Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists

 Main page Members Talk page 

Opening sentence of lists

I feel like I once read something in the MOS that said not to begin a list article with the opening sentence: "This is a list of X". And yet, there are so many that do this, and now I can't find where I read that. Personally I don't like it, and I think it is similar to starting a regular article with, "This is an article about X". Can someone point me to wherever I read this? Or is it not there anymore? Should it be? Thanks! Larataguera (talk) 18:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Looks like you're thinking of this bullet in MOS:LEADSENTENCE: if the page is a list, do not introduce the list as "This is a list of X" or "This list of Xs...". A clearer and more informative introduction to the list is better than verbatim repetition of the title. A good example of this is the List of Benet Academy alumni. Colin M (talk) 22:29, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Where this gets tricky is for lists where the title is not an adequate description of the topic. Per Wikipedia:SALLEAD a direct statement of the criteria for inclusion is essential in the lead, especially when the title is unclear on that. It's probably best practice to put statements involving "this list" somewhere other than the first sentence. I note that the discussion of the need for clarification with titles that don't give the full story at Wikipedia:LISTNAME includes as a good example List of Finns which has a one sentence lead, "This is a list of..." I think that clarity should take precedence over a fussy avoidance of self reference, and I think the guidance at Wikipedia:SRTA is quite a bit more permissive than some might expect.

The various standards might need some work to resolve discrepancies, but I one way to square the circle is to say that clarity about the scope is essential, and that if it's necessary to use "this list" language for that, it should, if possible, go somewhere other than the first sentence. Ccrrccrr (talk) 03:16, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion at List of proxy wars

Hi there, I've started a discussion at this article's talk as I'm concerned about the lack of sourcing for the "proxy" label, potentially leading to issues of original research or POV. Please do contribute here: Talk:List_of_proxy_wars#Criteria_for_inclusion_/_removal_of_unsourced_entries — Czello 12:31, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List of Jewish states and dynasties § Did attempts to change POV in this list go too far & make it more biased?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of Jewish states and dynasties § Did attempts to change POV in this list go too far & make it more biased?. Peaceray (talk) 15:32, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

List of last notable WWII veterans.

Mel Brooks and Dick Van Dyke are not listed despite the fact they served in World War II. They are one of the last notable WWII veterans in the film industry. Jamiej2023 (talk) 08:18, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:31, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Minimum number of items to make a list?

Is there a minimum number of items to make a list? It would seem common sense that 1 item does not make a "list" (which I invoked to delete a 1-item list), but what is the minimum? Is there a rule about this? Because I can't find any. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:56, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Bolded column in lists?

There is a list within the non-list article Women in Guam History, which uses bold font for the first column of the table. I have been told by @Maile66: that this is a requirement for Accessibility for screen readers, although it seems to me to go against MOS:BOLD. It's not easy to work out the relationships between MOS:BOLD, MOS:TABLES, MOS:DTAB and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial. To try to look at best practice I had a look at the 4 list articles which this project lists as FLs of Top importance: two are lists of individuals and have bolding in the second column of their main table (the first being images); one has no table; and The_World's_25_Most_Endangered_Primates#Current_list has no bolding. Looking at the most recent High-importance FLs, List of governors of California has a bolded 2nd column, while List of World Heritage Sites in Greece, List of career achievements by Yuzuru Hanyu and Territorial evolution of the United States have tables with no bolding. What is the current policy or guidance on this? PamD 14:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

PamD The formatting at question is regarding Tables. If a list is not in a table, say a bulleted list, this does not apply. What you call "bolding", is actually !scope="row" and ! scope="col" in the table format. It's there to accommodate screen readers for the visually impaired. One way or another, WP:WIAFL and Help:Table are the standards, as far as formatting tabled lists. It really doesn't matter if it's a stand-alone table list, or an imbeded table as part of an article. A table format is a table. I wasn't aware of that until I went through various reviews a few times. It's not required unless you end up at one of the reviews, but why not use the standard from the get-go. — Maile (talk) 17:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, reading your posting above, I think one of the things that has been confusing you is which column or row this is placed, and other colored things. The Scope rows and columns are in gray. The other columns, as far as I can tell from FLC, vary from wherever the editor deems necessary. Other than the gray color, some lists additionally gave additional columns and places where they use non-gray colors. Those have nothing to do with the !scope="row" and !scope="col". As near as I've been able to figure out at FLC, editors are adding those for making the table more attractive. — Maile (talk) 17:20, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

History in memoriam

Hi all. I just stopped by to share a bit of history of this Wikiproject, remembering its founder, User:Ed. Reportedly he was a 14 year old, passionate with Wikipedia. He had cancer in 2007, I don't know if he still lives. But his memory lives on. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 05:50, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Input request

Comments appreciated at Talk:List of plays adapted into feature films#‎Need for article split 4meter4 (talk) 19:36, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

WikiProject list discussion

There is a discussion at the WP:FRAT talk page about list creation/inclusion which could use outside input. Please join in the conversation here. Primefac (talk) 10:45, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Stuck on sorting

What obvious trick am I missing at List of UK Open Billiards Championship winners? When reverse-sorting by date, the 1988 and 1997 dates, which have a month as well as a year, unlike other entries, aren't properly ordered. Thanks! Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:48, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

It looks like it might be a known issue. See here. I tried to fix it, but this apparently goes beyond my current capabilities. DonIago (talk) 13:44, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Deprecated language in citations in UK honours lists

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Orders, decorations, and medals#Deprecated language in citations for UK honours about whether citations should be updated to today's language, eg changing the 1980 "For service to the disabled." to "For service to disabled people." Members of this Wikiproject may have a view: please comment there. PamD 17:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

List of Survivor (American TV series) winners nominated for deletion

I nominated List of Survivor (American TV series) winners for deletion. Your input there is welcome. George Ho (talk) 23:48, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

List of Drag Race lip syncs

AfD participation welcome:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Drag Race lip syncs

---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

List of official languages and List of official languages by country and territory

This is a preliminary question, because I don't know what kind of solution to propose, and how to do it.

• The two lists above should be merged because they cover exactly the same topic. Therefore, they are WP:REDUNDANTFORKs.
• But List of official languages is already WP:TOOBIG and should be split. I myself was thinking about splitting by continent:
  • List of official languages in Africa
  • List of official languages in Asia
  • List of official languages in Europe etc.
• Two years ago someone also proposed to split the other: Talk:List of official languages by country and territory#Split into multiple articles? She proposed:
  • List of official languages by country and territory ("Official language" and "National language" columns)
  • List of regional official languages by country and territory ("Regional languages")
  • List of recognized minority languages by country and territory ("Minority languages"), and
  • just get rid of the "widely-spoken" column, which shouldn't be in this article anyways.

Unfortunately as often happens with merger and split proposals, nobody commented, so the issues remained. I could just nominate it for deletion to make sure people will see it, comment on it and a decision will be taken, but WP:DINC says I shouldn't.

As this WikiProject Lists, you are the lists experts. What should I do in this case? And which venue should I choose where people will actually comment on it and eventually a solution will be found? I'd appreciate your tips and advice! Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:40, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Some extra lists or list sections to take into consideration for a mass merger:

• Official language#Official languages by country and territory
• List of multilingual countries and regions
• Official multilingualism#States with policies of official bilingualism
• List of largest languages without official status (currently in AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of largest languages without official status)
• List of languages by the number of countries in which they are recognized as an official language (currently in AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of languages by the number of countries in which they are recognized as an official language)
• National language#National languages (a lot of overlap between "national" and "official" languages)
• Regional language#Official languages as regional languages

Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

More articles that usually have a different subject than 'official languages', but in fact make lots of (usually WP:UNSOURCED) claims about what the 'official language' of this or that country or territory is:

• List of countries by spoken languages – title is 'spoken languages', but the word 'official' shows up 457 times in this article.
• List of countries and dependencies and their capitals in native languages – the subject is endonyms and exonyms, but it has an entire column for Official or native language(s) (alphabet/script). 'native' and 'official' are regularly mixed up as if they mean the same.
• Languages in censuses – the subject is demographics, but it mentions the word 'official' 94 times.
• Languages of the European Union – the table under Languages of the European Union#Official EU languages is perfectly fine, but the rest of the article is mostly WP:UNSOURCED and unrelated stuff.
• Languages of Europe#List of languages – mostly WP:UNSOURCED.
• Languages of Africa#Official languages – mostly WP:UNSOURCED.
• Languages of the African Union – mentions the word 'official' 60 times, but has only 3 inline citations, so mostly WP:UNSOURCED. (currently in AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Languages of the African Union)
• Languages of Asia#Official languages – entirely WP:UNSOURCED.
• Languages of South America – doesn't really indicate which languages are official or not official; almost all claims about language X being official are WP:UNSOURCED.
• Languages of South Asia – mostly about demographics and linguistics, but all 4 claims about language X being official are WP:UNSOURCED.
• Central America#Languages – small but entirely WP:UNSOURCED subsection.
• Indigenous languages of the Americas#Numbers of speakers and political recognition – about half the claims of a particular indigenous language being 'official(ly recognised) are sourced, the other half is WP:UNSOURCED.

Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:57, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

@Austronesier @Walt Yoder Could you please give me advice? Both of you have expressed an interest in merging some of these lists. What should we do with this whole situation? Nobody responded to Linshee's November 2021 proposal, nobody is responding here, and nobody is responding at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages#Official languages lists WP:REDUNDANTFORKs either. I don't know where to start, or how to get people's attention without nominating certain articles for deletion, but WP:Deletion is not cleanup. The only reason why I know you might be interested in solving this issue is because you both responded at the AfDs of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of languages by the number of countries in which they are recognized as an official language and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of largest languages without official status. I don't want to have to nominate this all for deletion, and upset a lot of people, when we could look at more constructive ways of better organising all this overlapping (but poorly-sourced and original research-ridden) material. If you've got any tips, please say so. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:39, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

• • At a quick glance, Languages of the African Union is the only one of those articles I would definitely support deleting (excluding the ones already at AFD). There are a few others which I am unsure about, but are possibly salvageable -- List of multilingual countries and regions in particular is screaming for a TNT delete. As far as adding sources - I presume the various country articles do have references for the official languages of that country that could be added to the lists. Walt Yoder (talk) 19:35, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

    @Walt Yoder I'm not necessarily looking to delete them, I'm asking advice on how to merge 22 overlapping lists/sections about roughly the same subject. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:44, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

    But I've nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Languages of the African Union at your suggestion as a first step. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:48, 3 June 2023 (UTC)