vague.. does it mean a mathematical count of words, screen real-estate.. or is it a conceptual idea where the primary purpose or focus of the article is about the list proper. For example, Charles Dickens bibliography would be considered a list-article since it is primarily an article designed to contain a list of works. However even though Robert Louis Stevenson contains lists, it is not a list-article because the primary purpose of the article is a bio of the author, the lists being ancillary to that. Is this a correct understanding of the MOS? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- A "list article" is one where the primary purpose (or focus) of the article is to list things. Blueboar (talk) 16:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
List articles have moved on substantially since this original (and clearly unclear(!)) part of the MOS was written. Where a main article can't be substantiated, maintained or be moved beyond a stub, it makes sense to keep the topic self-contained as a list article with more prose than was traditionally accepted as expected in a standalone list which previously went along the lines of "This is a list of..." followed by a list.... We've progressed from there, particularly now we represent WIkipedia on the main page and want to do so professionally, not being held back by people pointing at specific sentences in particular guidelines in the MOS which aren't helpful, constraining the approach back to that followed in the mid 2000s. By the way, Robert Louis Stevenson's bibliography section is a good candidate for a standalone list, thanks for noting that. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- So you're saying the MOS has been out of date since the mid 2000s .. 8 years or so? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:37, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm saying the FLC process has improved and encouraged editors to consider our audience and create (if required) standalone lists which encompass most, if not all the pertinent issues that a pointless stub main article would cover. Yes, some of the MOS regarding lists needs close examination. What now? You point me at more rules or do we get a chance to create excellent articles, albeit under the name of "lists"? I really have to get back to improving WIkipedia, not holding it all for your interpretation of a few parts of a few sentences in a guideline. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- It's shocking that you're so involved with Featured List but apparently don't seem to care too much about the MOS. There is good reason not to enshrine articles as lists that are not lists. It cripples the article and makes it difficult for future editors to get on with expanding the prose section into a full fledged encyclopedia article. They are forced to do battle by submitting a Featured Review and wait weeks for consensus to develop while arguing arcane rules -- something only 0.01% of the Wikipedia community would ever do. If something is a stub now that is OK because we are not under a time limit, someone will come along later and fill it out. But you make this decision that it will always be a stub and so freeze it as such as a Featured List making it extremely difficult for others to work on it in the future. The Orange Prize is a good example of that. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Not shocking in the slightest. Trying to edit the MOS is like trying to reverse time. It's seems that it's something mere mortal editors can't achieve without a trip to the moon and back. So please, don't be "shocked", no need at all, I'd hate to think of your stress levels rising because of that. We never freeze a main article, try look at List of FLCL episodes which, just a few days back, was demoted and merged back into its main article. Please get your facts straight. Orange Prize is the worst example, you've infringed the rules of attribution and we have a copy-and-paste main article stub which is basically redundant because all the pertinent information is held in the winners list. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Sounds like a disregard and disdain for the consensus established by the MOS. Your approach is authoritarian and top down management, basically deciding ahead of time for future editors that the article will always be a stub and they will have to prove it otherwise by going through the pain of a FLRC before they can make any major changes to the article. It's an impediment to improving Wikipedia by adding unnecessary levels of bureaucracy on certain articles we already know will and can be expanded. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Not shocking in the slightest. Trying to edit the MOS is like trying to reverse time. It's seems that it's something mere mortal editors can't achieve without a trip to the moon and back. So please, don't be "shocked", no need at all, I'd hate to think of your stress levels rising because of that. We never freeze a main article, try look at List of FLCL episodes which, just a few days back, was demoted and merged back into its main article. Please get your facts straight. Orange Prize is the worst example, you've infringed the rules of attribution and we have a copy-and-paste main article stub which is basically redundant because all the pertinent information is held in the winners list. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- It's shocking that you're so involved with Featured List but apparently don't seem to care too much about the MOS. There is good reason not to enshrine articles as lists that are not lists. It cripples the article and makes it difficult for future editors to get on with expanding the prose section into a full fledged encyclopedia article. They are forced to do battle by submitting a Featured Review and wait weeks for consensus to develop while arguing arcane rules -- something only 0.01% of the Wikipedia community would ever do. If something is a stub now that is OK because we are not under a time limit, someone will come along later and fill it out. But you make this decision that it will always be a stub and so freeze it as such as a Featured List making it extremely difficult for others to work on it in the future. The Orange Prize is a good example of that. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm saying the FLC process has improved and encouraged editors to consider our audience and create (if required) standalone lists which encompass most, if not all the pertinent issues that a pointless stub main article would cover. Yes, some of the MOS regarding lists needs close examination. What now? You point me at more rules or do we get a chance to create excellent articles, albeit under the name of "lists"? I really have to get back to improving WIkipedia, not holding it all for your interpretation of a few parts of a few sentences in a guideline. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- So you're saying the MOS has been out of date since the mid 2000s .. 8 years or so? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:37, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Your impeding decent quality articles, all be them lists, by picking and choosing your application of sentences in the MOS. You created a "main article" of the Orange Prize, ironically by copying and pasting the majority of the existing featured list. Bravo. And now what? Nothing, that's what, it's gone nowhere at all, other than to create two articles describing (in almost identical terms) the same thing. You must be so proud. So now centralise this discussion please, RFC it, and stop forum shopping. We're getting nowhere since we clearly have different agendas, mine to focus on giving the reader a complete and comprehensive experience, yours to wikilawyer in order to create stubs and by default remove information from one place to arbitrarily place it somewhere else, hence creating two worse articles. Once again, bravo, expert, bravo. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Sounds like this is a dispute that got heated before it even arrived here. Anyway, I had a discussion about this topic a while ago at Wikipedia talk:FLCR#Difference between a list and an article? Reading it might provide some insight. Basically, I don't think it is useful to make a bright line distinction between list articles and non-list articles. Why would we? I also have to agree absolutely with TRM on the state of list related guidelines. They're totally outdated. In practice we have moved on, but any attempt at trying to shape the guidelines up seems to end in frustration and banging one's head against the nearest wall. Goodraise 20:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Right, in that discussion you said "there is no such distinction between stand-alone lists and normal articles. In practice, we leave it to the reviewers at WP:FAC." That is exactly what is happening, there is an ongoing discussion in a
FACFLC whether that article should be considered a list or not. The discussion is rules-based and specific to the characteristics of that article. The Rambling Man however doesn't believe that should be happening, he thinks we need to start a separate RFC etc.. - but I agree with you Goodraise, it's very simple we just decide the issue in theFACFLC, it's not complicated. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC) (edit: fixed FAC -> FLC typo after TRM's comment below - GC)- (a) this isn't a FAC discussion, Goodraise was simply noting that some FACs have lists (as you have done), the article under review right now is an FLC (b) the discussion shouldn't be "rules-based" at all, perhaps that's where it's all fallen down (per Goodraise's "bright line" note) (c) I have become so sick of your forum shopping that the RFC seemed the only way out because your position affects more than just a single FLC (not " we just decide the issue in the FAC [sic], it's not complicated") it affects many and I'd hate to trudge through this same long grass every single time you choose to pop into every literary award FLC to object on the same grounds, and point out how we are abusing MOS. By the way, I'm done with this debate entirely. I'll leave it for you and others to work out what best serves our readers, a stub main article and crap list, or a featured and fully comprehensive list. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- The decision is decided during the FLC based on the merits of the individual article. You're trying to make this into a Platonic final decision for all articles and that will never happen because every article is different, any such RFC is doomed to fail from the start. You have to go through this process for each FLC and article because they are all different. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 22:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- (a) this isn't a FAC discussion, Goodraise was simply noting that some FACs have lists (as you have done), the article under review right now is an FLC (b) the discussion shouldn't be "rules-based" at all, perhaps that's where it's all fallen down (per Goodraise's "bright line" note) (c) I have become so sick of your forum shopping that the RFC seemed the only way out because your position affects more than just a single FLC (not " we just decide the issue in the FAC [sic], it's not complicated") it affects many and I'd hate to trudge through this same long grass every single time you choose to pop into every literary award FLC to object on the same grounds, and point out how we are abusing MOS. By the way, I'm done with this debate entirely. I'll leave it for you and others to work out what best serves our readers, a stub main article and crap list, or a featured and fully comprehensive list. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Right, in that discussion you said "there is no such distinction between stand-alone lists and normal articles. In practice, we leave it to the reviewers at WP:FAC." That is exactly what is happening, there is an ongoing discussion in a
Entries from the beginning of time and/or anywhere in the world
I added a statement to the guideline list selection criteria, "Does the membership criteria address relevant Five Ws and one H, including should the list of X entries be from the beginning of time and/or anywhere in the world?" That came from my commenting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Game of the Year, where you can see my effort to apply the Five Ws and one H to the selection criteria query. From that, I saw that the list selection criteria appeared to be missing a few probing questions whose answers are considered basic in information-gathering per Five Ws and one H. However, in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Game of the Year list situation, the How and Why part of the Five Ws and one H were not needed. They actually might not be needed for a selection criteria in a different list either. I don't know the answer to that. To be safe, I posted the above statement to the guideline. Blueboar edited it,[1] noting "I think I get what you are trying to say, but it is not clear. let's discuss on talk page." I agree that what I posted is in the ballpark, but the wording is not as clear as what it should be. What Blueboar kept might be good enough. In short, take a look at Five Ws and one H and see whether any other Five Ws and one H would provide a query that editors should ask themselves when trying to determine how to word a list selection criteria. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Notable list entries can be from different nations, and even different time periods. That's not relevant. List of Roman emperors covers over a thousand years. Dream Focus 13:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- True, but in other situations, it may help editors to figure out what should and should not be added to a list based on a list selection criteria specifying a particular geography or particular period. It does not require list to be limited to a geographic region or period in history. It is just one more question whose answer can be used in formulating the wording for a list selection criteria to help instruct editors as to what information should be gathered for the list. The listed query would not affect something like List of Roman emperors, whose membership criteria is anyone having the title of Roman Emperor from the beginning of time (well, beginning of the Roman Empire) and anywhere in the world (mostly Rome, but I think Caligula had planned to move to Egypt if my scholarly research via watching a TV show is correct.).-- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Nonsense. No possible reason to have it, and potentially something someone would quote in an AFD thinking that justifies deleting something they don't like. Location and time period are never a valid reason to exclude something. If a list gets too long, you can divide it by time periods, or nationality, or whatnot. Dream Focus 14:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- It really depends on what the topic of the specific list is... some are (and should be) more open ended in scope, others are (and should be) more limited in scope. The scope of a specific list is an issue that should be decided by common sense and consensus of editors, on a list by list basis. A "one size fits all" approach is not going to work... and it is not something we can codify it in the guideline. Blueboar (talk) 14:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Non-English wp article -- sufficient support for entry on English wp list of people?
Question. Sometimes lists of people lack any wp article on the English wp. And lack any RS refs.
The only "ref" given is to a non-English language wikipedia article. Is that sufficient, for the name to remain on the list on the English wikipedia? (I note, for example, that what is notable in a foreign language wp may not be notable in the English wp).
Or should the name be removed?
Or does it depend ... do we have to look at the foreign language wikipedia article, translate it, and evaluate the ref(s) in that article before deciding whether to delete the name in the English wp list of people?
Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- Notability isn't language dependent, so that isn't an issue. Sourcing something to a wiki isn't acceptable, though. It's one of those cases where I'd take a quick peek at the foreign wiki (maybe with Google translate) and, if it appeared to be a decent article, I'd tag the entry. If the foreign wiki article looked to be trash, I'd probably remove the entry.—Kww(talk) 23:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- The sourcing standard for lists is exactly the same as for non-list articles. Does this involve a contentious claim about a living person? If so, remove the entry immediately. If not, then pretend it's not a list, but a plain old sentence. So instead of this:
- List of people who attended Oxford College
- Alice Expert
- (or whatever the subject of your list is), you have this:
Alice Expert attended Oxford College.
- Would you accept this claim in a relevant article without a source? If so, then accept it for the list. If not, then do not accept it for the list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. Here is the difference. To be on a wp list, the subject has to both: a) fit the list (e.g., in your example, for a list of people from Oxford, have attended Oxford; so for that, your explanation suffices) ..., but b) also be notable by our standards. If the subject has a wp article in the English wp, the subject is presumptively notable (or it can be demonstrated by independent refs). If the subject only has a wp article on a non-English wp, however--since the non-English wp has different standards as to notability, I am questioning whether that suffices to assert notability. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- Elements of a list don't have to be notable, and the existence of a blue link is meaningless. It's the sources inside the Wikipedia article that demonstrate whether inclusion in the list is reasonable or not. Best practice would be to find the source from inside the article that demonstrates that it should be in the list, and carry that reference to the list article. That same approach works for foreign-language Wikis as well: if a reliable foreign-language source shows that the entry should be included, there's nothing at all wrong with sourcing the entry exclusively to the foreign-language source.—Kww(talk) 03:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- Kww... mostly right, but not completely... some list articles do require that all the elements be notable while others do not. So the question of whether the specific person Epeefleshe is talking about needs to be notable to be included in a list here on WP.en depends on the specific list he/she is talking about. However, you are absolutely correct in noting that a source that is cited in a non-english version of WP might very well be reliable for supporting the inclusion of the person in the list on this version of WP. WP.en does not require our sources to be in English. So I definitely would advise examining the sources at the other wp. Blueboar (talk) 03:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- Elements of a list don't have to be notable, and the existence of a blue link is meaningless. It's the sources inside the Wikipedia article that demonstrate whether inclusion in the list is reasonable or not. Best practice would be to find the source from inside the article that demonstrates that it should be in the list, and carry that reference to the list article. That same approach works for foreign-language Wikis as well: if a reliable foreign-language source shows that the entry should be included, there's nothing at all wrong with sourcing the entry exclusively to the foreign-language source.—Kww(talk) 03:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. Here is the difference. To be on a wp list, the subject has to both: a) fit the list (e.g., in your example, for a list of people from Oxford, have attended Oxford; so for that, your explanation suffices) ..., but b) also be notable by our standards. If the subject has a wp article in the English wp, the subject is presumptively notable (or it can be demonstrated by independent refs). If the subject only has a wp article on a non-English wp, however--since the non-English wp has different standards as to notability, I am questioning whether that suffices to assert notability. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- Would you accept this claim in a relevant article without a source? If so, then accept it for the list. If not, then do not accept it for the list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- A few lists actually require bluelinks, because they'd otherwise be absolutely enormous. But while any given list could have a bluelinks-only rule or a notable-people-only rule, the English Wikipedia as a whole has no such requirement. Otherwise, lists like List of minor characters in Peanuts would be impossible. Notable-subjects-only is just one of the three main systems for list selection criteria. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Lists of places?
The examples of good things to make lists about didn't include lists of places, only events and people, which I find odd: what about lists of canyons, waterfalls, universities, digs for Precambrian fossil sites--and things: Precambrian fossils? tropical woods? dyes?
Any comments? Monado (talk) 00:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- The lists mentioned at the end of that section are giving specific guidance on how to make lists that "Some Wikipedians feel [are] topics / unsuitable by virtue of the nature of the topic". I don't think we want to lest all possible topics for appropriate lists. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 18:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
References in Lists
It appears that a general interpretation of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (stand-alone lists)#Citing sources is that information from blue linked articles does not need a citation but red linked info does. The Featured List criteria requires it all to be referenced even those exempt by WP:MINREF. Can we make Citing sources clearer on this point (one way or the other) and then perhaps align the featured list criteria to agree, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 10:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see how you can make that interpretation. Which line(s) of the MOS suggest any blue linked articles don't need a citation? That would exempt all lists from any citations whatsoever which is nonsensical. Take List of Baileys Women's Prize for Fiction winners for instance. Everything in that article is blue-linked, so are you suggesting you could interpret the MOS to say it needs not one citation in the list? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- Clearly we are not on the same wavelength, the article which this problem started was List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft which just uses a summary from the article, the winners list in your example is actually new information put together which is not actually included as a whole in any of the related articles so could be challenged. MilborneOne (talk) 11:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- Where does the MOS make this distinction please? (And I don't agree with your distinction anyway, each of the laureate's articles would contain the information summarised in the list...) The Rambling Man (talk) 11:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- It doesnt which is why we cant agree and my original request above from some clarity. Side issue but the first entry in the example list for 1996 none of the other books short listed for the prize are mentioned in either the book or the authors articles so really new information that could be challenged rather than a summary. MilborneOne (talk) 11:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- Simply untrue. Julia Blackburn mentions "1996 Orange Prize, shortlist, The Book of Colour", Pagan Kennedy mentions "Spinsters (1995) (shortlisted for 1996 Orange Prize)", The Hundred Secret Senses mentions "It was shortlisted for the 1996 Orange Prize for Fiction.", Amy Tan mentions "Nominated for the Orange Prize", Marianne Wiggins mentions "Eveless Eden ... Shortlisted for 1996 Orange Prize." ..... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- None of those include others shortlisted for the prize or who won, so really new information and not a summary. MilborneOne (talk) 12:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- Not getting anywhere with this really. Are you seriously content that the aviation list in question is 100% dependent on subarticles for references? Even though it contains material that "can be challenged" (and has been)? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yes as it is a summary of the article not new information. MilborneOne (talk) 12:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, so it should be called a summary, not a list. I've challenged the information in the list, which means I'm entitled to get citations. If you just want a summary article then call it a summary. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:15, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yes as it is a summary of the article not new information. MilborneOne (talk) 12:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- Not getting anywhere with this really. Are you seriously content that the aviation list in question is 100% dependent on subarticles for references? Even though it contains material that "can be challenged" (and has been)? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- None of those include others shortlisted for the prize or who won, so really new information and not a summary. MilborneOne (talk) 12:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- Simply untrue. Julia Blackburn mentions "1996 Orange Prize, shortlist, The Book of Colour", Pagan Kennedy mentions "Spinsters (1995) (shortlisted for 1996 Orange Prize)", The Hundred Secret Senses mentions "It was shortlisted for the 1996 Orange Prize for Fiction.", Amy Tan mentions "Nominated for the Orange Prize", Marianne Wiggins mentions "Eveless Eden ... Shortlisted for 1996 Orange Prize." ..... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- It doesnt which is why we cant agree and my original request above from some clarity. Side issue but the first entry in the example list for 1996 none of the other books short listed for the prize are mentioned in either the book or the authors articles so really new information that could be challenged rather than a summary. MilborneOne (talk) 11:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- Where does the MOS make this distinction please? (And I don't agree with your distinction anyway, each of the laureate's articles would contain the information summarised in the list...) The Rambling Man (talk) 11:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- Clearly we are not on the same wavelength, the article which this problem started was List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft which just uses a summary from the article, the winners list in your example is actually new information put together which is not actually included as a whole in any of the related articles so could be challenged. MilborneOne (talk) 11:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Can we stick to the point and not bring irrelevant battles here? What puzzles me in the literary prize example is that, although each individual entrant may be blue-linked, there is no reference to show that the list is complete, or even exists elsewhere in complete form. There are two "external links" which one hopes would supply the missing information, but they are not presented specifically as references. As I read the MOS, if there are no quotations, challenges or contentious material then yes, one may be able to get away without inline citations. In the literary example, one might agree that at least one of the external links can be used as a general Reference. OTOH the Featured List criteria do appear to demand on-the-spot citation. Is there one rule for humdrum lists and another for featured lists? Must indirectly referenced lists be demoted to "summaries"? Does a citation attack change the status of a list and demand endless copying across of inline cites from the linked articles, simply because it has taken place? I can well see why MilborneOne would like a reality check on this whole issue. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- Picking just one item from your statement, what would you consider material that one could "challenge"? Could it be the number of deaths? Could it be the circumstances of a crash? Or are we simply going to sidestep the issue here and say "see the specific articles, hoping them to have the material referenced...." I'd be interested in your ideas. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- I would expect that all the content in the entry (row) could be validated, at the very least by either going to any general references or by following through on the linked article. The list needs to be both readable and verifiable, but we should not sacrifice too much readability for the sake of easy referencing. For example obscure paper documents such as rare books can provide suitable references. Verifying these is a pain, especially if they are in a foreign language, but, like any academic verifying the references in a research paper, one has to either make the effort or take them on faith. I would suggest that following a verification chain from one article to another to... [whatever] comes under the same banner. So yes, in this instance I'd like to see the burden on the challenger - otherwise we hit two issues: the endless cloning of citations and the mischievious sceptic citation-bombing the table (to be clear, this is not a sideswipe, I do not include you among the mischievious, and it is good to be a sceptic). But I am not an expert on policy, so maybe there are some out there that contradict me. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- Statements should be sourced where they appear (list or not). Stats and/or information can change in parent articles without sub articles being updated - thus sources should be in all locations so editors can see why there may be a discrepancy between articles - like one is simple updated with new info - but both have sources for the different claims - one old and one new. This is very relevant to music article on sales.Moxy (talk) 17:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- Quite. The idea that we rely on sub-articles to reference material is absurd. In the case of the aviation project, this is usually okay because they do a good job of referencing their articles, but it can't be relied upon. As Moxy says, "statements should be sourced where they appear". And in fact, having looked through several list articles which use the aviation project approach, it's become increasingly obvious that a reader may not even know which article to click on to find these citations. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- If that is the prevailing consensus so be it, but as I and I suspect plenty of others dont understand it I go back to my original request which is the wording needs to be clarified to make all of this clear as most lists on wikipedia are not referenced because a lot of editors have taken a different view of what are the same words, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- So I'll ask you again: "Which line(s) of the MOS suggest any blue linked articles don't need a citation?" It's down to your interpretation that this issue exists. Is there a mention of summary articles in MOS that precludes inline references for items which could be challenged (e.g. number of deaths, manner of crash etc)? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- add this - we need to be clear. No matter where a statement is as per WP:BURDEN QUOTE = "The citation must clearly support the material as presented in the article'." List are articles - thus subject to all the same verifiability - this means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source - not have to guess where the sources are or spend lots of time on verifying info when all we need is a simply source where the info appears.Moxy (talk) 18:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- This: "Stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines for articles, including verifiability and citing sources. This means statements should be sourced where they appear, they must provide inline citations if they contain any of the four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations. [para break] When an inline citation is not required by a sourcing policy..." So if a blue link does not fall foul of the four kinds, then it does not (necessarily) need a citation. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:25, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- And your definition of a claim that may be challenged is....? Could it be "number of deaths in an accident"? Could it be "cause of accident"? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- I take it you don't mean "May be successfully challenged". Any claim /can/ obviously be challenged, but mischievious or "the sky isn't blue" challenges are worthless. So for example I would expect that both the claims you mention can be sensibly challenged. But whether the challenge stands up to scrutiny is another matter. Also, challenging a hundred factoids with a general tag is one thing, tag-bombing all hundred is another. When a claim is challenged, how solid or specific does that challenge have to be before it can not be summarily reviewed and dismissed as dealt with by another editor? Opinions will likely differ wildly. Does WP:BRD apply to challenges or should the challenge stand while it is discussed and consensus built? Do generic tags and specific bombs differ in this? What if consensus cannot be reached? This is the kind of thing I would like to see some more clarity on. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- You didn't answer my question about the items I suggested which many may seem to be challenged. It's daft for us to rely on subarticles for references, and not good for our readers either. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- We have had many discussions at WT:V over what constitutes a "legitimate" challenge and "obvious" information... and consensus always comes down to this: Yes, if someone challenges the unsourced "obvious" statement that "The sky is blue" (or "Paris is the capitol of France") you actually do have to give a citation. It may seem silly to do so, it may be annoying that someone made you do so... but push comes to shove, you do have to supply a citation if someone else asks for one. One final comment... it is far easier (and much less stressful) to just slap in a citation when requested than it is to argue about whether the citation is needed. When it comes to "obvious" information, I have found that if you simply supply the citation (without arguing), and then go back and ask the challenger whether the citation is really needed, they often back down and say "nah... you can take it out again if you want to." Blueboar (talk) 13:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- @The Rambling Man. What part of "So for example I would expect that both the claims you mention can be sensibly challenged." does not answer your question?
- @Blueboar: If this issue is discussed so often with the same consensus each time, has it not led to the adoption of a policy or guideline? I can only find WP:MINREF which I quoted above and a couple of opinion essays: WP:BLUE would appear to be an end-to-end contradiction of what you say, while in WP:NOTBLUE the only justification which might be relevant is your suggestion that it is easier to cite than to argue. But a table full of factoids needs dozens, maybe hundreds of citations to be fully referenced. Set this precedent for one table and all those endless other tables need the same treatment. A true editorial nightmare. Discussing till the cows come home so that we can update the guidelines is really not such a burden in comparison. (I can only thank you for your patience with me).
- So, to take one of my questions which I think is key to the dispute which triggered this discussion and directly follows on from The Rambling Man's line of questioning, are challenges exempt from WP:BRD?
- — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- We have had many discussions at WT:V over what constitutes a "legitimate" challenge and "obvious" information... and consensus always comes down to this: Yes, if someone challenges the unsourced "obvious" statement that "The sky is blue" (or "Paris is the capitol of France") you actually do have to give a citation. It may seem silly to do so, it may be annoying that someone made you do so... but push comes to shove, you do have to supply a citation if someone else asks for one. One final comment... it is far easier (and much less stressful) to just slap in a citation when requested than it is to argue about whether the citation is needed. When it comes to "obvious" information, I have found that if you simply supply the citation (without arguing), and then go back and ask the challenger whether the citation is really needed, they often back down and say "nah... you can take it out again if you want to." Blueboar (talk) 13:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- You didn't answer my question about the items I suggested which many may seem to be challenged. It's daft for us to rely on subarticles for references, and not good for our readers either. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- I take it you don't mean "May be successfully challenged". Any claim /can/ obviously be challenged, but mischievious or "the sky isn't blue" challenges are worthless. So for example I would expect that both the claims you mention can be sensibly challenged. But whether the challenge stands up to scrutiny is another matter. Also, challenging a hundred factoids with a general tag is one thing, tag-bombing all hundred is another. When a claim is challenged, how solid or specific does that challenge have to be before it can not be summarily reviewed and dismissed as dealt with by another editor? Opinions will likely differ wildly. Does WP:BRD apply to challenges or should the challenge stand while it is discussed and consensus built? Do generic tags and specific bombs differ in this? What if consensus cannot be reached? This is the kind of thing I would like to see some more clarity on. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- And your definition of a claim that may be challenged is....? Could it be "number of deaths in an accident"? Could it be "cause of accident"? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- So I'll ask you again: "Which line(s) of the MOS suggest any blue linked articles don't need a citation?" It's down to your interpretation that this issue exists. Is there a mention of summary articles in MOS that precludes inline references for items which could be challenged (e.g. number of deaths, manner of crash etc)? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- If that is the prevailing consensus so be it, but as I and I suspect plenty of others dont understand it I go back to my original request which is the wording needs to be clarified to make all of this clear as most lists on wikipedia are not referenced because a lot of editors have taken a different view of what are the same words, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- Quite. The idea that we rely on sub-articles to reference material is absurd. In the case of the aviation project, this is usually okay because they do a good job of referencing their articles, but it can't be relied upon. As Moxy says, "statements should be sourced where they appear". And in fact, having looked through several list articles which use the aviation project approach, it's become increasingly obvious that a reader may not even know which article to click on to find these citations. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- Statements should be sourced where they appear (list or not). Stats and/or information can change in parent articles without sub articles being updated - thus sources should be in all locations so editors can see why there may be a discrepancy between articles - like one is simple updated with new info - but both have sources for the different claims - one old and one new. This is very relevant to music article on sales.Moxy (talk) 17:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- I would expect that all the content in the entry (row) could be validated, at the very least by either going to any general references or by following through on the linked article. The list needs to be both readable and verifiable, but we should not sacrifice too much readability for the sake of easy referencing. For example obscure paper documents such as rare books can provide suitable references. Verifying these is a pain, especially if they are in a foreign language, but, like any academic verifying the references in a research paper, one has to either make the effort or take them on faith. I would suggest that following a verification chain from one article to another to... [whatever] comes under the same banner. So yes, in this instance I'd like to see the burden on the challenger - otherwise we hit two issues: the endless cloning of citations and the mischievious sceptic citation-bombing the table (to be clear, this is not a sideswipe, I do not include you among the mischievious, and it is good to be a sceptic). But I am not an expert on policy, so maybe there are some out there that contradict me. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
The established practice for such lists is that references are not required iff the article linked to corroborates the claim. Mjroots (talk) 10:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- Not sure where you think this practice was "established". It certainly wasn't established in any of the numerous guideline/policy page discussions that have been held on the issue. There is a solid consensus that if information appears in both a regular article and a list, it should be cited in both places. It's why the guideline states: Stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines for articles, including verifiability and citing sources. This means statements should be sourced where they appear. Blueboar (talk) 12:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- I confess I am unsure where all this solid consensus appears. That "where they appear" was only added on the 7th July, after this debate began - hardly a solid consensus (I think I had better revert it, moving the goalposts during a discussion does not seem ethical to me). Above I linked what precedent I could find, primarily other quotes from that same guideline - which if you read it in full appears to contradict that later edit and support the established practice claimed by Mjroots. Here is its second paragraph in full: "When an inline citation is not required by a sourcing policy and editors choose to name more sources than strictly required, then either general references or inline citations may be used. It is generally expected that obviously appropriate material, such as the inclusion of Apple in the List of fruits, will not be supported by any type of reference." Please note that "it is generally expected." Can anybody provide sources to a solid consensus against that style guidance? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- The point is that the list in question (List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft) relies entirely on the articles linked within to provide sources. Some of those simply don't. Although perhaps some of the sub-articles to those target articles may... where does it stop? Is there a good reason not to reference claims in the articles where the claims are made? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- I confess I am unsure where all this solid consensus appears. That "where they appear" was only added on the 7th July, after this debate began - hardly a solid consensus (I think I had better revert it, moving the goalposts during a discussion does not seem ethical to me). Above I linked what precedent I could find, primarily other quotes from that same guideline - which if you read it in full appears to contradict that later edit and support the established practice claimed by Mjroots. Here is its second paragraph in full: "When an inline citation is not required by a sourcing policy and editors choose to name more sources than strictly required, then either general references or inline citations may be used. It is generally expected that obviously appropriate material, such as the inclusion of Apple in the List of fruits, will not be supported by any type of reference." Please note that "it is generally expected." Can anybody provide sources to a solid consensus against that style guidance? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- Using a blue-link as a reference is the same as using en.wikepedia.org as the source in an inline citation. We forbid the latter, and, by extension, we forbid the former. There's nothing so onerous about inline citations that we shouldn't mandate the existence of an inline citation to justify that the item meets the list's inclusion criteria. —Kww(talk) 17:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- @The Rambling Man. Where a linked claim is not backed up by the linked article, the MOS is currently clear that it needs referencing in the list. I am not aware that this is under dispute, so I do not think that it can as you suggest be "the point in question". Mjroots answered the "where does it stop?" issue, writing just above here; "references are not required iff the article linked to corroborates the claim." I would not argue with that, though I would appreciate a corroborating link (sic). The "good reason not to" issue is here confined to the stand-alone lists under discussion, and not more broadly to articles in general as your question is worded. I offered one answer above when I pointed out the impracticality of referencing every darned factoid on every darned list of everything on Wikipedia. We have started going round in circles here.
- So just one level of linkage then, you're saying if the subarticle isn't referencing the claim in the superarticle, it needs to be fixed, right? So how do I tag one of these "list" articles if the subarticle it depends on for referencing doesn't reference the claim? Because that's what I'm trying to do. And why should we make our readers go through hoops to find a reference? And what happens if the subarticle reference goes dead or isn't valid? Seems like this is a convenience for editors and not for our audience. Cheers, The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- @The Rambling Man. Where a linked claim is not backed up by the linked article, the MOS is currently clear that it needs referencing in the list. I am not aware that this is under dispute, so I do not think that it can as you suggest be "the point in question". Mjroots answered the "where does it stop?" issue, writing just above here; "references are not required iff the article linked to corroborates the claim." I would not argue with that, though I would appreciate a corroborating link (sic). The "good reason not to" issue is here confined to the stand-alone lists under discussion, and not more broadly to articles in general as your question is worded. I offered one answer above when I pointed out the impracticality of referencing every darned factoid on every darned list of everything on Wikipedia. We have started going round in circles here.
- @Kww. Nobody is proposing to use blue links as references, merely that blue links do not need referencing as long as the linked article corroborates the claim. That is a very different thing. Also, you say that inline citations are not a burden. See my repeated point above to The Rambling Man that lists are more open to interminable and onerous referencing. If you disagree with my point, where would the brakes be applied? That is, at what point in a tabulated list containing perhaps many hundreds of factoids could we say, "this factoid does not need referencing"? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- We're not referencing "factoids" we're referencing fact. We have thousands of featured lists where "challengeable" facts are referenced within the list and are in no way dependent on sub-articles (which may have no pedigree whatsoever). The Rambling Man (talk) 18:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- @Kww. Nobody is proposing to use blue links as references, merely that blue links do not need referencing as long as the linked article corroborates the claim. That is a very different thing. Also, you say that inline citations are not a burden. See my repeated point above to The Rambling Man that lists are more open to interminable and onerous referencing. If you disagree with my point, where would the brakes be applied? That is, at what point in a tabulated list containing perhaps many hundreds of factoids could we say, "this factoid does not need referencing"? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- "Blue links do not need referencing as long as the linked article corroborates the claim" is using the blue link as a reference, Steelpillow.—Kww(talk) 18:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- I have reverted your removal of the clarification that was added - as concessus is clear and the fact it simple represents a long standing founding principle of verification. So lets us try to be very clear here as this is getting a bit tedious. Statement of facts need sources no matter where they are - as do list that put things and or people in to classification lists like Canadian American. If there is a list like Outline of Canada yes there is no need for a source as its simply a list of articles with no Statements of facts.Moxy (talk) 19:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks to all for your clarifications. For the most part you have shown great patience with this issue, and I am sure I am not the only one who appreciates that. I guess the FLC is a separate discussion. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- The one thing I'd add on the FLC side is that most of the arguments for not having to have inline cites in a list is typically based on have no DEADLINE - that things will get fixed in this. When you take a list to FLC (a point of quality control), any arguments about "no deadline" are thrown out the window - what the MOS requires needs to be done, otherwise you'll fail the FLC. So it's not so much FLC directly itself, just when the "no deadline" arguments for not doing something because null and void. --MASEM (t) 13:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks to all for your clarifications. For the most part you have shown great patience with this issue, and I am sure I am not the only one who appreciates that. I guess the FLC is a separate discussion. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- I think there does need to be clarity between what the MOS expects at the end of the day when one is considering the list for FLC, and what the list may be as it is developed per NODEADLINE. Clearly, end of the day, sourcing needs to be there, either as by-entry inline cites or overall catchall references, irregardless of the topic. But it is inappropriate, per WP:V, to remove a blue link that is not inline-cited where there is a reference on the linked page to support inclusion, since it is simply a matter of moving the reference across. That said, it is reasonable that the more contentious the topic of the list, the stronger need to demand the cite right then and there instead of waiting for FLC cleanup. While the additional Moxy re-added above is correct in light of consensus, one has to remember this is a MOS, describing the ideal style and one that one should be directed towards during editing but by no means a requirement for a sub-FLC list. --MASEM (t) 19:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not so sure. This isn't about FLC, it's about how massive lists can have not one single reference. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- We have to distinguish between what the MOS should be doing - telling editors how we eventually want articles to look (per DEADLINE) - and what our other policies specifically on sourcing require. The MOS should be silent on the issue of a list absent any references outside of the fact that that list doesn't meet the MOS guidelines. On the other hand, a list absent references is a WP:V problem, within the scope that WP:V requires that sources have been clearly identified. The MOS here can ask (and a reasonable request that I don't disagree with) that each entry in a list include an inline cite to justify inclusion, but it is unable to ask anything on the removal of unsourced entries. That is advice for elsewhere, for certain, just not one to put into the MOS. That might be where the confrontation is here. --MASEM (t) 19:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- There's no confusion. Lists which rely on articles to substantiate the verifiability of claims are lacking. Who knows what the articles linked to are like, and, as I've discovered, many don't have references. What's the problem with referencing claims in each article to enable them to stand alone? In fact, some articles I've seen lately have become redirects to other articles. This won't be reflected in the superlist so how many clicks do we expect our readers to perform to actually get to the reference? (Again, this is nothing to do with FLC, just purely about WP:V) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- But, importantly, this is the MOS, not policy. WP:V only demands that sources have been located and identified. Thus, just because a blue-link entry does not have a citation is not a reason to remove the entry. Again, don't get me wrong, the absolutely right way to build a list is to source every entry as you go along, and cleaning up a list is to bring in those references from the blue links to the list so there's no question. And there will be cases where the linked articles are redirects, or lack the right sourcing to justify the claim, justifying the removal of the blue link. The point is that the MOS can't surpass WP:V's allowance of "known but not included sources" while the list is being improved; only at the point where the MOS compliance is checked (primarily FLC for lists) is where these sources must be in place appropriately. --MASEM (t) 20:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- But, most importantly, this misses the point. A reader wishes to read the source of the claim. He/she finds there is no reference. So he/she clicks on the "target article", and then has to search around to find the reference he/she was originally searching for. The article has obfuscated the original claim, it's confusing, where's the source to the claim I read one page ago? How the hell does that help our readers? This is all about lazy editing, pure and simple. Reference the facts where the facts are claimed. How difficult is that? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- Interesting point but as has been said above even featured lists introduce new facts without sourcing hence the request for clarity. MilborneOne (talk) 20:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- Not at all. Let me make it clear to you. This is nothing to do with featured lists. "A reader wishes to read the source of the claim. He/she finds there is no reference. So he/she clicks on the "target article", and then has to search around to find the reference he/she was originally searching for. The article has obfuscated the original claim, it's confusing, where's the source to the claim I read one page ago? How the hell does that help our readers? This is all about lazy editing, pure and simple. Reference the facts where the facts are claimed. How difficult is that?". Incidentally, if you find any featured list which needs more references, please let me know, or submit it to WP:FLRC. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- Interesting point but as has been said above even featured lists introduce new facts without sourcing hence the request for clarity. MilborneOne (talk) 20:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- But, most importantly, this misses the point. A reader wishes to read the source of the claim. He/she finds there is no reference. So he/she clicks on the "target article", and then has to search around to find the reference he/she was originally searching for. The article has obfuscated the original claim, it's confusing, where's the source to the claim I read one page ago? How the hell does that help our readers? This is all about lazy editing, pure and simple. Reference the facts where the facts are claimed. How difficult is that? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- But, importantly, this is the MOS, not policy. WP:V only demands that sources have been located and identified. Thus, just because a blue-link entry does not have a citation is not a reason to remove the entry. Again, don't get me wrong, the absolutely right way to build a list is to source every entry as you go along, and cleaning up a list is to bring in those references from the blue links to the list so there's no question. And there will be cases where the linked articles are redirects, or lack the right sourcing to justify the claim, justifying the removal of the blue link. The point is that the MOS can't surpass WP:V's allowance of "known but not included sources" while the list is being improved; only at the point where the MOS compliance is checked (primarily FLC for lists) is where these sources must be in place appropriately. --MASEM (t) 20:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- There's no confusion. Lists which rely on articles to substantiate the verifiability of claims are lacking. Who knows what the articles linked to are like, and, as I've discovered, many don't have references. What's the problem with referencing claims in each article to enable them to stand alone? In fact, some articles I've seen lately have become redirects to other articles. This won't be reflected in the superlist so how many clicks do we expect our readers to perform to actually get to the reference? (Again, this is nothing to do with FLC, just purely about WP:V) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- We have to distinguish between what the MOS should be doing - telling editors how we eventually want articles to look (per DEADLINE) - and what our other policies specifically on sourcing require. The MOS should be silent on the issue of a list absent any references outside of the fact that that list doesn't meet the MOS guidelines. On the other hand, a list absent references is a WP:V problem, within the scope that WP:V requires that sources have been clearly identified. The MOS here can ask (and a reasonable request that I don't disagree with) that each entry in a list include an inline cite to justify inclusion, but it is unable to ask anything on the removal of unsourced entries. That is advice for elsewhere, for certain, just not one to put into the MOS. That might be where the confrontation is here. --MASEM (t) 19:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not so sure. This isn't about FLC, it's about how massive lists can have not one single reference. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- Agree 100 percent - WP:V is a founding principle that applies to all that we do when it comes to content in article/lists/categories. We are here to facilitate free knowledge and to try to do so in the most assessable way possible. We do not do things because they are easier for our editors - in fact we do the opposite - everything is for our readers. If people do not find it fun to sources facts - best to move on to a part of the project they find enjoyable. To quote WP:FIVE PILLARS "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or a living person. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong." Moxy (talk) 20:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'll stress a point that has been made clear at WP:V - a fact is considered sourced for WP:V's purposes if there is a specific reference (not just hand-waving at Google, but a named, possibly linked source) in an "obvious" place related to the article. That related place could be at the talk page, it could be at an AFD discussion, or any other discussion page directly tied to the article. This could mean that the source is bury in archives or the like, but for purposes of WP:V, it is considered verified. Yes, it is completely stupid not to move that source into the article, and of course the more contentious the fact, the more important it is to source it, but editors have been reprimanded for removing content where there is such a source not on the article page but on the talk pages. That's an issue with WP:V, one that I've seen fought against and failed to make a stronger requirement for inclusion, primarily that it is considreed part of cleanup to move such sources into the article. As long as that logic holds at WP:V, that logic has to hold here. If we can change that logic at WP:V, great, but I'm not seeing that happen any time soon given the certain groups that strongly back the current approach. --MASEM (t) 20:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, that seems to be the hardfought position of about three editors. I've never figured out their motivation.—Kww(talk) 20:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- I don't agree with that viewpoint of those limited editors but as that seems to be the only way to grease things at WP:N (following the same logic at WP:V) it's reasonably fair within DEADLINE. But that said, pushing on the point that some lists will have criteria that are contentious can require inline sourcing for list items on additions to the list. In other words, I'd less worry about fighting the issue on "List of people from New York" and more on "List of people that support LGBT", where I can say that claim requires a clear RS that permits inclusion, regardless if the source is buried on the person's WP article page. --MASEM (t) 21:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, that seems to be the hardfought position of about three editors. I've never figured out their motivation.—Kww(talk) 20:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'll stress a point that has been made clear at WP:V - a fact is considered sourced for WP:V's purposes if there is a specific reference (not just hand-waving at Google, but a named, possibly linked source) in an "obvious" place related to the article. That related place could be at the talk page, it could be at an AFD discussion, or any other discussion page directly tied to the article. This could mean that the source is bury in archives or the like, but for purposes of WP:V, it is considered verified. Yes, it is completely stupid not to move that source into the article, and of course the more contentious the fact, the more important it is to source it, but editors have been reprimanded for removing content where there is such a source not on the article page but on the talk pages. That's an issue with WP:V, one that I've seen fought against and failed to make a stronger requirement for inclusion, primarily that it is considreed part of cleanup to move such sources into the article. As long as that logic holds at WP:V, that logic has to hold here. If we can change that logic at WP:V, great, but I'm not seeing that happen any time soon given the certain groups that strongly back the current approach. --MASEM (t) 20:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- Agree 100 percent - WP:V is a founding principle that applies to all that we do when it comes to content in article/lists/categories. We are here to facilitate free knowledge and to try to do so in the most assessable way possible. We do not do things because they are easier for our editors - in fact we do the opposite - everything is for our readers. If people do not find it fun to sources facts - best to move on to a part of the project they find enjoyable. To quote WP:FIVE PILLARS "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or a living person. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong." Moxy (talk) 20:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Best to speak in ideals rather then exceptions. Lets try and keep it simple for our editors and readers. We should be saying - got a source use it when possible in the article by the statement to facilitate readers expansion of knowledge through sources. Agree with all you said above Masem - just think we should think of our readers at all times and when doing so assume what is common knowledge to some is not to others, thus easy verification would be the ideal situation. Its great that some other article or talk page history may have the verification but this does not help our readers verify for themselves. Wikimedia Foundation mission statement "The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.Moxy (talk) 21:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- I would love to make it "if you don't have an inline source, it can be removed" as general advice, but I've had to deal with the types of editors that KWW alludes to above that would fight against this approach tooth and nail, and found it is better to manage the middle ground which involves that we are in no rush to complete articles per DEADLINE, as long as specific sourcing has been identifies. --MASEM (t) 21:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- I see your point clearly now - I agree - no rush for removal unless there is contentious material as per Wikipedia:Libel. Moxy (talk) 23:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- I want to correct something Masem said above... "WP:V only demands that sources have been located and identified"... not quite... WP:V also demands that a source actually be provided if the material is challenged or likely to be challenged. That's is an important part of understanding the DEADLINE process. While we are free to add unsourced information (and even free to create entire articles/lists with no sources), the second someone requests a source, we now have a BURDEN to provide one... and if we don't, the information can be removed. How quickly it gets removed depends on the nature of the information, but it does have to be provided within a reasonable time never the less.
- More importantly, we have to provide a source where it is requested, and not wave our hand to some other page. Why?... because while the information may currently be cited on some other page, there is no guarantee that the information will remain cited on some other page. Remember that Wikipedia is a fluid medium. The other page (the one we are waving at) may end up being edited (or even completely re-written). It may end up in a state that no longer supports (or even discusses) the information in the list/article we are concerned about. Blueboar (talk) 14:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- It does come back to how contentious the fact is to demand a source. "John Q Smith is gay" is absolutely 100% going to need a source to even be included in an article. "John Q Smith was born in New York", not so much particularly if the fact is "common knowledge" or documented elsewhere. Which is why I say that if a list is one that veers into a area where sources needs to be provided due to the contentiousness of the information to be offered, that can be made a condition for inclusion, irregardless of what those that shout DEADLINE may refute. But this should be made clear on the list's talk page or on the page's edit notice or in invisible comments that consensus has determined sourcing is required for inclusion. --MASEM (t) 14:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- (e/c) That's precisely the issue I'm pursuing, the fact that we should not be relying on references (or external links in a lot cases) in "target articles" to verify claims. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- I see your point clearly now - I agree - no rush for removal unless there is contentious material as per Wikipedia:Libel. Moxy (talk) 23:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Selection criteria
Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lists#Selection criteria. --Marc Kupper|talk 20:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Glossaries and Timelines
Recently some users have been submitting glossaries and timelines to AFD, and I am concerned about the implications because according to the WP:GLOSSARIES proposal and LIST, glossaries and timelines are articles that aide in comprehension of a notable subject. Some editors have taken this to mean that the glossary or timeline itself must meet GNG/N to be included. This seems to conflict with LISTN which states, "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." If the topic on which the things are about is notable, shouldn't a timeline or glossary of terms likely be included. As for the individual articles themselves, they range in amount of work needing to be done, but Timelines of Gundam and List of Macross Frontier terminology, but AFD is not clean up. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- WP:GLOSSARIES is just a proposed guideline, until it's approved, it remains an essay. And LISTN speaks for itself, if not all the entries in the list need be notable, "the grouping or set" (ie what binds the entries together, the ordering logic or the topic behind the list) needs to be.Folken de Fanel (talk) 08:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
