Talk:List of new wave of British heavy metal bands

MOS:LIST

To the article creator: Per MOS:LIST, list articles must contain only items that already have Wikipedia articles.

If you'd like to keep a list of non-articled bands on your own sandbox or other user subpage, you are free to do so. That would also allow you to organize the material so that, if you wished, you could begin to create articles on the bands that meet Wikipedia's notability requirements (which you should carefully consider beforehand). This is a quite common practice on Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 06:45, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Dear Softlavender, thank you for your explanation and I'm sorry that you had to do this "dirty work" for someone else. I'm still puzzled at your reference at MOS:LIST, which has no detailed and written rule as the one you cited. From my search on past discussion, this apparently unwritten law is used to reduce not notable entries, in spite of completeness of information and, actually, I thought that notability could be the main challenge to the article, but not to have violated the MoS. To have only wikilinked articles in a list would means to treat every list as an index, which is not the purpose of such articles, IMO. However, it is contradictory that the rule does not apply to lists such as bibliographies, discographies, timelines, dynamic lists, or more simply to TV episodes lists. At the same time, it's apparently OK to have an embedded list in a general article, regardless of wikilinks, but not in an article like this one. I think that the article is now useless to researchers and article developers and should be renamed into "List of NWOBHM bands articles" or utterly deleted. I will submit this matter in the proper talk page and solicit a debate to modify the Manual of Style, in order to make manifest this rule and its range of application. Lewismaster (talk) 20:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not doing "dirty work", and I'm not doing it "for someone else". I am explaining Wikipedia guidelines to you and giving you some viable options should you like to expand the list. "At the same time, it's apparently OK to have an embedded list in a general article, regardless of wikilinks, but not in an article like this one" – nope, same thing applies. Softlavender (talk) 22:42, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello all. I got tagged by User:Drmies and asked to come and have a look. I'm not 100% sure what the issue is but it seems to be the inclusion of redlinks in list articles. The simple answer is: we don't. If the subject is not notable enough to have an article, then it is not notable enough to be included on a list. There is no movement within WP for "completeness"; if there were I'd immediately include my own university black metal band on the list. I mean, we didn't record anything, or play live, but hey... completeness. I'm not getting into an argument about notability and how that is used in other articles, because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; there is however very long standing consensus among the metal list articles to not include redlinks as they would make the lists unmanageable and unpoliceable. If you have a band you want to include, go write a fully referenced article on it first. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 14:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I should say - I think it's massively pedantic, but I have no real objection to changing the names of all the list articles to say "List of notable death metal bands". Blackmetalbaz (talk) 14:16, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Dear Blackmetalbaz, I think that comprehensiveness is actually one of the required criteria for FA articles and lists. I'm still puzzled at how multi-referenced entries cannot be included in lists, as it seems to me as a major loss of information for the readers. To treat every list as an index of WP articles is not a little bit arrogant? It is notable if it is in Wikipedia, otherwise it is not! Inclusion depending only on the will (or laziness) of writers is really the only available criterion? By the way, your black metal band would not be in any list for one or all of WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:N, I'm sorry. Lewismaster (talk) 08:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

On the contrary, we'd easily pass WP:V, and if WP:N is a criterion for inclusion, you've defeated your own point! Blackmetalbaz (talk) 10:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

You are right. As I wrote above, I was ready to discuss notability. What I find hard to digest is this "No Article, No Entry" rule, which sounds awfully autoreferential, too limiting and full of exceptions. Lewismaster (talk) 18:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I've just looked at the FA list criteria and you appear to be correct on comprehensiveness, which I find slightly unusual. But fair enough... as long as stuff is sourced in reliable sources, go for it. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 10:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Although (sorry for multiple replies) I've just had a look at a random featured list - List of Star Trek: The Next Generation cast members. It is clearly not "comprehensive" in the sense of listing every single actor to have ever appeared on the show (extras etc.). In fact it lists only the main and recurring cast members (all of whom it turns out have articles). So the situation is not actually as you seem to be arguing. I'd suggest a RFC. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 10:23, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Blackmetalbaz, please do not encourage Lewismaster to violate the standard MOS:LIST guidelines. So-called "comprehensiveness" in a list applies only when there is a known and accepted set of notable includable items, such as a very famous actor's filmography, or an extremely famous author's bilbliography, or a very famous composer's compositions. Short of that, Lists, including WP:FLs, are limited to items that have Wikipedia articles. See, for instance, List of 1920s jazz standards, List of 1930s jazz standards, List of pre-1920 jazz standards. Obviously there are hundreds more jazz standards in those eras than are listed in those articles, but the articles are limited to those items that have Wikipedia articles. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

So Featured Lists like List of tallest buildings in Albuquerque or List of M*A*S*H episodes (randomly chosen) should be purged of unlinked content? Lewismaster (talk) 10:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The MASH episodes fall under the criterion I already noted, and so do the tallest buildings, since height is an incontrovertible measurable fact and 1st to 25th highest buildings is an excellent range for a city of 500,000 to 1,000,000. Softlavender (talk) 11:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Wow! This is getting complicated! So there are exceptions to the general rule and we have to measure something or somebody's fame to apply "comprehensiveness". It may be a famous TV series, but most of MASH entries have no article. Neither do lists of Anime episodes (List of Kaze no Stigma episodes,List of Devil May Cry episodes, List of Vampire Knight episodes) or lists of songs (List of songs recorded by Adele, List of songs recorded by Ricky Martin). Too many exceptions,IMO. Lewismaster (talk) 18:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Because this is not a dynamic list and actually CAN be completed, I think this is a case where the ignore all rules policy should over-ride the MOS style guidelines. There are sources, such as the one Lewismaster used in a previous version of this article that the above discussion is about, that document bands that were part of this historical musical movement. So long as there is a citation, I say ignore the guidelines and improve the article. Is including non-article bands an improvement? YES! Back in 2016 as a reader of this article I was using the more expansive list to find bands to listen to.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:19, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, 3family6. It's been a while since the last time that we met on Wikipedia. And 8 years have passed since this list was massacred by the holy defenders of wikirules. Meanwhile, life went on and I am no longer a full-time contributor to this encyclopaedia. Just a few edits here and there, trying to maintain integral and coherent a few articles. I really don't have the nerve anymore to argue for days with people popping out of nowhere and aimed mostly at disrupting existing work, claiming the existance of new guidances and adjounaments of rules and manuals of style. I already had my fair share of disputes with "young" editors who find my work old and my approach obsolete and I currently don't have the time to recover all the updated policies and format debates boiling underneath the surface on Wikipedia. I still have the original list deleted in 2016 and it can be published again, but I guess that it would incur again in the same merciless scrutininy of the first time. Lewismaster (talk) 13:40, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I understand, Lewismaster, why you're done with this. I will note, it's not even wikirules, but style guidelines here, that's the point of argument. I do think the scope of the article should be more than just one book, but, if a source supports a listing and can be cited, I don't think the article needs to be written first. Redlinks are allowed.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:19, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion

How about adding Split Beaver to the list. They are also listed as NWOBHM on Wikipedia and listed under New Wave of British Heavy Metal Band — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16B8:10B0:9D00:1512:B79E:7216:264D (talk) 05:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately there is no article about Split Beaver on Wikipedia and apparently some rules forbid to add entries without an article on wiki lists, as you can read in the discussion above. Lewismaster (talk) 22:16, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Lewismaster There are no rules, other than biography of living persons protections and legal copyright protections. It's not even policy.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:24, 1 October 2024 (UTC)