This page is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Manual of Style Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style articles v • d • e This page falls within the scope of WikiProject Manual of Style, a drive to identify and address contradictions and redundancies, improve language, and coordinate the pages that form the MoS guidelines. WikiProject Lists (Rated Project-Class) ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles Lists portal v • d • e This page is part 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.  Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II. Sections with no replies in 60 days are automatically moved.

Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Related archives Wikipedia talk:Lists in Wikipedia/Archive 1 Wikipedia talk:Lists in Wikipedia/Archive 2

Contents 1 Red links in Featured lists 2 Bibliography articles 3 outlines 4 A proposal to reword a guideline in order to specify which types of bibliography pages are encyclopedic 5 Two guideline re-word proposals re bibliographies and lists of references 5.1 All Lists Are Subject Driven 6 Thoughts from Umberto Eco 7 Continuing bullet items

[edit] Red links in Featured lists

Input is appreciated at this discussion. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Bibliography articles

There is an ongoing discussion here about the validity of topical bibliography articles (as separate from authorial bibliography articles). Additional input would be much appreciated. Neelix (talk) 12:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

There's a more general thread about the whole set, at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Can an article be just a bibliography? Additional input might be best directed there. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] outlines

Hi, there is quite a heated debate on various talk pages regards outlines, it is (hopefully) centralized at Wikipedia talk:Outlines, there are some entrenched editors there but some rational input would be useful (and welcomed) from other editors experienced with lists. Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 14:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced WT:OUTLINE is the best place for this discussion, it gives undue legitimacy to the aims of the project, isn't neutral, and isn't centralised. Verbal chat 15:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] A proposal to reword a guideline in order to specify which types of bibliography pages are encyclopedic

I would like to submit a proposal to clarify the guidelines on the Wikipedia:Lists page regarding appropriate forms of bibliography pages. At the moment, the only guideline about such pages states the following:

• A Bibliography page presents a list of relevant books, journal or other references for a subject area. Bibliographies are useful for expanding Further Reading topics for Summary style articles.

Based on three previous discussions about bibliography pages here, here, and here, I am recommending that the guideline be reworded as follows:

• A Bibliography page presents a list of books, journals, or other literary sources which are grouped for some reason other than shared subject matter. Examples of appropriate bibliography pages are a list of publications of a particular author, a list of books printed by a particular historical handpress, and a list of books in a particular book collector's collection. A bibliography of a particular subject should be included as a section on the article pertaining to that subject; such sections should not be expanded into pages unto themselves.

The reasons that this proposal is being submitted have been detailed on the aforementioned discussions, however some of the main concerns about subject-driven bibliography pages are as follows:

1. Subject-driven bibliography pages violate WP:NOTLINK.
2. Subject-driven bibliography pages violate WP:DIRECTORY.
3. Subject-driven bibliography pages violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE.
4. Subject-driven bibliography pages can never be declared complete because there is no way to determine how many literary sources have been written about a particular subject.

This is an important matter to discuss. If bibliography pages are deemed appropriate pages on Wikipedia, there is a multitude of lists which should be compiled. If this proposal is accepted, however, there are some pages which will need to be deleted or moved out of the article space. Neelix (talk) 19:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

We're mainly discussing:

Category:Bibliographies by subject

Category:Lists of books by topic

?

Abstractly: Preserve for later usage, if they're unsuitable for mainspace. We should err on the side of "Move to wikiproject subpage", rather than deleting whole articles or large subsections. (more later) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose only the last sentence (of the main paragraph). I see nothing wrong with spinning proper non-subject bibliographies out when they become too long (by analogy with discographies, e.g. Britney Spears discography). Would not oppose trans-namespace moves of non-compliant lists. --Cybercobra (talk) 20:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose not allowing stand alone pages. I think for very broad topics - say, WWII - when you run through all the references used in all the various articles, there are likely going to be a large number of common books and more permanent works (that is, not things like magazine and newspaper articles, but sources that are strongly secondary for that topic) that are good general reading for the topic. Including a bibliography page for a wide-ranging topic that includes only works used as sources on the topic's article pages is completely reasonable: This takes out the issues of the first three points, because this is no longer a indiscriminate list driven by trying to include every possible work, but using those works that have been commonly referenced by WPians in the editing of such articles. This would be a reasonable supporting page for such vast topics. Mind you, I would limit these to only those topics that do have a deep structure. --MASEM (t) 20:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Completely agree. (To bring up some examples, which are often helpful...) We need a perspective/paragraph that allows for useful bibliographies, such as List of books about the War of 1812 and List of important publications in economics to remain accessible (per Masem's summary), but, is able to gently move the less-useful bibliographies such as List of books about kites and List of books about coal mining into either one-or-more article's "Further reading" section(s), or into a wikiproject's subpage-space for later use in articles. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Misguided Proposal. I am an inclusionist, so this proposal does not sit well with me. Of the 128 (or so) articles that compose the Category:Bibliographies by Subject, which ones go, which ones stay? The proposal is based on the premise that these Bibliographies by Subject violate the vague WP guidelines of WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:NOTLINK, WP:INDESCRIMINATE despite many of these articles having already survived deletion discussions which concluded they did not violate these guidelines. As a real fan of quality bibliographic data associated with subject matter articles, I have added a great number of bibliographic entries to the further reading sections of many articles, only to have other editors arbitrarily remove them because they thought 10 books is enough, 15 is too many. Limiting bibliographies to further reading sections is fraught with issues. Additionally, this statement: “Subject-driven bibliography pages can never be declared complete because there is no way to determine how many literary sources have been written about a particular subject” seems to me to be pure POV as the very premise of WP is that articles, no matter what the subject can always be improved in some way. Is there a guideline I am unaware off about WP:Declaring an Article Complete?

In my view the existing guideline is perfectly suitable and the proposed wording extremely problematic:

“A Bibliography page presents a list of books, journals, or other literary sources which are grouped for some reason other than shared subject matter.” So a bibliography of books with blue covers would be suitable. The definition of “Bibliography” does not exclude subject matter bibliographies.

“Examples of appropriate bibliography pages are a list of publications of a particular author, a list of books printed by a particular historical handpress, and a list of books in a particular book collector's collection.” Does the author have to be notable and already have a WP article or can any author have a bibliography in WP?, why just hand presses and not any type of press. Does the press have to be notable? What about book collectors, do they have to be notable book collectors. Who would know what is contained in anyone’s book collection anyway?

“A bibliography of a particular subject should be included as a section on the article pertaining to that subject; such sections should not be expanded into pages unto themselves.” What’s the limit? Who decides which books get included? What’s the criteria for inclusion? What about Summary Style articles? Big problem!

I am reluctant to bring up the argument that any Bibliography is USEFUL as nothing is ever useful it seems to a deletionist. However, WP, because it can be edited by ANYONE, including those who are well intentioned but completely clueless about the real literary sources behind many subjects, needs more, not less Bibliographies on as many subjects as possible. IMHO--Mike Cline (talk) 22:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• I do not understand your objections, Mike. I'll deal with them in the order you dealt with them:

1. You state that the proposed new wording of the guideline allows for "a bibliography of books with blue covers." Isn't the current guideline even more abstract? In any case, I'm glad that you agree that we should be wording the guideline so that certain types of bibliographies are not included.
2. You state that the examples provided in the proposed guideline don't make any comments about notability. Such comments should not need to be included. All articles are required to deal with notable topics; it goes without saying that the author dealt with in an authorial bibliography has to be notable, and similarly with the book collector and the handpress.
3. You ask what the limit should be for how many sources should be included in a bibliography section and who should determine which ones should be included. These questions are not pertinent to the current discussion. Like most article-related issues, they should be discussed on their respective article talk pages. The list of sources not in those sections should be moved to Wikisource. Neelix (talk) 12:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Subject driven bibliography pages violate WP:OR including but not limited to unpublished bibliographies, speculation as to which subject or subjects a bibliography should be about, and another other argument based on subjective importance of a particular bibliography relative to other, related bibliography. Basically, subject driven bibliography pages are lists of indiscrimiate stuff, and there is no avoiding the issue that there is no place for them in Wikipedia, unless there is verifiable evidence that a particular subject driven bibliography is notable in its own right. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Might be a compelling argument if it were as true as you make it sound. Some of the most sought after and valuable pieces of literature on many Subjects are the scholarly works that chronicle and assess the important literature published on a subject. When titles such as: Bibliotheca Piscatoria-A Catalogue Of Books On Angling, The Fisheries and Fish-Culture, With Bibliographical Notes and an Appendix Of Citations Touching On Angling and fishing from Old English authors, Notable Angling Literature, and The Fishing In Print-A Guided Tour Through Five Centuries of Angling Literature are used as verfiable sources in a bibliography, that bibliography is hardly OR. The statement Subject driven bibliography pages violate WP:OR is simply too broad a brush and is not necessarily true.--Mike Cline (talk) 23:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Then you agree with me that if a subject driven bibliography (henceforth "SDB") is not sourced, then it has been made up. You can see where I am coming from: if a SDB is not the subject of significant coverage (i.e. means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content), then the only alternative is make one up, or stitch two or three sources together to form a synthesis. I am not using a broad brush approach, I am simply saying that if there is no external evidence to suggest a SDB has been noted else where, then it must have been made up. Made up lists have no place in Wikipedia, and in any case the use of categories would be much more useful. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Gavin - Here's where I think your logic is flawed. There is essentially no difference between a subject based bibliography (SDB) and an author based one, just different inclusion criteria. If you examine most of the author based bibliographies, the sources cited do not support the particular authorship, but instead support some statement about a specific work in the list. A good example is List of books by Jimmy Carter. There is not one source that supports the fact that Jimmy Carter really wrote these books. Did the article writer just make it up. No one is going to challenge this list, because an examination of each book listed would reveal indeed that Jimmy Carter authored the book. The same applies to SDBs. One is unlikely to find sources that support listing every book under the given subject, but how could some one challenge the title: Yellowstone National Park--Historical and Descriptive if it was included in a list of Yellowstone National Park References or would that be considered being made up in your judgement? I find no difference between author based and subject based criteria in building bibliographies--both are valid and useful.--Mike Cline (talk) 02:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Gavin's logic is not flawed. Sources exist which demonstrate that any book on the list of books by Jimmy Carter was in fact written by him. The fact that those sources are not currently included on the page is not relevant. Author-driven bibliographies and subject-driven bibliographies are completely different from eachother. Please remember that Usefulness is a subjective judgment and should be avoided in deletion debates unless it supports a cogent argument. "A list of all the phone numbers in New York would be useful, but is not included because Wikipedia is not a directory." Similarly, a bibliography of sources about classical mechanics would be useful, but should not be included on Wikipedia because that's what Wikisource is for. Neelix (talk) 12:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Neelix, I would contend that sources exist that document the fact that any book written on the Subject of Yellowstone is indeed on the Subject of Yellowstone. Since this is a guideline discussion, not a deletion debate, the bow shot that Usefullness is not a valid argument is misplaced. Wikisource is only for online-public domain works, therefore not available for comprehensive bibliographies.--Mike Cline (talk) 21:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It is, but this is a matter of categorisation, its not a valid inclusion criteria for a list article. If you or I attempt to compile a list of creative works, then we do so using our own subjective view as to which books should or should not be in the list. In the academic world, that is a legitimate and useful activity, but in the context of Wikipedia, this is orginal research. A good example of this is the Köchel catalogue, which is a well known SDB of all Mozart's published compositions. If I was to compile a create a similar list myself, that would be original research, unless the source of the list can be supported by citations. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• All four of the numbered assertions behind this proposal are wrong. In fact,

1. Subject-driven bibliography pages do not violate WP:NOTLINK.
2. Subject-driven bibliography pages do not violate WP:DIRECTORY.
3. Subject-driven bibliography pages do not violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE.
4. Subject-driven bibliography pages can never be declared complete because there is no way to determine how many literary sources have been will eventually be written about a particular subject. All Wikipedia articles are works in progress, there is no deadline and WP:NOTCRYSTAL. LeadSongDog come howl 03:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I agree with this comment. Subject bibliographies are the most important and the most difficult to do, and also the most valuable. As a preliminary, I do not much care whether or not they violate various sections of NOT as currently worded: NOT is a policy like any other policy--we made it ourselves: we can change it; we can remove clauses; we can add clauses; we can interpret it; we can decide on exceptions to it; we can decide of aspects to enforce strictly--all of this depending on what we want to achieve. If we need lists of links for encyclopedic purposes, we can have lists of links (not that most bibliographies will be bare lists of links--they will be lists of sources, some or all of which will have links added. They will rarely be directories in the sense of not, which refers to complete lists of based only on existence-- though it some cases it might be possible to be fairly complete. They will never be indiscriminate--they will be based upon what is appropriate forthe particular subject covered, which will be a matter of judgement based on importance and proportional coverage. They will usually not be complete, because the literature on a subject is always growing--but why should it be? (btw, in most cases only if a subject bibliography were an indiscriminate directory, would it be complete-- to say that a anything must be complete and also not violate not directory is impossible--almost no list can simultaneously meet both criteria--they are essentially opposites.

The difficulty in doing these bibliographies will be in deciding what to include. Because we will want to be current, we will not be able to rely of simply excerpting those listed elsewhere, though most lists would be based on it. In each case, we would need explicit criteria, and there always will be some discussion about what they should be in a given case and whether particular items meet them. My feeling is they will develop like other articles, gradually, and their inclusiveness will be a matter of compromise: there is no point listing the unimportant, and we will need to rely on some degree of compromise. In some sense they will stretch the boundaries of OR , but they do it equally whether separate or part of an article. Every bibliographic listing of any size in Wikipedia already involves this judgement. The listing of the "best" external links according to WP:EL requires judgment--and research. And to some extent, so does any writing of any article. The proper meaning of OR is that we do not use Wikipedia to develop new theories or hypotheses, and a bibliography will rarely do that. The sort of OR prohibited is "unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position." It does not refer to the collection ofappropriate material--we do this all the time. DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)u

On the other hand, the specific mention of "A list of books, journals, or other literary sources which are grouped for some reason other than shared subject matter. Examples of appropriate bibliography pages are a list of publications of a particular author, a list of books printed by a particular historical handpress, and a list of books in a particular book collector's collection. is useful--except I would think it so remarkably unusual that we would do the last of them, that I cannot immediately see the usefulness. DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose a blanket criterion against subject-based bibliographies (at least for now). The criteria for what is included in List of important publications in economics or List of books about the War of 1812 do seem pretty slippery, but if people working on those articles are willing to try and sort through it, I'm reluctant to say we shouldn't have them. If they are based on sources (analogous to the fishing examples above, or bibliography sections of published histories/textbooks/etc), that would help a lot, and explain what the difference is between List of books about kites and List of books about coal mining (which I agree are lower quality, and probably lower in potential even if improved). Kingdon (talk) 12:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete them all. Wikisource has two namespace dedicated to bibliographies.
  the Author: namespace has works by and about a person. There is no controls over "notability"; instead we allow subpages to cater for as much detail as people want to add; e.g. s:Author:Obama. Copyright works are explicitly permitted in this namespace. There are not many good examples of extensive bibliographies, however here are a few examples: s:Author:Wystan Hugh Auden, s:Author:Isaac Asimov, s:Author:Martin Luther King, Jr., s:Author:Shakespeare, s:Author:Martin Luther.
  the Wikisource: namespace includes topical Bibliographies, and e.g. s:Wikisource:Race studies. Again, subpages are permitted. There hasnt been any discussion about permitting non-free works to be listed in this namespace - I expect that the community wouldnt be too keen on opening up that namespace for non-free listings at this stage, as could introduce a lot of disputes that our community isnt ready to manage. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you for bringing this up, John; this is a key point. If these types of bibliography lists are already included on Wikisource, we shouldn't be doubling up on them here. Neelix (talk) 12:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I agree here: if Wikisource has been determined as an appropriate place for topic-based bibliographies like this, that's where they should be and we can link to them easily and in a standout manner as we do with other sister project links.
    • That, however, should not change having lists here of works authored by a specific author, the equivalent of discographies. These shouldn't be presented as a bibliography. There are also probably very rare cases of lists of works that have a well-defined, discriminate inclusion requirement that is beyond being a bibliography. --MASEM (t) 14:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• • My review of the WikiSource Inclusion Guidelines reveals that it would not be suitable for Bibliographies on anything other than online-public domain texts which would essentially eliminate most the the knowledge being challenged in the current realm of WP subject related bibliographies.--Mike Cline (talk) 21:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Given this is the case, I would then argue that we use the following:
      • Lists of works by a single author are completely appropriate in the fashion of actor appearances and musician discographies. These should be built into the author's article, but obviously if too large, a breakout is fine.
      • Lists of works for a subject need a discriminate inclusion requirement, and for that, I would say there are three things:
        • The topic needs to be one that spans many pages ala World War II (I would say the size here probably is "obvious" when its appropriate but I'll go with more than 10 articles broken out per WP:SS as the minimum line, as the point where repeating sources over and over can become tedious), and uses many common references.
        • The works included are those that are used on those pages as normal references - such that the list would be the mathematical union of these sources.
        • Works listed need to be more in-depth coverage of the topic, so something like a book, an academic article, or the like - more than just primary information.
    • In this fashion, we have objective and discriminate measures when to include these lists and when references can be added to them. If a person wants a specific reference on the list, they first them must figure out how to add it as a valid source to other articles before it can be added. --MASEM (t) 23:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

That seems sensible and workable. I'd support Masem's description/wording, barring unforeseen problems. -- Quiddity (talk) 23:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Concerns and Clarity, although I agree that having discriminate inclusion criteria for a SDB would be useful, those criteria must be extraordinarily clear and not overly restrictive. The three criteria above seem like a reasonable approach, but I have serious concerns about elements of the 1st two, and need way more clarity on the third. On No. 1, the inclusion of the words articles broken out per WP:SS is very problematic. Not all subjects covered by multiple articles are handled as Summary Style articles. Two subjects of which I am intimately familar with--Yellowstone and Fly Fishing have upwards of 75 and 30 related articles, but neither one is written in true summary style. Would these subjects be excluded under this suggested criteria? No. 2 would actually defeat the purpose of a comprehensive bibliography on a subject, because it would restrict inclusion to only those references used in an article. This would cause multiple types of bad behavior on WP. The first bad behavior has already be alluded to by Masem--If a person wants a specific reference on the list, they first them must figure out how to add it as a valid source to other articles before it can be added. This would result I believe in the indiscrimate adding of sources to articles, just so they could be listed in a bibliography. I would challenge anyone to say that the 30 sources I can find that say Yellowstone National Park was created on March 1st, 1872 are not valid. The only reason to source the article with all 30 would be to include them in an associated bibliography because this proposed guideline demands that. The other undesirable result that this would create is the the real inability to reconcile the sources in the bibliography with those in the articles. This would be a two way street where changes in one place would demand changes elsewhere. Someone could easily remove a source from the bibliography because they can't find the source in an article somewhere (might be there or not). Where's the onus, proving its there or proving it not. A lot of wasted energy better devoted to increasing not limiting the knowledge in WP. No. 3 is inherently unclear because of the words: more than just primary information. What does that mean? Wikipedia has clear guidelines as to sources, so why should this guideline say something different.--Mike Cline (talk) 02:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Let me explain that the goal of those three rules are to avoid making these by-subject bibliography lists indiscriminate, the concerns raised above. Since anyone can create a work that can cover a topic, and presuming they are reliable, then without that, inclusion in this list is indiscriminate.

That said:

• Point 1, I don't mean to imply exactly the means outlines by WP:SS, but it should be the case that the split of articles is necessary for full comprehensive coverage due to size. There is no way WWII can be covered in a single article and thus there's numerous topical articles under it. On the other hand, looking at Yellowstone's article, the article is pretty comprehensive by itself, even if one considers that the various attractions/geological aspects are covered in more detail in other articles. This would be the type of case that the bibliography should be included on the Yellowstone article page instead of creating a separate one. A possible rule of thumb: if someone is research the topic and they will likely need to cross-reference other articles within that topic to get the full picture, then likely a separate bibliography page is necessary.
• Point 2 is absolutely necessary for inclusion. If a work is seminal on the subject, and would likely be considered a key reference for that subject, then we should be using that work on WP, and thus would be included in the bibliography. Now, I'm aware that someone that thinks a certain reference, which has been passed over or ignored or disputed by the community for that topic, may try to force it in, but that's up the editors to make sure if they've dismissed that as a valid reference and not include it. But if the source is valid and does provided citable information there's no reason to include it in a bibliography. But that leads to :
• Point 3 is meant to restrict bibliographies to only the most pertinent resources. Take Yellowstone: there are probably hundreds if not more of academic, peer-reviewed articles on the geological aspects of the park. Some of times may be used as references. However, these would not be pertinent because they are likely only covering one smaller aspect of the topic. On the other hand, review papers or books, possibly even a full conference proceeding dedicated to Yellowstone would be more appropriate for inclusion in this. In other words, the works included on the bibliography should cover the topic as a whole or a significant aspect of it, instead of isolated elements. Of course, there are exceptions: if there is a seminal book on Old Faithful that only talks about Old Faithful but is considered the key book on that, then it should be included in the bibliography.

Basically, it is not that these are meant to be hard points but to define where such bibliographies should not go as to avoid them from becoming indiscriminate and just a mere collection of related works. There needs to a supporting purpose to these to be in WP, and to make them support a multi-page topic seems completely the easiest way to do this. --MASEM (t) 16:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I fully support Masem's inclusion criteria as stated above. The proffered reasoning is sound; the criteria clearly identify which kinds of bibliography pages are acceptable on an encyclopedia and which are not. Neelix (talk) 17:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I just checked into Mike Cline's claim that Wikisource is not an appropriate location for SDB's, and he is correct. I was about to voice my support for Masem's three criteria for including SDB's on Wikipedia and explain how I think we can get around the issues Mike has voiced, but then I came across a bunch of SDB's on Wikibooks. Check out the bibliographies of corsets, Iranian history, and heat transfer. It looks like John Vandenberg's argument that we move the SDB's to a sister project is still valid; it's just that we should be considering Wikibooks rather than Wikisource. Neelix (talk) 16:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I looked there earlier, and checked again, but I think that's not the purpose those lists are there for - they are a subsection of one of the Wikibooks and thus the lists of references for that. Now, it is not unlikely that if we have a wide ranging topic here on WP that there eventually should be a Wikibook for it, but I'm a bit uncomfortable with moving subject bibliographies to Wikibooks if there is not already a book there, otherwise we're just tossing something in a placeholder that may never be filled out. --MASEM (t) 16:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Understood. In that case, let's impliment the three inclusion criteria for bibliography pages outlined by Masem above. Neelix (talk) 17:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Lets not, I don't think you have consensus.--Mike Cline (talk) 23:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

No one has responded to Masem's criteria yet; I was voicing my support, not suggesting that we shut down discussion. Do you have reasons you would like to present for not implimenting the criteria? Neelix (talk) 01:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I and others responded to Masem's criteria in several places above. As far as I am concerned, the existing wording on bibliographies in the list guidelines are perfectly suitable and don't need changing. For those that think more explicit guidelines are required, I would suggest that someone draft a more complete guideline along the lines of Wikipedia:Embedded list where all the nuances of bibliographies and reference lists can be dealt with. If the sole purpose of a new guideline is just to create ammunition for a massive deletion effort, then I think many more editors need to be involved in the discussion.--Mike Cline (talk) 21:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

No one has responded to Masem's criteria because no one has stated anything since Masem made the suggestion of the criteria. Mike Cline presented arguments against the initial statement. Masem restated and elaborated on the criteria to clarify why Mike Cline's arguments do not apply. The draft of a guideline that Mike Cline is asking for is the one which Masem has already stated. If editors who should be part of the discussion are not currently aware of it, they should be notified of it; I have tried to let as many people know about this discussion as possible already. Are there any arguments against implimenting Masem's suggestions? If so, they should be stated here so they can be discussed. To be clear, there is no "massive deletion effort" being recommended; we are talking about less than a hundred existing pages here, many of which are likely to still be valid under Masem's criteria. The criteria would simply provide a basis for proper discussion to take place about those pages. No one is suggesting that all these pages should be deleted based on one discussion. Neelix (talk) 20:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Have moved this discussion to a new section to clarify and isolate the chaff--Mike Cline (talk) 01:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

In answer to Neelix, Masem's inclusion criteria are highly subjective. The key to inclusion for subject driven bibliography pages is notability; all other arguments in favour of their inclusion can be boiled down to the erroneous arguments made at AFD such as WP:IKNOWIT. Without evidence notability, subject driven bibliography are sure to fail two key content policies, namely WP:OR and WP:NOT, because we don't know where these article topics originate from other than the imaginations of the editors who created them. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Two guideline re-word proposals re bibliographies and lists of references

Ok, here’s my take on a proposed guideline that might deal with most of the objections to SDBs voiced above.--Mike Cline (talk) 01:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Bibliography: A Bibliography or List of References article presents a list of relevant books, journal or other references written by a notable author or written on a notable subject area. Both authors and subjects must meet WP:Notability guidelines. Bibliographies are useful for expanding Further Reading topics for Summary style WP:SS articles and identifying references that can be used to improve and expand WP.
  • Entries in Author related bibliographies must be clearly cited with sources that meet WP:Verify and WP:Reliable guidelines.
  • Entries in Subject related bibliographies must be clearly cited with sources that attribute the entries to a published bibliography or list of references on the subject that meet WP:Verify and WP:Reliable guidelines.

Here's Masem's from above:

• The topic needs to be one that spans many pages ala World War II (I would say the size here probably is "obvious" when its appropriate but I'll go with more than 10 articles broken out per WP:SS as the minimum line, as the point where repeating sources over and over can become tedious), and uses many common references.
• The works included are those that are used on those pages as normal references - such that the list would be the mathematical union of these sources.
• Works listed need to be more in-depth coverage of the topic, so something like a book, an academic article, or the like - more than just primary information.

--Mike Cline (talk) 01:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

These inclusion criteria for are based on subjective importance, and are not supported by Wikipedia content policies. In particular, if a subject-driven bibliography is to be included in Wikipedia, it has to be supported by evidence that it is notable, e.g. Chronological - Thematic Catalogue of the Complete Musical Works of Wolfgang Amadé Mozart. We can't provide an exemption for subject-driven bibliography which are not notable, as that would be giving a free pass to orginal research. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

What part of these are subjctive? The three points I make limit subject-based bibliographies to ones that include works that have already been used, and thus keep them as a bibliography supporting multiple-article topics as opposed to a (what your concern is) an attempt to make a standalone subject-based list with no inclusion criteria. --MASEM (t) 14:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Gavin - I would contend that your invocation that Subject related lists of references and Subject related bibliographies inherently violate WP:OR is your personal opinion and does not reflect WP consensus. There are just too many of these types of lists currently in WP that have survived, been expanded and improved for the last 4 years. Many have survived deletion debates where the OR argument did not carry the day with many editors. If indeed you believe that these types of articles are OR you need to make that case in the WP:OR guidelines and discussion and generate a much wider consensus that I believe does not exist today. Additionally, if you feel strongly about this, why aren't you making that argument on individual articles and nominating those you believe violate WP guidelines for deletion? (IMHO I think that would be mis-guided and cause a lot of editors to divert their valuable time to preserving the knowledge in these articles instead of it being better used improving and expanding knowledge in WP.)--Mike Cline (talk) 15:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

In answer to Masem, if inclusion is not based on notability, then its subjective. Just because a source has been "used", or is "important", or serves someother purpose is a matter of personal opinion unless it is supported by verifiable evidence of notability.
In answer to Mike Cline, its not my personal opinion that a list made up by a Wikipedian editor is original research, it is policy: if a subject-driven bibliography has not been published, then it is original reseach, and even if it has been published in bits and pieces which have been stitched together by assocation, then it is synthesis. The fact that these list have not been published; rather they have been started, grown and developed in the rarified conditions an "editorial walled garden" where Wikipedia's content policies don't apply is just an example of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Ultimately they will all be broken up, merged or deleted unless evidence can be found that they are notable per se. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 23:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

In topics arranged in multiple articles per WP:SS, not every article needs to be notable - only the prevailing topic. Subject-based bibliographies of references used in a summary-style article series is supporting a notable topic and thus need not be notable itself. --MASEM (t) 23:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Gavin, your logic would essentially make every list in WP:OR since very few of the 1000s that exist have been as you say has not been published and thus would be OR. That is very misguided. The OR policy says: Carefully summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis—it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by researching the most reliable published sources on the topic and summarizing their claims in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim. Your claim that editors Make Up any Subject Driven Bibibliography (or other subject driven list) thus they are inherently OR just doesn't wash with the WP:OR policy as written, nor do I think there is any editor consensus that supports your position. Subject driven bibliographies (or any subject oriented list for that matter), as long as the subject is notable and the entries are supported with sources that meet WP:Verify and WP:Reliable guidelines are not OR, they are, as the policy says: Good Editing.--Mike Cline (talk) 02:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

In answer to Masem, for article topics arranged in multiple articles, I think you will find that each one has to be notable in its own right. WP:SS is not an article inclusion guideline, and nowhere does it say that non-notable spinoff articles are allowable. Intutatively, I would say you are mistaken, as if you are correct and "not every article needs to be notable", then spinoffs would be exempt from WP:N, and nowhere in Wikipedia does it say that any standalone article (list or otherwise) is exempt. If lists were exempt from WP:N, then this could potentially result in endless content forks from the lead topic.
In answer to Mike Cline, the answer to you is the same: since there is no limit to the themes by which you arrange a subject driven bibliography (save only an editor's imagination), the potential result could be thousands of articles that are effectively content forks (which is what these SDB are). Only evidence of notability can counter the argument that a particular list has been made up or is a content fork, and is therefore suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. List article that fail WP:N will fail WP:NOT and vice-versa; if a list is not notable, then it is just random stuff and falls outside the scope of Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] All Lists Are Subject Driven

Gavin, you a backing up on the Motorway. Just as there certainly will be a monarchy in England tomorrow morning, ALL lists are subject driven. Its basic prepositional grammar. List of SUBJECT. There is always a SUBJECT in the prepositional phrase component of a List Article Title. That SUBJECT drives the content of the list. You are stumbling over the fundamental dilemma that plagues lists in WP.

• List of SUBJECT – I contend that only the SUBJECT must be notable (Most lists in WP meet this test)
• List of SUBJECT – You contend that the title of the List Article must be notable (Very few lists in WP meet this test)

Under my contention, once the notability of the SUBJECT is established, then additional guidelines come into play to structure, set rationale boundaries, and such that drive the actual content of the list. This is where first and foremost WP:Verify and WP:Reliable play a major role. Under my contention, lists are first and foremost navigational and organizational constructs that enhance the usability of WP. Most current lists in WP would survive these ideas.

Under your contention that the TITLE of the list, in other words—the list itself—must be notable would eliminate the great majority of the lists currently in WP. Your contention is that first and foremost WP Lists are Articles first and the navigational and organization purpose is secondary or unimportant.

This is the fundamental dilemma facing Lists within WP today. Additionally, you’ve chosen to apply this logic selectively to a specific type of list—a reference or bibliography and are ignoring its consequences for all Lists.

Here’s why I say you are ignoring the consequences of your position for all types of lists. Take this list as an example: List of current United States lieutenant governors. There is nothing about the title (not the subject) of this list that is supported by notability guidelines. Who published the “List of”?, when was it published?, Who maintains it? What reliable sources says the “List of” is notable. Outside the construct of WP, that List doesn’t exist except through the compilation of a myriad of sources. Now, within the construct of navigation and organization, the SUBJECT of the list “State lieutenant governors” is inherently notable in WP. Therefore the list article is notable and its inclusion criteria and entries need to meet other WP guidelines.

Taking your contention one step further, if you looked at any “Further Reading” section of an article (an embedded list) and substituted the section title “List of References on Subject” your interpretation would begin to cause serious problems because most, if not all, further reading sections are not subjected to the same guideline scrutiny applied to Stand-alone lists. If your interpretation was enforced, there would be very few embedded lists in articles.

The unfortunate thing about the current state of this discussion is that we are all ignoring the original purpose—to clarify (or not) the guidelines on bibliography and reference types of lists. I would suggest that further discussion focus on that vice this discussion that Subject Driven Lists (Bibliographies especially) are inherently not encyclopedic (or not). That discussion needs to be taken elsewhere because its resolution (if one is ever reached) has huge implications for WP.--Mike Cline (talk) 10:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

To further support this, lists that would otherwise be included in a notable subject article but are broken out due to size issues do not suddenly lose their value because they are in a separate location. Subject-based bibliographies that are composed of works used as references in multiple articles certainly qualifies here. --MASEM (t) 14:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

In answer to Mike, I think your agruments are flawed in two regards.

1. Firstly, lets look at your contention that once the notability of a "subject" is established, then spinoff list articles may be created for reasons of navigation, presentation, organization etc. This is the same argument Masem has used, based on his view that article topics can feature in "spinoff articles" in accordance with WP:SS, regardless of notability of the article topic itself.
   However, these arguements run contrary to the generally accepted principal that, in absence of verifiable evidence, notability is not inherited. This means that every article topic including list articles needs to demonstrate that it is notable per se, i.e when it comes to notability, every article is capable of standing on its own feet, and is not dependent on an association with another topic for inclusion. The reason for this is, is that if a topic is not notable, then it is just random stuff which falls outside the scope of Wikipedia per WP:NOT. There for, your argument that lists can be included without evidence of notability boils down to the same argument used in deletion debates as WP:IKNOWIT: the idea that a topic should be included as a standalone based subjective importance is simply being substituted for other subjective criteria, such as for reasons of navigation, presentation, organization etc.
2. Secondly, lets look at your argument that I am ignoring the consequences of your position for all types of lists. We all know that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, so I can't comment on the merits of every single list on Wikipedia. But taking your example of List of current United States lieutenant governors, I should have thought it possible to demonstrate the notability of the list, as well that of List of current United States first spouses. But there has to be some form cut off beyond which such lists cease to be notable, e.g List of current United States lieutenant governors eldest sons or List of current United States first spouses' personal assistants. My point is that there is no limit to the number, theme or variation in the permutations and combinations of lists that can be potentially drawn up supported by arguments based on subjective importance, becasue the number of subjective arguments for inclusion is only limited by the imagination. Notability is the only rational basis for inclusion, otherwise Wikipedia will become clogged with random stuff.

The key to the debate about subject driven bibliographies is that they are great idea for a category, but unless they are notable in themselves, there is no rationale for their inclusion as standalone articles becasue they are comprised of existing content that has been sliced and diced to make a thematic salad that fails WP:NOT.
My biggest concern is that lists could and are being used as coatracks for non-notable topics or lists of such topics. Masem and myself have been through this arguement before, but I think it is generally accepted that lists can't be used for a dump for non-notable topics such as fictional characters that get a mention as part of a back-story. It is very easy to expand a barebones list into a verbose collection of topics comprised of unsourced content, and I think this is the risk we face with thematic bibliographies as much as is already the problem with lists of Lists of Star Wars races or Chromatic dragons.
A good example of a thematic list that should be deleted is this one, for unless the list is actually notable, then I could only attribute sinister reasons as why this list has been compilied and included in Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

WP content is driven by subjective consensus, not by objective rules. We incorporate objective statements for how WP should handle content to deal with the majority of the cases to avoid needless discussion on obvious cases, but there are always fuzzy lines which is where consensus discussion and debate is used (such as at AFD). For lists, it is known that we avoid including indiscriminate lists or lists with indiscriminate elements - but what exactly is indiscriminate is of course a subjective measure, with notability only one factor of consideration. Subject-based bibliographies, as suggested by the three points I've laid down for them, would clearly fail neither of these:

• As the topic subject of the bibliography must have a large number of articles per WP:SS, the topic has long since past the point of being notable.
• The requirements for inclusion of a work (book or topical paper or the like, and only ones used on the other WP articles) immediately prevent the list from being indiscriminate with lesser works, plethora of website links, and every casual magazine or journal article mention of the topic.

Remember, we're not talking about a list of notable books that have quality X (as your last example does) which would likely be better for a category as you suggest (though remember: lists and categories can co-exist). We are talking about books and references used to build up our articles that likely are so academic in nature that, while a reliable source, never would be considered notable, thus the idea of using categories to replace these is illogical.

It is necessary that there is a distinction in what we are talking about here - lists of reference materials that are being used to support the various claims made a multi-article-spanning topics, verses lists of books that are about a topic. There is no OR (beyond the necessary OR and SYNTH needed to construct well-sourced wikipedia articles) in the former list since, if they are being used as a source in the article on a topic, then they are very likely to be about that topic or at least incorporate that topic. On the other hand, lists of books about a topic X can be tricky if there are no sources that say that included books are about that topic. (And remember, on average, we're not talking about books you can buy easily at your retail bookstore, so expecting sources to be available is not reasonable). Thus, a "list of books about topic X" is likely going to be indiscriminate and OR, but applying and restricting the scope of the list to include supporting works for other WP articles is completely ok. --MASEM (t) 16:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Although Wikipedia does not employ hard-and-fast rules, its policy and guideline pages describe its principles and best-known practices, which I believe take a higher precedent over Masem's point of view.

1. The fact remains that, that WP:V says if no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it. We can ignore all the rules if we wish, but if we do, then we will be replacing them with another set, even if they are not explicitly stated. In this case, Masem advocating that subject driven bibliographies should have their own list articles on the grounds that the "subject of the bibliography must have a large number of articles". There is no policy or guideline that suports this view. In fact the opposite is generally acceptted to be best-known practice, by virtue that a bibliography or any other topic should have its own stand alone article based on the idea that inherits notability by reason of association, interrelatedness or any measure of subjective importance. If a book is cited in an article about a notable topic, that does not imply or infer that notability is automatically transfered to the book or list of books in the absense of verifiable evidence. If it did, then every book that was ever cited in Wikipedia would be entitled to its own article regardless as to whether or not was the subject of reliable, third-party sources, which makes a mockery of WP:V and all the other content policies.
2. Masem is also wrong about how synthesis can be used to construct article topics which are not notable in their own right. Just because an article is "well-sourced" does not mean that the synthesis can be used to create a topic which does not exist in its own right. Restricting the list to include supporting works for other WP articles is no better, this is simply an artibitary limitation on the amount of synethesis which Masem feels is allowable, but is not explicty supported by or implicitly infered from any policy or guideline. In particular, nowhere in WP:SS does it say that articles or list can be created without reference to WP:SYNTH or any other content policy.

I think Masem will eventually have to acknowledge the notability guideline as being the primary basis for article inclusion in Wikipedia sooner or later. Making up arbitary and subjective rules as to which article topics can and can't be included as standalone article that are different from or attempt to get around the inclusion criteria of WP:N may serve Masem with unspecified benefit, but they are not supported by Wikipedia's content policies, and they are misleading and unhelpful in the context of this debate. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 19:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Every article we write is a synthesis. A list already has a subject, that's been standard practise on Wikipedia since near enopugh day one. There's no consensus for your proposed change which is based on a misunderstanding of the way Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is consensus driven, not rules driven. Hiding T 16:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Thoughts from Umberto Eco

Interesting discussion of lists in this interview of Umberto Eco by Der Spiegel of all publications. Extract:

The list is the origin of culture. It's part of the history of art and literature. What does culture want? To make infinity comprehensible. It also wants to create order -- not always, but often. And how, as a human being, does one face infinity? How does one attempt to grasp the incomprehensible? Through lists, through catalogs, through collections in museums and through encyclopedias and dictionaries. There is an allure to enumerating how many women Don Giovanni slept with: It was 2,063, at least according to Mozart's librettist, Lorenzo da Ponte. We also have completely practical lists -- the shopping list, the will, the menu -- that are also cultural achievements in their own right. ...At first, we think that a list is primitive and typical of very early cultures, which had no exact concept of the universe and were therefore limited to listing the characteristics they could name. But, in cultural history, the list has prevailed over and over again. It is by no means merely an expression of primitive cultures. A very clear image of the universe existed in the Middle Ages, and there were lists. A new worldview based on astronomy predominated in the Renaissance and the Baroque era. And there were lists. And the list is certainly prevalent in the postmodern age. It has an irresistible magic.

 Skomorokh, barbarian  16:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Continuing bullet items

I don't know if this is an HTML issue or a Wikimedia-specific question. See the following formatted text:

• Here is the first paragraph of a bullet item. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

That same bullet item continues to a second paragraph. Unfortunately, the text in the continued paragraph doesn't justify with the bullet. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

• Here's the first paragraph of a second-level bullet item. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

And the same thing happens. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

You see that the intended paragraphs that are continuations of the first-level bullet items are not justified with the bullet text. Is there any way to fix this?

^Bongo_matic 09:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not the intended use of : and * to match indent levels, hence it doesn't work. Semantically, * is for unordered lists. : is for definition lists, used after a ; (See Help:List for details)

On talkpages, you can hack paragraphs in with linebreaks (<br>). See Help:List#Paragraphs_in_lists for details. Hopefully that's all you need it for - it shouldn't be used in articles, as it has unreliable rendering across browsers/screenreaders. HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. ^Bongo_matic 23:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)