Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

Request for comment

Could the selection criteria for lists be amended to address the plethora of extremely minor film awards in WP:FILM list articles? 17:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Some standalone movie / actor / director "list of awards and nominations" articles are filled with what might be reasonably considered trivial, insignificant awards by regional film-critics groups and film clubs. Issues of WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:UNDUE were brushed aside when an editor pointed to WP:CSC to support including every film award and nomination by every related entity with a Wikipedia article.
This has led to the likes of the North Texas Film Critics Association being given equal weight with the Academy Awards, the Golden Globe Awards, the Screen Actors Guild Awards, etc. This seems as if it goes against the purpose of WP:CSC, which, in its words, "prevents Wikipedia from becoming an indiscriminate list, and prevents individual lists from being too large to be useful to readers."
This hard-line adherence means, some editors at the discussion argue, that we are required to list such arguably very minor awards as
One editor at the previous discussion suggested we could push to delete the related articles, but a) an entity may meet minimum standards of notability even though everything it says and does might not, and b) this isn't necessarily possible.
Given that the world of film and TV generate an inordinate amount of "awards" that, say, the electronics and corporate worlds do not, would it be sensible to consider amending WP:CSC with some reasonable guidelines to prevent the clutter of such awards and nominations? Chlotrudis alone had 67 last year. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd be interested in this debate if you can draw a line between "film awards" (with Wikipedia articles) and "film awards" (which are "extremely minor" but still have Wikipedia articles). How do you intend to do that on a case-by-case basis? Which awards are you proposing to categorise as "extremely minor"? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Right now we're just seeing if the community wants the guideline amended. How comes later, and would be the result of consensus discussions by many editors. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
      • Sounds like a waste of time if you don't have a proposal on how it would be implemented. Good luck with that. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
        • Thanks for the useful comment. Myself, I prefer to work collaboratively with other editors, coming up with ideas together rather than trying to ram my own ideas down anyone's throat. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
          • What a helpful approach, I don't recall ramming anything down anyone's throat. Nice touch. The point is that obviously there are differences of opinion on major and minor film awards. That's fundamental. But you aren't proposing a solution at all. If you haven't got a proposal, it's a waste of time. Sorry if that's upsetting. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
            • Not upsetting, jus confusing. I don't understand the point of anyone saying, "I disagree with your approach, so therefore it's a waste of time." Seems to me the only person wasting time is someone who comes in with no constructive comments but just wants to rag on someone else. Seems like it would be less a waste of such a person's time to not spend any time commenting on something they don't want to comment on. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
              • The point I'm making is that, fine, rail against "minor" awards, no-one will argue with that, but unless you have a proposal to deal with them, this is a waste of time. If an award is notable enough for Wikipedia to have an article about it, why shouldn't it be included in an article? You need to have some kind of criteria to "draw a line" below Oscars and above Razzies or whatever. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
                • That's one way of doing things. Being step-by-step is another. Saying your way is valid and my way is not is simply your opinion. You're entitled to your opinion. But deliberately trying to sabotage another editor simply for wanting to conduct a discussion in a way you don't like? I don't see the point, and it seems bullying for no reason. If you don't want to be part of a discussion, no one's forcing you to. But if other editors choose to be, how does that harm or otherwise affect you? --Tenebrae (talk) 19:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
                  • Heh, there's no "deliberate sabotage", I'm asking for some answers, proposals on what you suggest, how to distinguish between awards and "minor awards". You haven't told us how you'll do that, so your proposal is somewhat limited. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
                    • Then it must be accidental sabotage, since you're not discussing the pro or con of making a change but saying I don't even have the right to ask the question because you, personally, don't approve of the question. Any guideline / policy change is a serious undertaking, and should be done with care, step-by-step. If editors don't believe there's a need for change, then there's no sense in having some people debate the details and specifics while others debate whether we should even do it in the first place. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
                    • Nope, you don't get it. This is an obvious discussion, of course we don't want to litter Wikipedia articles with "minor" awards, but you have to have a proposal that delineates between "minor" and "acceptable" awards. If an article has a Wikipedia article and you declare it "minor", you have to be able to argue against its inclusion in other articles, or the award's article's deletion. Simple. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
                      • I've explained it twice, and you still don't understand that your way is jumping ahead and skipping an important step. What's your endgame besides haranguing for the sake of it, since you don't have anything better to do and no constructive comments to make? Do you want me to say, "Oh, you're right. How dare I ask a question that The Rambling Man doesn't approve of. Why, I guess I should take it down and never darken his door again." Is that it? Because I'm not sure what your purpose is to just complain over and over, "Oh, what a stupid question." Why are you even here? --Tenebrae (talk) 21:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
                        • If this line of conversation isn't likely to achieve anything productive, the best thing for both of you to do drop the stick and move on. You'll thank yourself later for being the bigger man. BOZ (talk) 01:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
The question being presented is: Could the selection criteria for lists be amended to address the plethora of extremely minor film awards in WP:FILM list articles?... and I think the answer to that question is: Yes, of course the criteria could be amended.
Now, the next question is: "Should the selection criteria be amended?" My opinion on that is... Maybe, Maybe not.
To answer that question, we really do need to see a more specific proposal outlining what changes to the selection criteria you would like to see made. Blueboar (talk) 14:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate Blueboar's constructive, analytical approach. Let me step and ask this: Have many of my fellow editors worked with project managers at major media corporations? When I did, we didn't make major changes to, say, the company's website without first ascertaining that there really was a need to make the change. It would have been premature to suggest "solutions" if a problem didn't exist.
The consensus here may be that we want to keep every piddling little "award" that has a related Wikipedia page — two editors at the talk-page discussion cited about do. If so, then there's no need to spend time and energy on "solutions." Albert Einstein, I'm told, said that if he had one hour to save the world he would spend 55 minutes defining the problem and five minutes finding the solution. That's why this is two-step process. Disagree with my approach if you will, but are you gonna disagree with Einstein (and every project manager I've ever worked with)? I say this last sentence tongue-in-cheek. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment what Blueboar said. What's the proposal (as I asked)? What's a "minor" and what's a "major" award and how does it apply to specific types of movie? Will there be an "approved" list somewhere? Will the "extremely minor" awards be nominated for deletion? Is there any harm in film articles having a comprehensive award listing, or sub-page to do so? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
OK... WP:CSC point #1 notes that it is common practice to limit the inclusion criteria of a list to items that are deemed notable enough for their own articles. Given this, I would agree that should a specific award be deemed not notable enough to rate its own stand alone Wikipedia article, then that specific award should probably not be included in a list of awards a movie has won. This does not address the sub-question of whether a given award is notable enough for its own article (or not)... that is a separate question. Blueboar (talk) 14:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
The RfC question isn't really about whether a given award (or, more often, the governing group) should have its own article or not — the notability bar is low enough to acknowledge that the Phoenix, Arizona, film-critics group exists and gets enough Google hits to warrant an encyclopedia entry. But when the critics themselves include amateur, retiree movie fans, non-notable bloggers, and non-professional penny-shopper writers, the question is: Should we amend CSC in regards to film awards, to limit those lists further, so as to "[prevent] Wikipedia from becoming an indiscriminate list, and ... individual lists from being too large to be useful to readers."
I have several ideas how to do this, but before we put the cart before the horse, let's see if there's even any impetus to amend CSC for film awards. The community may not even want to. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Members of the community, which includes The Rambling Man, are trying to figure out if they have an impetus to amend CSC by asking first if there is even a reasonable ability to do so. Blueboar suggested there were two questions being asked, "Could we" and "Should we". They concluded that "Yes" was the answer to "Could we". But Rambling Man, myself, and possibly others disagree and feel that if we can't even suggest a "Could we" proposal, then it may be unnecessary to ask the community if they should. We are considering these two questions simultaneously even if that conflicts with Tenebrae's preferred way of assessing the situation. If you would like to help us with our decision process, please provide possible solutions. The only proposal I see listed was a cut-off if the award itself, not the group awarding it, is notable enough to have its own page. I would imagine this bar is too high and would exclude some widely recognizable awards. As of right now, I am against going forward simply becasue I can't think of any workable solutions to even debate. But that is just my own personal incredulity and I generally like the idea of excluding minor awards. So help sway me and tell me about some workable solutions. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 22:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
While I'm wary of putting the cart before the horse, some of us at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Laundry list of awards have been discussing some ideas preliminarily of how at least to address WP:UNDUE in standalone-list articles. So that's a start, though I think the idea there is that this is a larger discussion than just one for WikiProject Film editors. Certainly, the more the merrier, so I hope you come by.
And — again though I'm hesitant to propose suggestions when we're not even sure there's a problem that need addressing — one step we might take is to not include regional film-critics' nominations, but just the awards. That would certainly cut down on the clutter. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Navigation break

That sounds like a start. How do you determine a film-critic is regional? Dkriegls (talk to me!) 09:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, if a small independent film has just nominations from a regional film critic, are those allowable? How small is small? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I would use the well-established example of Regional theater in the United States, which defines it (as does the Regional Theatre Tony Award) as theater outside New York City. I'd imagine with film it'd be, for the same reason of being outside the major production centers, critics groups outside both New York City and Los Angeles. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I am novice to this, but aren't many of the major film awards outside major production centers, like Sun Dance and Cannes? And again, I know you think this is moving past the initial point, but I am still trying to see if there is even a viable way to separate the two categories which doesn't resort to original research on our part. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 05:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Those are film festivals. Whole other discussion. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
What about films that aren't made in the US? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Not sure I follow. Foreign films like The Wind Rises are reviewed by US critics and given awards by regional critics. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
What about regional critics from regions outside the US, how are they categorised? What's a "minor" award from these regions? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I've never yet seen a non-US film-critics group listed in a film article other than perhaps the London Film Critics' Circle. Anything else is such a rare occurrence as to be negligible and easily handled on a case-by-case basis. I'm also not seeing that things like the Manchester Film Critics Society or the Swansea Film Critics Society even exist. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
So are all members of Category:Film critics associations going to be categorised into regional/non-regional or major/minor? Would it depend on the type of film they're reviewing? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Not sure of the need to mess with Category:Film critics associations. I guess we could, but that seems another discussion. And at this point, I don't think we're using the terms major/minor, but regional and whatever the right word for non-regional would be. Not sure how "the type of film" has any pertinence here — is there a reason to treat dramas differently than comedies, or animated films differently than live-action? --Tenebrae (talk) 17:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I also have to ask: Maybe I'm a little slow on the uptake, but these recent questions seem so unusual, I get the feeling you're pulling my leg. That wouldn't be constructive. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
(e/c) No, I'm asking you to explain how you intend this to be implemented across the globe, from minor independent movies in the UK to major blockbusters in the US to long-running Bollywood movies in India. It's quite straight forward. And I linked the category because it would be instructive to see how you personally categorise them. For instance, are the Evening Standard British Film Awards regional? Minor? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I just don't understand how anyone could ask if the London Evening Standard could be considered a regional paper.
And I don't understand how anyone would think that any awards group, whether the Academy Awards or the North Carolina Film Critics Awards, draws a distinction between "minor independent movies in the UK [and] major blockbusters in the US". (Incidentally, is there such a thing as a "minor" blockbuster?) You seem to be needling me with nonsensical questions. How about just writing "Oppose" and stop hijacking a discussion about something you clearly have a bug up your bonnet about? --Tenebrae (talk) 20:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Well because London is a region in the UK, in fact, it's a very small region indeed. I didn't ask if it was a regional paper in any case (although actually, you'd be hard pressed to buy the newspaper outside London, did you even look at our own article, where it states that the Standard is a "Regional free daily newspaper"!!!), I asked if the awards from this organisation would be considered minor or not. Regional or not. Clearly the answer to you original proposal is "yes, they could", but you seem to have no definition of how it would work at all. Never mind. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Again with the needling: Yes, and New York City is "a region" as well. That doesn't make Broadway "regional theater." Geez. And we've been through this putting-the-cart-before-the-horse discussion before: You don't "solve" problems if there isn't a problem to solve. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
You asked "I just don't understand how anyone could ask if the London Evening Standard could be considered a regional paper. ". Because it is' a regional paper. Funnily enough, the only decent proposal I've read is that from TriiipleThreat below. If an award is notable enough for a Wikipedia article, there shouldn't be any reason for it to be excluded on grounds of WP:OR or WP:POV. If awards are considered non-notable, trivial even, that should be demonstrated at AFD. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment: From what I can tell a large part of the problem is the number of film awards that have there own articles, which do not meet our own notabilty guidelines. These are poorly sourced articles and the few references they do have tend to be first party sources publishing information about themselves, not WP:THIRDPARTY sources as recommended. If we can eliminate these, I feel editors will feel less inclined to include them.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

If you truly believe that, WP:AFD is that way ---> The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
That's fine, and that's not mutually exclusive. We can work on that and on this both. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree, just thought that one hand might wash the other.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
This makes sense - just like lists of people from X generally are limited to persons with standalone articles, a list of awards limited to notable awards (or the organizations that make those awards) makes sense, and if that means trimming barely/non-notable award articles, so be it. --MASEM (t) 21:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
In fact, TriiipleThreat and MASEM — in the best tradition of collaboration and idea cross-seeding — have inspired an idea that may address the barely/non-notable issue: Why not, instead of separate articles for the Phoenix Film Critics and the Oklahoma City Film Critics, etc., just make a list article: "List of regional film-critics groups" or "List of American regional film-critics groups"? That we're we're acknowledging they exist, and footnotes will link to them — and we're free of the constraint of CSC, which only says that standalone lists should include entities with their own articles. We solve the issue of trivial laundry lists without having to adapt/amend CSC. What do other editors think? Should we scrap this RfC and start a new one, with this proposal, at WP:FILM? --Tenebrae (talk) 16:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Sound fine to me.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Same here, seems to be reasonable. --MASEM (t) 17:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
So is the plan to assess each "regional" critic organisation on its merits to determine whether it's still worthy of an article? You can't just "redirect" all these organisations to a list, en masse. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
To answer your question: Yes, via discussion and consensus at WP:FILM. Though, as before, first we'll see if there's a WP:FILM consensus whether to do so at all. As I've continually tried to impress upon you, no professional project manager starts soliciting "solutions" without first determining there is even a problem that needs solving.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Your impressions are fabulous, and every project manager I know gets paid to do whatever they do, generally ineffectively, so forgive me for not bothering to follow that analogy up in any way at all. I think all you've established in this discussion is that you and a couple of others think perhaps that some of the minor film award organisations shouldn't have an article, so you need to head to AFD to sort that out. That was pretty obvious from the outset, perhaps you need a "consultant" rather than a "project manager", i.e. someone who advises on what to do, rather than someone who prevaricates and thinks simply of the budget. We don't need PMs here, just people who actually do things. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
We're all entitled to our opinions. Whatever your opinion on project management, it is just that, and objectively speaking, countless corporations use project management as a standard tool. No major construction project occurs without a project manager, so if you'd prefer that the Freedom Tower, say, had gone up without one, well, you'd be in a very small minority. Some editors prefer to do things methodically and carefully, collecting others' opinions and not just our own, rather than rushing something through. There is no deadline. And this RfC has only been up just over a week; there's still time for other editors to add their counsel and ideas. No one's twisting your arm to do anything. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

So as I said earlier, looking forward to your multiple AFDs and merge proposals to get these articles all reduced to nothing, after all, that really benefits the whole encyclopedia just because you don't like the odd "regional" award on a film article. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

You not only miss the point, you see the very opposite of the point. The whole reason I'm asking the community if it thinks these trivial awards don't belong is because my opinion alone isn't important. There's no use to put everyone through a debate on solutions if the community says there's no problem to solve. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • WP:CSC is a list of common selection criteria (emphasis added). It is not a list of obligatory selection criteria or a list of criteria that are always appropriate. It is not the right place for "do not include X in a list, ever". That should go somewhere else. James500 (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
So conversely, you're saying WP:CSC doesn't require us to "include X include in a list, always"? That'd certainly cut through the red tape. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Clearly. But you wouldn't really be able to justifiably remove those added, particularly if they have a Wikipedia article (thus demonstrating Wikipedia notability), unless you had local consensus for each and every film to do so. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
No, because each Project can adapt guidelines as makes sense for each Project — the same criteria apply to each film in the Project. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Advice_pages: WikiProjects do not get to make their own guidelines. They can write their own essays, but they can't require the editors at any page they claim to be within their scope to follow the WikiProject's (often excellent) advice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
But each film would have a different set of criteria, as I noted above. You'd probably limit films like Titanic to Oscars, Globes, BAFTAs etc, but you might prefer to include London International Festival of Science Fiction awards to films like Primer. There'd be no stopping anyone adding any award to any article, particularly if it had an article on Wikipedia. Unless you had local consensus to direct precisely what awards are allowed on what film articles, for every film article. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:36, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Why would we arbitrarily limit awards based on no criteria? "Films like Titanic", meaning what? Films about ships? James Cameron films? Films that gross half-a-billion dollars? I can't help but think you're deliberately playing games and deliberately having fun at the expense of constructive when you make some of the seemingly random comment you make. You oppose this... fine. But making fun of the RfC isn't constructive in the least. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
No, clearly I mean films which attract the top-ranking awards, such as Oscars, BAFTAs etc, the regional awards aren't so relevant for these kind of films. However, smaller productions which absolutely depend on regional recognition should be allowed to have those awards and nominations noted. So, the question is, how do you decide which films get to list which awards and nominations? You're really not being constructive at all (I don't even understand what " fun at the expense of constructive when" or "make some of the seemingly random comment you make" mean), and while I'm certain you can read and understand English, perhaps I need to spell things out more clearer for you (as a President of the US once said). Please let me know what you don't understand about what I've written. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
I did. You say something like "films which attract the top-ranking awards", and that's no sort of objective criterion. That's completely subjective and after-the-fact. Who would seriously suggest such a vague and amorphous standard? So of course it sounds like you're making fun. And it certainly feels like harassment over something with which you disagree — so so you hijack the conversation with these inanities in order to kill it. You won't say your piece and move on, but you keep returning and returning with evident glee over your power to torpedo something you don't like. However, I believe experienced Wikipedia editors have seen that type of thing before and will see through your tactics. For myself, I can only keep faith in the process and see what an admin says after we hit 30 days.
On a separate note, Wikipedia is most certainly not here to shill for films that "depend on regional recognition." Promoting movies is not in our purview. Our job is to give people pertinent and relevant information of significance, not a laundry list of indiscriminate, undue-weight trivia. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
So you haven't answered the question. Is each film going to have a list of awards/nominations that should be allowed on their page? How do you anticipate it will work, given the two examples I suggested. There are no inanities beyond those of your own construction. There's no making fun, just serious questions over how you would implement this. There's no "suggestion" of any "amorphous" standards, just two examples of works you would need to categorise, and I'd like to see how you can do that. Your "laundry list" argument is fine, but if an article is notable enough for a Wikipedia article, how do you decide whether it should or shouldn't be linked from another article? That's the crux, you have no substantial answer, and that's why this lightweight, ill-advised proposal will fail. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I've already answered, but in short, your saying that "films like Titanic should be treated differently based on no specific reason" is inane. But here we have the crux of the matter: If you really believed this was "a lightweight, ill-advised proposal," then you simply would have commented and gone on to other things. But you're clearly worried that other editors will agree with this proposal that you dislike and it will pass — otherwise you wouldn't be spending so much time trying to sabotage it. That's fine. Keep up the harangue. I believe in this system, and I believe the question deserves a fair hearing. You don't. I get it. And so just as you'll keep trying to sabotage the process, I'll just have to keep fighting to keep the process alive to let other editors have their say.

Oh, and I noticed you didn't respond to my point that we are not here to help support and promote movies you happen to like. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

So, no answers then. Okay. Generally speaking when writing proposals, you should be prepared to answer questions about them. But not in your case. I'm not here to support/promote anything other than the idea that your proposal is flawed from the outset, and given you couldn't answer the simplest of questions, I'm not surprised by the large amount of support I've had to my edits here! Keep digging, refusing to answer the questions, you'll get everything you deserve. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Sigh. I've answered questions. You don't like some answers, you don't understand others, you rant against project managers, you advocate having filmmakers use Wikipedia movie articles to help support and promote their movie. ("Smaller productions which absolutely depend on regional recognition....")
Look, I understand. We run into editors like you on Wikipedia from time and time, and I genuinely don't believe they can help themselves. This becomes the focal point of their lives, and they obsess and turn everything into a win-or-lose proposition — even something as innocuous as a Request for Comment to solicit opinions from editors whether there even is a problem that needs solving.
I'd only ask that you not lie: I have answered your questions many, many times, right from your very first one. I've even tried to do so when your questions were blatantly ridiculous and clearly attempts to bait me into losing my temper. But I can't get angry with editors like you. Any kind of bullying, as everyone knows, is an attempt to have control when one feels helpless. You don't like this idea, and instead of simply saying so, you're so afraid that others will like it that you can't risk that lack of control, and so you keep haranguing.
I think outright lying crosses a line, and saying I haven't answered questions when anyone reading this thread can see, objectively, that I have, is something for which I'd ask admin intervention. But anything else you might say or do in your efforts to derail discussion, well, you're going to do it and I can't stop you. I will just keep responding in the hopes that other editors will see through the smokescreen.
Oh, and at least two editors have suggested ways of addressing the issue of excessive "awards," which acknowledges that those two, at least, believe there's an issue here that needs solving. So whether it's true you've had support or not, my proposition has had support as well. I'm not even sure you have a position, other than, "I don't like the question and so no one should be allowed to discuss it." --Tenebrae (talk) 16:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Keep digging, you're doing your cause no end of bad. You need answer a couple of simple questions, which awards and nominations would you allow on Titanic and which awards and nominations would you allow on Primer? And how would you go about defining how to apply those rules to all the other film articles? I'm so sorry that this isn't going your way, you seem to need some kind of affirmation that what you're doing is worthwhile, I'm certain it is, but you're just going about it all wrong. Hence the numerous editors who have thanked me for attempting to correct your ever-wobbling course through this. I'm afraid claiming I don't wish to discuss this is abundantly incorrect since I'm discussing it and have been for some time. I've done nothing to "derail" anything but ask questions you continually refuse to answer. Look, I understand, I run into editors like you on Wikipedia from time to time, and I genuinely believe you can help yourself. This has become your focal point, your obsession, and you need to continually battle to maintain an untenable position. All I'll say is good luck, a last plea for you to answer the questions, and God speed. Meanwhile I'll get on with actively improving Wikipedia. Cheers! (By the way, please feel free, encouraged even, to take up your own threat of "admin intervention", I can't wait to see what that will result in...) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I was certainly expecting some kind of snarky response, though not parody in particular. Like I said, you've spent most of your time poking fun at me, at my question and even, for some reason, at project managers, for which you seem to have particular disdain. For example, your suggestion that Titanic and Primer should have different standards in terms of what awards to list. It's like you're just saying random things to throw wrenches into the works. You know as well as anyone, I'm sure, that there's nothing inherently different between Titanic, Primer or any other movie that has any bearing whatsoever on what awards are listed. I give this answer — that the question is bereft of logic — you don't like my answer, and you accuse me of not answering.
No one's wobbling. I've asked the same thing from the start: Is there a problem with an overflow of trivial awards in film articles? That's simple: Yes or no. If enough editors say yes, then we can work on solutions. If enough editors say no, then OK, there's no problem, no need to discuss it further.
You don't like a two-pronged approach, which is common in corporate, scientific and scholastic settings, fields I gather you've either no or bad experience with. So rather than say yes or no, you say, "I don't like the question, and you're stupid for asking it, and you're wasting my time, etc. etc." And so because I'm asking a question in a way The Rambling Man doesn't approve of, he's going to keep haranguing because he can't help himself.
I've answered your questions. You don't like the answers. That's not the same as me not answering them. "Last plea"? Ha, ha! No, you'll be doing this all month till the RfC runs its course — since if you don't and other editors can discuss this without your constant bombardment, there's a chance people may actually say, Yes, there's too much clutter. And you can't have that. So ... speak with you soon. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I see you now resort to name-calling, well that's a mature development. Sadly though, it still appears that despite your plea, your proposal is still flawed, and you still refuse to answer the fundamental question of what criteria you are proposing to downselect particular awards for particular films. Which is the question many of us have been asking right from the start. The Rambling Man (talk) 03:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose including an arbitrary limit of what can be reported about a film. Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER, and WP:INDISCRIMINATE is not synonymous with "I don't like it" - a "list of all artistic awards that a film has (verifiably) won" is a finite, well defined list; when the list is too long for a single article, it can be split to other articles. It's certainly worrisome that the proposal doesn't include a criterion for what should not be allowed, which would allow a blank cheque for any later discussion to decide where to cut with an arbitrary or subjective criterion. There also seems to be a WP:BIAS problem with the proposal and previous discussions of "minor awards" being US-centric, and not taking into consideration what effect it would have on films from other countries. Diego (talk) 07:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
    • This will sound odd, but I thank you, Diego. This is exactly the kind of response I was hoping to get: A reasoned "Oppose" or "Accept", rather than a childish series of diatribes. I can see you understood the simple question being asked. Thank you. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:07, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
      • More name calling? Really, I had expected better, but then again, perhaps not. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
        • Tenebrae, there is no need for name calling, no matter haw sarcastic the Rambling man gets. The Rambling man and myself both asked for workable proposals so that the conversation wouldn't get dragged out...which it now has. You can claim that your way of doing things is the best way, but this conversation is not evidence of that no matter who you blame. More importantly, there is no Wikipedia policy that says we can't ask for realistic proposals before we judge if the problem is worth addressing. I hope we can step away from the dead horse and offer some workable solutions. Cheers Dkriegls (talk to me!) 08:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree, although I suspect that my suggestions for appropriate exclusion criteria may differ greatly from the initial proposal. I don't think focusing on "major" and "minor" is terribly helpful. I prefer more particular exclusion criteria such as:

  1. Awards given by vendors (construed broadly) that promote products they transact in. If McDonalds names the Big Mac "America's Favorite Hamburger," we recognize that it's a promotional gesture. When Pathmark names a "Cheese of the Month", it's not seen as a legitimate award.
  2. "Awards" that simply recognize sales/rental figures, which should be addressed, if appropriate, within relevant text.
  3. "Awards" from periodicals, critics, bloggers, etc, which are the equivalent of traditional year's best lists (as well as associated idiosyncratic "award categories"). There's no need to give special prominence to such assessments simply because they're styled awards. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Okay, that proposal seems like an actual start. My first question would be, do any of these awards even meet WP:Notability? If not, then their inclusion should already be suspect and at the discretion of individual page editors. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 08:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Navigation break 2

To respond to User:Dkriegls, WP:CSC suggests we include in a standalone-list article any entity that has a Wikipedia page. As James500 and another editor pointed out above, this is an MOS guideline, not a policy, and can be adapted. In practical terms, I gather, this means editors can reach consensus at particular projects, for example, adapting the guideline to whatever works better in particular circumstances.

I would think that this answers the actual RfC question: "Could we adapt the guideline?" Whether that's the final consensus here or not (it's possible some editors might disagree and feel no change or adaptation should ever occur, though that seems unlikely), then the second step would be how. That's a whole other discussion and one that I, at least, don't want to pursue after what's gone on here.

However, there is a discussion (not an RfC) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Laundry lists of awards that's not about excluding the trivial and insignificant awards but, in a compromise, grouping them in order to better contextualize them. My good colleague Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, for example, might want to port over his suggestions there and join the discussion on grouping. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

What I meant was the word "common" implies that WP:CSC is for discretionary criteria. Compulsory criteria should go in WP:LSC (which is the block of text immediately before CSC) or elsewhere. James500 (talk) 02:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm in complete agreement with you on that. I don't think what we're saying is mutually exclusive: A consensus can limit, but it has to do so in objective, quantifiable ways.--Tenebrae (talk) 02:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Editors at a WikiProjects do not get to tell non-participant editors what to do, even in terms of "adapting a MOS guideline". Editors at an article are expected to adapt guidelines all the time.
I basically don't see the need for any change and therefore oppose dealing with film awards specifically. The three most common list-selection criteria are described; there is nothing that says you cannot use a different one. All that is actually required is that the list-selection criteria either be obvious from the title, or that it be explained in the lead. This means that a "List of businesses in the World Trade Centers" ought to include all of them, or it ought to explain how you decided which ones to include. Similarly, "List of awards won by Big Film" either ought to include all of them, or it ought to explain how you decided which ones to include ("Big Film won 23 international, national, and major regional awards in the year of its release. It additionally won dozens of minor awards that are not included here"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
That doesn't sound different from what we're saying — and, personally, I love the phrasing of your parenthetical sentences. I'd just say that I do see that various Projects having specific MOS guidelines, since there's no one-size-fits-all solution that works for, say, toy articles and paleontology articles. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

There is an RfC regarding this issue at WP:FILM. Lapadite (talk) 22:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC).

@The Rambling Man, BOZ, Blueboar, Dkriegls, TriiipleThreat, Masem, James500, WhatamIdoing, and Diego Moya: Notifying editors that participated in this discussion. Lapadite (talk) 08:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Notice: RFC at WikiProject Film

There is a discussion at WT:FILM#RfC: Do list items need their own WP article in order to be sourced in list articles? which directly concerns this page, in particular § Selection criteria. User:Lapadite77 previously mentioned this discussion at the bottom of a section above, but I figured there ought to be a more prominent notice here. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 21:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Deletions of notability list

SimonLyall has now twice in short order -- despite my discussing it on his talk page -- deleted an embedded list of notable people in a city. The list included only individuals who have wp articles. SimonLyall deleted the entire list. Both times.

Including a Prime Minister, and an Olympic champion/World champion.

On his absurd assertion that "The people listed are pretty minor".

I opened up discussion on his talk page, and shared that "calling a Prime Minister and an Olympic athlete non-notable is absurd". But he yet again deleted them. And -- having deleted the Prime Minister and Olympic champion/World champion twice -- referred to those he deleted as "some random ones out of the hat, certainly not ones that would normally be ranked towards the top".

I'm bringing conversation here, as he seems not to be familiar with the concept of such embedded lists, and perhaps input from readers of this page would be helpful. And discussion with him on his talk page has failed, as despite my pointing out the above, and the commonness of such lists, he has continued to engage in edit-warring deletions.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

My problem is not with the list existence. The problem was you created it and populated it with 5 random Aucklanders who had articles. Auckland has about a quarter of New Zealand's population. So a quarter of all Prime Minister and NZ Olympic Champion's come from there. You also added Ricki-Lee Coulter ,Colin Kay and Margaret Urlich all three who rank well down the list in their respective fields. I suggested this be taken to the articles talk page where if needed a better list can be created and you want to move it here.
This seems to be very much a case of a drive-by crappy edit expecting others to clean up your mess. If that is the case then let us do so and go away. Otherwise how about participating in a discussion of who would be the best people to have in the list in Talk:Auckland - SimonLyall (talk) 08:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Despite my explaining myself in two edit summaries, as well as in talk page discussion, you continued to delete the Prime Minister. And the Olympic champion/World champion. On the absurd assertions that your deletions were appropriate because the people you were deletion are "pretty minor". And "random ones." That's obviously absurd, and your edit-warring to continue deleting them on that basis is not acceptable.
As to the others, this page reflects our notability policy for lists of people. See WP:LISTPEOPLE. A person may be included in a list of people if all the requirements in WP:LISTPEOPLE are met.
But in any event -- that has nothing to do with your tendentious deletion of a Prime Minister, twice. And your deletion of an Olympic champion/World champion, twice.Epeefleche (talk) 08:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Please do not insert half-truths into this discussion. I reverted your edit exact twice. No "continued to delete" like you stated. Both times I suggested taking the discussion to the articles talk page and you just added it back (although at least the second time you added it back you removed some of the minor people from the list). Your list now consists of exactly 2 people. One is is the current Prime Minister and one of three NZ Prime Minister from Auckland while the other is an Olympic Sailing Champion would would rank below at least two other NZ Olympic sailing Champions. Like I said I have no problem with the list just the lack of thought that went into populating it. As for the idea of added every Aucklander with an aritcle, there are at least 400, probably a lot more. I am also not impressed that 2 reverts gets me a warning on my talk page about Disruptive editing and you start invoking Wikipedia's blocking policy.
Anyway, I'm going to refrain from editing further tonight, there are plenty of others who can clean up your edits and I'm sure we will sort of a list of people without your "help" - SimonLyall (talk)
Even after I left two explanatory edit summaries, and an explanatory paragraph on our talkpage, you continued to delete the Prime Minister, the Olympic & World Champion, etc. Your explanations were that your deletions were warranted because these people were "pretty minor". Absurd. Furthermore, you seem not to have read WP:LISTPEOPLE -- all the people you deleted, including those two, meet the criteria. You don't get to delete an Olympic and World Champion from the list because you believe there are two sailors who are even more notable.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
For this kind of list you need to establish who is considered to be "from Auckland" and you have to establish notability. The first is usually pretty broad, but though there are exceptions, it doesn't seem like SimonLyall is debating that these people should be considered "from Auckland." So since notability is satisfied by the existence of a Wikipedia article, inclusion seems appropriate. As long as those are both agreed upon, there is no "let's figure out who's most important" beyond that. If the section becomes so large that it's unwieldy, as category:People from Auckland suggests would be the case, then create a separate page. Regardless of how big it is in relation to New Zealand, there are much larger cities that list notable people. The first one that comes to mind is List of people from New York City. There is no requirement that if you're going to start listing people, you must list all people or else the section is to be removed. In fact Wikipedia typically works in exactly the opposite way. There are policies, however, on WP:CIVILITY and assuming good faith, which makes comments like This seems to be very much a case of a drive-by crappy edit expecting others to clean up your mess. If that is the case then let us do so and go away (etc.) concerning. Regardless, Epeefleche, beyond saying that a stand-alone list is an acceptable solution, I don't know how appropriate this talk page is for this discussion. If it continues to be an issue and you can't resolve it on the article talk page or each other's user talk pages, you should probably take it to one of the noticeboards. --— Rhododendrites talk |  15:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I concur entirely with Rhododendrites's take on this.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Lists of lists (again)

I would like to continue discussion of the "list of lists" issue... To be clear, I am talking about purely navigational pages such as Lists of academic journals and Lists of magazines. The purpose of these pages is not to list academic journals or magazines... but to aid readers in finding other list articles that do. In this, it mirrors the associated category pages (such as Category:Academic journals)
I have proposed before that we adopt the term "Index" for such pages.... to distinguish them from actual "List" articles. Such a distinction would (I think) avoid confusion over whether (and how) our various policies apply. Adopting a different term for such pages would better distinguish purely navigational space (dab, category, index) from informational space (articles and lists). It would better allow us to clarify which "rules" apply to what types of pages.
I was tempted to do a trial balloon and propose an RM, but I thought it would be better to hold some discussion on the basic conceptual idea first. Comments and thoughts? Blueboar (talk) 12:52, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

  • seems reasonable to me. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Point of clarification that also extends somewhat from the previous thread on this: is the reason these purely navigational lists are allowed (those which do not need to demonstrate notability) simply because the Category system is too inflexible? (That if we had as much control over the way a category page is displayed, lists of lists wouldn't be necessary?) Regardless, as far as changes to the way things are currently, this proposal makes sense. --— Rhododendrites talk |  14:41, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I think the category system is inflexible and often has many holes, but both are not intended or supposed to be mutually-exclusive ways of looking up the information. For larger or broader indexes, an article typically is better and more friendly than a bunch of nested categories. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Note... my suggestion would not affect category pages at all. Nor would it change the content and lay out of the navigational pages under discussion. The suggestion is simply to use a different word when we describe navigational pages that are in listified format... to better distinguish such navigational pages from informational lists (ie articles that happen to be in a listified format). If we adopt the word "Index" for the navigational pages and reserve "List" for informational pages, WP:SAL (and other policies and guidelines) can better clarify which "rules" apply to each type of page. Blueboar (talk) 11:54, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
It's been a week without apparent objection. Next step to the village pump? --— Rhododendrites talk |  19:06, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
I think so... then (if there are still no objections) a few well chosen RMs to float as test cases. Blueboar (talk) 19:09, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Only just saw this now for some odd reason. I forget the finer points of our last discussion on this (like whether I agreed with it or not). So, here's my current thoughts of objection: First, while you used an obvious example, how do we define this new index "group" in a concrete way where anyone who wants to violate citation rules doesn't just label their list an "Index"? Where is the line that isn't gray, given that all lists serve the dual purpose of navigation? Are there Lists of Lists that aren't Index's? Are there Index's that aren't lists of lists? Second, what rules are we trying to get around and why? I think we would need to be pretty clear about this and not appear to be special pleading for separate policy where current work arounds already do the trick. One of the reasons categories have such a distinct difference is to not blur the lines of where policy differences end and begin. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 05:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
The distinction is that an Index would not convey any information that needs to be cited... the the only fact that would be presented in an Index would be "Wikipeida has an article on this" (which does not need to be cited). If any other fact is introduced, the page becomes a "List" and citation rules apply. Blueboar (talk) 12:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I can support this idea, as long as it doesn't conflict with our well-developed system of "Index of..." articles (see Portal:Contents/Indexes for the top level), which are not lists of lists. They tend to be in the form "Index of X-related articles" or "Index of articles about X", so lists of lists could maybe be "Index of lists of X" or "Index of X-related lists".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes... exactly right. Blueboar (talk) 12:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I think SMcCandlish's proposed names of "Index of lists of X" or "Index of X-related lists" addresses my concerns. As well as Blueboar's comment. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 18:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • So, we gonna do anything with this?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:34, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Are bands considered "people"?

In List of people from Knoxville, Tennessee#Music, there are several bands and other musical groups listed there. This seems somewhat problematic to me, as not al members of bands or groups may be from a given locale, especially if the band has had a lot of turnover. Has this issue been dealt with before?, and is there a guideline for it? If not, should bands/groups be listed under "Lists of people from" lists? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 14:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:LISTPEOPLE and WP:CSC suggest those lists should include only people who are notable, so not only should a band typically not be included, but it also shouldn't name a person but link to a band article (except in exceedingly rare circumstances of established independent notability but no stand-alone article). So, for example, Phillip Everly and Don Everly are clearly notable but we cover them together. I'd probably include them individually in such a list. That avoids messy scenarios where even when the band name sounds like it refers to specific people, it can change (see The Allman Brothers Band). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. And remember that WP:BLP applies to bands and such, not just individuals, so inclusion would be subject to the same strict sourcing requirements.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:56, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Ok, thanks to both of you. - BilCat (talk) 04:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

List of political parties in X

Consider List of political parties in India: divided into national (6), state (51) and registered unrecognised (1709). What would be our inclusion criteria for the registered unrecognised parties? Do we include all 1709 irrespective of notability (WP:LISTCOMPANY)? That would mean a really lengthy list, possibly going beyond the limit of 32K mentioned in WP:CSC (currently, article shows 23K and it's tagged as incomplete since it barely mentions only around 20 of the 1709). Can we apply the 1st selection criteria where every entry should meet the notability guideline? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

This is more a content question than a notability question. The governing policy is WP:UNDUE. What we need to discuss is how much weight should we give minority (and fringe) political parties in these list articles? My opinion is that mere existence of a party is not enough for inclusion. Certainly extremely fringe parties (parties that the media do not even mention in passing) should be omitted. At the other end, certainly parities that win parliamentary or congressional seats should be included. However, that leaves open the question of where to draw the line between these extremes. At what point should we include a political party on the list. That is a bit trickier to determine. It really depends on the amount (and depth) of coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the party. (that said, I would lean towards inclusion in "iffy" cases) Blueboar (talk) 11:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, this clears it up a bit. Me and two other editors agreed that we should somehow limit this but couldn't think of a clear place to draw the line: Talk:List of political parties in India/Archive 1#Relevance of registered unrecognised parties list. I've tried comparing with other country lists like this but couldn't find any consistency followed, in any case nowhere was such a high number dealt with. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 12:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I think we already have an answer to this: WP:V/WP:RS. We can't include "parties that the media do not even mention in passing", since they won't be sourceable.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Stand-alone_lists/Archive_7&oldid=1138652750"