Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists/Archive 8
 | This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
Non-notable list - proposed deletion
Special:Random brought me to List of tallest buildings in Haaglanden, a list of the 20 tallest buildings in the metropolitan area around The Hague. There's one reference, which seems to be a wider list of tallest buildings in the Netherlands. Seems non-notable, but I'm still pretty uncertain about list notability. I've PROD-ed it, but like I said, I don't know how obviously non-notable this is, so maybe AfD is a better choice here. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 01:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
- List of tallest buildings in major metropolitan areas is pretty standard fair for Wikipedia lists. Much like "Lists of people from...", there is no need for an independent citation to verify notability of the group. With that said, I would imagine finding a reliable source for tallest building in the Haaglanden shouldn't be all that hard. See: Emporis: tallest-buildings-the-hague-netherlands --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 21:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Is there any particular reason why this is not necessary? I feel like if it doesn't have an unusual number of tall buildings, then it's just basically cruft. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 00:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- Tulsa Oklahoma has only one more building over 100 meters than The Hague and the List of tallest buildings in Tulsa was a featured list. There's a pretty wide consensus on Wikipedia for inclusion of lists of tallest buildings in major metropolitan areas. Also, 9 buildings over 100 meters is still fairly uncommon in the world today. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 04:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- Is there any particular reason why this is not necessary? I feel like if it doesn't have an unusual number of tall buildings, then it's just basically cruft. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 00:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
NOTE, List of mathematical shapes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been greatly expanded by 200kB this month, by users occupying IP ranges 99.xxx.xxx.xxx and 108.xxx.xxx.xxx who have also been reverting each other. Some of the new additions are not mathematical shapes at all, and a proposal to rename the page exists at talk:List of mathematical shapes. Up until this rash of activity it was only 2.5kB large -- 70.51.46.146 (talk) 05:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Comment on the WikiProject X proposal
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Christopher Walken FLRC
I have nominated Christopher Walken filmography for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Potential concerns with a list article
Hi. I have just blocked a user for adding content without sources; because of this, I do not feel like I should engage on content with him. However, noting that higher on the page he had been warned about adding sources that don't actually support the content he's placing, I took a glance at a few of the sources used in List of awards and nominations received by Beyoncé and while the sources I looked at do support the content, I'm really unsure about the content. For instance, it is sourced that Beyonce is "Bing's Most-Searched Celebrity", but is this really an award or nomination? It wasn't really a competition, was it? Similarly, Guinness Book of World's Records evidently names her and her husband as a power couple; is that an award? The article is littered with such information. While this may be standard for such articles, I'm unsure due to my lack of involvement in the area, and, again, since I blocked the editor I do not feel I can become involved. I wanted to make a note in case there is an issue with bloat and somebody wanted to take a look. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- Adding content without sources is something you block people for?? Why not just remove the content or put a "citation needed" tag on it, if you think it's dubious? W. P. Uzer (talk) 10:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, indeed it is. Continuing to add content without sources after being told of the need for sources is disruptive; see WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. I'll add that this particular editor has received multiple warnings that sources are needed including two final warnings that if he persisted in adding unsourced content or citing sources that do not support content he would be blocked. The block is a temporary one, but such blocks are generally lengthened if problems persist after the block. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- Maybe you're right in this case, but most of us, if we have disagreements with other editors about content, are told we have to discuss it with them and reach consensus. Seems the rules are different for administrators. Of course, if the editor's blocked, then we can't even ask him what sources he has for his additions (who knows, he may actually have some this time). I agree with you about the bloat, however; a list of awards and nominations should be restricted to those things. W. P. Uzer (talk) 12:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not involved with this editor on content issues, and I brought this here because I think that's a line I need to keep to. :) I will not modify the article - although I did revert vandalism from one article where he inflated a sales figure to 118 million even though the source he cited to support this said (in clear text, not even potentially confusing numbers) 15 million. You can, however, ask away - his block is temporary, and his talk page is not blocked. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, I should add, you have to work to reach consensus with people on good faith content disputes. If you find people vandalizing content, you can treat them according to Wikipedia:Vandalism and, if necessary, request blocking at WP:AIV. If they are blatantly and obviously violating core content policies, even if not technically vandalizing, you can ask for assistance at WP:ANI. The rules are not different for administrators; the tools are. Administrators are as constrained by policy as anyone else. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not involved with this editor on content issues, and I brought this here because I think that's a line I need to keep to. :) I will not modify the article - although I did revert vandalism from one article where he inflated a sales figure to 118 million even though the source he cited to support this said (in clear text, not even potentially confusing numbers) 15 million. You can, however, ask away - his block is temporary, and his talk page is not blocked. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- Maybe you're right in this case, but most of us, if we have disagreements with other editors about content, are told we have to discuss it with them and reach consensus. Seems the rules are different for administrators. Of course, if the editor's blocked, then we can't even ask him what sources he has for his additions (who knows, he may actually have some this time). I agree with you about the bloat, however; a list of awards and nominations should be restricted to those things. W. P. Uzer (talk) 12:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, indeed it is. Continuing to add content without sources after being told of the need for sources is disruptive; see WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. I'll add that this particular editor has received multiple warnings that sources are needed including two final warnings that if he persisted in adding unsourced content or citing sources that do not support content he would be blocked. The block is a temporary one, but such blocks are generally lengthened if problems persist after the block. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I would like to know what a "solo" means to the list maker who names best guitar solo as 2 people. I have always thought a "solo" was a piece by 1 person and a "duet" was 2, so therefore the guitar corroboration of 2 people should be removed from guitar "solo" and noted that it is a "duet". I am not trying to discredit their efforts, but applying a proper label to it. Chunyin 13 March 2015
Woody Allen filmography FLRC
I have nominated Woody Allen filmography for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Content dispute on Spanish profanity
Greetings. There is an ongoing content dispute at Spanish profanity regarding the removal of unsourced entries. At the moment, there are very few editors involved, so assessing consensus is difficult. While this article is not tagged as being in your project's scope, it is essentially a list of Spanish words, so it is probably relevant. Your thoughts on the matter would be much appreciated. 0x0077BE (talk · contrib) 13:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
see also sections are not mini-outlines of the article
With regard to the guideline that "the 'See also' section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes", let me point to this discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Outlines#outline sections (not articles). Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 04:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)