Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 46

Archive 40

←

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

→

Archive 50

wording for new section on lists

OK... as I have said above, I think we need a short section that explains how to apply WP:NOTE to list articles. I have worked up a "pre-proposal" draft that outlines my thoughts... please drop by User:Blueboar/drafts and comment. (Note... this is my user draft space, and so merely represents my thinking on the subject... however, if you wish to use my draft space to write up an alternative for people to look at, I don't mind... just create a new section. The idea is to create something that a few of us approve of, which can then be formally proposed to the community for more detailed comments... it does not need to be perfect at this point). Blueboar (talk) 22:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I have had a look at your proposal, which can be boiled down to one line:

Notability of a lists is determined by..."establishing (or re-establishing) that the topic of the list is notable, through reference to reliable sources that are independent of the topic".

If you will forgive my criticism, but this is as clear a mud. The only way a list can meet WP:GNG is whether or not it has been published. In the absence of a publication, it is not clear what the reliable sources are refering to. A clear an unambiguous rewrite would say

"If a published list has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article".

Personally, I can't see how you can get around this defintion. In the absence of publication, none of Wikipedia's content policies or notability guidelines work, because there is no verifiable evidence to demonstrate that the list exists in the real world.

If a list has not been published in the real world, then commentators will not have had a chance to see it, let alone "note" or comment upon its existence. We really have to agree on this, or something like it. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

"We really have to agree on this, or something like it." Or else? What if most people don't agree with you on this? Fram (talk) 11:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: "The only way a list can meet WP:GNG is whether or not it has been published."... lists don't have to meet GNG... the topic of the list must meet GNG. Thus, the topic must be discussed in published sources, but not the list itself. Blueboar (talk) 16:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The topic of the list is determined by its source, so publication is a necessity. A good analogy might be the Ten Commandments. The word of God and all that jazz might be notable topics, but the source of list decided which items would go into the list in the first place. You might believe that it is notable because it is the word of God, but what you are liable to read in the bible ain't necessarily so. No, its notable because it a published list, regardless of whether it was written on stone tablets or not. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't buy it. The idea that we can only have a list if lists covering that exact scope have been published by multiple independent reliable sources is just too radical a departure from practice that, if suffering from some problems as you have so rantfully noted, has worked pretty well for Wikipedia for years. I don't support addressing WP:SAL's issues by throwing out that practice wholesale on the basis of logical deduction; I support addressing those issues progressively and iteratively on the basis of consensus. Y'know, like how Wikipedia does stuff. —chaos5023 (talk) 17:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Isn't this issue best covered in the RfC discussion, rather than parallel streams? Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Inclusion_criteria_for_Lists#A._Proposed_language_changes_to_WP:N To my thinking, there is nothing particularly special regards list-articles and notability. What is needed is to recognise (briefly!) that lists might in some cases be constrained to notable list-entries; and that limiting a list to notable list-entries says NOTHING about whether the list-article is notable. In particular, I urge editors following this thread to think about whether their points relate to list-articles, or to embedded lists as well. Gavin's apparent inability to comprehend what a WP:List is notwithstanding. ‒ Jaymax✍ 18:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Its quite a radical departure I know, and when I speak, I know that I may be mistaken and that I may be burnt at the stake for heresy for my belief in veriable evidence that a published list is notable.

1. If you believe that the ten commandments is" the word of God", and "the word of God" is a notable topic, then you must follow the revaluation revealed unto you by his prophet, Blueboar ("praise be his name"), and his apostles, Chaos and Jaymax.
2. Although they may try and convince you that their views are the consensus because there are other apostles such as they (possible twelve or more) that believe Blueboar to be the herald of "truth", remember that that Blueboar may be a false prophet, and his apostles may be Judas goats who have committed category mistake ("forgive them").
3. Alas, I am a radical unbeliever who has not been admitted to the church of notability fallacy, for I do not believe that the "truth"' per se, but in Verifiability, in which a list can only be verified if it can be attributed to its creator, which in the case of lists is its published source.

Now it is down to the reader to follow the path of "truth" or to follow the path of Verifiability. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 20:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

So, what, you've given up all hope of actually making your argument more convincing, and now you're just entertaining yourself? —chaos5023 (talk) 20:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

In answer to Jaymax, I think my comprehension of what a list is has advanced quite a long way during the recent RFC.

1. In its simplest form, a list is just a means of formatting text, so whether it is numbered or bulletted, there is nothing original about it as it is merely an arrangement of text;
2. Such lists are useful, because they lead the reader through a number ideas, ideally leading to some form of conclusion;
3. However, as the size of the list grows, a point is reached where a structure emerges, and the list become more than an arrangement of text;
4. When a structure emerges, the list becomes seperate and distinct sub-topic within an article, or if is long enough, a "list topic" in its own right;
5. What makes a "list topic" unique from other topics is that a list is a single discrete source of information, with a structure and set of inclusion criteria that have been defined by its creator.

Alas, our list guidelines on lists do not make the distinction between informal lists that are merely a formatting device, and "list topics" that are an original, structured, defined and discrete set of information that comes from a published source. As a result, there are many lists that exist where it is impossible to distinguish between lists that are a summary of the sources in a list format from "list topics" that come (or should come) from a single published source.

It is the subject of "list topic" notability that this guideline should be focused on. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 03:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you could possibly define the point at which a list somehow becomes its own discrete topic. As editors, our primary job is to compile and summarize sources into a single article. I don't see how compiling and summarizing sources into a single list of any size changes that any. Nifboy (talk) 21:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

When it is published, at which point it is verfiable, there is evidence that it is not original research, and it is known whose opinion was used to select the list's inclusion criteria (i.e. its definition). Once a list has been published, it becomes possible for reliable sources to note its existence, and to comment upon it, which is what is needed as evidence of notability. I hope this makes it clear. A fuller description of this can be seen in the Inclusion criteria for Lists RFC. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

By this same logic, a non-list article can only cover material that has been completely cited by one source to prove the combination of sources is not original research. This, of course, is absolutely wrong and there is zero consensus this applies uniquely to lists as it does articles. --MASEM (t) 22:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Right. The nature of Wikipedia requires some base amount of "original" work, in choosing how to summarize and compile sources, what examples or items to include or emphasize, etc. This applies to both articles and lists, and I don't believe applying a hypersensitive view of OR to lists and not articles accomplishes anything. Nifboy (talk) 23:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we are agreed that summarising other sources is not "original" work, it is summarising. How editors choose to summarize and compile sources is a matter of formatting, and sometimes we use lists to lead the reader through content. This formating of text into a list is a stylistic device, but that is not the same as creating a list topic. To illustrate this, consider thefollowing:

1. Creating a list topic is original research. To illustrate this distinction, take the example of Martin Luther's 95 Theses (1517). The text itself is an "original" work that could have been formatted in prose form, if Luther had so wished.
2. What transforms this text into a list topic is its publication: it is known and understood to be a list topic because Luther chose to publish it as a list. He created it for purpose (protest), decided what the inclusion criteria were to be (theological disagreements or disputations), its subject matter (indulgences) and the number of items in the list (95).
3. If it has been included in "ye olde Wikipedia" back in 1517, the 95 Theses would have been deleted as original research and soapboxing. Indeed, many powerful people wanted Luther "deleted" as well. However, his list was published, and it became a notable topic its own right, because the published list became the subject of commentary, criticism and analysis and sparked the reformation.

In short, publication transforms original research in list format into a list topic, but formatting content into lists does not. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

No one is invalidating that some lists stand alone as whole notable lists themselves. But that has no meaning on lists that can be fairly summarized from multiple sources, and thus the implication about these being original research is still contrary to standard use of summarization. --MASEM (t) 12:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I am sure lists can be created from multiple sources, but if they have not been published, how could they have been "noted" in accordance with WP:GNG? A good analogy is that how can you win the lottery jackpot, unless you buy a lottery ticket? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

As demonstrated in the list RFC, by looking at the notability of the overall topic of the list, not the list itself (eg if List of X, X needs to be notable, not "List of X"). --MASEM (t) 13:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

That still has not answered the question "how can you win the lottery if you don't buy a ticket?" If "List of X" has not been published, then how would it have become notable? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Because X has been published and determined as a notable topic, as outlined via consensus in the RFC. --MASEM (t) 13:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Masem is Exactly right... to demonstrate that the topic X is notable, we cite reliable sources that discuss the topic X. If such sources exist we can create an article about X. That article can be in sentence/paragraph format (under the title [[X]]), or in list format (under the title [[List of X]]), or both as is appropriate.

Where I partly agree with Gavin comes in the next step... to mention items a, b, c and d in that article (be it in sentence/paragraph format or list format) we need to cite sources that verify that items a, b, c, and d belong in an article on "X". We need sources that verify that they are Xs. Where I disagree is his assertion that such sources must themselves be in a list format. Blueboar (talk) 13:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

That is where you are mistaken. In the case of Luther's list ("List of X" if you will), the subject matter with which he was concerned about was the abuse of indulgences (i.e. indulgence is the "X" that you think needs to be notable). What makes Luther's list a notable topic is not that it is about indulgences per se, but that the list itself is notable. The way it became notable was that it was published (famously, it was on hung on a church door) and subsequently "noted" by various commentators, including various papal, regal, and scholarly sources. Only after publication can "List of X" become a notable list topic in its own right, no matter how many notable topics (a, b, c etc) may be listed within it. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, no one is denying that a list as a whole can be notable. But you are refusing to accept the consensus that lists can be notable by other means and can be constructed from multiple reliable sources.--MASEM (t) 13:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I just don't see how a "howbrew" list can be notable if it has not been published and subsequently been "noted". If a book can be published and become notable, why not a list? Just be cause "X" is notable, that does not mean "A book about X" is notable by inheritence. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Masem... a slight clarification on your last post where you talk about "the consensus that lists can be notable"... I think it is more accurate to say "the consensus that the topic of a list can be notable". When the topic of an article is a list ... ie when we are dealing with an Article about a list (such as The Ninety-Five Theses), then Gavin is correct... that list must be published to verify its existence. He is incorrect when it comes to articles that are not about a list. Blueboar (talk) 14:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you're right; I'm implying that "the notability of a list article" can be demonstrated via notability of the topic of the list or by the notability of the whole list as a single entity itself. --MASEM (t) 14:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem with Blueboar's thinking is the idea that "List of X" is not about a list is not logical, in the same way that an article on a "Book about X" is not about a book is not logical. Whether the a book or a list is about topic "X" or topic "Y" makes no difference, it is the notability of the book or the list that we concerned about. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

gavin, you are seeing only one aspect of this, while there are, for most other people, two distinct ones. The side you see (and which exists) is articles about lists, like the Luther list or Nixon's Enemy List or Schindler's List or whatever. Everyone is basically agreeing with you on those. However, what most other people argue is that in most cases, "list" doesn't identify a specific, pre-existing list, but a presentation format. Perhaps it would be clearer if we would consider such lists as a separate namespace, so that you can have articles about lists in the main namespace, and articles in a list format in the list namespace. But for now, these are also included in the main namespace. So please just see them as a way of presenting and grouping information, and not as a subject themselves. Fram (talk) 14:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Gavin is confusing the article's title with the article's topic. The word "list" is included in a title for two reasons:

1) To indicate that the article is an Article about a specific list. In these cases, the word "list" is included as part of the name of a specific article subject. (Nixon's enemies list is a good example... this is an article about a specific list, a list commonly referred to as "Nixon's enemies list").

2) To indicate that the article is an Article in list format. In these cases the word "list" is included to indicate that the article is presenting its information in a specific format... a listified format (List of Nixon's enemies is a good example). In such articles it does not form part of the name of a specific thing... rather it is essentially an editorial comment within the title, informing the reader that the article takes a given form.

This is different from a title that includes the word "book"... We don't have a type of article that is in "book format"... we do not present information in "bookified format"... so when we include the word "book" in an article title (Book of X), there is only one thing we can mean... the word book is part of the subject's name. Blueboar (talk) 15:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

In fairness, I understand the distinction that Fram, Blueboar and Masem are trying to make, but there is no evidence that such a distinction exists in reality: A "list article" is the same as an "Article about a list" which is the same as an "Article about a list topic". The notability of list topics is not dependent upon the formating or presentation as Fram suggests, but is dependent on publication and subsequent commentary from reliable sources who have "noted" the list in accordance with WP:GNG.

A good example is the article The Ninety-Five Theses. Whether or not the 95 Theses themselves are present in the list is irrelevant to its subject matter, because notability does not restrict coverage of the topic to the list itself. If the contibutors wanted to, the list could be reproduced in full within the article, together with supporting commentary. However, a more elegant solution has been found, and the list itself has been transcribed to Wikisource. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Notable lists

I don't really understand Gavin's point here, because all he seems willing to talk about are lists which are themselves incredibly obviously notable, like Luther's 95 theses or the Ten Commandments. He seems to be ignoring the vast majority of lists that actually exist on wikipedia. I'd be interested if Gavin would explain his opinion of lists like List of English monarchs, List of minor league baseball leagues and teams, List of Academy Award winners and nominees for Best Foreign Language Film, List of National Parks of the United States, and so forth. john k (talk) 15:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't comment on all of the lists, but I think you will agree that List of Academy Award winners and nominees for Best Foreign Language Film is both a published list (by the Academy itself) and has been noted by many reliable sources (e.g. Variety (magazine)), which I think proves my point. The selection of the list's members was made based on the opinions of the Academy's members, so this illustrates my view that homebrew list ("List of Popular (TV series) episodes) are original research. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

One can certainly find published lists of episodes of TV shows - on sites like Television without Pity, for example, or in the (published) DVD box sets for the show. If you think the Academy Awards list is exactly like your Ten Commandments example, could you then please comment on my other examples? john k (talk) 16:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

But Gavin, you'll note that the Variety article only lists the winners, and only up to 2007. To get the nominees, and both winners and nominees up through the present, we would need to combine several sources. You've called this as a problem and unacceptable. --MASEM (t) 16:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

My appologies, I have just realised that "Popular" is actually a TV series. What I meant to say is that hombrew lists like "List of films considered the worst" are original research, because the selection criteria are based on editors' opinion of what is a bad film, rather than on opinions contained in published lists.

With regard to List of English monarchs, I would expect such a list to be to have been published (many times) and at least one version of that list to be notable. I don't agree with the approach used in the list (synthesis) which seems to be a summary of various sources, as a result, the lists seems to be filled with mass attribution ("According to some sources...", "The continuous list traditionally starts with..."). Better to have used one list, rather than plagiarise several, and this is advice I would (or have given) to Masem as well. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Same logic says we should only use one source to cite an article, instead of "plagiarising" several. Again, this doesn't follow established practices at all. It's great if there is a single source that publishes a list, that's ideal, but it's not required as you are insisting. --MASEM (t) 16:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem with homebrew lists is that there is no evidence of notability. Assembling sources to create a new article topic seems fine until you realise that Wikipedia is the only place where a particular list has seen the light of day, and will not be been commented upon directly or in detail by anyone. Occasionally, Wikipedia lists do get mentioned in the press, e.g. The 8 Most Needlessly Detailed Wikipedia Entries, but that does not make them notable, that just external evidence that a particular list has failed WP:NOT. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

So is, for example, combining multiple movie review sources to develop a reception section. Or to use a number of different books to establish a history of a significant event. You're trying to use a vastly different metric based on what sounds like a WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument against lists that you seem fine for regular articles to clear. --MASEM (t) 23:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It is not a different metric. From the perspective of souring an article, a list topic is a single source of information from a reliable published source that can be embedded with the body of an article, or if that source is itself notable, used an article topic for a stand alone list.

In the absence of a published list, you seem to be implying that it is acceptable to make one up, but madeup lists are not reliable. In the same way that we don't allow a synthesis of sources to be used to make up a statement that fits in with an editors opinion about a topic, we are not allowed to sythesis a list topic to fit in with that opinion.

Rather, the correct approach is to look for a source (or a list) that address the article topic directly and in detail. In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published on Wikipedia (conclusion per WP:SYNTH). --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

So even a combination of published lists is not acceptable? If book A on city X lists 10 people as "notable inhabitants", and book B on the same city lists 5 of the same 10, and 15 others, as notable inhabitants, then creating a Wikipedia list article "List of notable inhabitants of X", with the 25 names of the two books combined, would be unacceptable synthesis? Or would that at least be acceptable to you? Fram (talk) 09:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

No, because a synthesis of lists is bastardisation. The reason why this is undesireble is if the sources conflict in any way, then the resulting list will be contaminated with inaccuracy or juxtaposition of context. A good example is the "List of Isotopes of americium" which is made up of two sources, which may or may not include the same items, such as newly discovered isotopes, and may or may not conflict, depending on the research findings of the two sources. This is a good example of a "cut and shut" list.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

If reliable sources on any subject disagree, then we note that in the article. Gavin, it looks to me that you simply disagree with 99% of Wikipedia's articles, which are all based on a summary of different sources, which are often contradictory on one thing or another. That is why we don't pretend to present truth, but verifiability. Is there a reason that you make a problem of lists using multiple sources, but not about articles using multiple sources? Fram (talk) 09:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

If reliable sources on any subject disagree, then who are we to know whether they disagree or not? What do you or I know about the Isotopes of americium that a reliable published source does not know? How do you even know if they disagree or not?

It seems to me that whether a list topic is made up, or a list topic is bastardised, then the editors responsible are asserting that their opinions about the list topic are superior ("the truth"), compared to the published source of a list. I think the mistake you are making is that list topics are like articles, but in reality they are more like individual sources. If a list comes from a veriable source, it can be embedded in an article, and if the list is notable, then it can become the topic of an article.

The key point to note is that homebrew lists are neither reliable (they have not been published by a reliable source) nor can they be notable because they have neither published nor commented upon outside of Wikipedia (except perhaps in mockery[1]).--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Which is not an answer to my question at all... Is there a reason that you make a problem of lists using multiple sources, but not about articles using multiple sources? And obviously, if your problem is not limited to lists, but to all articles, then it shouldn't be discussed as a special problem concerning lists, but at a more general level. Fram (talk) 10:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The answer to your question is plagiarism. You might argue that synthesising a list out of disparate sources is not plagiarism, but consider Factors that justify reuse of sources by Pamela Samuelson, only substitute the word "list article" for "work":

1. The previous work needs to be restated in order to lay the groundwork for a new contribution in the second work.
2. Portions of the previous work must be repeated in order to deal with new evidence or arguments.
3. The audience for each work is so different that publishing the same work in different places was necessary to get the message out.
4. The author thinks they said it so well the first time that it makes no sense to say it differently a second time.

In the real world, these steps are rountine process, but within the context of Wikipedia, restatement and the presentation of new arguments of what the author thinks is original research when applied to list topics.

At this point, I will leave other editors to discuss why bastardisation is not a good idea, as I don't have a monopoly over these concepts, nor am I the origin of them. But because a list is an infomation set, they have to be treated like a "work" (a reliable source that thas been published) in their own right. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

You leave me quite baffled. I'll just assume that you are unwilling or unable to reply to the actual question. You are completely wrong, of course, when you claim that restatement is part of original research: and why you end your reply completely out of the blue with "when applied to list topics" is beyond me. Fram (talk) 12:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

And I am baffled about "I will leave other editors to discuss why bastardisation is not a good idea", when nobody agrees with your premise that "bastardisation" is "not a good idea". We already know about WP:SYNTH: It is prohibited to advance positions and ideas which are not supported by the sources, but your position is taking this miles beyond what what that policy prohibits. In fact, the WP:NOR policy encourages editors to collect and organize material from a variety of sources to form coherent articles: "Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The "list of notable inhabitants" above can easily be answered within the policies of Wikipedia. The word "notable" means something. It is not just another throwaway superlative used by the media to get your attention. Within the confines of this encyclopedia, it means that the topic/word is so important that there is an article on it in Wikipedia. No article, no "notability" no matter who says so outside of Wikipedia. Student7 (talk) 12:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Just to avoid confusion: notability by itself does not mean that there actually is an article in Wikipedia. Notability is one criterion for having a separate article, but that does not mean that someone has actually got round to writing the article. --Boson (talk) 15:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Consider the difference in notability between List of notable people who wore a hat and List of notable hat wearers. Both are lists of notable people... the the topic of the first is any notable person who has ever worn a hat... the topic of the second is limited to only those who people who are notable because they wore hats. I think the first is not a notable list topic... while the second is. Blueboar (talk) 15:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I confess to allowing some events/people to have no articles and yet to be termed "notable" with a very reliable footnote. This is so difficult to edit check though, that it normally isn't worth it. Usually no article, no notabitlity. This may be what is causing some of the difficulty here. Allowing no article on an person/event/item and them trying to construct a policy around that makes it hard to discuss. And who can check it? Whew! Student7 (talk) 14:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Alternatives

"If a published list has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article".

What alternatives are there to this wording, that are easy to understand, fit in with existing policies and guidelines, and don't involve the creation of exemptions for lists, or long convoluted proofs that lists inherit notablity vicariously? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

You are again arguing about articles about specific lists, not articles in list format. You are the only one who refuses to acknowledge that the discussion is about the second type of lists, not about the first one, which falls under the usual GNG. Fram (talk) 10:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

If you are right (disputed), then what is the alternative? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

That's what the people at the RfC are trying to find out. It's hard to get an exact and concise statement of what is allowed and what isn't, since articles in list format can have different purposes. But the fact there is no general agreement on one text doesn't mean that there isn't general agreement on a few basics, like the fact that your interpretation is way off. You have tried basically the same thing with Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Inclusion criteria for Lists#Gavin's statement of Lessons learnt from the RFC, where you have had replies like "Nifboy, you are correct and everyone else but Gavin agrees with you. No one else agrees with his personal interpretation, which is confused and incoherent, completely unsupported by any policy or guideline, and has no discernible benefit in practice." (from User:Postdlf) You are, basiclly, beating a dead horse, against an overwhelming consensus, both here and at the RfC. Continuing with the same kind of arguments and proposals is becoming disruptive, as it needlessly takes away time we all can spend on better things. Wikipedia is a consensus based project, and while consensus can change, it isn't realistic to expect such a change immediately after a previous and quite clear discussion.

I advise you to just drop the issue for a long time, and accept that your point of view, whether it is right or wrong, isn't shared by most other editors. Otherwise, I'll consider a continuation of this as disruptive editing, and while I (as an involved editor) will not take any action directly, I will be asking at WP:AN to initiate a community sanction against you, preferable a topic ban from notability-related and list-related discussions in the Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk namespaces. Fram (talk) 11:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The idea is new (24 Sept), so it has hardly been seen by any editors, let alone shared by other editors. The question still stands, what is the alternative? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The question "what is the alternative" is unrelated to "what do you think about this". There are countless alternatives, including the status quo, and many of these alternatives are better and would get more support than your idea here. And the idea is hardly new, it has been your position all the time. Take e.g. one of your oldest comments still on the page: "If you don't think explicit publication of the list itself in reliable sources is a particularly good criterion to determine a list's usefulness, how could you justify the list's usefulness or inclusion if it or its defintion has not been published at all?" (from 12:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)). The only thing you did is change from "it has to have been published" (which didn't get a lot of support) to "it has to have been published and received significant coverage", which is even stricter and will get even less support. This is not a "new" idea from 24 september, but a fundamentally identical restatement of what was your position was all along ,and where you are well aware that it is soundly rejected over and over again. Fram (talk) 13:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

"What is the alternative?" is still a fair question. If you can explain your views (other than they are in oppositon to mine) that would be useful. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

You want an Alternative... OK... how about this:

"If the topic of a article (including articles in list format) has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article".

This matches my view. Blueboar (talk) 23:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I support this form of wording, no problem. Perhaps it is the best comprise, because it clearer and less ambigious that your first proposal, and fits in with the rest of guideline. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Publication

Gavin's wording "If a published list has received..." etc. is not wrong. When the topic of an article is a specific list, that wording is correct. But where we all disagree with Gavin is his contention that we are not allowed to create articles about other topics, and present the information in listified format. Blueboar (talk) 13:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

That is not quite my postion: We are not allowed to create articles about other topics if that topic has never been published. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

And what the RFC has shows is that "List of X" is, more often than not, not a new topic, but has the topic X. Therefore, there are no issues. --MASEM (t) 13:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)No, your position is that we are not allowed to present information in a list format, if the same information hasn't been published in list format (and in one list as well, not in separate ones) previously. To which you add that said list also has to have received significant attention in reliable independent sources, meaning that our list of US presidents no longer can be updated as soon as some reliable source presents a list of all the presidents up to the current one, but that that list must have been the subject of significant coverage, which is extremely unlikely. Fram (talk) 13:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

That is not my postition in fairness, and perhaps I have not made myself clear:

1. A "list topic" is a single discrete source of information, that not only has a list structure, but also inclusion criteria that have been defined by its author(s) to serve a particular purpose at a particular point in time and has been published as a list, e.g Luther's 95 Theses;
2. Once a list has been published, it is both a source of infomation and a list topic in its own right. If it has been published, it can be cited within an article; if it is published and been "noted" in accordance with WP:GNG, then it can have its own list article;
3. If there is more than one published list that are similar, then editors will cite the list that is the best source of coverage or is the most reliable. For example, if a list is out of date, then editors will cite the latest version.

This might sound long winded, but it boils down to citing a published source for a list (verifiablity for content), and having articles about published topics (notablity for inclusion). Published lists are both a source and a topic, depending on context.

Where there may be some misunderstanding is about the formating of text using bullets or numbers for formating purposes. Suct text that could be put into prose that does not involve the creation of a "list topic". Editors are allowed to format text, in so far as they are not creating a new topic by trying to synthesise a new list. Formating text is a styling exercise, for the text could be presented in either list or prose format. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

But why would you oppose the creation of a list of notable residents of X, with 10 names taken from source A, 15 names taken from source B, 5 more taken from source C, and 1 from source D, E, F and G. "Notable residents of X" is certainly a notable topic, there are multiple sources about it. All we do is summarizing it in one list, just like we do with information for other articles. We are clearly not creating a new topic in this case. Yet, as far as I understand your position, this list wouldn't be acceptable to you. Fram (talk) 07:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

For the same reason you would oppose the creation of a "List of 95 notable theses about X" taken from source 1 through to 95: it would be a made up list topic.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

You mean this kind of thesis: Thesis (academic document)? We have such articles, actually, they are called Bibliographies, and when they become too unwieldy for the X article, they are spun off to their own article. If books (including theses) are notable, and share a subject, then why wouldn't we bring them together in one list (although the actual title you present for the list is unacceptable, the contents wouldn't be, and a simple move would suffice: I would not oppose such a list)? We are not advancing any position in doing this, so it can't be a WP:SYNTH violation. And I really think your understanding of WP:MADEUP is completely, utterly different from 99% of our editors. Fram (talk) 08:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Creating a homebrew list is advancing a position, there is no doubt about it. Implicit in every list is the following statement: "This is my list which I think is about X, it contains only items selected by me, and excludes all items that, in my opinion, should not be included". In your example, you would be saying "These sources are relevant to topic X, it contains only these sources, and excludes all sources that in my opinion, should not be included". --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

You may read that in every list, but that is not implicit in most lists by far. Many lists are very objective, even if they have to be compiled from a number of sources. If I have one list with the winners of event X up to 1998, and then 12 newspaper articles listing the winners for 1999-2010, then a list with the winners from the start until 2010 has hardly the subjectivity you read into it. Yet, you would disallow that list. For other, less definite or complete list, the actual inclusion is often "these are the ones I know about from reliable sources". Just like articles, lists may be incomplete, and what to include or to exclude may be decided by consensus (your reading of lists has serious WP:OWN problems and ignores the collaborative nature of many of these lists). Being incomplete is not the same as advancing a position by far, although obviously in some cases the former may be caussed by the latter. If you only include one POV in e.g. a list of books on Global Warming, then you are advancing a position, just like can happen in an article. But there is no reason why it has to be like that, and in most cases it isn't. Fram (talk) 10:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The counter argument is that "nothing is objective", nothing is based on self-evident truth. All sources of information are relative to a particular context. How do you know if a list is "objective"? Unless you have purchased a monopoly over the truth, or purchased a crystal ball that gives you insights into the truth, then I would suggest that you are not in a postion make inferences about whether a list is subjective or objective. Last time I looked in the market, monopolies over the truth and crystal balls were not available for puchase, not even for ready money. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Objectivity (journalism), not Objectivity (philosophy). We create a list of related facts, in a neutral and disinterested fashion, from reliable, independent sources. Why you felt the need to rant about truth and crystal balls instead of discussing the actual fist of my statements is unclear but not really unsurprising. You are too entrencheed to have a meaningful discussion anymore. And on that note, I leave this discussion. Please don't asume that lack of further comments about your proposal implies any support for it though... Fram (talk) 10:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

In fairness, I am addressing your arguments. The idea that an editor "knows" that one list is compatible, or does not conflict with another is spurious. "Lies, damned lies and statistics" could apply to lists of sport results just as easily as tables of statistics: mix and matching of lists is definetely an easy way to advance a position, depending on the inclusion criteria. For exmple, if you look at the notes in List of Olympic medalists in gymnastics, you can see that it has been alleged that not every "winner" was a winner.

Going back to your original points:

1. Spinning a topic off does not make it notable. For example, just because "Book about X" is notable, that does not mean the bibliograhy within it is notable, nor its table of contents, its index or the picture on the front cover. Every article and list must stand on its own feet for notability purposes.
2. If a "Book about X" is notable, it is because the book is notable, not because topix "X" is notable. Similarly for lists: if the 95 Theses are notable, it is not because indulgences are notable, it is because the list itself notable.
3. If a list has made up from lots of different sources, then this is a new list that has not been published any where except Wikipedia. The list items may be verifiable, but the list as a whole (the list topic) is not, because the list items haves never been published together as a list by a reliable source. If a list has not been published, then it can't be notable, as no commentators cannot "note" the existence of an unpublished list.

The only way to get around this problem is by citing published lists. There is a lot of common sense in this statement, as a list is both a source of information and a topic in its own right. The only way to verify that a list topic exists, but also because only published lists can be "noted" in accordance with WP:N. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

If you replace "list" with "article" in all your statements above, you come up with the way all WP articles are generated, and yet you have suggested you have no problems with this. You cannot create a double standard here, period. If we can compile an article on a topic, structured in a way that topic has never been presented before, we can do the same to the list. And to head off the inevitable question: the RFC consensus has shown that lists can be considered notable based on the topic that they are listed, not the list itself (regardless of what you personally think). Otherwise your arguments are circular reasoning and completely against the consensus of the RFC and WP:OR. Again, I'll stress that if a list in-of-itself is notable like Luther's theses, hey great, give it an article. But not all lists that are encyclopedic can fit that tight mold. --MASEM (t) 12:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem is you can't replace "list" with "article" in the above statements. If an article is made up from lots of sources, it is because the sources address the article topic directly and in detail. The only source that addresses a list topic directly and in detail is the published source of the list, and reliable sources that comment on its publication. I hope you can accept this as proof of concept: this is the knockout argument against homebrew lists that cite sources about other topics that are not directly related to the list itself. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I think, taken to its logical extreme, that is poor advice and far too restrictive. You seem to be saying that for a source to be a reliable source for a list it has to not only address the topic that the list is about and explicitly refer to some published list itself. That second bit seems unhelpful to me. Let me use a list I have done a lot of work on as an example: List of molecules in interstellar space. This is a featured list, so it has the overwhelming sal of approval of the Wikipedia community. Among its many sources are a few published lists of these molecules, thus establishing both the topic of interstellar molecules and the topic of a list of them as encyclopedic topics. So far we are in agreement. But it also contains many references to academic papers that say something like "We report the discovery of such-and-such in the interstellar medium" and the molecule in question isn't on the published lists because the discovery was made after the lists were published. Unless I have misunderstood you, you are saying that including papers like these as sources is not OK. I have to disagree with that. If I have misunderstood, could you clarify. Maybe with an example of something you would consider OK versus something that's no, so that we can better understand where you would draw the line. Reyk _YO! 12:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I congratulate you for being the first editor here who has disclosed which list they have actually worked in, as it puts your contribution to the debate firmly in context.

This list looks to me like the outine of an excellent prose article. It seems to me that you do not need to limit this topic to a list, becase the range of sources available is quite extensive. Presented its content as a list is a bit of a straight jacket, so why not convert the list article into prose, and convert it to an article about Interstellar molecules instead? I would encourage you to do so, because a recent podcast recent podcast suggests to me that it is a subject of mainstream interest.

To answer your question, the inclusion of addtional sources into lists that do not address the list directly and in detail is the wrong approach, but putting them into an article that they are addressing is. That is the best way to avoid original research: citing sources that provide direct and detailed coverage of the topic.

Simply put, if there is more to be said about the subject of Interstellar molecules, then it needs to be said in its own article, where it won't be constrained by the list topic. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• It's interesting to see what the "overwhelming seal of approval of the Wikipedia community" actually means - here's the featured list discussion. There were 5 editors involved of whom 2 are now inactive and 1 is banned. Of the remaining two, one was the principal author and nominator and the other is not especially fluent in English. This seems comparable with policy work which usually seems to be the result of a tiny number of zealots, as we see here. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Consensus

Given the responses here and at the RFC... I think we can say that there is a clear consensus against Gavin's view of what is allowed and not allowed in a list. Gavin, since no one has agreed with your view (and, in fact, multiple editors have actively disagreed with your view), I am going to request that you accept this consensus. I am not asking you to like it or agree with it... but I ask you to accept it. Blueboar (talk) 13:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

A list is an arbitrary creation if that list has no source. Wikipedia is not about creating content—it is about compiling information. I agree with Gavin, though he did not say exactly this, that you are ignoring core Wikipedia standard operating procedure. By the way, it should be noted, that this has nothing to do with the content of Wikipedia, and everything to do with how material is organized and therefore presented on Wikipedia. No one—not Gavin nor myself—has argued for censoring or suppressing one iota of material. But article creation (including List creation) must be anchored in satisfactorily good quality sources—or we are just creating content, which is something we should not be doing. Bus stop (talk) 15:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

A list can be compiled just like any WP article is compiled. A compiled list can meet all of our core policies NOT, V, NOR, and NPOV. However, it should also be noted a compiled list can also fail all of those as well, and thus part of the inclusion determination for a list. The only guideline that is being invalidated, per Gavin's view, is notability: if a full and complete list has not be published by one source and noted by other sources, it is claimed to be original research and unallowable. However, consensus rejects that; a list is notable for the topic it is about (and not in the manner of inherited notability as insisted, it just simply is an extension of the main topic), and can be built from multiple sources just as we would build any article in the first place, as long as the definition and construction are not violating any other policy. There is no invalidation of core policies in this approach. --MASEM (t) 15:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Masem—you say, "However, consensus rejects that..." I think that consensus can't reject that. Basic policy, this one found at WP:NPOV says:

"Neutral point of view" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies, along with "Verifiability" and "No original research." Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus.

Several editors have been overstepping their bounds. I don't think anybody is saying that the exact outline of a given article or list has to preexist in sources. I deliberately say, as noted below by Chaos, that we must find anchoring in "satisfactorily good quality sources" because the endeavor we are engaged in is not an absolute science. When you press for an exact and absolute definition of the quality of sourcing adequate to support a Wikipedia entity across all manner of subject matter—you assure a breakdown of the process of resolving this. It is impossible to accout for every last detail. I have seen you all pressing Gavin on every minute detail. I have even seen that sort of argumentation applied to me. That has got to stop. There is something called reasonableness. As applied to sourcing, I think we are looking for a reasonably good representation of a topic off-Wiki. Reasonable people can discuss general theories. Unreasonable people assure the breakdown of talks. Bus stop (talk) 15:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

"I don't think anybody is saying that the exact outline of a given article or list has to preexist in sources"... Bus stop, this is exactly what Gavin has been saying, and what the rest of us disagree with. He says a list must be published as a list, for us to have a list. Blueboar (talk) 16:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Blueboar—you all have been forcing Gavin to justify everything. Wikipedia editing is not about that. You are forcing someone who is trying to improve the project and who is taking a very principled stand to justify in policy anything he is trying to say. You are in effect forcing him to take extreme positions simply for argument's sake. There are two separate things going on here. We are talking about minimum requirements for entities on Wikipedia. And we are talking about myriad practical applications of those requirements. The fact is, that with all the policy cruft this project has, it still hasn't addressed all the possible permutations of contentious situations that we encounter. Sourcing remains a concern, the seriousness of which can't be overlooked. We should have an expectation of finding substantial support in sourcing for any entity that makes it into article space. If it is challenged because its sourcing is inadequate, that should be regarded as a serious issue. Bus stop (talk) 17:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

That sounds lovely, until you find out that being "anchored in satisfactorily good quality sources" means, to Gavin, that for a list article to exist, its exact content has to have been published by a third party, and that we cannot even integrate multiple sources into a coherent whole — which, in fact, ignores what has been the core Wikipedia standard operating procedure for the entire existence of the project. This chimera is further enhanced by noting that Gavin's insistence on a single source for lists means that all lists he finds acceptable automatically fail the General Notability Guideline. Gavin's position, despite being slathered with language about how it is all about policy and everybody else is crazy, is farther from policy or consensus than I ever imagined coming from a Wikipedian of any experience whatsoever. —chaos5023 (talk) 15:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Suggest a delay of game

You know, we're wasting spending a lot of time on this, especially while Gavin is under threat of a long-term topic ban over these endless conversations. I'd like to suggest that we all step back and let it sit for a few days. There's no rush here: The community's views will be the community's views a few days from now, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Echoing WhatamIdoing, I would like to ask editors to restrict their comments to once a day for this subtopic. This would mean that someone else would have the "last word" if only temporarily!  :) (It would also shorten my watchlist which runeth over. i don't want to miss anything, but right now I am missing article changes from x days back!) (for editors tuning in late, my comment is out of sequence, inserted before Shooterwalker's). Student7 (talk) 18:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I unfortunately have to agree. Not that everyone else is on the same page. But everyone else seems to be working towards a compromise rather than insisting on their own personal viewpoint. My hope is that AN will encourage *everyone*, including Gavin, to be more flexible. But the same result will be achieved if he's removed from the conversation entirely (which is not my first choice, but better than nothing). Shooterwalker (talk) 17:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I concur. This conversation has been ongoing for more than a month. Those who do not wish to post replies twenty times a day are lost in the flood of text, something that is not conducive to the establishment of a consensus. Do we really expect newcomers to wade through all these threads, plus the RfC, plus the RfC talk page? They will raise a point already raised, which will spark a new cascade of replies, criticisms, counter-criticisms, etc. It has happened several times already. There is an ongoing discussion about how to say what another editor says about what the policies say the guideline should say. Plus, this deluge makes it impossible for editors to tell from their watchlist or even from the page history whether some new, unrelated question about the guideline has come up. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 17:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Blueboar (talk) 22:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Go-cart facilities?

We've just got a whole bunch of well-written go cart facilities articles as part of our encyclopedia. Looks pretty much like WP:SPAM to me, but there will be considerable resistance now that there is so many of them. Student7 (talk) 21:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I would nip this in the bud before it grows further. WP:N calls for "reliable sources that are independent of the subject" to demonstrate that the subject is notable. Most of these articles are completely unsourced, or only cite the facility's own webpage. Blueboar (talk) 22:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. I will probably need it! I nominated the category for deletion. I am away from my own PC and don't have my standard Mozilla/Firefox tools for easy nomination of deletion of articles. I will have to let it go for a week until I get my own machine back. Student7 (talk) 15:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if nominating the category for deletion was the right first step... as long as we have the articles, there is an argument that category makes sense. I tried prodding the articles under G-11 (promotional) but the prods were denied. So we will have to take them to AfD and argue it out. The question is whether to nominate them as a group, or individually? Blueboar (talk) 14:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Because they all appeared to be created at the same time by the same person, a group nom seems ok here. They all suffer the same problems. --MASEM (t) 15:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

OK... I am not sure how to do a group nom... (and the instructions are a bit confusing)... so I would not be the one to initiate this. I would definitely support deletion, however. Please let me know if they are nominated. Blueboar (talk) 16:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. Just got back to a normal environment. Submitted speedy deletion on most of them. At least one was a bit better developed and gave an Afd on that one. One had a Swedish original for which our "db" template failed to work!  :) I guess I'll let them worry about that!  :) If the dbs fail, I guess I will be back with Afds.Student7 (talk)

I should have read Blueboar's comments more closely. I have now resubmitted Afds on most. Am halfway through the list as I write. Hopefully all by the time you read this. At least one has been answered by a number of editors. Student7 (talk) 00:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Living people

It's long been my understanding that all BLPs, in some way, shape or form, are expected to pass the GNG. Am I missing something? —WFC— 07:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• Some SNGs, like WP:PROF, are thought to bypass that by some. Or perhaps put differently: large amount of information about one's works sometimes makes one notable. It's a debatable point. Now WP:V is clearly non-negotiable. Hobit (talk) 07:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
  • But surely the point of SNGs is to give guidance on when someone meets the GNG? WP:PROF for instance goes into quite considerable detail on what precisely what coverage can be considered as "significant coverage in reliable sources". Sure, there are broad categories of where people are assumed to be notable, but considering the threshold that needs to be reached (e.g. fellow of the IEEE), it goes without saying that in 99%+ of cases the coverage will be out there. But let's say the threshold was that the individual had to have, at any stage in their life, have taught undergraduates or graduates at one of the world's top 1000 universities, would we still bypass the GNG? —WFC— 08:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
    • The SNGs are meant to outline specific situations that, in general for a field, that a topic is certainly bound to have existing secondary sources or that some will be forthcoming because of that condition -eg, given enough time, the GNG can be met. In the case of BIO, there's numerous points and the like but these are like holding a position of significant importance, or being awarded a significant honor or award. The selection of such criteria should have been made such that secondary sources are nearly always going to exist (there may be fringe cases of course), so a criteria where the likelihood of secondary sources existing is not high makes that criteria a poor one. --MASEM (t) 15:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
    • <EC> So I've tried to write articles on IEEE fellows. Or at least tried to find sources. Independent sources on them can be hard to come by. There is often a short bio found attached to a keynote speech but that is rarely printed in the conference proceeding or anything. If they get an endowed chair there is almost always a short bio, but that's from their employer and hardly independent. Should we have an article on every IEEE fellow? Probably not. But many are worth writing about and there is plenty of verifiable information out there about them. Hobit (talk) 15:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Question about notability.

I have a rticle I'm interested in writing on a football team fan. He has been featured in news over the last ten years for being a tailgater and has even been featured on xome nfl films. I'm not familiar with how notability would work in this situation. Would like some feedback or a point to the correct venue. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

There is precedent for such an article, see Fireman Ed. J04n(talk page) 16:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks I added Ken "Pinto Ron" Johnson Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey phone

I'd heard some years ago that a phone was used during the trench warfare of WWI called the Hey phone. I've found very little info about it except that a version of it continues to be used for comunication by cavers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephen from Coventry (talk • contribs) 13:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Sources? if not, consider it non-notable. Blueboar (talk) 13:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

However, it's possible that an article on World War I communications equipment in general might be quite suitable, and right now I can't find anything like that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Trench warfare#World War I Communications would be the place for it, currently just a short paragraph. You could also try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/World War I task force. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Just to ease my suspicious mind ... is this real, or is the "hey phone" a joke reference to people yelling "Hey"? Blueboar (talk) 13:47, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Reference desk is across the quad. It's the blue door. Uncle G (talk) 21:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Should the general notability guideline be used to support deletion?

I have written an essay that claims that using the general notability guideline (WP:GNG) to support deletion in an AfD is a logical error because the guideline creates a "presumption of notability," not a presumption of non-notability. Unless the guideline is rewritten, the general notability guideline should have no weight to support deletion, though satisfaction of the guideline's conditions may be used to support retention. — HowardBGolden (talk) 17:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I would disagree with that. There are times when GNG supports deletion. Blueboar (talk) 17:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Disagree as well. It's understanding that we delete topics that are not notable, and that for most topics, you must demonstrate it to be notable through the GNG; others can be met through the sub notability guidelines, and even in some cases, persuasive arguments at AFD without evidence can do it. But barring those two cases, people are going to evaluate an article by the GNG and that's going to guide notability. --MASEM (t) 18:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree as well. It is not a logical fallacy to say that something that fails an inclusion guideline should not be included, nor it is fallacious to point to how a thing fails to satisfy an inclusion guideline in order to argue that it should not be included. I should write an essay on how everyone I've ever heard utter or seen write the phrase "logical fallacy" advances a specious argument. I would not, however, put it in the Wikipedia namespace: that would be a user essay. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 19:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

You're using hypertechnical nitpicking at language. Guidelines are not laws that must be "interpreted exactly as written", they describe practice. In practice, articles must pass the primary notability guideline (in addition to all other content policies). There are some mistakes made (Masem mentions two: thinking that passing a subguideline without passing the main allows an article, and the foot-stomping, bloc-voting, and yelling of "But we should keep it ANYWAY!"). But in practice, articles which do not pass the GNG are always ultimately cleaned up, be that by deletion, merger, what have you. I've seen obstructionist tactics delay that, but never stop it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Many things are verifiable, but it is very doubtful some of them belong in an encyclopedia. Thousands of AFD results have removed articles about subjects which just do not satisfy the general notability guideline. The guideline should represent the consensus of the community, while being in accord with policies. Not everything that exists needs its own standalone encyclopedia article. We look for multiple instances of significant coverage in independent and reliable secondary sources. Not every person, place, thing, organization, or creative work is notable enough to have its own article. There is some presumption of notability for some people, such as politicians at a national or state assembly level, and in recent years high schools and legitimate colleges have in general been kept, even if nothing more than directory type information and local press coverage is found. Wikipedia has for some reason granted blanket notability to all inhabited places, even if it is a mere dot on a map and nothing at all is known about its population (sometimes a handful) history or features. There seem to be de facto notability for licensed radio broadcast stations which originate a portion of their own programming. Typically anyone who played even part of a game in the highest level of a professional sport gets an article, without requiring the GNG be satisfied with references. A particular church, local shopping mall, small bridge or elementary school might or might not be notable. The typical one gets redirected, deleted or merged. The proposed essay is unlikely to change any of this, unless many people read it, and it gets cited a lot as an essay in deletion debates. Edison (talk) 19:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Let me ask all of the commenters above: Why was the general notability guideline written in such a confusing fashion? Why didn't it just say something like "If a topic passes these tests it's presumed to be notable, but if it doesn't pass these tests it's presumed to be non-notable"? The WP writers are generally very good at expressing themselves. It's not convincing to me that on a guideline they would mean something other than the clear meaning of what they wrote. I have no problem with the interpretation above if it truly reflects consensus. However, nothing written so far convinces me that that's what occurred. Could someone point me to the discussion that resulted in the general notability guideline as presently written?

Notability is a very contentious issue. If the guideline doesn't represent actual practice, it would help everyone if the guideline were rewritten to match. — HowardBGolden (talk) 21:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• I suspect that you find the guideline confusing because actual practice is confusing. Wikipedia has always had those who hold an "inclusionist" viewpoint and those who have an "exclusionist" viewpoint (it is a debate that goes all the way back to the early days of Wikipedia). The GNG is an attempt to find a compromise between these two views. Neither side is completely happy with the result, but they can live with the compromise. Blueboar (talk) 22:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  • It's not a binary, on-off kind of question. There are things that are notable, things that are not notable, and things that are in the large gray blur between the two.

    Additionally, some subjects are certainly notable, but are better handled as a subsection of a larger topic. For example, I'm sure we could find enough sources to support an article "Use of antibiotics in European chicken farming", but that information is probably better presented in the context of a larger subject, such as antibiotics, poultry farming, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• You haven't done enough research. Go back through the page revisions and the archives of this talk page. The PNC was not, in fact, written that way. Uncle G (talk) 14:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The start of any discussion about Wikipedia's use of notability is to say it a term of art: It is a shorthand way to say important, significant, best, worst, first, last, greatest, least, ... etc. -enough to get a stand-alone entry in Wikipedia. There's some objective criteria for that, but not all the articles we want to include have criteria that can be measured on an objective scale, or numerically counted. Over time a proxy for subjective criteria was developed: look at the quality and quantity of independent coverage the topic gets, rather than having editors argue directly over the subjective merits for a topic's inclusion. The point about WP:GNG not being the final word, is that editors still get to argue directly over the subjective merits for a topic's inclusion, but demonstrating significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject shifts the debate to one showing reasons for not including the article in spite of passing GNG. Logical or not, that is how presumption has been interpreted, and supported, by a consensus of people editing this guideline. patsw (talk) 04:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Using notability as a deletion criteria is very bad policy in my opinion and opens a doors to create a potential for abuse, subjective behavior, elitist isolationism. I would understand using notability as a criteria for deletion if somehow physical resources demanded it (limited number of paper pages i.e.). While bytes of storage are certainly not free, its hard to justify deletion of text only entries. Sure, images and other large volume objects should be viewed in a different light. Now going back to controlling quality and preventing commercial promotion and other deviant author behavior. If an article is bona-fide, and adds information even if its low grade information, it should not be deleted based on notability. That being said, to preserve the quality of the encyclopedia, the article unless brought up to some quality standard should not be linked to other articles (i.e. I would support link deletion in absence of notability, but would not necessarily destroy the information). Moreover, what is not notable today, may become in the future. Why open wikipedia to a source of subjective errors. Also if, deleting information from wikipedia, there should be an audit trail preserved consisting of; who deleted or proposed deletion, why, and what (title, few lines of summary). In the long run this would prevent abuse if the policy of deletion based on notability persists. And would make wikipedia a more accountable source not only of articles, but also of their context. Is there really a good argument for destroying entries in the age of cheap bytes? Please add relevant links to your reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.239.45.4 (talk) 19:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, that gets us into one of the oldest debates on Wikipedia... the debate between the inclusionists and the exclusionists. Using Notability as the consensus criteria is the compromise between the two extremes. Neither side is completely happy (there will be articles that are deleted that the inclusionists think should be kept, and articles kept that the exclusionists think should be deleted), but it is a workable compromise that we call can live with. Blueboar (talk) 19:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't be a wikilawyer. The guideline has been around for years and has been used to support re-organizing stubs into broader articles or even deleting numerous articles. Don't look for holes in the wording of guidelines or policies to render them moot. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks goodness for wikieditors and wikiguidelines that support removal of articles that are nn. We'd be deluged with millions of trivia articles that regular editors would be unable to monitor. For the record, we now have a dozen or so articles on go-cart facilities and hundreds of "musicians" who have cut a record someplace, and a few hundred more "athletes" who "played ball in college". So the preponderance of weight of the masses is against us. One day the dam will break. This will degenerate into "everyman" and "everyevent" documented until the powers-that-be get sick of supporting a pseudo-encyclopedia. But until that day, we can continue to hold the dike against the inevitable breach. Student7 (talk) 02:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Put more simply, Notability is the dam separating Wikipedia from Myspace and Press-Releases-R-Us. Rd232 ^talk 03:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

What is the consensus on City articles?

What do the articles have to have to meet the requirements to be included in the encyclopedia? I have seen many articles of one line, plus an info box with a map of the general location. For example, like Monark Springs, Missouri? Any discussion on this would be helpful.--Talktome^(Intelati) 16:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

It is a tentative consensus that any government-recognized settlement or larger should have an article, whether it meets the GNG immediately or not, due to the assumption that such places will have sources yet identified to expand them. See WP:OUTCOMES -- MASEM (t) 17:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

A case of inherent notability (grumble, grumble, grumble... frown). I disagree with the consensus, but it is consensus. Blueboar (talk) 17:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Some background, years ago the bot approvers approved WP:BOTS that would (and continue to this day) to mine geographical and demographic data from government and authoritative non-government sources to create stand-alone articles. Click on Random article a few times and you are bound to encounter one of them. The de-facto guideline for gazetteer content in Wikipedia is that any place name or named geographic artifact referenced to a government or other authoritative source is a candidate stand-alone article. For a new place name article entered by a human editor, that editor should be able to find significant coverage in reliable sources such as local media, and a reference to a government source using this place name would be helpful if the article is to survive an Afd challenge. Going back and deciding which gazetteer content articles should be deleted is futile (other than hoaxes and errors), as a bot may come along and simply recreate it. One has to realize that the Wikipedia is an unfinished work -- the next visitor to the Monark Springs, Missouri article may want to improve it. patsw (talk) 04:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is correct. Hopefully someday, we'll come around, and clean up there by putting the never-improvable articles into "List of inhabited places in (county or similar administrative division)" with bluelinks to the genuinely notable ones, but for now, that doesn't tend to happen. Right now, we seem to want a garbage article on every 10-person populated place with no more data possible than its name, location, and population. I think a conversation on what to do with those is long overdue, as I know I'm not the only person to see this as utterly ridiculous. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

That's why I called it tentative consensus. It's a holdover before WP:N that seems impossible to get rid of but one that, every time its tried, we can't do anything with because of the long-standing consensus. We can still be a gazetteer by using lists of these and have redirects so when people can expand them, its possible, but as we are not tolerant of such this for any other areas, we really need to start reconsidering that point. --MASEM (t) 12:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

If a bot is re-creating articles that have been deleted by the humans at AfD, then the bot needs to be either fixed or sent to the scrap heap. Blueboar (talk) 12:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Note for the record, that no one has suggested that minor (unofficial) villages (or other "places") that are not government entities, be included without notability. Student7 (talk) 19:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

True enough, but not really solving the problem. The problematic articles generally are "census-designated places" or the equivalent in their country. They're still largely permastubs, and still need cleaned up. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• Reference added, i'm such a jerk like that. :P Anyways, the consensus is that, any place that is designated of a certain size and recognized by a government will, almost unfailingly, have enough references that can be found somewhere that will allow the article to be improved to at least Start class. Thus, these stub articles are made so that someone can come along later and improve them with the sources that are assumed to be out there. Thus, a list would be a bit redundant, beyond the city lists that already exist, since all cities and towns are assumed notable. Silverseren^C 22:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes the assumption is that sources exist "out there somewhere" ... even though that assumption is not always accurate. The problem is that it is all but impossible to disprove such assumptions. And so we end up with permastubs that no one will ever be able to improve. Blueboar (talk) 22:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

We used to make that assumption for schools, too. The problem there is the same as the one here—often, in practice, little more than directory-style information exists, especially about smaller places. We're never going to fail to find sources about Denver, Colorado, or even Sequim, Washington, but for tiny places with only a few people, no sources may realistically exist. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it is perfectly clear that sources do exist if you get off the internet and go looking in libraries and archives. I also think that there is no problem with stubs on places. Readers want to go direct to the place, not to a list, and the information in the stub may be all they want. I would also suggest that if you go away from refined policy/guidelines places like this talk page, which I rarely frequent, you will find that a majority of editors agree with me. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Reply to both: I don't know, I would say that you could give me almost any recognized town and I would be able to find something for it, at minimum. It's only in very, very rare instances that there is nothing to find. That is why consensus is as it is. For almost every single case, it has been proven that there is indeed something to find and add. Though I would consider schools to be much harder to ref, info-wise, than entire towns, even if they are towns with only a dozen people. Silverseren^C 00:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree... a lot of the time a source does exist. My gripe is that when people have gone to the library etc. and still can not find sources... the article is kept on the assumption that you simply didn't look hard enough. There does need to be a point where we say, "You know... maybe we were wrong on this one". Blueboar (talk) 00:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

That would be a situation where consensus is made that enough searching has been done, nothing has been found, and thus the article should be redirected to a list that will include it. That does happen, don't doubt that. It just happens rarely, because sources are usually found. What do you think of what i've done with Monark Springs, Missouri? Good, neh? Silverseren^C 01:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but I have found that too often the consensus isn't that enough searching is has been done... because a source has to exist... it just has to! and any AfD gets flooded with "sources exist (because I assume they must)" keep votes. BTW... I am making a general gripe about "inherited notability"... and not focusing on any one topic area. I jsut needed to vent my frustration for a second. Blueboar (talk) 01:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Since I live in New York, on occasion I have tried to get a reference for a biographical or organization article by visiting a NYPL reference library and not been able to find a reference. I add a note to the talk page that an unsuccessful attempt was made. I'm not claiming that I'm the final word on matters like this, but at least it forestalls the "nobody has bothered to look" argument. patsw (talk) 21:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I think we are stuck on "census designated places" in the US. Can't comment on equivalents elsewhere. CDPs were often dumped out by bots into articles from data. They have at least one ref: the government. I was not aware that CDPs were lightly constructed by the government, though I suppose head counts could get real meager in the boonies, like Wyoming or Alaska or someplace like that.

I assume that editors have already tried Afds on these non-CDP places. Student7 (talk) 13:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you give an example of an article on a non-CDP place? Silverseren^C 14:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Chinatown, Manhattan patsw (talk) 14:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

NoHo is a more marginal example. A city is notable only if it has been the subject of significant coverage, and census data alone does not provide evidence of notability. Simply assuming all settlements to be notable is too broad an approach to follow, since Wikipedia is based on verfiable evidence of notability, rather than hearsay. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

No, WP is based on what consensus wants, which is why this settlement arguments are often kept. The question we should be asking, however, is if notability is now a significant part of consensus as to challenge the long-standing consensus that settlement articles are by default kept. The fact that this keeps coming up suggests that either the long-standing position is no longer applicable, or that there is another reason that we keep these that is otherwise understated, needs to be made. --MASEM (t) 17:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Well, what I meant by my question above was, can you give me an example of a non-CDP article that is non-notable? Both Chinatown and NoHo are clearly notable. Since the long-standing consensus is that it is extremely rare to find a place article that can't be referenced, if you're going to overturn that, then you need to prove that there are a number of place articles that are truly non-notable. If you can't do that, then you don't really have an argument against the long-standing consensus. Silverseren^C 22:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't really see the problem as non-CDP places that are non-notable, as those are often removed anyway. The real problem is the places which are CDP (or the equivalent in their jurisdiction) but are still non-notable, i.e., we can find little or nothing more than directory information for them. If you want to find several of those, hit "random article" several times, and chances are you'll hit at least one. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, i'd like to ask you to find me one, because long-standing consensus seems to be that it is unlikely that you are going to find a non-notable article, CDP or non-CDP. Silverseren^C 00:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Please avoid a circular definition of "notable" here. patsw (talk) 01:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:DIRECTORY is now a redirect to WP:Quick directory. I believe you meant WP:NOTDIRECTORY and none of the seven sections there is applicable to geographic information. patsw (talk) 01:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I did indeed mean WP:NOTDIRECTORY, and thanks for reminding me that one doesn't go where one would think. I do, however, in addition to thinking the spirit of "not being a directory" applies here, think that as far as the "letter" goes, points 4 and 7 at NOTDIRECTORY are quite applicable. I think the spirit of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information also applies here (I'm not sure what better definition you get of "indiscriminate" than "having a bot mass create articles"), and certainly the guideline whose talk page we're talking on applies, since despite frequent assertions, I still don't see any indicator of notability for these places. But, since Silver seren has requested to put up or shut up, and that's a reasonable enough request, here's a list of places I challenge you to find me substantive sourcing for. Not just coordinates and population and verification that they exist, but enough to write a full article, not a permastub. I'm finding these through using random article, so they're in no particular order. (The fact that one can quickly find these through random article should show you what percentage of our namespace these bot stubs are taking up.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

List of articles I challenge people to find sufficient reliable, third-party (unaffiliated with the place!) sourcing for a real, full article for. I'm not even selecting these based on not being able to find sources, they're just the first unreferenced or primary only referenced articles I've run across on a random article walk, so if sources really are so readily and obviously available for every government-recognized inhabited place as proponents of "Keep all places!" propose they are, showing that sources exist for all these places should be a breeze.

• Koituiy
• Tõdu
• Trégourez
• Jazdowice
• Marilla Township, Michigan (being slightly longer and largely primary only does not notability make, nor does demographic data in prose a non-directory entry make!)

So, there are five random place articles, currently either unsourced or largely or solely based upon primary sources, and illustrative of the problem. Since sources are so clearly and obviously available for every government-recognized inhabited place in the world, though, I'm going to quickly be proven wrong, and soon you'll be showing me showing me those substantive sources that do more than mention these places and give a few bare details about them—right? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It's even worse :-) As far as I can tell, Koituiy and Kaitui are actually two very similar stubs about the same place (also called Kaituiy sometimes). Kaitui has a secondary school, an a road accident killing 13 or 14 people happened there. About 5,000 people live there, so it's not really small, but one article will certainly be enough for it... Tõdu could better be merged to the parish, Trégourez I can see surviving as an article (it has some monuments and the like, and about 1000 inhabitants), Jazdowice could better be merged to a regional article, and Marilla Township seems to have a few pages here[2]. Fram (talk) 13:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Koituiy and Kaitui may be a problem, but I do not agree with any of these suggested merges. These articles are just what readers want about a place. Place articles do not have to be lo be long or even "start". The lowly stub is still of value. We should not always say that stubs have to be expanded or merged. Short articles are good things for some items and small places is one of them. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I initially agreed with the assement, but I went through and started looking up towns I consider insignificant that I grew up near. Surprisingly, there are referenced articles for them, and I learned some interesting history. I would vote "keep" on Marilla Township, Michigan. For the rest, they'll be harder to source. For example, if Kenya doesn't have widespread internet access, resources about towns in Kenya may not be online, and those that are may not be in English. Denaar (talk) 02:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

What are the definitions of source and notable that apply to this challenge? patsw (talk) 01:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's an example of a populated-place article that I successfully deleted through a WP:PROD: King Arthur Court, Tennessee. This was an article that was created on the basis of a "populated place" entry in the U.S. Geographic Names Information System[3], which listing could be considered a form of government recognition. I researched the place and determined that King Arthur Court is the name of a small residential subdivision -- a nonnotable place that doesn't even have a history (being fairly new). Odd as it may seem, if this had been a tiny rural settlement or a settlement that no longer exists but has a documented history (there are many of these in my local area, such as Wheat, Tennessee, Fraterville, Tennessee, Loyston, Tennessee, Forbus, Tennessee, and Fork Mountain, Tennessee), I probably would argue to keep the article, with or without evidence of government recognition. --Orlady (talk) 01:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Orlady on the delete, and the keeps! There are a number of cities that document "neighborhoods", but these neighborhoods are quite large, recognizable and not sub-division "pushing" (and sometimes CDPs in their own right).Student7 (talk) 12:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• In reply to patsw, the definition of "source" is a reliable source as defined at the relevant guideline—a source provided by an entity which is well regarded for fact checking and accuracy. The definition of notability is as defined in this guideline itself—multiple such reliable sources which are unaffiliated with the subject have covered the subject in sufficient depth that a full and complete article (not just a stub) can be written based upon such source material. Primary or affiliated source material may be used as a supplement, but not the main or sole basis of the article, as described at the requirements for verifiability. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
  • i fail to see the urgency. it's not like a town will sue for defamation. this is a subset of the larger problem of Category:Articles lacking sources: only 278,000 articles. instituting references was a good thing; not implementing article sourcing is a bad thing. do you want to institute a project to source unreferenced geo articles? i'm chipping away a little at it, but it's hard for me to get excited. Accotink2 talk 03:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't know where you got the idea of a suit for defamation, as you're the only one who brought that up. Sources are required for verifiability, not just when there's a chance someone will sue. As to the town articles, I've no problem with any article for which substantive sourcing can be demonstrated. The problem I'm finding is that for many of these "geo articles", very little sourcing seems to even exist. The first is just a need for work, but the second reflects an unsustainable, inappropriate article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
      • • i brought up defamation, since that is the excuse at BLP to delete articles without sources. the lawyers are active writing OTRS tickets, and making a fuss when false info remains on a persons bio. i take it few places have threatened suit, or made copyright DMCA notice. rather than make claims about the unknown, based on impressions of articles i have encountered, i would rather institute article sourcing, fixing the problem.Accotink2 talk 17:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Actually, WP:V only requires citations if one of two conditions are met:
        1. The article contains a direct quotation, or
        2. The article contains material that has been challenged (e.g., fact tags present), or is WP:likely to be challenged.
      • If neither of those two conditions are relevant, then an article can be completely unref'd and still technically comply with WP:V. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure which version of WP:V you're reading, but that's not what it says. All material must be attributable to a reliable source, without exception. An actual cite is only required if material is challenged or likely to be challenged, but there has to be a source out there that does confirm what you're saying, even if it seems "obvious" or "plain". But everything must be backed up by what reliable sources have to say, even if in some cases ("The Earth orbits the Sun") it isn't actually necessary to specifically site a particular source. There are tons of sources that say the Earth orbits the Sun. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
          • You can pick just about any version over the last few years. While it must be possible for all the material to be verified (in some source, somewhere, some language, etc.), WP:V doesn't actually require editors to name a single citation anywhere in any article, or even to know which specific source supports a claim, unless and until one of those two conditions are met. If there are no direct quotations and no challenges, then WP:V does not require editors to name any sources at all in the article, even if the material is decidedly more complex than "The Earth orbits the Sun".

            (NB that I'm not actually recommending that editors follow this, ah, extremely minimalist approach, but only saying that the minimum requirements set forth by the policy are actually quite low.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

            • Seraphimblade is right. You're not reading. Our verifiability and deletion policies have for many years required the existence of sources, cited or not. Uncle G (talk) 10:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
              • I am confused by this conversation. I say, WP:V doesn't require editors to cite any sources at all (unless one of the two stated conditions are met) (although the sources must exist, they need not be named). You say, You're wrong, because WP:V doesn't require editors to cite any sources at all (although the sources must exist)! Where exactly are we disagreeing? Aren't we both saying that it is possible for a completely unref'd article to be in compliance with WP:V (assuming the absence of direct quotations and challenges)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

(Came here following a note left on my talk page; presumably because I ran the bot that created the Polish village articles.) In terms of being the world's best information source, Wikipedia certainly wants to have information on as many places as possible, however tiny or distant from America's east coast they may happen to be, as long as they're not entirely imaginary. The question is at what level we should create separate articles for them, and when we should deal with a set of places within a single article. I certainly think we should take a long-term view, and keep articles in stub form if there's a realistic chance that they will be expanded sometime in the future, probably by someone with access to local resources - this not only makes the encyclopedia better, but also surely brings a lot of new editors to Wikipedia. Experience seems to tell us that any settlement of any size beyond just a couple of houses will have a history and other sourceable information - somewhere - to make a worthwhile article. However, there are certainly also cases where a place that's been given a separate article is really not going anywhere and can be best dealt with together with other locations (particularly when it's effectively been absorbed into a larger unit, or when it really is just a house and a gas station). This sort of merger is best handled by people with local knowledge, and I'm sure there are many cases on Wikipedia where it would be a good step to take; one thing we ought to sort out, though, is how to handle coordinates, as there are applications that create atlases out of the coordinates we provide for articles, and if we're going to start merging more places, then we need to establish a way of defining multiple coordinates (for different named places) within a single article, and then allow the applications to be adapted to support this. (Unless such a method already exists and I don't know about it, which is quite possible.)--Kotniski (talk) 07:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and a PS - I really think this is a different issue from that of "notability" as it applies to, say, people - when we decide a person is not notable, we're basically (in most cases) saying we don't have any use for any biographical information about that person, anywhere. With places, the question is not so much whether it's notable enough to be mentioned, but whether the information about it is more conveniently presented in a separate article or as part of a larger article.--Kotniski (talk) 07:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• Would it be of any use, technically, if we merged/redirected small places to a larger unit (e.g. for Belgium many current submunicipalities are merged into the main municipality article, even when they were independent municipalities themselves until thirty years ago), but kept the coordinates on the redirect? Fram (talk) 07:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
  • What is the point of dumping non-notable locations into lists? If a city is not the subject of significant coverage, that is an indication that it is not really suited for a standalone article. Putting a non-notable city into a list with other cities that are not suited to a standalone article does not improve matters either.

    Essentially we are coming full circle to the issue of whether Wikipedia is an almanac of all stuff, or just notable topics. Lists of non-notable cities provide less context to the reader than a map, so why create them? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

    • Merging and redirecting a location to an article about a larger location is not "dumping into a list". A cty like Geraardsbergen is composed of Geraardsbergen, and a number of smaller villages around it. As long as not enough info is found about Goeferdinge, redirectig it to the main article is a normal procedure. Not mentioning Goeferdinge at the article Geraardsbergen would be a serious lack of information, and not redirecting it wouldn't help anyone. Basically, you are complaining about a solution no one has proposed. Fram (talk) 08:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
      • I think your view that "redirecting it to the main article is normal procedure" is dependent on the level of significant coverage afforded to a settlement. We know that Wikipedia is a not a directory of every village in the world; rather it provides encylopedic coverage about a settlement if there are sources to provide context (commentary, analysis or criticism) to the reader. Redirects don't provide context, so I don't see what useful purpose a redirect could serve. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
        • Redirects don't provide context? Imagine you come across a souce like this one[4], and want to know more about the villages mentioned. With a redirect, you can easily find that Goeferdinge is a part of Geraardsbergen, and get the general location and so on of it. For a town that may not warrant a separate article, or doesn't yet have one, this is sufficient context and a useful purpose. Even better would be if Geraardsbergen had short sections on the dependent villages, discussing e.g. the castle and church of Goeferdinge, as described here. In general, if a settlement has some longevity, is included in censuses and the like, is regularly mentioned in sources, ... then redirecting it is the perfect solution if there isn't enough for a decent stand-alone article. Only for settlements that are nothing but a speck on one map may redirects be overkill. Fram (talk) 09:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
        • Yes, certainly there should be redirects (or dab entries, as appropriate) from any placenames that are dealt with within larger articles. It doesn't matter whether something has had "significant coverage", just that we know it really is there. No purpose is served by making it harder for people to find the information we provide (or by not providing information just because it doesn't fall into the categories of analysis or criticism).--Kotniski (talk) 10:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
          • I'd tend to agree as well. Quite often, subjects which are not notable in themselves, but are covered in a larger article on a notable subject, are redirected to the article where they're mentioned. I fail to see the harm in that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Neither cities nor 'bots are the real problem area.

The history given by patsw above is correct up to a point. But note that it does not apply to Monark Springs, Missouri, which is not a Rambot-generated article. You can tell the Rambot-generated ones. They weren't created in 2006. ☺

All of the Rambot articles contained several paragraphs. They weren't one-sentence stubs. They also (apart from some very early ones) cited a source right from the start. If you rewind to the early revisions, it won't be recognizable to modern Wikipedian eyes. But we didn't have the citation templates then that we do now. (In fact, many old revisions of articles have illegible or invisible citations, because we've since deleted the old citation templates that we once had.) Several later 'bot runs were related to tweaking the citation as standards and mechanisms changed. Huntsville, Alabama is an example of an early article, created by Ram-Man directly, as is Montgomery, Alabama. Citation changing edits looked like this, and other improvements were subsequent passes like these.

We've discussed Rambot-like runs for other countries over the years. Fortunately, Rambot set a high standard. People have maintained that the good things about it were that it provided more than just a bare-infobox article with no prose, and that it worked from and cited reliable sources.

The problematic articles haven't been the cities. You're looking at the wrong things. Cities usually are documented by governments, historians, (human) geographers, planners, and the like. The problematic articles have been the neighbourhoods, the subdivisions, the areas known only in estate agent speak, and the roads and streets.

One current problem article, demonstrating how the populated place doctrine is sometimes stretched by complete misinterpretation of sources, is Grove Avenue, London (AfD discussion). I've been following the AFD discussion. The article started badly, with outright falsehoods, and it didn't really get better as people stuffed in random factoids that Google searches said were vagely related to the subject. In fact, the subject is an utterly unremarkable, and unremarked-upon, minor suburban backstreet. Bigger digger has let the cat out of the bag somewhat, after I teased xem at User talk:DGG, but at User:Uncle G/Missing encyclopaedic articles I pointed out how I knew that no-one, partway through the discussion, had actually properly read the sources that they were citing. It hadn't been noticed, for example, that one of the supporting sources was (a) published years before these roads even existed at all, and (b) written by the erstwhile owner, Sir Montagu Sharpe, of Hanwell Park (see this and this and this), which is a historical subject where a minor coincidental street that is but one part of a housing development — one of several to exist where the encyclopaedic, documented and remarked-upon, subjects once were — is not.

Uncle G (talk) 10:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Cities usually are documented, but not always, and this is the problem. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Some governments periodically restructure administrative units for efficiency so that towns that were in X, are now in Y. Wikipedia must certainly track these changes. Having said that, there is no reason for the encyclopedia to lose a town article simply because of an administrative change at the national level. There may be a shortage of editors forcing articles in certain places to do "double duty," but once identified and an article constructed, I would hope that we would not "lose" towns. They may be "out of sight" at a national level for political reasons, but we don't have to misplace them here. Student7 (talk) 18:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

If an permastub offers less information than a dot on a map, then there is no rationale for inclusion. The purpose of an encyclopedia is that it offers the reader with not just information, but context (i.e. commentary, criticism, and analysis) as well. The guidelines are clear: if a settlement is not notable, then Wikipedia does not need to have an article about it at this time. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

When it comes to gazetteer content, hoaxes and errors are the only problems

Place names and population center articles should not require significant coverage by multiple independent sources. The BLP problem and the image permission problem are exposures to Wikipedia's liability and reputation. The low barrier to inclusion for gazetter content as stand-alone articles -- namely, verification in a government or other authoritative source is good for the Wikipedia. I think suggestions that eliminate hoaxes and errors are good. Raising the content bar for short but accurate and verifiable gazetteer content articles to require significant coverage by multiple independent sources, is a pretext for thousands of unnecessary and unwanted deletions. patsw (talk) 10:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Not deletions, but mergers and redirects. I don't think that apart from Gavin Collins, anyone thinks that outright deletion is the best solution. Fram (talk) 11:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, there's absolutely no reason why we cannot place places that only have gazetteer-like content (location and population) into a larger series of tables with redirects and the like so that 1) we actually have tables of the type that appear in gazetteers for all cities/settlements whether they have an article or not and 2) that if there actually is enough about a settlement that appears later, we can replace the redirect with that additional information. --MASEM (t) 13:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I could support a guideline along those lines, if

• there was consensus that this would apply to both bot- and human- created content.
• this would not become a justification for mass deletions.
• it would be explicit in each list-style article that expansion of an entry in it into an stand-alone article would be encouraged with verifiable information from a reliable source.
• we evaluate what this does to the usability of Wikipedia for non-experts, and what the search engine impact will be. patsw (talk) 14:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a directory of locations. We have discussed this issue before regarding Current practice, and simply put, Wikipedia can't work as a travel guide. Places have to be notable to get their own standalone pages, because Wikipedia is about encyclopedic articles, not lists of statistics and map co-ordinates. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Not sure I follow - travel guides aren't lists of statistics and coordinates. But there's plenty of room for all these types of information in Wikipedia - it's just a question of how to present it. I don't think we should be collasping articles into lists purely because there's little information in them at the moment - we should also have a pretty good idea that the places are of a type which typically won't generate enough information for an article even in the long term. Wikipedia is a work in progress, and stub articles on viable topics (not only places) encourage that progress. --Kotniski (talk) 14:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Place names and population center articles should not require significant coverage by multiple independent sources. I agree as to "multiple sources"... but they should have significant coverage by at least one independent source. That is a bare minimum for all articles ... it's how we know the topic is notable. Blueboar (talk) 14:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes and no... it's how we've chosen to define notability, but in many cases, we "know" that things are notable purely on the basis of being reliably informed as to what those things are (that they belong to categories of things that generally turn out to be notable).--Kotniski (talk) 15:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I also think we should strongly discourage further bot created articles. They seem to create nothing but problems. Blueboar (talk) 14:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Huh???? They create articles, which is how Wikipedia grows. The average bot-created article probably creates far fewer problems than the average human-created article.--Kotniski (talk) 15:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

It serves no useful purpose. I don't think we want bots creating thousands of useless redirects is the issue here. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you give an example of a useless redirect that a bot has created?--Kotniski (talk) 15:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Redirects are absolutely necessary if we are going to trim down barely-referenced geographical locations. Per one of Patsw's concerns, even if we don't have an article on it, every verifiable populated settlement should be searchable through WP's engine landing the person on the larger topic or list if there's no article for it (barring misspellings and the like). Redirects are free and cheap, allow us to retain past editing history of these articles should they be replaced that way, and allow for the article to be recreated from the history without help of an admin. Using redirects must be a bare minimum standard before we even talk about removing these articles otherwise. --MASEM (t) 15:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Bots are great for generating indiscriminate information... but Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. A bot can compile coverage... but it can not determine whether coverage is "significant"... a bot can identify a name... but not tell if there are alternate names, or which of those alternative names is the best choice to use as the title of the article. You need humans to do all this. Writing articles ... and, perhaps more importantly, determining whether an article should be written in the first place requires human decision making. Yes, bot-created articles can make Wikipedia grow... but do they make it grow in the direction we want it to grow? "Growth" for its own sake is not in the best interest of the project. Do we really want Wikipedia to be filled with thousands of permastubs. Blueboar (talk) 15:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, something's only a permastub if it really is on a topic that nothing can be said about. If it's on a topic that belongs to a category of things that typically can be written about, then it's not a permastub, because one day ("there is no deadline") someone will come along and write about it. So certainly bots need to operate sensibly, based on reliable input data, and people can certainly make manual improvements to what they do (e.g. "I know that these two officially separate villages really make up one larger unit, so I can merge them and write an article about the two together"), but I see no evidence that the use of automated processes to create some categories of articles causes any dire problems - it simply saves time for the person doing it, allowing them to spend more time on the things that can only be done manually.--Kotniski (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

If a permastub really is on a topic that nothing can be said about, then I don't think there is any rationale for perma-redirects either. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a huge gap better a topic where there is absolutely zero to talk about it, and a topic where only one sentence could be written about it. The latter at least can be incorporated into some larger topic and thus making the redirect a valuable addition. We're talking articles that fit within this category as opposed to ones with zero information completely. --MASEM (t) 17:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we are going to resolve philosophical question on whether bots should be writing articles any time soon... instead we should focus on the problems already caused by bots writing articles on places (ie the need to evaluate any bot created articles and see which ones need to be merged/redirected into other articles, etc.) Sadly, that is something that only a human can do. Blueboar (talk) 17:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why you're talking so negatively - is there really a problem here? All stubs, whether created manually or using bots, can by definition be improved in many different ways. That doesn't make them a "problem", more of an opportunity. Nothing "needs" to be merged, in the sense that any great harm is being done by it not being merged; appropriate merging is just one of the ways that some articles (whether bot or manual creations) might be improved. I really don't see what purpose is behind all this fuss. --Kotniski (talk) 17:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I have followed this discussion for a while and am not quite clear on what the major points of contention are. That said, place name articles (Gazetteer stuff), whether they are stubs or not are appropriate for WP. As a avid reader of western U.S. history, especially late 19th and early 20th local and regional histories, I have come to the conclusion that just about any named place is mentioned in reliable sources of some sort. A great many towns are discussed in some fashion in local and regional histories. For any named place, it is highly unlikely that the only reliable source that mentions the place is an online geographic database. Of course the trouble is finding those sources. It is always disturbing to me to read: I searched for Bob City, Kansas in Google and got no hits, therefore it’s not notable when logically, since its (hypothetically) existed for 100 years, somebody has probably written about it. Indeed we have to find those sources, but deleting place name articles because there are no internet hits should be discouraged. --Mike Cline (talk) 17:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Definitely agree with that, particularly since it would create a huge systemic bias towards the more Web-developed countries.--Kotniski (talk) 17:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Nothing is inherently notable, and nothing should get a free pass for inclusion. Bot-generated geographic articles should never have been permitted earlier, and should never be permitted to operate again. There should only be articles about geographic places that meet our normal standards for inclusion: significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Atlases and censuses, being efforts to accumulate information about every item in a class, do not contribute to notability.—Kww(talk) 17:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that nothing is inherently notable, and the idea that sources must exist for every settlement is speculation and hearsay, not fact. Wikipedia's policies & guidelines make it clear that we can't build an encyclopedia based on speculation and hearsay. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

How is this discussion productive?

It's just a rehash of a discussion that has been done a hundred times. And every single time, the community has said that, per Wikipedia being a gazetteer in the five pillars, the addition of all places as stubs is beneficial, as information on every town exists somewhere, so there is no such thing as a non-notable place. Please also note that WP:INDISCRIMINATE does not cover articles on towns. The closest things that would fit is "Excessive listing of statistics", which towns really don't, since the infobox isn't a listing of statistics.

Please also note that, if anyone is going to actively try to change this policy, this discussion should not be here, but in the Village Pump. If you want to do this all over again there, feel free. I've been involved in four such discussions there on this topic during my time on WP and they all come back to the long-standing consensus. Silverseren^C 19:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no agreement that such articles are better as permastubs than as part of larger articles. We need to have the info, but that doesn't mean that it should e as a separate article all the time. The five pillars don't support or oppose separate articles, they only mean that we should have the info somewhere (and even the, it claims that we incorporate elements of gazetteers, not that we duplicate them). Fram (talk) 09:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I think if we can do anything productive here, it's try to define (at least roughly, because national differences probably mean that no exact universal definition will ever be satisfactory) what status a place has to have in order to "deserve" its own article (i.e. for what kinds of places do we expect an article to develop eventually, even if if consists of only very basic information at the moment.) From a European perspective, I would suggest that the boundary would be more or less "village - yes; hamlet - no". Though that's not to suggest I would support deleting any existing articles without ensuring that the information gets fully upmerged and an appropriate redirect left in place.--Kotniski (talk) 13:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that that needs to be outlined. I'm pretty sure that it is just already assumed that it requires village level and up, but it being specifically stated somewhere would be more useful. Silverseren^C 21:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I never said anything about permastubs, if you'll notice. I said that they should be created as stubs, as it is clear that there is information somewhere that can expand them beyond basic stubs. Silverseren^C 21:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not sure there is a "long-standing consensus" so much as a "self-fulfilling prophecy"—people shout loudly enough that there's a significant consensus, and cite an essay as though it were equivalent to policy. There is at least one point of NOT that clearly applies to the articles (Wikipedia is not a directory), and several that I'd say pretty clearly apply in spirit. For example, the examples of indiscriminate information collection under Wikipedia is not indiscriminate are not meant to be an exhaustive list of every way one can be indiscriminate, just examples of things that would violate the guideline. "Treat all ____________ the same way regardless of how much sourcing there is for them" is by definition indiscriminate—standards are being disregarded. But honestly, I don't see this consensus. I see a situation similar to the old schools debate—a lot of foot stomping and bloc voting to give the appearance of a consensus, while a whole lot of people sit back and shake their heads, and keep bringing up "Uh...folks, if there is a consensus here, we've got this one quite wrong." Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

It does come down to people shouting that there's a consensus, but I've never seen one. Articles on every speck in an atlas are not only unwarranted, they are counter-productive and work against the purposes of an encyclopedia. It's much better to have a decent article on Yak-herding villages of Upper Slobovia with redirects to the article from each village in Upper Slobovia that participates in yak herding than it is to have tiny one-line articles about each such village. By the time one is discussing a region, there is usually enough information to say something meaningful and enough context to make that meaningful information relevant in some manner.—Kww(talk) 17:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Count me as another person who thinks a merge/redirect strategy is the best way to create meaningful and useful context for these obscure settlements. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

• Then, like I said, if you truly want to try and change the policy, feel free to take it to the Village Pump. I am quite certain on what the outcome will be, since i've been involved in other discussions of this very nature. It is not that "It does come down to people shouting that there's a consensus", since the discussions and voting have certainly been made before. Just because you haven't been a part of one doesn't mean it hasn't happened. Silverseren^C 21:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The consensus of settlements is summed up in WP:ITSLOCAL. Just because an editor or bot can verify that a settlement exists, that is not justification for a standalone article. Evidence of notability is the only knockout evidence that a settlement should have its own article. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

As you can tell by just a cursory look at the section you linked, it not once actually discusses articles on cities and towns. It discusses articles on subjects that are only known in small towns or people that is only famous in a small geographic area. It does not talk about the places themselves, just subjects within them. (Silver seren) 165.91.174.83 (talk) 21:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Old Discussions

For your perusal, here's some examples of old discussions.

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 75#Proposed policy change - WP:NOTABILITY .2B geographical locations

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 55#Atlas.2Fgazetteer entries

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 79#Notability of cities.2C towns.2C and neighborhoods

There's, of course, a lot more discussions in that vein out there. I find it interesting that it generally seems to always be the same people starting these discussions or being primarily involved. But whenever it is put to a vote, the community shows that it is extremely opposed. Silverseren^C 21:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, those discussions look to me to be a part of the self-supporting myth phenomenon. Most people aren't making any cogent arguments for exactly why an independent article for each and every speck on each and every map is a good idea. Instead, they are arguing that everyone has already agreed. The existence of the recurring argument is pretty strong evidence that there is a reasonably sizable group of editors that feel that there shouldn't be such articles, and it's a pretty senior group of editors overall.—Kww(talk) 22:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Just as there are an even more reasonable size group of editors, who are also pretty senior, Firsfron for example, who feel that there should be such articles. Silverseren^C 23:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't as much matter. There used to be such a situation with schools, too, but they eventually got cleaned up. We'll eventually get it here too. Some of this stuff just takes some time. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Yup... Remember consensus can change. There is nothing wrong with periodically sounding out the community to determine whether consensus has changed... as long as you accept what ever the current consensus happens to be. Blueboar (talk) 00:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Except you aren't sounding out the community, you're discussing this on a page that almost no one will end up going to. Silverseren^C 00:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Fourth Village pump thread started. WP:VPR#Cities--intelati^talk 01:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

From my own perspective, the bar for adding a article to Wikipedia has been rising and rising since 2006. We have a big test called WP:GNG and some specialized tests WP:SNG which attempt to align several things:

• Consistency with the existing content of Wikipedia and existing policies (a.k.a. precedent)
• The evolving desire among editors for all new articles to conform to present guidelines (i.e. delete at the start, rather than wait for improvement)
• What the outcome of AFD's are now, compared to what the policies and guidelines state now (and tweak as necessary)

Several guidelines emerged in the last three years to cover biographical articles, articles about corporations and organizations, articles on intellectual artifacts (books, episodic television, etc.), and other SNG's. These guidelines came into existence and continue to have broad support among editors because, I believe, the alternative, i.e. to allow any article to be created, or (worse) to argue, from scratch, each questionable article in Afd. This is unattractive because there is no obvious objective filter for a person, corporation, etc. to have a stand-alone Wikipedia article.

However, when it comes to gazetteer articles, an obvious objective criterion exists, in the form of a government or equivalent source attesting to its existence. This doesn't imply that the content provided by the source has rich content or is even correct, but it is an authority that can be appealed to. Let me make explicit as someone asked earlier why we have so many gazetteer stubs, i.e. the status quo:

• Approved bots have created gazetteer stubs based upon reliable sources.
• The expectation is that since they are neither hoaxes nor incorrect they will be improved if there is interest on the part of a local editor.
• There is no explicit prohibition against them in WP:NOT.
• There is the implicit recognition that the Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, almanac, and gazetteer in the Five Pillars of the Wikipedia.
• Unlike Wiktionary for dictionary content, no alternative Wiki for exists gazetteer content. (Although there are travel and tourism wikis). The best Wiki for gazetteer content is Wikipedia.
• The Wikipedia is not paper.
• The Wikipedia has no deadline.
• The Wikipedia is a work in progress.
• Gazetteers typically are exhaustive rather than selective as encyclopedia are.
• In terms of Wikipedia usability, it easier for an subject to be found in a search engine as a stand-alone article than as an item within a list.
• Finally, the case has not be made that such gazetteer stubs are bad in a way that has attracted a consensus that modifies the WP:NOT policy or creates a WP:Gazetteer Content guideline. patsw (talk) 03:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The big point here is consensus can change - the majority of the geobots ran before WP:N was even a strong idea. If someone today suggested the same idea about running such bots to create articles, they would likely fail to gain consensus. So we're deal with something that likely was grandfathered for some time but now many argue that grandfathering period is over.

And I stress a key point: we can suit the requirements of being a gazetteer without having to have stubby articles - lists and tables are perfect for this function. All the points you address above are satified by using list of non-notable settles with redirects from the stubs, while also satisfying today's notability requiremetns. --MASEM (t) 03:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Bots are currently being used all over the 'pedia to make articles on biology topics, such as species of insects, plants, and such. Those are generally referenced to a government or national biological database, much like articles on places are. And these biology articles are being done now, with a number of the bots having been put into commissions and consensus made for them to be put into action only a couple months ago (or less than a year). What about those sorts of articles? Silverseren^C 17:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

These sorts of articles contravene Wikipedia's notability of guideline just as much a bot created permastubs for settlements, as tertiary information on its own is not evidence of notability. The copying of government databases does not in any way justify the mass creation of permastubs.

Unfortunately, there is no goverance being applied to the work of bots: they are simply overwhealming Wikipedia's policies and guidelines by creating de facto standards based on the personal views of the bot operators. It seems that when it comes to bots, there no one to watch the watchers.

Simply transcribing Wikispecies into Wikipedia for personal glory makes no sense as these stubs offer no context to the reader. Wikipedia is being turned into a mirror website for various governmental databases by these bots, despite the prohibition against this activity made clear by WP:NOT#MIRROR. Next they will be transcribing stars and galaxies into Wikipedia, and there are more of them than there are people on this planet. Where will this craziness end? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

It will end with you doing more research? Lists of stars and List of galaxies. We make tables of the complete listings, and separate articles for items with significant quantities of verifiable material (aka notable). Very similar to the suggested solution for the abundant gazetteer material. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• Consensus can stay the same as well as change.
• It is inaccurate to state the WP:GNG is identical to WP:N. In practice, new articles are created all time which, if challenged, would not pass WP:GNG test, and yet are not proposed for deletion. These topics merit their own Wikipedia articles.
• If you want to argue about the governance of Wikipedia with respect to bots, I don't where that debate is taking place, but this isn't the place. patsw (talk) 17:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The point is taken about WP:N != GNG, as the GNG is part of WP:N, but not all of it. SNGs help to fill in the gaps between the GNG and WP:N but that's still not accounting for all cases of what consensus consider notable. But I also point out that there have been attempts to make an SNG for geographical places that have had no success.

But the larger point is not so much about bots as about the atmosphere of WP in 2006 to compared to now. A question to ask oneself is that, presuming there wasn't an article for every government-recognized settlement, but someone came along today and proposed a bot to create all those articles, do you think it would be allowed to be created or go forward? My guess is no, because of the importance of notability and the work's focus; this is only my guess however based on my perception. I have a hard time accepting that consensus has not changed one iota on these articles - it may still be that they are tolerated but with a higher degree of scrutiny, but they are certainly not simply allowed with no question as it was in 2006. We need to gauge what the consensus is on these articles to determine what actions should be taken. --MASEM (t) 18:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Masem raises a good point. In 2006 we were much more accepting of claims that whole classes of things were "inherently notable" than we are today. Since then we have seen how there are exceptions to almost every generalization. While many (and even most) schools, towns, roads, buildings, LOTR characters, Pokemon cards, etc. may be notable... we have learned that sooner or later someone comes up with an example of one that is not notable. This has taught us to be more hesitant about such claims. We have learned from our past mistakes. Blueboar (talk) 21:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I think Masem is probably wrong--among the changes since 2006 are the de facto recognition of all high schools as notable. I think we are moving in the direct of defined notability for certain classes of subjects, and should be so doing much more extensively. We are more useful writing content than arguing over its division into articles. (At least I feel this, having come to write content and ended up primarily debating and deleting articles with only occasional opportunities to rescue.)

1.It would have been possible to conceive of the encyclopedia as a collection of mainly very long articles divided into sections, as was the case in the earlier editions of many print encyclopedias. For example, print encyclopedias often consider everything in Chicago under the heading for Chicago, or all the works of an artist under the heading for the artist. There are two key reasons why we did not go this route, and they remain valid. First, that the nature of online content is such that relatively shorter articles are more easily transmitted and more easily read. (Improvements in transmission speed in one direction are now completed in the other by increasing use of hand-held devices) The other, is that the nature of the collaborative production of Wikipedia by non-experts, often of very limited sophistication in research and writing, makes it much easier for the actual people here to make decent short articles; only a few editors are capable of bringing long articles to FA status. Given that "anyone can edit" is basic to our nature, this will continue, & there is no reason to expect the general level of education to drastically improve.

2."notable" in our sense is a term of art, meaning sufficiently important for inclusion of a separate article in Wikipedia. This can only be decided by consensus. One factor is that it is much more difficult to have separate determinations for each of the 4.5 million articles than to decide in larger units by specific rules. Think of the problems if we had to decide if every Olympic athlete or charting song is individually notable, one at a time. Another is that the consistency of the encyclopedia is improved by decisions for classes; consistency is one of the hall-marks of good reference works, and, like it or not, as the most-used reference work in the world, we need to be as good and as reliable as our methods can manage.

3As for the specific issue, the rule that places are treated as intrinsically notable holds for new additions as well as the bot-aided ones. It does not make sense to make a distinction based on the mode of adding articles. And I disagree with the position that there is any place that additional information beyond what is present in Wikipedia cannot be found by sufficient work with local histories and geographic sources. DGG ( talk ) 11:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

But there is no present consensus for making major changes to the current system in either direction. I hope there will be, as new editors join and see the advantages of simple subject-oriented rules for inclusion. DGG ( talk ) 11:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree about the high schools, in that I don't think that deletion discussions immediately attempt to discount their implicit nature. But I would use the same argument - what was ok in 2006 is not likely ok now.

The point about specifically defined inclusion guidelines, however, is a completely valid point. I believe as well that notability should be the back-up case for inclusion after one checks a subject-specific inclusion guideline to determine if a topic is one of the areas we want to include, because of our nature as an academic work. Things like countries, chemical elements, world leaders, etc.. Our SNGs are like these, but they are structured around the GNG still and could be improved for the fields we consider that important. I would disagree that things like high schools would fall into that (I would think these topics would need to be ones of long-term importance, which high schools generally aren't), but that's a different argument than justifying the use of top-tier inclusion guidelines before notability. --MASEM (t) 13:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem with subject specific guidelines is that few article topics fall neatly into just one SNG... which means that a topic may be excluded by one guideline, but allowed under another. We need something that is overarching and applies to all articles, regardless of subject. Blueboar (talk) 15:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

SNGs are written addressing the problem from the wrong direction. If we are talking "this is a topic that WP as an encyclopedia/gazetteer/almanac should cover to be complete", such topics are going to have core inclusion metric they will pass, not one of many. And in any case, we already do consider that a topic only has to meet one of the SNGs, not all (but this stresses that SNGs must be normalized at the global consensus level) --MASEM (t) 16:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Patents supporting notability for an inventor

Hi. There's an afd going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earl Killian in which an argument has been made that patents are secondary sources which can support notability of the inventor as a person. Since the outcome of this discussion could affect this guideline, I thought people here might like to comment on the argument. GDallimore (Talk) 10:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Request for nutshell revision: Add published

This undo to the guideline was made in good faith. Please discuss the following: "Published" is used in Wikipedia:Notability and it should be added to the nutshell so that the nutshell reads: "This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia covers notable topics—those that have been "noticed" to a significant degree by published independent sources". Thanks! -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure it adds any clarity. I understand the problem you're trying to solve. But this doesn't get us there. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

So what would an unpublished source be, as opposed to a published one? patsw (talk) 21:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I reverted. I think what you're trying to get at with "published" is more precisely stated as "reliable sources," since you clearly want to exclude something some guy said on the Internet. If a third party decided to publish it, however, that is another matter: I think this is what you are trying to get at. Spelling that out to exclude self-published, vanity press, or low quality forms of "publication" gets us to the current wording regarding independence, reliability, etc. Everything that you rightly think should be excluded, on the other hand, can claim to have been "published" on someone's blog, through their laser printer at work, etc. It's not a matter of the spirit of your edit, which I think was on the right track, but the wording. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 21:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Attempt to develop consensus on notability

After participating in AfDs of a model at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Cloutier, I've begun an attempt to develop an additional set of notability criteria for models to go along with the GNG. There appears to be no real consensus in this area, and as someone else has noted, similar problems existed in bios of athletes until WP:ATHLETE was developed to provide guidance. My work-in-progress is here [5]. I invite everyone here to drop in, provide feedback, discuss and make revisions as you see fit. I'm not an expert in this area so all of your input is most appreciated. Discussion can take place at the very bottom of the page. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Felisa Wolfe-Simon, world top story scientist may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines

While reading the headlines in my native language newspaper I stumbled over a story on a life form capable of incorporating arsenic in place of phosphor. Pretty amazing stuff, and a quick search located the same story in New York Times, Der Spiegel, El País, and others.

Curious about the scientist I checked, yes, Wikipedia for Felisa Wolfe-Simon. The talk page says it all: She is likely an over-hyped scientist. The article is said to violate WP:AUTO, and if nominated for WP:AfD, she certainly won't pass WP:PROF. The deletion outcome is only a matter of time. but of course, with all the hype at present, play it safe and we could later merge her article to GFAJ-1, the bacteria [6].

How time has flown since Wikipedia's original vision of capturing the world's knowledge has degenerated into assessing if the knowledge really, I mean, really, is worthy of mention. "One could argue that this is not a major discovery, just a well-hyped one. Breeding bacteria is not the same as discovering a native species that can do the thing naturally. And anyway, exactly which awards are significant?" Furthermore, "there is not a single secondary source that analyzes her as a topic. "The awards and other things - by themselves - would never be enough to survive AFD". Wow, what was once created to keep out garage bands and self-published fringe lunatics is now being used to take out more serious stuff.

The key issue is if Wikipedia exists to offer a neutral encyclopedic service to readers on topics that mainstream media consider significant, or if Wikipedia editors themselves should act as gate keepers, screening away the worthy from the unworthy, protecting the sensitive eyes of the general reader from cruft and other calamities. Such screening is very much a matter of trust and AfD participants IMO requires extraordinary maturity, perspective and knowledge. There are no minimum requirements for chiming in on AfDs however, and given that most editors are annon, how could we possibly tell? But from article creation logs, we know that the interests of many AfD participants lie in Playstation games, in soccer tournaments, in baseball teams, in country X vs Y bilateral relations, and the like. Alarmingly, many AfD participants don't create any articles at all. I wouldn't be surprised if Felisa Wolfe-Simon wouldn't pass an AfD, be it on WP:PROF reasons, or if not, on the exceptionally vague criteria given in WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTNEWS, or WP:NOT, or other arguments routinely invoked in AfDs by "the community".

Preempting questions of who I am: I do have a 3 or 4k contributions history on a retired account, with about 100 articles created, in good standing. I left due to frustrations over AfDs and I intend to stay away from WP, to maintain my sanity. You.dont.know.what.you.dont.know (talk) 19:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me you are still here.Slatersteven (talk) 19:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I would think that this response from an editor covers thoughts of notability, showing that she meets PROF. Silverseren^C 19:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Conveniently weak arguments by convenient IPs and new accounts notwithstanding, I think the tone of the discussion on the article's talk page indicates that Felisa Wolfe-Simon meets any common-sense conception of notability and would definitely pass an AfD. Not that anyone's actually started one, and there's no indication that anyone will. Reyk _YO! 23:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

What is exactly is the problem? This is a lot of text complaining about the AfD process, despite the fact that this article has never been nominated and most likely wouldn't get deleted if it was. It reminds me of when my girlfriend came home from work angry at me and when I asked what was wrong she said, "there was this girl on the bus and if you had been there you would have just loved her." --Leivick (talk) 02:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It's strange that so many IPs and new accounts are wanting this article to be deleted. Usually it's the other way around. Maybe there's some sort of faction battle in the science camps about this that hasn't been reported? I wonder. Silverseren^C 02:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Or they are trying to make a point about AFD?Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• If you believe the article does not conform to policies and guidelines, edit the article, or nominate the article for deletion.
• If you believe the policies and guidelines can be improved, then improve them. patsw (talk) 16:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Completed a big step on lists

We reached a consensus at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Inclusion criteria for Lists on a few issues, which I took the liberty of adding to the guideline. Please don't revert unless you can prove that I've made a mistake in summarizing the outcome of the RFC. Better yet would be to fiddle with the wording until it's accurate.

There were some outstanding issues. We never agreed on what a discriminate topic for a list is, and what's too indiscriminate for Wikipedia. We never quite pinned down how to handle complex "lists of Xs with Y who also Z". For now, our policies will have to be silent on those topics. I know this will annoy people on both sides of the debate. But be proud that we at least agree on some basics.

Feel free to pat yourself on the back and brainstorm the next step. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's a diff of the recent changes[7].

About the addition of "topic" to the GNG's defintions: What do you think about shortening it to ""Topic" means that the sources should refer to to the main information the article focuses on, as suggested by the title and/or definition in the lead"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather not -- at least not right away. One reason is that the question of "what is the topic of the list" was a huge sticking point in the RFC. Fortunately everyone basically agreed other than User:Gavin.collins. But some people didn't see the big deal, whereas for other people saw it as critical. We explain what the topic of a list is so that we don't argue about whether the sources are on topic or not.

The second reason has to do with your addition of "definition in the lead", which is getting into the controversial question of what does "indiscriminate" mean. Some people think that defining the topic in the lead starts to get into original research. Like, a topic should be out there in the world waiting to be discovered, not waiting to be invented by a Wikipedian when they write the lead.

By the way, I think that would be an excellent starting point for another RFC. To take a quick poll to see what "indiscriminate" means when it comes to lists. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

SW – Good job. I believe one line needs rewriting because it gives the wrong impression as to what was agreed to in the RFC. In the GNG you wrote: the sources should provide information on "Xs" as a set or group. I believe this should read the sources should establish the notability of X. When you attach the phrase as as set or group, you’ve inadvertently put the burden of notability on List of X and not X. --Mike Cline (talk) 22:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, we agreed that it wasn't about verifying notability of the list of Xs... but it was about verifying the notability of Xs, and not necessarily just X. (E.g.: "Virgins" and not "Virgin" nor "List of Virgins".) I want to get the phrasing right. But this was a difficult issue in the RFC. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree, but the verbage "Xs" as a set or group. implies List of X, not X and I think that is risky.--Mike Cline (talk) 17:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd be okay with trying to make it clear that it's "Xs", not "list of Xs" or just "X". It was a big enough issue in the RFC that it warrants being as accurate as possible. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps what we need to say is: If the topic of the list is all Xs (as a group), we need to establish the notability of all Xs (as a group). The fact that there are some notable Xs does not make all Xs inherently notable.

But this is really the point. In the RfC, it was debated whether or not every entry on the list had to be notable, could be notable, could be a redlink, or may just be included. There was also a difference of opinion about different kinds of lists. Lists of people vs. lists of television series episodes or discographies, for example. I don't believe that a consensus was reached on the group being notable vs. combining the notable individual items into a list. As Shooterwalker noted, only one (now-banned) user made a big push toward the list itself, or the grouping itself, needing to be notable to justify the list. Consensus was clear that the List of nomenclature is to be ignored at all times when debating notability of lists, but your point is still part of the fuzzy area. Shooterwalker's changes in WP:NLISTITEM reflect this where they have been changed to match the article content inclusion criteria that verifiable information may be included in a list, but may not justify a stand-alone list. I also agree with Mike Cline above about the problem with a lack of clarity, as I have commented in this AfD. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 22:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Shooterwalker, I'm not inclined to put too much emphasis on the RFC. The RFC was an effort to deal with Gavin, who was banned—and banned directly because of his endless anti-consensus pushing on these specific points. Our efforts to accommodate his <insert your favorite armchair diagnosis here> problem isn't really the best expression of the community's actual views. Furthermore, I am convinced that this sentence will be misunderstood as meaning "If you want to have a list, then you have to show that someone else wrote about these items as a group or in a list." Furthermore, it pretty much bans all WP:SETINDEXes, since good sources don't usually write about "List of cars named ____" (the canonical example of an appropriate set index). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It's the most difficult sentence to come out of the RFC. We spent a lot of discussion on it. Speaking from the more strict side of Wikipedia, I don't want to see every article about a noun turned into a list of nouns. But from the more lenient side, we don't want to limit our lists to a summary of other peoples' lists. I think we have a good balance here. We say that you have to find a source that talks about a group of Xs to create a list about it, but we also say that notability doesn't limit what entries go into the list. The sentence accurately sums up the middle ground we found at the RFC. Cutting it out is a mistake. I'm open to rephrasing but only to make the balance clear, not to shift the balance. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I completely disagree with the new definition of "topic". For stand-alone lists to be separate encyclopedia articles we need to describe the list (not just the entries of the list but the list as an organic whole) from an encyclopedic perspective, which involves showing how it is notable. This is to prevent an indiscriminate amount of nonnotable lists from appearing. Not all lists of notable topics are notable in themselves. Just showing that the topic of a list is notable is not enough to start a list article on the topic. ThemFromSpace 00:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's what the current wording is trying to capture by saying For a stand-alone "list of Xs", the sources should provide information on "Xs" as a set or group. You need to verify the list as an organic whole. Not necessarily as a discrete database of entries. But finding coverage about a class of things. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't reflect practice. In any "List of X" what needs to be notable is X. The fact that are more than a few of X is exactly the reason to put together a list. We will not ever find a reliable source that discusses the entirety of List of New York Times Non-Fiction Best Sellers. If we are going to judge notability as a group, we would need to have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources about the group to prove notability. While I am sure that every item on those lists has been the subject of multiple, independent reviews and would easily pass individual notability, this language would prevent that list from being an article here. Even if we did find reliable sources that did establish notaobility for the "set or group," the list would then fail this guideline as soon as a new book was to be added to the list due to the lack of sources establishing the notability of the group. This would eliminate a lot of Featured Lists. We need language that reflects this. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 15:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

This comes down to understanding there are two requirements for "Lists of X" - notability and discrimination. Notability is shown either that the grouping as a whole is notable (Martin Luther's theses for example), or that X is a notable topic of itself. Because this latter qualification could allow any number of indiscriminate lists into play ("List of U.S. Presidents that ate oranges"), we need a second clarification beyond notability, and that is if the list definition is sufficiently discriminate. How and what discriminate lists are is something to be addressed on WP:SAL one the lists have proven themselves notable via here. --MASEM (t) 16:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I actually did start writing something about trivial intersections, but it seemed like it would confuse the thought I was expressing above. I think that one of the problems is that the entirety of the list guideline is spread out over so many different places, when there should be a single cohesive guideline about lists. Parts are in the MOS(WP:LIST and WP:SAL), which should really only discuss style. Part is in WP:CLN. Part is in this guideline(WP:NLIST). I don't really understand why WP:SALAT is part of the MOS, as it discusses content and not style. That section should be here or, better yet, all of them should be combined into a single lists guideline so that multiple pages don't have the opportunity to get out of sync and conflist each other. However, the diverging of guidelines across multiple pages is probably a bigger topic than this discussion, and is certainly not exclusive to lists. To Masem's point above, I still hold that as long as we state that in "List of X" the burden of notability rests on the notability of X, then "U.S. Presidents that ate oranges" would fail. Unless and until that topic is covered well enough to meet the GNG, the "as a set or group" language is still unnecessary. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 16:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I reject JimMillerJr's argument that this is out of step with practice. The New York Times Best Seller List is exceptionally notable. It passes the notability test with flying colors. Every book on that list is notable; the entire class of best sellers are notable as a group; and, it's notable as an actual list. Nobody would even consider deleting it because proving its notability would be one of the easiest things in the world to do. Take these sources: [8] [9] [10] The test of notability isn't whether someone has verified it, but whether it's possible to do so knowing about what kind of coverage there is out there. We just had a consensus of editors say that this is a good standard. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I never suggested that the NYT list would fail notability. The sources you listed easily justify inclusion of an article about the NYT list, but they do nothing to justify the notability of the books on the list as a set or group. I am mostly making a devil's advocate argument on the language that can easily be misused to argue for the deletion of notable content. I chose that example because the topic is "New York Times Non-Fiction Bestsellers" - the books on the list, not the list itself. The notability of the NYT list itself would not even be applicable to testing notability in a list of books. You haven't provided any sources that demonstrate the notability of every book on the list as a group. While the NYT list is notable, WP:NOTINHERITED. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 17:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I see what you're saying about it being hard to get the language just right. But I think we've done a decent job. We have WP:NLISTITEM which explains that not every item on the list has to be notable. Just the overall concept. If people want to twist the guideline to push an extreme position they'll always be able to. Of course I really want to get the meaning as clear as possible so any suggestions would help. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion is that we drop the misleading, confusing, and disputed sentence entirely.

As a separate proposal, I suggest that we eliminate the unfortunate map-territory fallacy by recommending that editors not rely solely on the article title when identifying the topic of the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The sentence may have provoked discussion, but its underlying purpose and importance is not disputed. Removing it entirely would put us on the wrong track entirely. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for apparently having been unclear: I am disputing it, and so, yes, that sentence is disputed. I hereby formally declare that I think its "underlying purpose" is bad and that its "importance" is trivial. I further declare that including it puts the guideline on the wrong track entirely, and that removing it would be a step in the right direction. Do you now have any questions about where I stand with respect to this sentence? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Trust me that for all the energy that was expended on it before (and again now)... it IS important. It was a major point of discussion from the RFC and something we arrived at after enormous clarification. There were a couple who were worried about being too lenient, and a couple worried about being too strict, and this is where we ended up. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I was there, remember? But despite the very long discussions around it, I honestly didn't come away from the RFC thinking that this particular sentence accurately reflects the community's views, or that it was important as anything other than a Gavin-thwarting tool (which is, due to the community ban, no longer something that we need to keep in our toolbox).

The fact that you've got multiple editors objecting here and nobody (apparently) supporting it, indicates that whatever the RFC might have said, this sentence does not reflect the current community consensus. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The objections are in terms of the letter, not the spirit. We found a compromise between the notability of X (too lenient) and notability of List of Xs (too strict) to make it notability of Xs. It's something I agree with in spirit, as frustrating as it is to find the right wording. Also it might be confusing to equate topic = title... but to allow people to just make up a topic for a list in the lead is WP:original research. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

It should be remembered that "Title" != "Topic". Titles should best represent in the proper name or common name of what the article/list/whatever contains, but they also need to be searchable and short. "List of people from New York City" is clearly not going to be a fully inclusive list of every single person from NYC, and the necessary distinctions should be explained in the lead. --MASEM (t) 23:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I definitely agree Title != Topic. I just recall from the RFC that there were concerns about letting the topic be editor defined, when it should be defined by the sources. I say that because I was one of the people who raised that concern, and not the only one. I did my best to write the guideline in a way that respects that. But I may have missed the target. The target is still sensible though. ... maybe we opened up a can of worms by talking about the topic. It might be enough to just explain what "significant coverage" means for a list: sources that talk about the group or class of things in direct detail. I'm ready to find a wording that reflects all angles of the RFC without biting off more than we could chew. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I've been thinking about the laguage all day, and I keep coming back to one problem. I cannot figure out language that gets to the spirit of what we want to do here without having this guideline contradict itself. I keep coming back to "notability does not directly affect the content of articles." Lists are articles, and items in the list are article content, and do not need to be notable to be included in a list. If some Xs are notable, and some xs are not, the non-notable ones can still be included in a list about the notable ones unless an editorial decision is made for compliance with WP:IINFO, WP:UNDUE, or some other content guideline. It's the intersecting topics that I see as the problem. Concise may have to give way to clarity. "Lists are articles that use an ordered format rather than prose to present information on a topic. Lists should be about a single topic, and that topic must meet the same Notability Guidelines as any other article. The topic of any list is considered to be the entire title of the article, or in the event that the "List of..." naming convention is used, the entire concept that follows it. Lists may be limited to only notable items representing the topic as an editorial decision by the consensus of editors." Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 00:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

halfway on the lists

The topic must be editor-defined. Step one in article creation is "editor picks a topic". Step two is "community decides whether the editor's chosen topic is notable/deserving of a separate article".

Now—as a practical matter—if the editor doesn't want the nascent article to be deleted, then the editor should pick the topic with an eye towards its notability. But step one is still "editor picks a topic", not "this week, some band is making a big splash in the news, so the community declares that your new article must be about that, rather than whatever it was that you wanted, because 'the sources say so'."

And could we at least get that sentence about the kinds of sources required out of the definition of "topic"? ""Topic" means that...For a stand-alone "list of Xs", the sources should provide information on "Xs" as a set or group" is just silly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

To be honest... the second sentence is the more important one. We spent pages and pages of discussion on it. It might seem silly in retrospect but we were deadly serious about it at the time. JimMillerJR describes it in a pretty wordy way. Maybe that's the only way. Maybe we need a section just for the list issue so that we don't break the guideline for everything else. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Lists are handled somewhat differently than full text articles... so a separate section on lists is needed. Blueboar (talk) 02:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Above I said the language: as a set or group was risky. Why would I say that? Really there are two trains of thought.

1. Lists are nothing more that mega wiki-links that extend our ability to organize article information. The great majority, if not all lists, could really be embedded in parent articles. Page size limitations prevent that, but theoretically ALL content associated with a given subject could be contained in the same article. There are 100s of articles associated with Yellowstone. Many of those articles are lists. All that content (articles and lists) could be included in the Yellowstone article, but doing so would require much of the content to be in tabular form (ie. Lists) for clarity and organization, but if there were no size/readability limitations, no one would object to the inclusion of all that content in a single article. Yet we have the distinct pleasure to live in the 21st century wiki-world where article size limitations can be overcome with essentially an unlimited capability to link elsewhere and where we can organize and link content in a myriad of permutations that allows readers to explore content endlessly. That’s what lists really are: mega wiki-links.

2. What is the overall objective of this guideline and specifically the language: as a set or group in reference to Lists? If the objective is to Limit and discourage lists then the language will probably do that. In fact, if rigidly applied to the existing locus of lists (~75,000), I suspect 95% would fail the test. On the other hand, if the objective of this guideline and its language related to lists is reflect practice and to encourage editors to create better lists—lists that are not frivolous or indiscriminate, then the language as a set or group is poor as it does not reflect practice and in my view would probably be used punitively against a great many existing, and otherwise compliant lists.

I would be interested in hearing what others believe the overall objective of language in this guideline relative to lists should be: Encouragement or Discouragement? --Mike Cline (talk) 15:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

What you are really talking about is the issue of inheritability and sub-topic notability. Not everything associated with "Yellowstone" is notable enough for its own article or list. Even a topic like "Yellowstone" has its share of trivia. Of the sub-topics that are notable enough for their own articles, some are best presented as a list, others are best presented in text format, and some are best presented in a mixed form (a text article with a list included).

As to your final question... the objective should be neither Encouragement nor Discouragement... but dispassionate analysis of the notability of the topic. Blueboar (talk) 17:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Blueboar... the intent of the language has been (and always should be) a middle ground between encouragement and discouragement. That's the messy outcome of an RFC that involves people from both sides. That's why I keep coming back to first principles. First, proving notability of X doesn't always make for a notable list X. Second, proving notability of a list doesn't require there to be a real-world equivalent in third-party sources. The middle ground comes back to proving notability of the group/set/class/category. There are lots of ways to phrase this and maybe even another way to look at the middle ground... but someone has yet to offer a wording that really works. As for the articles that this might delete... we might want to explicitly state that there's no consensus on how to handle navigational lists (yet), or list intersections (list of Xs in Y that also Z). That would save those articles from blanket deletion without necessarily giving them all immunity either. At this point, we've barely figured out how to handle ordinary lists of information. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I've temporarily moved the language to its own section so we don't break the GNG. The final language could look similar or very different. But let's not go there until we've discussed it. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

You mis-understand my point... I do agree that if X is notable, list of X is notable... for example since the topic of Fixed wing aircraft is notable, then the topic in List of fixed wing aircraft is also notable (the only question is whether both articles would need to establish that notability in their respective ledes). The Yellowstone example is different... While Yellowstone may be notable, an article entitled List of Yellowstone is nonsensical. Now, List of natural wonders in Yellowstone or List of species in Yellowstone might make sense... but their notability relies on inheritance... I thus feel we need to establish that the sub-topics of "attractions in Yellowstone" and "species in Yellowstone" are notable on their own. We talked about this in the RFC... distinguishing between List of X and List of X that Y. Blueboar (talk) 18:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

list of X in Y

Blueboar, SW, et al. – I find it more useful to look at policy as it applies to practice rather than what might be. Of course there’s lots of trivia associated with Yellowstone and we don’t have articles on it. But that said, we do have a lot of articles related (in a variety of ways) to the park. As I said above, many of those are in list form. If you look at List of Yellowstone National Park related articles you’ll note that there are at least 13 listed articles that classify as Lists. They are:

• Expeditions and the protection of Yellowstone (1869-1890)
• Mountains and mountain ranges of Yellowstone National Park
• Plateaus of Yellowstone National Park
• Waterfalls in Yellowstone National Park
• List of Yellowstone geothermal features
• Amphibians and reptiles of Yellowstone National Park
• Animals of Yellowstone
• Birds of Yellowstone National Park
• Fishes of Yellowstone National Park
• Small mammals of Yellowstone National Park
• Hotels and Tourist Camps of Yellowstone National Park
• Trails of Yellowstone National Park
• Bibliography of Yellowstone National Park

Now, I believe the proposed language Xs as a set or group needs to apply to all lists equally or it would be very confusing. So at a macro level, how would these lists fare if a strict Xs as a set group was applied to the article topic? Because otherwise, absent the strict application of Xs as a set or group, these lists meet WP notability and content guidelines.--Mike Cline (talk) 16:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I would say that these articles should have the notability of their topics established... independently of notability of the Topic of Yellowstone. For most of these, this will not be difficult... there are published books that cover the topic of the geography, flora and fauna, and man made features found within the park. If independent notability can not be established, that fact is a good indication that the sub-topic may be too trivial to be broken out into its own list article.

To state this as a generalized rule... I am of the opinion that "the notability of X transfers to List of X"... but not beyond that. I do not think you need to re-establish notability in a strict "X" --> "List of X" relationship (although it never hurts to re-establish) ... but I think you need to establish independent notability as soon as you add a modifier (Y)... "List of X in Y" or "List of X that Y", etc. Blueboar (talk) 18:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I think this is getting into an area we really didn't address much to get to a conclusion at the RFC, and we may want to be silent on it until we figure out (that is, let prevailing consensus deal with it). As much, my opinion on "List of X in Y" (where Y is notability, but X of Y may not be) is to turn not to notability but to the nature of indiscriminate information, and consider the question "If the article on Y could be as large as necessary, would a list of X of Y being contained in that article?" Most of the Yellowstone examples, I think, would make sense, certainly the ones on geological features, flora, and fauna. I'm not 100% sure on things like lodges (that starts to get into directory lists) but if "Lodges of Yellowstone" is a notable topic of its own, then, hey, sure. --MASEM (t) 18:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure we can discuss notability as it relates to list articles without addressing the "List of X of/in/that/who/etc Y" issue. For example... Take two potential articles List of birds of North America and List of birds of Willsboro, New York. Even though the supra-topic of both articles is "birds"... I think most of us would agree that the first article is viable, but the second is not. I think most of us would agree that the first article is a notable sub-topic, but the second is not. But why? ... why do we say that the one topic is notable and the other isn't? My answer... because we can establish that the first is notable (through reference to reliable sources), but can not do so for the second. Blueboar (talk) 20:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Remember, all notability is doing is to prevent WP from being indiscriminate. When the topic of an article is very clear as it is in the cases of most non-list articles, we can easily just if the inclusion of the topic is indiscriminate via notability. When it is a "List of X" list, we start with notability of X, but can also apply other metrics to prevent indiscriminate coverage (eg "List of people" would make no sense to have due to size and scope). When we get to "List of Y of X", notability is still there for topic X, but now the question of if we really need a list of Y of X should be asked, and again, that's now fully outside of notability and back to indiscriminate coverage. And this is going to be very very subjective. I agree that "List of birds of North America" seems non-indiscriminate, while "List of birds of Willsboro" is (due to a highly limited scope). What "size" geographic feature X does a switch flip to make "List of birds of X" go from indiscriminate to discriminate? You will likely not find one consistent answer from a survey of editors. Which means that any attempt to set an answer is going to become prescriptive, not descriptive, something we want to avoid on WP.

I think when we get to this point, we're going to want to take the approach done by WP:NFC. That it, we can lay out ground rules for the general cases but specific cases have to considered. But we can certainly provide general classes of where lists are appropriate and where they are not based on past consensus discussions. Disagreements would need to be dealt with via standard dispute resolution. --MASEM (t) 21:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I think List of birds of Willsboro, New York could be a very viable article if the sources exist to support it. Significant coverage is significant coverage, and if two or more respectable publishing houses, magazines, or other reliable sources have published enough information to write the list, the list is viable and appropriate. We do not judge importance as a part of determining notability. This is obvious through the thousands and thousands of articles and lists we have on subjects many, if not most, people would consider trivial, unimportant, or (to use I word I hate seeing misused in this fashion) "unencyclopedic" in some way. I also don't see why a limited scope should be considered a negative quality in determining an appropriate list topic, unless it keeps the list to less than a dozen entries. Such a small list would obviously be better off embedded in a parent article. Our notability guidelines do not exist to determine the worthiness of an article, but rather its viability. We write articles, or create list articles, which will have sufficient sources to support their content. That's the spirit of WP:NOTPAPER. And nothing should be placed in this guideline that attempts to override or undermine that policy. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 23:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Count me as one more person who thinks it's just a little too soon to bring this up. We didn't settle it in the RFC and stopped trying pretty quickly. If we need to explicitly say that there's no consistent policy on this and these are deleted and/or kept due to reasons outside this guideline, then we should say it. But no sense on pretending that the current guideline knows how to handle them. (Although in my opinion, it should still go back to third-party sources.) Shooterwalker (talk) 00:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I had too much going on in RL to take part is this seemingly drama-filled RfC. Suffice it to say though, I think just skimming through the archive, List of Y of/in/at/from/etc X did not have a clear consensus that the Y, the descriminatory part) of the larger topic, needed to be considered for whether a "topic" was notable; indeed I seen many cases where people did not want it. Therefore I would have to side with Masem here.陣内_Jinnai 03:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that this is coming down to the question of: "when do we have to establish or re-establish notability?" In answering this we have two related but separate sub-questions:

1. Assuming that we have established that topic "X" is notable, do we need to re-establish notability in article "List of X"? (or for more complex topics: if we have established that topic "X of/in/that Y" is notable, do we need to re-establish notability in article "List of X of/in/that Y"?)
2. Assuming that we have established that topic "X" is notable, do we need to establish that topic "X of/in/that Y" is notable? (or is the notability of "X" inherited by "X of/in/that Y"?). Blueboar (talk) 19:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Limiting ourselves to only asking about notability does not work, since as I've said there is also the concept of indiscriminate nature. Notability of "X" in "List of X" or "List of Y of X" assures that this is not some niche topic that isn't covered by sources or comes from original research; but at the same time, just because "X" is notable doesn't mean "List of X" or any spinout "List of Y of X" list is immediately acceptable. We would never have "List of people" because that's just too impossibly large to be useful. Having sources that talk about "list of X" or "Y of X" helps, but it is also not a requirement used in practice (again, that's what we're trying to capture - what practice is, not what we want it to be). I still think that SALAT needs to make sure the point about indiscriminate groups is addressed as an aspect of what makes a good list - to be evaluated after the notability of the main topic of the list "X" has been evaluated. But again, I stress - this is a very subjective measure - clearly from AFDs what is a discriminate collection to some is an indiscriminate collection to others. We are not going to be able to write any exacting advice for this at this time. And thus I think we should simply remain silent and only address the key result of the RFC: For lists that are "Lists of X", we expect X to be a notable topic in itself, or the list itself to be notable. --MASEM (t) 20:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Sigh... OK... lets do this a step at a time

I was assuming that, since almost everyone discussing this now was also involved in the RFC, there was no need for us to re-debate the issues again here. I am once again reminded of the folly of assumption. So... let's go back over it... I think the RFC was clear: There was a clear consensus that in articles entitled "List of X" the topic is X... and X must be notable. (only one editor opposed this consensus... he did so repeatedly and with great vigor, but it was still only one editor and everyone else disagreed with him). I therefore propose that we accept this consensus for use in this policy Any one object? Blueboar (talk) 22:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

That I think was generally agreed upon, although I remember people having concerns that just because the list may be notable, it isn't nessasarily appropriate such as List of bubblegum.陣内_Jinnai 23:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree as well that this consensus was reached in the RfC. Jinnai's point above is a reminder though that just because X is notable, List of X should not be created without sources demonstrating that notability. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 23:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Jim and Jinnai... I think we all agree that not every topic should be presented in list format ... but that is based on appropriateness not notability. Notability has nothing to do with the determination of whether it is appropriate to present something in a list format. The topic "bubblegum" is notable... whether we present our information appropriately (in a sentence/paragraph format article with the title Bubblegum) or inappropriately (in a list/chart format under the title List of Bubblegum). In both cases it is the topic that is notable, not the title or the format in which we present the information. (I am purposely not going to get into whether the notability of "bubblegum" extends to the more appropriate List of bubblegum flavors, or List of bubblegum brands, as that gets us too far into the X of Y debate). Blueboar (talk) 23:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

To make this as simple as possible for WP:N, we can rest on word "presumed" that is part of the general definition for notability; passing WP:N does not always guaranty the allowance for an article. Same thing with lists here. Even if "X" is notable, and that suggests "List of X" is ok, that doesn't mean that "List of X" is a good list to include, it only presumes a start. Exactly what that distinction is not something to handle in WP:N, but to refer to SALAT and consensus. So that's all we need to say here and not try to make any more statement with out an RFC to get into the details. --MASEM (t) 23:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

We spent a lot of time talking about "what is a list topic" on the talk side of the RFC. A lightbulb kind of went off when we said that a list is about a set or group of things (which we use as a framework to verify notability). One editor insisted that lists are actually articles about a real world list. But aside from him, a consensus seemed to be there. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall having ever agreed to any claim that the "____" in "List of ____" is the topic. It's often the topic, but it is not always the topic. See "the map is not the territory", "the title is not the topic", "'List of professional athletes who played at least 100 games and are consequently listed at this website' is a good topic for a list, but a stupid article title", and "the editor is going to lose her marbles if she keeps having to repeat this".

The article title should indicate the topic, but the title is not the be-all and end-all of the topic's definition. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Not everyone managed to stick around until the end of the discussion. But we did try to clarify what the heck a list topic is, and what you should be demonstrating the notability of. I specifically remember disagreeing with the notion that you can make up any list topic you want, so long as you have a couple of third-party sources in there somewhere. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps some wording that says something that while a topic of X may be notable, it doesn't mean there should be a "list of X" and then punt to SALAT.陣内_Jinnai 05:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I am beginning to think that we are talking about two different things here... one is "explaining the concept of notability as it relates to list articles", and the other is "explaining what makes for a notable topic for list articles". Just an observation - but if I am right, I think we should focus on the first. Blueboar (talk) 05:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

We can try but they're hard to distinguish. Here's my best shot at leaving the topic out of it: sources should speak to the topic at a high level... it's not enough to verify notability of a few list members. The main motive for that is so the whole list is something that can be supported by third-party sources. It's to avoid lists where you have a few sources about the entities on the list... but nothing to support that the whole idea of the list is notable in the first place. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

You are getting into what I call "upward inheritance"... the idea that notability of a whole class can be inherited from the notability of a few of its members. I agree that it is a flawed idea, and is an issue we should address in this guideline... but is it the central, core issue we should focus on to explain the concept of notability as it relates to list articles? (and if not, what is the central, core issue?) Blueboar (talk) 14:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The Core Issue

List articles should demonstrate the notability of the article subject (topic). We all agree on that. Notability is established via reliable sources that cover the subject (topic). We all agree on that. What we are struggling with is how to identify what the subject (topic) of a list style article really is. The possibilities range from a literal word for word coverage of the article title in sources (the Gavin doctrine) to a much broader establishment of the list topic through a combination of the list title and lead inclusion criteria as supported by sources (current practice). I don’t know exactly what wording would convey that because explaining the topic of an outline or set-index list is different from explaining the topic for an enumeration of Xs and is different for an enumeration of Xs in Y or Xs of Y. What ever wording is adopted, it should allow a typical editor to quickly understand how to identify the subject (topic) of a list article so that they know where the notability burden lies. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think we have a "current doctrine"... that's what we are trying to come up with. Otherwise, I think you are on the right track, and summarize the situation well. The only quibble (and it is a quibble and not an objection) I would make is that I don't think the criteria for inclusion defines the topic (they are connected, but I think it is more the other way around... that the topic defines the criteria for inclusion).

Hmmm... OK... this leads to a few more questions: How do we determine the topic when it comes to non-list articles? How and why are list articles different? (are they?... should they be?) Blueboar (talk) 16:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Blueboar – I think the biggest difference between List style and Prose style articles is that lists represent an enumeration of something while a prose style article describes a single instance of something. The Something in both cases is represented (and explained) in the article lead and in the article title. Single instance entities—people, organizations, flora, fauna, definitions, cultures, political entities, physical parts of the world as well as events and concepts—are easily described by the article title. One can quickly deduce that the article topic of an article on Joe E. Brown is Joe. E. Brown. One merely needs to apply the notability burden to the literal title of the article. As single instance topics move into the esoteric or conceptual, article titles don’t always convey the article topic precisely. Enumerations on the other hand seek to include some or all members of a group of somethings. In very large and complex groups of somethings, one always has the ability to break up the enumeration into logical sub-groupings. This always leads to enumerations of X of Y. So the question remains, how do you apply notability burdens to an enumeration? For a set-index or outline type list whose sole purpose is navigation of a complex, but otherwise notable set of articles, the mere fact that a group of articles related to a notable subject are being enumerated, is sufficient to meet our notability guidelines. For List of X type articles, two conditions might exist. Individual X members of the enumeration are notable so the enumeration is merely a topic specific set-index article. In some cases, individual X members of a group are not notable or do not have articles, but enumerating the discreet members of the group is useful as long as the group itself is notable. This list: Caecidotea is a perfect example of this second condition. The real complexity arises from the enumerations of X of Y. In my view, the driver of notability here is still the notability of X, and to a degree the notability of the intersection of X and Y. Bird is notable. An enumeration of Birds is thus notable but unwieldy. Thus An enumeration of Birds of Y is notable as long as there are reliable sources which support the inclusion of a bird entities in the subgroup Y. Although these X in Y and X of Y intersections can get complicated, by and large most existing List of X in Y articles are notable because X is notable and sources support the enumeration of certain members of X in group Y. The mistake we make is attempting the craft words that say X and Y must be notable. X must be notable. Y may indeed be notable (most likely is notable) but the burden is that there are sources that show certain members of group X meeting criteria Y. --Mike Cline (talk) 19:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

(light bulb moment!)... In complex (X of Y) situations, isn't the topic of the article actually the intersection of X and Y? If so, the notability of either X or Y on its own is somewhat irrelevant... what we need to establish is that the intersection is notable (ie we need sources that discuss the intersection). Blueboar (talk) 22:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I would contend that the intersection of X and Y is not what needs to be notable. An enumeration of X needs to be notable, but if its necessary or useful to subgroup that enumeration into an X of Y, the only test should be that sources clearly support inclusion of Xs that meet the Y criteria. A great many lists are compiled from sources that don't actually discuss the intersection of X and Y but instead support the inclusion of certain Xs that meet criteria Y. Where we really run into discrimination issues with lists is when editors prepend an adjective in front of X. ie. List big birds of Fooland. Unless the adjective is precisely defined by sources, the X is really not notable. ie. Birds maybe notable but Big Birds are not. (idea-Ban adjectives in List titles) Now, to your thoughts, indeed if an enumeration of X in Y is covered by sources (note I did not say discussed) is that intersection notable? or is that just an intersection supported by sources that allow discreet inclusion of Xs in the list? --Mike Cline (talk) 23:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

(re to Blueboar) If only it were that simple! The problem then lies in spinout lists. List of mammals is just a ridiculous thought, though completely notable. We end up having Lists of mammals by region all of which are easy to justify through sources. For the intersections, it is more complex especially in lists broken down for navigation (Lists of state leaders by year or the lists in Category:United States Military Academy alumni, most of which are Featured Lists). I think, in almost every case, the words "List of" should be completely ignored when determining the subject of a list for the purpose of determining notability. Let's pick a fun Featured List to review - List of wettest tropical cyclones in the United States (it has an adjective and is an X in Y intersection). I am sure that every time a cyclone sets a rainfall record, there is a reliable source stating so. I am also sure that "in the United States" is an editorial choice to avoid WP:IINFO issues. How do we word the guideline so as not to refute something already supported by consensus? Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 00:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

This is correct, for the scenario you described (lists of X and Y). Neither X or Y have to be notable in such lists; their notability is irrelevant when considering the notability of the list itself. It is wholly conceivable to have sources describing lists of the intersection between X and Y when neither X or Y are notable in themselves. Unlikely but conceivable. ThemFromSpace 02:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

To be brutally honest, this discussion is trying to add objectiveness where it is near impossible to apply to. Whether a list is appropriate or not is going to be extremely subjective. There are acceptable cases, there are unacceptable cases, but these by far do not cover all possible list constructions out there.

The RFC came out with one clear aspect: Given "List of X" where X is a singular word/concept, not an intersection or joining, or whatever, that as long as X is notable, "List of X" is presumed notable. The opposite is also true: if X is not notable, we cannot presume "List of X" is notable. Being presumed notable does not mean the list merits a stand-alone list, simply that it has passed a specific requirement before we allow a standalone list. This also doesn't try to say anything about "List of Y of X" or "List of X in Y" or whatever. This is probably the only objective measure (in as much notability is "objective") that we can apply at the present time. I know that my more mathematical and ordered side of my brain would love hard set rules when we allow lists, but it is just not going to happen; how lists are used at WP are so varied that no rule set can be made.

So again, my suggestion: Let's leave WP:N to say "List of X" is presumed notable if X (the topic of the list, which is not necessarily what is actually written in the title but must be clear by the article's lead) is notable, and SALAT is where the determination if a list is really appropriate should be made. Then we can come back around later and talk another RFC, and in my opinion, one geared to create example acceptable and unacceptable cases like WP:NFCI and WP:NFC#UUI so that editors can judge where the line is drawn beyond this obvious case. --MASEM (t) 00:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I think there's an implicit consensus here though... even as people are starting to venture off into "complex lists" that we agreed have no real consensus yet (e.g.: list of Xs that are Y and Z)... you're seeing people make an acknowledgment that you need to establish the notability of a class or group of things. I'm okay with saying "this doesn't apply to complex lists" until we've had more time to discuss those. But the idea that you need sources that talk about some kind of group of things should be non controversial, and really useful to figure out when someone has verified notability of the main topic versus something peripheral. It also describes what happened in the RFC as I understand it. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

As I've stated numerous times before, I strongly disagree with any suggestion that a list is automatically notable because the subject of the list is notable. Although a concept may itself be notable (having received significant attention from reliable sources) there is no reason to suggest that the listing of that particular concept has also received similar attention. Both the concept and the practice of listing that concept each have to show notability. This is a variation on the "inherited notability" fallacy. Just because one topic is notable doesn't mean derivatives of that topic are also notable. ThemFromSpace 02:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that "the intersection must be notable" comes the closest to Wikipedia policies, although it would dump some current lists. Notability of the items is not enough. For example, a list of US Presidents that are between 5'6" and 5'7" in height. North8000 02:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

You may disagree that "a list is automatically notable because the subject of the list is notable", but this was the key consensus finding from the RFC that was discussed in great detail. There are many examples of acceptable lists (includng FLCs), where the "list of X" concept is not notable but X clearly is. Note that this position no way means any list that enumerates elements of a notable topic is immediately acceptable on WP. --MASEM (t) 02:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

In WP terms, I think that the only thing that could get my "list of US Presidents that are between 5'6" and 5'7" in height" list article deleted is notability grounds. There's no "can't be a stupid list" guideline. :-) North8000 10:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

ThemFromSpace – In an attempt to understand what you said above in terms that might be applied to policy, consider this set of conditions.

• X is notable (supported by Reliable Sources)
• A reliable source has enumerated (listed) in some way members of the group X. This enumeration may contain 100% of available Xs or it might contain only a fraction of available Xs because Xs is a very large group. By all standards this enumeration would be considered significant coverage.
• Another reliable source has enumerated in some way other members of the group X. (Now we have two reliable sources that have enumerated (listed) members of group X.)
• Question: Under these conditions is a List of Xs notable?
• If not, then what additional conditions would you impose to show notability of a List of Xs? --Mike Cline (talk) 11:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

List of X is notable (because you said that X is notable)... but, if we have to break it up, then we have a problem. The way we break it up matters. There is a difference between List of X grouped by criteria Y and List of X modified by criteria Y. In the first, the topic remains X... but in the second we have actually altered the original topic and created a new one... so we need to establish that the new topic is notable. Blueboar (talk) 14:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

North8000 if List of US Presidents that are between 5'6" and 5'7" in height was created and you proposed it be deleted because it violated WP:INDISCRIMINATE, but still passed WP:N because the presidents were all notable, I don't think you'd have too much trouble getting it deleted 陣内_Jinnai 16:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem is if the guideline doesn't at least try to reign that kind of thing in... then it's very easy to wikilawyer and say Notability protects it. I want to stay away from the whole "X in Y" issue. But there's substantial opposition to the idea that notability of X establishes more than just a single article about X. Notability is not inherited and opening it up is beyond a slippery slope. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

SW-address the question I asked TFS above about List of Xs. The question is not about X in Y. Would those conditions achieve notability for a List of Xs? If not what additional burden should there be? --Mike Cline (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a decent proposal. I would actually prefer if two reliable third-party sources discussed members of some group X in abstract... . I'm not sure if my proposal is more strict or more loose than what you said. It's a little different, but not much. How do you feel about it? Shooterwalker (talk) 05:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Progress - SW, the one comment you make--so it's less about describing individual members and more about describing what membership is all about is the problematic one when it comes to list of X. When X is described in Article X, as Archie Bunker said, ipso facto membership characteristics of group X have been described. Having sources that conveinently enumerate some members of X in someway, allows us 1) to validate that indeed a group of Xs exist, and 2)the membership characteristics of group X are consistent enough to prevent indiscriminate inclusion of non-group members. When it comes to Lists of X of Y, your statement has a bit more validity but needs careful consideration to ensure universal applicabilty and clarity. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Mike... you say that the membership characteristics of group X have been described in Article X... I have a problem with that. I don't think we can base what List of X says on what is stated at Article X... since Article X may contain OR, may not be written with a NPOV, or have any number of other problems. In both Article X and List of X, we need to establish what the sources say. We need to describe what the sources say the membership characteristics of X are. (and the sources may disagree).

And that is a fundamental issue in lists... The fact that there are sources that discuss topic X shows that topic X is notable... that means we have a potential for a list... but because of the disagreements in the sources as to what X actually consists of, creating a list of X may be problematic. Thus... for lists, notability is only one hurdle that must be crossed. Blueboar (talk) 16:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

BB - I don't disagree with you. But the simple fact is if a source is used in article Bird to describe the characteristics of a bird, then that same source can be used to describe the characteristics necessary for inclusion in a group of birds. I am in no way suggesting that lists should not be sourced, but am trying to come to consensus around what conditions the sources are establishing. I think what you are trying to avoid (in a way) is listing Xs that aren't really a member of a group of Xs. Yellowstone (X) is notable, but there is no group of Yellowstones so a list of Yellowstones would never make it. Where as U.S. National Park (X) is notable and there is a clearly verifiable group of U.S. National Parks. An enumeration List of X in this case is notable. Sourcing for list is really all about verifying that indeed notable X is in a group of some sort that has descreet members. The simpler X is, the simpler it is to define and source a group of Xs if it exists. The more complex and vague X is, the more difficult sourcing lists of X is. But to say that not every X should have a list of X, albeit a true statement, provides absolutely no guidance as to what conditions must exist for a list of X to be notable. We should focus on those conditions, and not on situations that are on the margins. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

"if a source is used in article Bird to describe the characteristics of a bird, then that same source can be used to describe the characteristics necessary for inclusion in a group of birds." That may work for birds, where the characteristics are non-controversial and fairly well agree on... but it does not work as a general rule applicable to all topics, especially controversial ones. The problem is that sources may disagree on the characteristics... Take the topic "Secret Society". There are several high quality scholarly sources that lay out a set of characteristics that the author thinks defines a secret society... these sources establish that the topic is notable. However, these sources lay out significantly different sets of characteristics. This difference means that creating a list is problematic. We must either adopt one set of characteristics over the others (a violation of WP:NPOV) or merge them (which would be Original research under WP:SYNT).

But this is not really on point... you ask: "what conditions must exist for a list of X to be notable"... I think you are asking the wrong question. We don't need to show that the list is notable (that was Gavin's mistake)... we need to show that the topic of the list is notable. Establishing notability does not mean a list is viable (as we know there are other issues involved)... it simply means that there is a potential for a list article. Blueboar (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

BB - BTW I have not nor am I likely to make Gavin's mistake. --Mike Cline (talk) 20:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Viability

BB - I like your Secret Societies (X) example because it allows us to highlight several core issues in a concise way. It's not relevant that there are different interpretations of the adjective Secret as all verifiable interpretations can be included in the article which is neither POV or SYN. Now lets say for argument sake that there exist only 10 Secret Societies that meet the differing criteria of Secret (all supported by sources). An embedded list of those ten would be perfectly acceptable and any discussion of whether a specific society made the list would be one of editorial descretion. But what if there were 250 societies that meet the differing criteria (all supportable by sources), wouldn't an SAL listing all 250 be notable. There would be no SYN or POV if the list was organized around the differing criteria--i.e. Societies that meet criteria A, societies that meet criteria B, etc. I think the key element of this little discussion is that there is an ADJECTIVE associated with X. Anytime that occurs, interpreting a single set of discreet characteristics for X can be complicated, especially on contraversial and battleground type Xs. Its funny, that I am reworking an article List of ghost towns in Montana. Note the presence of the ADJECTIVE Ghost. There are at least 4 different sets of characteristics that can qualify a town as a ghost town. But the fact that many reliable sources have enumerated some members of the group ghost towns in Montana supports having the list on notability grounds. How the list is organized to deal with the different members and which members are included is an inclusion/editorial decision, not a notability one. --Mike Cline (talk) 20:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Exactly my point... When it comes to lists, we need to look at more than just notability to see whether the list is viable. The topic "ghost towns" is notable (discussed by many sources). This notability justifies creating a prose article about that topic. However, that notability does not necessarily justify creating a List of ghost towns... there are additional considerations that make a list viable or non-viable (such as whether we can create a viable inclusion criteria based on sourced definitions).

With a prose article, Notability of the topic more or less means that a viable article can be written (or, at least, notability is the most important factor in determining whether an article is viable or not.) ... but the same is not necessarily true with a list article. With a list article, however, the topic may be notable, but the list may still not be viable (due to considerations other than notability) ... indeed, Notability of the topic may not be the most important factor in determining whether the list is viable). At best, a notable topic is an indication that a list is potentially possible.

I think how one determines whether a topic is notable is the same no matter what kind of article we are talking about... but, the impact and meaning of that notability is different. Notability means more to a prose article than it does to a list article. Blueboar (talk) 21:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

If we had a viability guideline, our problems might be simple. But we don't. The only question this guideline on notability needs to address re lists is: What conditions need to exist to evaluate the topic of List of Xs as notable? Nothing more nor less. All those problematic viability issues are in the domain of other guidelines and MOS, not this one. --Mike Cline (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I have been thinking along similar lines... we need a WP:Viability guideline. Passing WP:N would be one of the criteria for Viability. Blueboar (talk) 01:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate that everyone is trying hard to figure this out. Again, as tempting as it is to think we can come up with a solution for complex lists with adjectives and intersecting sets... we're still struggling to pin down basic lists. The key to handling basic lists is to to avoid some kind of "inherited notability" problem without falling into the "Gavin doctrine". At the risk of repeating myself, the solution is to ask people to establish notability for Xs, not just X. That means notability of a group or set, or at least something in the plural. That's very much in line with how this discussion went at the RFC. But if my summary of the discussion proves to be disagreeable, we need to find a way to structure this discussion to get a sense of where everyone stands. I don't know if we need to be more loose, more tight, or more what to get this language right because a lot of people are coming at this with very different and nuanced angles. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I kind of took it for granted that the topic of any list was Xs (in the plural). But perhaps we do need to spell that out. Blueboar (talk) 01:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that's what I've been saying all along (although I described it as a "group" or "set"). I think we're in agreement, we just have to find the best way to phrase it. It doesn't need to be many words, it just has to be the right words. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:28, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. If there are 1500 RSes discussing 1500 different "birds", but don't discuss them as a group from what I get you couldn't use those same for List of birds. That, if its the case, seems ridiculous. If anything, use of WP:SYNTH would support that more than it would Bird since you wouldn't be trying to cobble together from multiple sources "what is a bird?", but just listing "this is what people have said is a bird".陣内_Jinnai 06:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: I kind of took it for granted that the topic of any list was Xs (in the plural). BB you don't need to take it for granted. That is what a list topic is--the Xs. SW - We are in agreement and I suggest the wording of that last sentence be thus: For a stand-alone "list of Xs", the sources should show that some members of the group "Xs" have been enumerated (listed) as a group. As for viability, vertuosity, veractiy, and all the other things that might cause problems with an article, those are editorial decisions, not notability decisions. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

As far as Notability is concerned, I don't think it is necessary for a source to have actually enumerated (listed) the Xs as a group... I think it is necessary that a source has discussed Xs as a group (which is a slightly different concept). That said... I can see the argument that if no source has ever compiled a list of Xs before, then our doing so would be Original research... but that is an WP:OR issue and not a WP:N issue. Blueboar (talk) 15:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad we're getting closer to the same page. I support Blueboar's position. I suppose I could accept a source has "enumerated some members". But for the sake of writing a decent lead, I think Blueboar nails it. I'm less interested in a source that says "Robins, cardinals, and eagles are all birds", and more insistent that we have a source that says "Birds typically have wings, and most birds can fly, except penguins." Basically, I think it's more important to have a source that establishes the criteria for membership than it is to have a source that enumerates a few members. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that, in a list article, we need a verifiable criteria for inclusion (one that is based on reliable sources)... but, that is a WP:V issue and not a WP:N issue. As long as there are sources that discuss Xs (as a group)... the topic of Xs (as a group) is notable. That means we can justify having an article about Xs (as a group). That article might take the form of a list... or it might not. Notability of the topic is established either way.

I think the problem we keep bumping up against is that people think of WP:N as being the key to viability (ie whether an article should be kept or deleted). This is somewhat true for prose articles (if the topic is notable, we should have an article on it) ... but (unlike prose articles) for a list to be viable, it has to do more than just pass notability. I realize and agree that this page should focus on notability... but I am thinking that perhaps this is incomplete... perhaps we need to place notability in context... and discuss how notability does and does not relate to article viability. Whether this should be done in a new section of this guideline, or in a new separate guideline is another question. Blueboar (talk) 17:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm okay with leaving the notability standard for lists as discussing Xs as a group, in the plural, or however you want to describe it. I also strongly agree that we can't count on notability to be the only line we draw for lists. "Indiscriminant" is also another important standard. But for the sake of this discussion, we should pretend that we all agree that lists should be "discriminate" (and pretend we all agree on what "discriminate" means) and try to focus JUST on notability. For now. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

OK... Just focusing on notability, I would say our basic statement is simple: "The topic of an article on a group of things (be it named Xs or List of Xs) is considered notable as long as there are reliable sources that discuss Xs as a group." Blueboar (talk) 18:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I concur with BB and will support a change to the wording he suggests. Just for grins I want to but it to a simple test. A reliable source exists on notable Subject A. Contained in the source is a Bibliography or further reading list of books, journals, and other references about Subject A. Does that now mean that Books, et. al related to Subject A have been discussed as a group? --Mike Cline (talk) 18:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I support BlueBoar's wording too, if someone wants to boldly put it in the "list" section of this notability guideline. (Except I would change "an article on" to "a list about", to make it clear we're talking about lists -- both Xs and List of Xs). Shooterwalker (talk) 18:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I admit that having SW raise the issue of discrimination forces me to point something out--List Notability (ie Xs as a group) and discrimination are inseparable. Discrimination flows from the membership characteristics of Group X (as supported by sources). If the list is indiscriminate, then is also not notable as presumably no one has discussed a random bunch of Xs with no consistent membership characteristics. Our problems with Indiscrimate stem from editorial failures to clearly articulate inclusion criteria in any given list. While a List of Xs may be perfectly notable, a poorly articulated inclusion criteria and the inclusion of list entries that don't comply with the membership characteristics lead to charges of Indiscriminate List. This may represent one of two conditions--1) poor editorial work or 2) the group being listed is really not notable as a group because discriminate inclusion criteria are not possible. If condition one exists, its an editorial issue. If condition two exists, its a non-notable list, not an indiscriminate one. Discrimination in lists is actually a very easy condition to spell out (especially for lists of Xs and logical Lists of Xs in Y). Discrimination criteria for complex and vague list topics (those containing those pesky adjectives) is harder because there maybe (and usually is) divergent understanding of what the adjective really means. ie. My favorite question: How Big is a Large Gallon Jar? --Mike Cline (talk) 18:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

They're definitely related. I'd rather not dive into the issue any further... except to say that when we get around to nailing down what's discriminate vs. indiscriminate, it's going to be an absolute necessity that it's related to reliable sources somehow. But for now, let's assume discriminate-ness is not a problem, and that we only have to pin down notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

That will be a can of worms, but I think there is broad agreement here that if X is notable then that entends to List of X. We just need to make it clear that being notable doesn't mean a list should be created.陣内_Jinnai 02:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Do you think the current guideline does a good job? Even in the nutshell it says "A topic is deemed appropriate for inclusion if it complies with WP:NOT and has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources." That should make it clear enough that notability is just one hurdle to pass, and doesn't give a get out of jail free card. There are a few other mentions of other policies too. Is that enough? Shooterwalker (talk) 03:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the statement is worth repeating in slightly more depth (say a short paragraph) in the guideline itself... especially as it relates to lists. Blueboar (talk) 14:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Resolution?

I still think that having someone write a good essay on the complicated bits would be helpful. As a result, I favor keeping things fairly brief in this guideline, and punting to SALAT (which is the closest that the community has come to a true "Notability (lists)" page). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Given that we're still waiting for the RFC to be "properly" closed with a non-involved summary, I do think it makes sense to create a new page that references that RFC, this discussion, and anywhere else that's appropriate, to outline the basic facts that presently, there are no consensus-agreed rules when a list is appropriate or not, but discuss some of the points that are considered, like notability, sourcing, indiscrimination, etc. The essay should be written not to promote or reject any specific argument, but instead summarize what we know that are characteristics of lists that no one questions. The essay of course should reference WP:N and SALAT and anything else appropriate for policy/guideline advice. It can go into the issues of "Lists of X of Y" and the like but really again, nothing too deep, only that we know a few accepted cases for certain. --MASEM (t) 21:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Blueboar, Mike Cline, and myself... we all came to an understanding about the situation. It's grounded in Blueboar's proposal which had consensus at the RFC, and retreads the conversation about inherited notability and list topics that happened in the RFC as well. So it's clear AND reinforces the same point of the RFC. Not sure if you caught the wording Blueboar outlined above. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

No no , not discounting that at all. We need something in WP:N, and that language seems right. But we also probably need what has been suggested, something that talks about the viability or appropriateness of a list following the notability determination. Right now, there's no way we can write something as a guideline but we can write something that summarizes the RFC as an essay for future consideration as to tie in with the proposed WP:N addition. --MASEM (t) 23:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Jinnai/Viability - a start on a viability of lists essay. Feel free to edit it however you want.陣内_Jinnai 04:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I think this is useful. It will help us if and when we find the will to dig deeper and clarify some of the more complex issues on lists. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Just by the most recent headcount, that's Masem, myself, Mike Cline, and Jinnai supporting Blueboar's wording on the "list of X" issue. Really the RFC should have been enough... because the discussion was very thorough there and we had more participants who supported and clarified Blueboar's proposal. So... unless anyone can offer evidence that we've grossly misinterpreted the outcome of the RFC, I'm going to encourage Blueboar to boldly slip his language into the section on lists in the current guideline. (Or I'll jump in and help out if no one gets to it.) Shooterwalker (talk) 04:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. Blueboar (talk) 15:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Expanding on the basic statement

OK... we have the basic statement down (and hopefully everyone agrees on it). I propose a slight expansion that logically extends from what we have said. Something along the lines of:

• "The fact that sources discuss a specific X (or even several individual Xs) does not in itself mean that all Xs are notable, or that Xs are a notable topic. To establish notability, the sources must discuss Xs as a group or set."

Any objections? Blueboar (talk) 17:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

No serious objections. It might be more clear if you replaced "the topic of an article on a group of things" with "a list about a group of things"... since we ARE talking about lists... We'll see if there are any other objections though. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

OK... I have added my suggestion. And tweaked to make the language clearer. Blueboar (talk) 02:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

New notability(?) guideline

Editors here may want to see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aviation.2FAccident_article_notability_has_been_marked_as_a_guideline.

IMO this is a nicely written guideline and should be supported as helpful advice. It just doesn't seem to be about notability, strictly speaking. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Could some non-specialist editors take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Accident article notability and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Accident article notability and comment on Northwest Airlines Flight 188, and negligence as a criterion to be added to death, damage, and regulation change? patsw (talk) 01:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Notability and lists... a new question

OK... It seems we have reached a consensus on defining what the topic of a list is (Xs, in the plural)... and we agree that we must establish the notability of that topic through reference to sources that discuss that topic (Xs, in the plural). It is obvious that for a stand alone list, this must be done in the list article itself (in the lede). The next question is whether we need to establish notability in non-stand alone list articles... (ie sub-articles tied to prose articles on the same topic). I do understand the argument that if there is a prose article on Xs (in the plural) there is no need to re-establish notability for a spin off "List of Xs"... but I don't think that is "best practice". My personal feeling is that every article (lists and prose articles... main articles and sub-articles) should establish/re-establish notability. I expect others may disagree. So let's discuss. Blueboar (talk) 15:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

BB - I would contend that a SAL is a SAL and thus only one standard need apply. I think we would risk mass confusion and the propensity to game the system if we started categorizing different types of lists. As much as that might sound attractive, it is fraut with problems.--Mike Cline (talk) 15:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

My question isn't about SALs... my question is about Spin-outs.... do we need to re-establish notability in a spun-out list? (or are you saying that as soon as you spin-out a list into its own article, you create a SAL?) Blueboar (talk) 16:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Bingo! From a notability perspective, that is absolutely correct! --Mike Cline (talk) 16:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I think I agree with you... but I suspect others may disagree... so perhaps you should explain why you think that (from a notability perspective) as soon as you spin-out a list, you have created a SAL. Blueboar (talk) 16:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Stand alone lists should be notable, but it is not an iron clad criteria, as in the case when the parent article is too long for all the content. For example, consider an author with a list of written works, and the list of works is then spun out. Should this new list be notable in and of itself? Yes. Will it always be clearly evident that it is? Not necessarily. Sometimes list articles are spun out for convenience. Another example is a list of songs and collaborations by a musical artist, or the always targeted list of in popular culture items. WP:AVOIDSPLIT exists, but I think it should be used as a criteria to not split content in the first place, rather than evaluating content that has already been split. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 17:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

BB. I think that the idea that when you spin-out a list instead of create it from scratch you are creating something different doesn't make sense and would be very difficult to apply differing standards too. Take this scenario:

• Article A contains an perfectly sourced embedded list with a section heading of Foos of A. The embedded list has grown beyond a reasonable size and must be spun-out as a new article: List of Foos of A. Is it a SOL (spun-out list)?
• Article B (the categorical brother of A) doesn't yet have a section called Foos of B. Its sourceable, but no one has done so. An editor comes along and creates a new article: List of Foos of B using the same sourcing that would have been used if the list had been embedded in Article B. Is this article a SAL, not a SOL?

Would not the new notability guideline for lists apply equally? What differing notability conditions would you apply to one and not the other? Leaving Set-index lists and DAB page out of the mix, we have two styles of articles in WP: Prose style and list style. Any attempt to create various categories of list style articles and apply significantly different notability burdens on the list topic for each category will not only prove difficult, but in my view extremely counter-productive. --Mike Cline (talk) 18:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I would question whether Foos of A (or List of Foos of A) was properly considered a spin out from the article on Location A or a spin out from the article on Foos (or a new topic that merges both)? but this gets us into the more complex "X of Y" situation, and we are not (yet) at the stage where we can discuss those. Before we can talk about the complex, we need to determine consensus on the simple... and examine the more fundamental situation where we have a prose article about Xs (which establishes that Xs, as a group, are notable). If we spin-out a list article entitled List of Xs... do we need to re-establish the notability of Xs at this new article or not? If so, why?... if not, why not? Blueboar (talk) 19:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the simple answer is sometimes. Lets look at how these articles are created in the first place, either through the spontaneous creation by an author from nothing, or by taking content from an article and pasting it in a new article. In the case of the first, yes, they should have criteria that makes the article independently notable, else, why not just include that content in the parent article in the first place? In these cases the issue of notability is replaced by the interest of need: there is no need for this content to have its own article, so it should stay in the parent article.

In the case of article that are spun out, it should only be in the case when the content is overbearing the article. By that I mean that the parent article is simply becoming unbalanced, with one type of content outweighing the other content in the article. These cases are governed by the rules already in place for spinning out content. In these cases, other actions should come first, like trimming the content down to eliminate unnecessary inclusions. If this has been done, then it can still be spun out, but it is not because it is notable, it is because it is in some sense aesthetically necessary to make the parent article a balanced article. In these cases I think the issue of notability is in some sense bypassed, because the article was not created out of the void, it was created as an extension from the parent article for the purpose of organization and formatting. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 19:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

There was a recent AFD I participated in where people tried to mince terms between spin-out and stand-alone. But I still refer to WP:AVOIDSPLIT. An article is an article and I suspect most people agree. Any discussion of this should really take place at WP:SS. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

NickPenguin says my feelings as good or better than I could. There are some times when other criteria for allowing lists - prose or not - to exist without needing to re-establish notability in the article. I will say it doesn't hurt, but that's not the same as being required.陣内_Jinnai 06:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Verifiability vs Notability

PoV, and even the PoV of groups is all that distinguishes Notability from verifiability. Whereas Verifiability ensures the quality of content on WP, Notability is the devil's bargain that WP made with PoV to limit the number of bytes included; it relies entirely on the quality of good sense that editors may or may not possess to implement fairly. That it became a Pillar astounds me; its injustices are therefore so much more insidious. Numerous times every day, editors claim number of Google hits as establishing or not establishing notability, with the numbers varying every time. But even these attempts at quantifiability are no more than Verifiability multiplied by X. Anarchangel (talk) 22:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

What is "V v N" and "PoV"? What does "Verifiability multiplied by X" mean?patsw (talk) 16:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

PoV presumably stands for the words 'point of view'. Bn (talk) 23:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Given the context, it seemed to me "V v N" stood for "Verifiability vs Notability" so I've renamed this section. --Tothwolf (talk) 17:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Can I ask the Article's Subject?

Is it considered fine to ask the subject of an article (say, a person or a company) for sources about them, if I do not have any vested interest in them?

NittyG (talk) 18:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

It is fine to ask ... whether it is OK to use the sources the subject gives you is another matter. Blueboar (talk) 18:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

BB. Why would you say: it may not be OK to use the sources? Did you really mean: The sources may not meet our WP:RS policy? I would think an editor can use (cite) any source they want to. Whether or not it is suitable is a question of context isn't it? --Mike Cline (talk) 19:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, that is part of what I meant. But it goes beyond just RS. We have several policies that limit how and when we can use sources (WP:OR, WP:BLP, etc.). Blueboar (talk) 19:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

BB. No intention to be contentious here but a careful read of both WP:OR and WP:BLP indicates that neither actually prohibits the use of any class of reliable source in an article. They do identify various contexts where a particular class of source is unsuitable to support a specific aspect of an article, but I found no prohibitions that a particular class of source cannot be used. So what you meant to say, and I think you'll concur, is that some sources may not be suitable in a specific article context, not that they can't be used. --Mike Cline (talk) 02:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I should add that it would be fine to ask for sources even if you did have a vested interest; you could then add the sources to the talk page of the article so that other editors could be aware of them and assess them for reliability. Talking to an article subject is often useful for the purpose of getting a high-quality public domain photo of them, or to be directed to books or interviews about them that you might not otherwise have been aware of. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

So, here's some scenarios:

(1) I recently read on the article in the blog for Thingiverse, where they said that their wikipedia article was being deleted because of a lack of notability, and they were imploring people to try to come to its rescue. I took up the cause, and defended the article. If I had simply asked them for resources, would that have been appropriate?

(2) I was trying to add an article about a company called EOS GmbH here[11]. Could I just ask the company for some literature proving their significance? I am in no way affiliated with the company. NittyG (talk) 00:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

1. Yes. Asking the subject of an article to please provide you with information or links to reliable WP:Independent sources about them is a good way to find those sources. This is because most sources notice when they're mentioned in the media, so they usually know about any sources that exist.
2. Yes. Note that sources published by the company (like their own website or their own literature) do not prove their significance.

What you want is for them to say something like, "Oh, yes! We're in the media all the time. The big newspaper Regional Times printed a long article about our company on 32 Janufember. There were ten pages on our company in the investment magazine Get Rich Today last month. Our CEO was interviewed last week on Television Before Coffee, which you can find online at http:/IneedCaffeine The product is described in three academic journals, and our manufacturing process just won the Novel Prize. And, of course, there's the book by Prof. IM Smart (ISBN 1234567890), who wrote a whole chapter about our management approach."

What you don't want is for them to say something like, "Oh, yes, we're terribly important. You can see that from our website, even though the newspaper reporters won't give us the time of day. Also, you can see that selective laser sintering is important, because there are scientific papers written on it, even though none of those papers mention us or have anything to do with us."

More information is available at WP:CORP, which covers businesses and their products. Good luck, WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Changed order of sections

I changed the section order to define what notability is before talking about subtleties and exceptions. I know you all have been working hard on the list notability criteria, but ultimately that's more of a clarification on application rather than a core part of what notability is about, so I moved it lower. Feel free to tweak the order of course, but I do think we need to keep the sections that talk about what notability fundamentally is near the top. Gigs (talk) 01:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

"Grain of sand" notability

As I look at more and more biography-based articles, I am starting to question if the current framework of notability is enough to make something notable anymore. I recently split List of sports-related people from Mississippi away from it's original root article. This reduced the original article which had reached over 1,100 names. Of that number, currently only 30 do not have existing articles. A search shows the potential of 8,700+ more articles that could be added to these lists. No matter how many times articles get divided and redivided, the overall number of people still remains. To what extent is a single person still notable when placed side-by-side with another 10,000 people who are also give equal notability? — CobraWiki ^{( jabber | stuff )} 06:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

This isn't really a problem with notability, its a greater problem with confusing the purpose of lists and categories. These lists are largely redundant with existing categories, and provide no new information that the categories don't already present. The individual articles are about notable subjects, so I don't think this really addresses your problem. --Jayron32 06:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

You can implement whatever list selection criteria you (and the other editors at the article) agree to. It is not necessary to name every single person from Mississippi, or even every single notable person from Mississippi, just because we can. Use your best judgment, and document the criteria in the lead so that other editors are able to figure out who should be included. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, a state is far too large for a "notable people" list, and if subdivision is necessary it should be by community, not by field. Powers ^T 12:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Imagine a living athlete who is born in San Diego, goes to high school in Los Angeles, goes to college in Santa Barbara, plays for the Oakland Raiders, coaches at CSU Sacramento, and then retires to run a winery in Napa Valley. Which California community list should that person be included in? What part of California is he "really" from? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The original question was good. "Playing professional sports" was probably too broad, given that we may have 10,000 professional players of all sports in the USA alone, at any one time. The lists are loaded with them. "Musicians" (pardon the pov quotes!  :) are in the same category, except there are maybe 100,000 of them. At least they supposedly have a higher criteria of being "notable" in some way, which seems altogether too easy to achieve. 90% of notables on my lists for places and high schools, are musicians or athletes.

I don't know what the cutoff is, but Vermont is still not (yet) too large to have a list of notables. The forked list is not a standard name. Maybe that helps! But any state/province/prefecture much larger than Vermont (most of them) would probably be too large IMO, and a lot of cities, too. On the other hand, who really scrutinizes these? They may get visitors, but what editor would say a list of that length is readable?

I don't know if it is good news or bad, but it does appear that the common man, including us, is going to wind up with a bio here if this keeps up. We either need to stem the tide or give up!  :) Student7 (talk) 14:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

To answer WhatamI's question, the athlete seems to show up in each place he named. Don't have criteria to kick him out. We have been ignoring the town (Santa Barbara) when he is in college though. This has been more or less "editor's choice" rather than from any policy we can point to, I'm afraid. Student7 (talk) 00:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Notability of neighborhoods

I recently nominated two articles covering neighborhoods of large American cities for deletion. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brighton, Syracuse, New York and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Del Cerro, San Diego, California.) Neither one had very good sources at the time of nomination; the reliable ones are all local in scope. Both were closed as keep, at least in part due to concerns that deleting one neighborhood article would leave a gap in the coverage of the city's neighborhoods.

Is it reasonable that local news coverage is sufficient to establish the notability of a neighborhood within a city? Certainly neighborhoods like Fisherman's Wharf, San Francisco are well known and quite notable across the country and even around the world, but a single southside neighborhood of Syracuse with little more than a single historic district? I have difficulty understanding what is notable about that.

Thoughts?

-- Powers ^T 12:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Notability is based on independent and significant coverage, something that local sources cannot provide. Local sources can fill in gaps once the notability has been shown but an article should also avoid over reliance on them too. --MASEM (t) 14:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

That's what I thought, but there seemed to be a consensus in the AfDs that local sources were sufficient (though this may have been obscured somewhat by other "keep" recommendations that were based on the desire to avoid "holes" in coverage -- that is, one deleted neighborhood article among dozens of extant ones). Powers ^T 17:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

"Holes in coverage" shouldn't matter, as we aren't supposed to use WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for deletion arguments. Unfortunately, those can't go to DRV (as that would be AFD #2 given the minimal replies). --MASEM (t) 17:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. The middle ground is still open: You could merge them all to a new article, "Neighborhoods in San Diego", using {{Main}} and a summary for those that are independently notable, and redirecting all the others. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Somehow I doubt that would be quietly accepted by fans of the articles as they stand. Powers ^T 14:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The criterion for place names articles is its verifiable existence in a reliable source, not significant coverage. patsw (talk) 20:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

That's the first I've heard of an exception to the GNG for places. Can you explain? Powers ^T 21:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The idea that all verifiable place names are notable goes back to at least 2008... but has never gained a real consensus (see Wikipedia:Notability (Geographic locations), a proposal/essay which tried to address this very question and failed) Blueboar (talk) 22:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The editor has a good point about neighborhoods. However, most places, numerically, in the US, are mostly covered by their local paper only. Talk about holes! We wouldn't have articles on hardly anyplace between the Mississippi and the Rockies but a hundred cities or so! I maintain articles on small towns. Most "neighborhoods" in San Diego are huge by comparison, though they don't have the large history that these tiny villages have. But SD is covered by a reliable newspaper. Yes, too often of the soft soap kind of news, but that's local coverage for you. I was doubtful at first but many SD neighborhoods articles are improving. A few (too few?) are quite good. Almost all cover a lot of people. Student7 (talk) 14:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Persistent confusion of notability with weight

I keep seeing WP:NOTE invoked to challenge inclusion of content in an article, where WP:UNDUE is proper. What brings this to a focus for me now is this statement by an experienced editor arguing against inclusion of a new theory (which has not yet had wide exposure) in context of an article about a mainstream theory.

It's clear you have a problem with the applicability of WP:N. Perhaps you should re-read WP:UNDUE, and also WP:Fringe theories#Notability versus acceptance, which are essentially the application of WP:N to article content.

Would it be helpful if the section WP:NNC stated more explicitly how and why these are distinct? They both depend upon WP:RS, but there they part company. WP:UNDUE restricts inclusion of marginal ideas in articles about mainstream ideas, and requires reliable sources that talk about the relation of the former to the latter. This sounds sort of like "notability within that particular mainstream field" but any WP:RS mention suffices for notability whereas this more particularly requires something affirming the relationship.

The reference to WP:Fringe is problematic too. WP:Fringe says "To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. More extensive treatment should be reserved for an article about the idea, which must meet the test of notability", and the portion of WP:Fringe theories#Notability versus acceptance which is relevant to the point refers only to WP:UNDUE, not to WP:NOTE.

In WP:NNC, how would you characterize the distinction between WP:NOTE and the relevant parts of WP:NPOV (WP:UNDUE and WP:GEVAL anyway) so as to make it more difficult for editors to persist in this confusion? Bn (talk) 23:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

It's one of my pet peeves, but even I make use the (plain-English) "notable" on occasion when I'm talking about whether something is DUE. I don't think that most editors actually think that wikiNotability (=gets a separate article) and wikiDUE (=important enough to mention) are interchangeable concepts. I think we just need to individually and collectively make the effort to be clear, and explain when necessary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I respectfully suggest that you are underestimating the problem. I quoted an editor who says "WP:UNDUE and WP:Fringe theories#Notability versus acceptance ... are essentially the application of WP:N to article content." That's a pretty unequivocal assertion that they are interchangeable. And that is pretty representative of the interpretations that I've been running across (obviously an unscientific nonsurvey).

The phrase that you offered to distinguish them is actually no exception. With all respect, WP:DUE is not equivalent to "important enough to mention". Yes, WP:DUE says "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all". But just prior to that it says "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views." In other words, the emphasis in the policy is on inclusion of minority views in a balanced way, but "important enough to mention" reduces this to inclusion vs. exclusion--which is what WP:N is about.

I acknowledge the long-standing inclusion/exclusion debate, but that debate is about articles on topics of questionable notability, and it does not apply with equal force or in the same manner to subordinate mention of such topics within an unquestioned article. Ludwigs2 has offered a gorilla cage metaphor that expresses this difference of treatment very well. Notability shoots down dangerous gorillas that are running around loose in their own article. Due weight aims to put the beast contentedly on display in a habitat-appropriate enclosure for the edification of wikipedia readers. A hunting rifle is not an appropriate tool for building a cage. The WP:RS test for subordinate conclusion is more subtle than that for notability: sources affirmed as reliable for the mainstream topic must affirm the relationship between the marginal topic and the mainstream topic. That is an appropriate and pretty powerful tool.

That debate is driven by the influx of editors clamoring for articles about their favorite marginal topics. Subordinate mention safely encapsulated within an article about a mainstream idea is the right way to deal with them. They have to stay there unless and until they can pass the test of notability for a freestanding article. It gives them something immediate so they're not left frothing at the barred gate, and it gives them a constructive idea of what is needed for their pet topic to be worthy of its own encyclopedia article. For the gorilla to be contented the habitat must be responsibly represented, and that means getting the beast safely away from those who are deeply vested in being big game hunters.

Quick recap: Why talk about WP:DUE in the discussion of WP:N? Because the big gun of notability is being invoked where neutrality is proper, and relative weight is being treated as essentially equivalent to an extension of notability from articles (its proper domain) to content within articles. Rather, the two policies, notability and neutrality, complement each other, and we need to work with one in each hand. If we obscure the differences between them we tie one hand behind us. Here's what that tactical error might look like: If we say neutrality is just notability applied to articles, then if it's so-called 'notable' enough for inclusion in an article why isn't it notable enough for its own standalone article? Bn (talk) 22:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

"We" don't say anything of the sort. You found one person who said that WP:DUE is analogous to (but not identical to) WP:N. One person is not the community. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I think what we have here is a meta-debate over a (perceived) lack of clarity in WP:DUE, using WP:NOTE as a model of clarity. The common problem editors dealing with both WP:DUE and WP:NOTE issues is that people see Wikipedia as a place to give fringe theories more prominence, raise them higher in the search engine results, and putting them side by side in articles with the mainstream. It's about a creating bigger audience, using (or exploiting) the anyone can edit pillar here. To the point about WP:DUE: I think it's much harder to generalize editing content within an article. WP:DUE can never be as precise as WP:NOTE and all its related guidelines. Each content dispute depends a great deal on tone and text size and that varies from article to article. It is also an analog of the advocacy editors v. "good article" editors which comes up even in the non-WP:DUE conflicts, which we try to manage with the behavioral and dispute guidelines. patsw (talk) 14:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, I quoted one person (who said a lot more of the same sort in that discussion). What I said was that I have seen this fairly frequently, and this one instance piqued me to bring up the issue here. I thought that you agreed with this when you said that it's one of your pet peeves. I'm sure of what I quoted and what I said, but I gather I misinterpreted your words. Sorry, evidently I don't know what you're doing. ;-> Bn (talk) 23:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Patsw, some discussion I've seen suggests that WP:NOTE is not a model of clarity ;-> precisely because of the long-standing inclusion/exclusion tug of war among those who have formulated and revised it, and my only suggestion for clarification was actually about WP:NNC. But irrespective of how clearly the two policies are written, my central point is the need to maintain the distinction. The policies are very clear that

• WP:NOTE is for articles as a whole and not for content within articles.
• WP:DUE is for content within articles and not for articles as a whole.

If we say that WP:DUE is equivalent to WP:NOTE as applied to content within articles ("=important enough to mention"), that distinction is reduced to nonsense, and we are ignoring the unique strengths of a valuable tool for managing the wild and woolies — or outright throwing it away.

If you mean that explaining the complexities of Wikipedia editing by making an equivalence between WP:NOTE and WP:DUE is really dumb, we agree. patsw (talk) 05:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

So I do think my question is valid: "In WP:NNC, how would you characterize the distinction between WP:NOTE and the relevant parts of WP:NPOV (WP:UNDUE and WP:GEVAL anyway) so as to make it more difficult for editors to persist in this confusion?" We've heard one response: "What confusion? We don't do that." I thought it was sort of obvious that this occurs fairly often. Am I wrong? Bn (talk) 23:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

If people are confused by the current wording of WP:NNC, then I think think they would be just as confused by any edit I could make. The confusion is not inherent to the current wording of WP:NNC, but, at least for new editors, that different criteria are applied to the article creation and article content. patsw (talk) 05:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

A couple of suggestions occur to me. Sometimes what seems a subtle change can have good effect. One suggestion is to remove the word "directly" from the title of WP:NNC. It suggests that neutrality notability guidelines indirectly limit article content. I would also rephrase the title slightly to reflect the phrase "The question of content coverage within a given page..." in the body of this section. The present title is

• Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content

The amended title would be

• Notability guidelines do not limit content within an article

Secondly, I think your last statement is excellent. I propose that we insert it just before the last sentence of the first paragraph. It emphasizes the distinction between notability and neutrality/weight and points the reader to look more carefully at the neutrality policy. The paragraph as a whole would then read:

The notability guidelines are only used to determine whether a topic can have its own separate article or list on Wikipedia. They do not govern article content or whether to include an item in a list. Different criteria apply to article creation and article content. The question of content coverage within a given page is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies.

Bn (talk) 15:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I can agree to this. As a further thought... When discussing article content, it would probably help if experienced editors tried to avoid the word "notable"... and instead used other terms such as "note worthy". Blueboar (talk) 19:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you proposing that some such language as above be added to the amendment?

"Noteworthy" might be too close. Perhaps recognized? If reliable sources in the mainstream subject matter recognize some way that the marginal topic is related, then an article about the mainstream topic can include it to the extent that it is recognized.

Bn (talk) 20:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I am not suggesting we add my suggestion to the amendment... I suggest it as another way we can avoid confusion. Blueboar (talk) 22:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. The inserted sentence is a bit different from what was proposed above, for clarity. Bn (talk) 22:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Considering the way the RfC went, I'm not sure if the phrasing "The notability guidelines are only used to determine whether a topic can have its own separate article or list on Wikipedia." That could be implying more than what came out of that RfC, ie that all lists under a topic need to meet this guideline individually.陣内_Jinnai 22:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The phrase "an inclusion criterion for lists" is ambiguous, and anyway the last paragraph is largely redundant with the first sentence. How about a merger and clarification as follows:

The notability guidelines are only used to determine whether a topic can have its own separate article on Wikipedia. This includes stand-alone list articles (see Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists). They do not govern article content or whether to include an item in such a list. The criteria applied to ...

Bn (talk) 22:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there a talk page where the confusion discussed above is evident? patsw (talk) 16:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

May lists include only notable entries?

We can discuss whether the section could be more clearly written without searching for evidence that it has confused people. The first sentence says "The notability guidelines are only used to determine whether a topic can have its own separate article or list on Wikipedia." What does it mean for an article to have its own separate list? I assume this refers to WP:Stand-alone lists, that is, an article whose content is a list. Is that correct or not?

The last paragraph talks about stand-alone lists. It starts out "However, notability may be used as an inclusion criterion for lists." If my understanding above is correct, then this is redundant. When something is stated twice in different words readers are likely to assume that the two statements don't say the same thing, hence (plausibly) the confusion that Jinnai was concerned about. To facilitate confusion, "inclusion criterion" is ambiguous: inclusion of the list or inclusion in the list?

I propose the following consolidation of the second paragraph into the body of the first:

The notability guidelines are only used to determine whether a topic can have its own separate article on Wikipedia (which may be a stand-alone list article). They do not govern article content or whether to include an item in a list article. The criteria applied to article content are not the same as those applied to article creation. Content coverage within a given article is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies.

Bn (talk) 03:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Answered with silence, I will proceed with this change, not now, but the next time I return to it. Bn (talk) 23:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for the late reply: This doesn't work—in ways that are completely not your fault, actually. Notability does sometimes control whether an item is included in a list article. (See WP:LSC.) Notability is how we deal with lists that might otherwise be excessively long or indiscriminate, e.g., List of people from New York. So the "whether to include an item in a list article" needs to be struck. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I see that at WP:LSC#Common_selection_criteria there is a provision for consistency among items in a given list — either the items must all be links to articles (hence all notable) or they must none of them be links to articles (none notable). Consistency among list items is a widely practiced editorial policy, e.g. all sentences, or all phrases beginning with a gerund, etc. I don't see this as negating the generalization that notability does not govern whether to include an item in a list, but there is a corner case that can arise when a red-link item identifies a topic that does not yet have a standalone article. How about covering that in a footnote, as follows:

The notability guidelines are only used to determine whether a topic can have its own separate article on Wikipedia (which may be a stand-alone list article). They do not govern article content or whether to include an item in a list article. The criteria applied to article content are not the same as those applied to article creation. Content coverage within a given article is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies.

Bn (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the simpler solution is just to strike the inaccurate words: "They do not govern article content or whether to include an item in a list article" becomes "They do not govern article content", full stop. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

There's no inaccuracy. Navigational lists that are lists of pure Wikilinks are a special case and not something that we've discussed or really put into a guideline. For navigational lists, it's not even clear that notability applies in the first place. Are there really third party sources that have covered List of aircraft (0-A)? Probably not. But it happens all the time when people want to index Wikipedia articles. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it's a simpler thing to do, but not a solution. The key idea of this section is the different treatment of article content and article creation. If we move the sentence that says that to the beginning, then the mention of the list exception is much more direct and understandable:

The criteria applied to article content are not the same as those applied to article creation. The notability guidelines do not apply to article content, except in the limited case of a stand-alone list of links to Wikipedia articles, where each list item must be a notable topic. (See WP:LSC#Common_selection_criteria.) Content coverage within a given article is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies.

I think that sorts it out to language that's pretty simple and direct.

The referenced discussion in LSC suggests to me that notability is not a question for items in stand-alone list articles. For a list of wikilinks to articles notability is determined for each article, and in a kind of TBD state for redlinks. For a list of items none of which are notable they give the example of List_of_Dilbert_characters, where each item in the list is actually a section of the article, not a link. In either case, the topic of the list article as a whole has to be notable, but the content of the list article, as with the content of any article, has to meet other criteria. [This paragraph added immediately after saving.] [I see the somewhat fraught discussion of SALs below. Although these points seem to me true as far as they go, there's plainly more to it, and it's really not germane to the change proposed here.]

Bn (talk) 02:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes... I'd say the two discussions are about separate factors... I would accept your proposed changes. My main concern is ensuring that the consensus at the RFC is reflected here (that notability doesn't prevent you from adding more entries to an informational list), and I'm fine as long as we keep that here. To your point... we chose to avoid the issue on so-called "navigational lists" at the RFC. But a navigational list would have to provide links to articles that actually exist, which implies that all entries in a navigational list would have to be notable. So you're right. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I still think it is unnecessary WP:CREEP to explicitly call out the exception. Furthermore, this "exception" makes it sound like all stand-alone lists impose this requirement, which is false. I think it far better to simply shorten that one sentence to "does not govern article content", and stop (keeping, of course, all the rest of the paragraph).

Also, Shooter, you're assuming that informational lists do not impose notability as part of their selection criteria. Navigational lists obviously do, but hundreds of truly informational lists also impose this requirement.

(If you wanted to add some possibly useful instruction creep, you might also say that notability "does not govern article content or sources", since newbies occasionally ask whether they're allowed to use a source that doesn't have a Wikipedia article.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Myself and Bn agree that the wording is accurate except for navigational lists or an "index" as I prefer to call it. Indexes, templates, and categories to all operate with their own set of common practices which you might see at Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. Otherwise, the principle here for more informational lists is an important outcome of the RFC that reached a consensus, to protect list entries from being deleted. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Is it your belief, then, that List of convicted computer criminals is a navigational list rather than an informational list? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

That speaks to the other issue we punted on: what's WP:INDISCRIMINATE? My belief is that we often imply that a list is only about notable entries to make it discriminate where it wouldn't otherwise. But what I believe doesn't matter at this point because there isn't a consensus on this issue yet. I think that "what is indiscriminate" should be the top of the list for another RFC. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I can see your point, WhatamIdoing, that strictly speaking it is not necessary to single out lists in this paragraph. The case of items in a SAL of wikilinks is really not an exception. [[WP::LSC#Common_selection_criteria]] distinguishes lists of wikilinks from other kinds of lists. In a list of wikilinks, all of the entries must a fortiori be notable. A redlink may be included on probation, as it were, if there's reason to believe the topic may prove to be notable, but even in that case it's probably best to challenge the article rather than the redlink, simply because there's more research and more participation.

The simple statement, then:

The criteria applied to article content are not the same as those applied to article creation. The notability guidelines do not apply to article content. Content coverage within a given article is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies.

I find myself agreeing that it's hard to judge the notability of a list as a whole. Other guidelines talk about notability in connection with lists—either the list as a whole or items within the list. These may not always be obviously consistent. For example, the treatment of list membership at WP:LSC is rather nuanced in ways that WP:Notability_(people)#Lists_of_people is not.

Nevertheless, in the immediate term, we could defer to these and other discussions of notability wrt lists, and not attempt to cover the same ground in the above paragraph. (Maybe at the end of it we should link to them?) In the longer term, it sounds to me like a section on notability and lists is needed as part of this guideline, centralizing and coordinating the guidance in these other locations. This would include the abovementioned RFC consensus "to protect list entries from being deleted" and the results of a future RFC on "what is indiscriminate". Bn (talk) 04:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I propose to add to the above simple paragraph the following: "For list articles, see Notability in lists above." Then any new consensus on lists can go there, and this section can remain uncluttered. Bn (talk) 15:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Boldly done where we have gone round and round it perhaps enough. Bn (talk) 16:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to make one suggestion with the understanding this is avoid getting too much into detail. I would change this as such, from The criteria applied to article content are not the same as those applied to article creation. The notability guidelines do not apply to article content. Content coverage within a given article is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies. to The criteria applied to article content are not the same as those applied to article creation. Content coverage within a given article is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies. Article content is not limited by notability, though a consensus of editors may opt to use notability and similar metrics to maintain discrimination of content on very broad topic. This makes the advice apply to any type of article, prose or lists, and makes it clear that the default is "notability does not limit", but gives practical reason (eg lists of people) when it should be done. --MASEM (t) 16:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that the shortest version (including neither "For lists, see above" nor Masem's expansion) is best, but the long version is accurate and therefore acceptable to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you (collectively, not necessarily the immediate preceding entry!) have (finally) arrived at. That members of lists don't require notability? Or is that a topic for yet another (lengthy) discussion? I had just been convinced in another thread someplace that my list, internal to a place article, of non-notable former mayors was not allowable. Have you now decided that this is allowable? Or that I can justify each mayor with some other criteria short of article notability? And yes, WP:TLDR applies. Sorry. I did try to follow it through many wordy circumlocutions, but have long since given up. Student7 (talk) 13:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Notability universally cannot be used to limit content of articles or lists, but editors can come to consensus to use notability of individual items to prevent indiscriminate coverage. In the case you described, it seems that other editors believe that a list of mayors of a place that have no individual notability is not appropriate. That's not WP:N deciding that , that's one of WP 5 pillars for indiscriminate coverage and consensus. So this all still applies. --MASEM (t) 04:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Masem. I won't beat this one to death except to say I don't care that much. I don't believe it's much of a problem... but some editors were worried that people would start deleting members of certain lists under the guise of notability. I haven't seen that problem. Shooterwalker (talk) 05:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC)