This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Manual of Style This page falls within the scope of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the Manual of Style (MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style articles This page falls under the contentious topics procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style, and the article titles policy. Both areas are subjects of debate. Contributors are urged to review the awareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing. For information on Wikipedia's approach to the establishment of new policies and guidelines, refer to WP:PROPOSAL. Additionally, guidance on how to contribute to the development and revision of Wikipedia policies of Wikipedia's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations. Lists This page is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12

This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

I would like to propose creating a category in the Style guide to address the selection and description of Feature columns in List of... and Comparison of... articles.

Consider this counter-example of a problematic article: Comparison of web conferencing software In the referenced article, many Feature columns do not have an explanation, making it impossible to determine whether checkmarks are given using the same criteria for each list entry, or whether each contributing editor uses the same criteria. Lacking an explanation makes Feature columns impossible to interpret for the reader. e.g. What does 'Security Access' mean, and what is implied if a conferencing service has, or does not have it?

Proposed addition:

• Features
  • Any Feature may be tagged as unclear, and in need of definition.
  • Feature definitions may be footnoted below the table.
  • Feature definitions should be specific enough to prevent arguments about whether a list item deserves or does not deserve a checkmark for that feature.

-- User:slaurel (talk) 17:06, 1 Feb 2017 (UTC)

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lists#Overly long list items

Gist: Add brief advice about what to do about excessively large items in lists, to either WP:Manual of Style/Lists or WP:Summary style.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:26, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could a list article be solely a cross-namespace redirect to a category index page? E.g. could [[List of things]] redirect to [[Category:Things]]. Please answer Yes/No with discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:15, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Guidance isn't clear one way or another. There is a live example at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 November 26#List of store brands. Category:Redirects to category space has 886 examples—which is a small number relative to the number of articles, and many are things like CAT:X redirecting to Category:X—and some that I have looked at are troublesome (for instance, Star Wars fan films redirects to Category:Fan films based on Star Wars, but Fan films based on Star Wars doesn't: this means a reader sometimes get a Category index page and sometimes doesn't. In another example, Smith Stanley family redirects to Category:Stanley family and not to Stanley family. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:15, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I suspect that some of these inconsistencies may stem from de-categorization (also known as “listifying” a failed Category). You would have to look at the category and/or page history to be sure however. Having said that... I don’t think we should redirect pointing to categories. There is no need. Categories should be noted in a separate section (at the bottom of the article), and not in running text. Blueboar (talk) 14:17, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow - as this is not forbidden by WP:R2, it is currently allowed. While many of these can/should be turned into articles, I don't see any reason to forbid this. The current redirect on List of hospitals in Italy is better than having nothing at all. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:05, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow This is the best way to handle (potentially) very large list articles such as List of living people, which is of course a redirect to Category:Living people. Is there a specific example that you find to be problematic? UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:06, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow. While it is not always going to be the best option, it is appropriate in at least some cases and so it would be detrimental to disallow them generally. Thryduulf (talk) 23:26, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow. A category is practically a list. This is a type of XNR I am willing for us to sacrifice "namespace elegance" for. Deryck C. 13:03, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow per WP:CLN: categories, lists, and navboxes are different and serve different narrow purposes (though all with some element of navigation to them).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:42, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow if you must. "Could a list article be solely a cross-namespace redirect to a category index page?" Yes. There's nothing saying you can't. Should a list article be solely a cross-namespace redirect to a category index page? Usually not, unless it's only a stage in a process towards something better. Or this is a special case and someone has a special reason why we need this particular odd duck category that maps precisely to a particular list page in the article namespace. If someone is insisting a particular list in the article namespace shall only have blue linked items, then they're arguing that this must be one of those special cases. Perhaps it is, but they better have a special augment to justify it. Typical lists and categories can have a lot in common, but don't necessarily map to one another perfectly. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:12, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• No - discourage this. (I agree with above !votes that it is not currently policy forbidden, but I would argue that we maybe should consider doing that. Arguments: List articles (should) put material in context, why is this list 'notable'. Also, categories contain articles which are by themselves notable. Obviously, subjects that are in there are 'by definition' notable otherwise they would not have a Wikipedia article. That is however not a criterion for being listed in a list article. There the bar is much lower. We generally do expect that someone independent of the subject talked about the subject, i.e., it has a secondary source, but it does not need to rise to the level of the subject being notable enough for an own article. Within a categorisation scheme, those which are 'worth mentioning', but not notable enough would never appear in these lists. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:09, 10 December 2018 (UTC) (should added --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:38, 10 December 2018 (UTC))[reply]
• Allow. I have some relevent experience. One of the articles I am most proud of is List of NHS trusts. I think it is very useful. Its designed to capture all the names of these organisations, which are continually being reorganised, and there doesnt seem to be any other place to keep track of them. Other editors then say "can we have a similar list of the current NHS trusts?" I think that is much better done by a category, because keeping the list up to date is a big task. There is a similar list List of hospitals in India which I think is less useful. It only includes notable hospitals - ie hospitals with articles about them - and is subdivided by states, but otherwise doesnt have much useful information which couldn't be provided by a category. Its not true that list articles put material in context. Some do, most don't. Rathfelder (talk) 10:02, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow strongly per WP:XNR. --Izno (talk) 16:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow Readers expect more than a list of items. There are guidelines and manuals of style that argue against it as well as have been provided to this point. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:09, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Walter Görlitz: please provide links to them. Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   09:41, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • See the previous comments. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:25, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow I think a redirect to a category is preferable than a redlink. However, I don't think this should be used to delete articles.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  TTT, are you referring in your second sentence to deletion-by-redirection of these lists, without any discussion at AfD? If so , I agree with you. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:51, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Pretty much every article on Wikipedia is a work in progress. This proposal would seem to violate that concept. You would not be able to develop such a list, so you would be locking the list into a very basic structure. I wouldn't object to it being permitted on a "place-holder" basis but if an editor comes along and wants to create a more conventional list then that has to take precedence IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 10:31, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow I don't think its a functional list at all and it would be more beneficial as a category. It tries to suggest that Wikipedia List articles as a subject is worthy of having its own list. I don't think that's correct.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 15:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow. This will lead to confusion. If you click on a link for a list article, you should not expect to end up in category space. WP:EGG. --woodensuperman 15:43, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow – lists are part of the encyclopedia proper, and are a type of article, while categories are not. "List of" articles are self-contained sets of articles, while not all categories are. Lists and categories are two distinct navigation systems with different characteristics, including scope. One should not be misrepresented as the other... When I click on a list link, I expect to be taken to a list article, not a category. Categories suck as lists, as they often don't contain what their titles indicate that they contain in the sense that lists do. Most likely, categories list subcategories that in turn contain the articles I'm looking for. Such a category is a list of categories, not a list of articles, and therefore does not conform to MOS for lists. When lists list other lists, they are entitled "Lists of" and are therefore truthful: the title represents the contents accurately. So, I know what it is I'm getting. "List of" should always indicate that the contents are topics and or article links, not subcategories that have to be clicked on to get the rest of the articles. With categories you have to gather up all the subcategories to make use of the whole list. That is a royal pain. If I wanted to do that, I'd go to category system in the first place. In short, the titles of lists and categories indicate two different scopes and contexts, and are therefore not interchangeable.    — The Transhumanist   09:41, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – which brings us to another way that such links render page titles false: a "Lists of" article lists lists. If some of its links are redirects to categories instead, then the contents of the page is not "Lists" as the title indicates. We're representing that we have lists of articles on these topics, when we really don't. This is bad juju, and will make readers angry. People do not wish to be lied to. There is enough misrepresentation in the world already.    — The Transhumanist   09:41, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – we have redlinks for a reason, and this approach defeats the purpose of having them in the first place: to bring attention to the fact that such a page is missing and needs to be created.    — The Transhumanist   09:41, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – allowing category redirects in list space is an encroachment with political repercussions. If an editor creates a list over a redirect to a category, another editor who favors categories could revert the page creation, thus deleting the list without taking it to WP:AfD.
• Comment – creating a page over a redirect also undermines the new page viewing feature of contributions tracking. Another approach would be to ask an admin to remove the redirect to make way for a new page, but that is an inconvenient and often time-consuming step.    — The Transhumanist   09:41, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow in the strongest terms, as someone who has worked quite a bit on both lists and categories. While categories and lists both serve a navigational function (not their only function), categories and lists are not the same thing (see WP:CLN). This would be a bad idea for many reasons: stand-alone lists are a type of article, not just a collection of links; blurring the line between lists and categories will degrade the quality of lists (as readers start to think a list should be just a collection of links); cross-namespace redirects are (generally) harmful and confusing; red links should be used to encourage list creation (I strongly disagree that redirecting List of hospitals in Italy to a category is better than leaving it red so someone can create the article). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:10, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a proposed amendment to WP:LISTPEOPLE (Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Lists of people) at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Proposed amendment to WP:LISTPEOPLE regarding the inclusion of lists of non-notable victims in articles about tragic events. Cunard (talk) 08:14, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]