Wikipedia talk:Featured list criteria/Comprehensive long lists

Welcome

Hi, thanks for coming here. Please read the project page carefully and contribute below to help us find a consensual way forward. I appreciate there's been some heated debate, but it'd be good if we can avoid any drama. Many thanks. --Dweller (talk) 17:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scorpion0422's proposal

We change Criterion 1b to read:

"Comprehensive" means that the list covers the defined scope by including every member of a set, or, in the case of dynamic lists, by not omitting any major component of the subject. A list is deemed comprehensive if it includes all notable items from a topic, or establishes an agreed upon criteria and includes a hat-note that points to a relevant Category.

The problem is that in many cases lists would be based on notability, or it would be an arbitrary cutoff. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. There is no need to delist all of the lists that do not cover every single item - they would be far too long (bad in old browsers, essentially) and categories are much easier to use and manage. weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 21:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The shortfall with categories, is they are unsortable, contain no data or content other than a list of alphabetical entries, and have no room for those who are notable enough for an entry but for which none yet exists. Peanut4 (talk) 21:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The specific wording can be tweaked, and the part about the category isn't the most essential bit of it. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General discussion

I'd like to bring up the fact that the Tallest Buildings lists all use arbitrary cut-offs. For instance, a list might say that only buildings taller than 100 m are included. Is this not arbitrary? And there are (off the top of my head) 10 or so WP:FL of tallest buildings. Gary King (talk) 21:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the difference is that the lists of tallest buildings have a set criteria as established by the title. One wouldn't look at the title and expect a complete list of buildings in [insert city]. However, with a list like List of Arsenal F.C. Players, based on the title some would expect a complete list. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few dozen lists on WP:FL that are pretty arbitrary, then, including List of Alpha Kappa Alpha sisters, List of Alpha Phi Alpha brothers, and List of Athabasca University people. If it's not obvious already, I don't think that these lists should be demoted. The whole point of these lists is to include every 'notable' person on the list, which basically means everyone we know that has a Wikipedia article and belongs on the list. One day, these lists will be complete, but not now, and they deserve the WP:FL even if they are a work in progress forever like the many list of gays and bisexual people (List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: A, List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: Sa-Sc, List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: Sd-Si). Gary King (talk) 21:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there is a bit of a difference. Under the WP:ATHLETE guidelines, any player that has ever played a single game for a pro team is automatically notable, while being an Alpha Kappa Alpha sister is not. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah okay, I never worked on a single sports article before so I have no idea what their standards are. This whole issue seems to really revolve around WP:ATHLETE a lot, which I guess is why it mostly just passes me by :) Gary King (talk) 22:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone wants to see an example of a completed list of footballers, look at List of Bradford City A.F.C. players, something myself and GiantSnowman have worked on. It is currently unreferenced and not all the player data has been filled in, nor has any images. And it still takes a while to load up.

I don't see any harm in having two lists, one with an arbitrary but common cut-off point and a second for all players. Peanut4 (talk) 21:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you had two lists, one for notables and one for all, then what would the name for the one of notables be called? "List of notable players"? That inherently has problems. My opinion would be to only have one list, and then only include either notables (meaning everyone with an existing article), or all. Gary King (talk) 21:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. See Talk:List of Gillingham F.C. players#Requested move for such a debate. Peanut4 (talk) 21:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the end of the day, List of recessions in the United States was one of my WP:FLC that failed because it was deemed to never be comprehensive enough, just an FYI. Since then I've tried my best to stay away from articles that could never be comprehensive. Gary King (talk) 21:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like one solution is to not have quite so detailed, table intensive lists. Something like Minnesota Twins all-time roster is able to get all the people to play for the Twins in. If you find that list to be not comprehensive enough with additional information, the New York Yankees all-time roster includes a bit more and is still comprehensive. I understand the benefits of sortable lists, but they do add tons of KB to an article. I guess it's a question of is being complete or being sortable what matters? matt91486 (talk) 22:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I particularly like the New York Yankees all-time roster. All the players are in one place, it includes those players who don't yet have an entry, and has additional information, yet doesn't take too long to load. Personally, I don't see why there would be a problem to create a second list for those who meet a tighter criteria, with more stats and make the list sortable. Peanut4 (talk) 22:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That solution seems perfectly valid to me. There could be a comprehensive list of Arsenal players, and a sortable, table-based list of players with more than 100 appearances, and they can be treated as forks of one another or whatnot. matt91486 (talk) 22:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, what brought all you guys here before the project page was even finished?!?! --Dweller (talk) 22:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I got a message on my talk page encouraging discussion, so I'll assume that's the general trend. matt91486 (talk) 22:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought the page was ready so I notified everyone that had been involved in the FLRC. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested to hear the discussion, though it should be advertised to other FLC reviewers too, not just those involved in that particular FLRC. My initial feelings are that the criteria aren't broken but that the text currently on this proposal page does not reflect my interpretation of those criteria and introduces new hurdles such as notability and the naming of the list that are not part of the criteria. 1b requires the list "covers the defined scope" and 2a requires the lead "summarizes the scope of the list". There is no requirement for the title to completely define the scope. My comments at the FLRC indicate that existing practise is that a precise definition of the "scope" is done in the lead and that the name of the list should attempt to be as close to that as practical but no closer. An article title should be helpful, and precise enough to resolve any ambiguity.

Gary points out above that some dynamic lists have no hope of including every member since that runs into thousands if not millions of utterly non-notable people. However, I warn against saying such lists must include all notable people or that they will "one day be complete". There are many people who meet WP's notability guidelines but have never been written about (to any useful extent) in a published source. Some of these folk may get an obituary when they die but most won't. We're looking for reviewers to make a subjective judgement to say "yes, that's good enough", not to fix precise rules and demand perfection.

The list of footballers at FLRC was complete and comprehensive wrt to the scope defined in the lead. I am opposed to the "100% comprehensive for all notable constituents" wording or requirements that a category be mentioned in a hat-note (that is not common practice and IMO most categories are seriously broken wrt WP:V). Colin°^Talk 23:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's well and good it was in complete in regards to its opening paragraph, but when I see a document entitled "List of Arsenal FC players" (or whatever the exact one was, I'm in a rush and can't look it up right now), I feel like I should get a complete list of players, not a list set by an arbitrary criteria. matt91486 (talk) 05:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erm...

I'm a bit uncomfortable because the discussion has begun before the case and various proposed remedies have been explained.

Perhaps those participating understand the issues thoroughly, but plenty of others won't. Can we all hang off debating for a bit and concentrate on filling in the gaps (collaboratively would be great) on the project page, as succinctly as possible and then we can open up the debate to all via "ads" at a couple of talk pages?

Or am I being daft and process-fixated? Cheers. --Dweller (talk) 00:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, you're right. I thought it was ready, but I guess it wasn't, so I apologize. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologise... just help finish the project page! If you could do something general but clear about fixing the criteria, that'd be ideal (ie not your specific proposal, but that a proposal could do the trick) --Dweller (talk) 00:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]