Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Lists in articles
This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was Lists in articles should be discouraged. Editors are encouraged to rewrite lists into the prose.. JangFett (Talk) 13:19, October 26, 2013 (UTC)
The result of the debate was Lists in articles should be discouraged. Editors are encouraged to rewrite lists into the prose.. JangFett (Talk) 13:19, October 26, 2013 (UTC)
I attempted to start a discussion about the matter here first, but that has gone nowhere and there have been no official answers. Therefore I am creating this CT to make it official.
Exactly when was it made a site policy to remove lists from articles? I'm not finding it in the CT archives, so was it during a Mofference? As a long-term Wookieepedian, I completely understand the premise behind the removal of lists from pages. However, I am an experienced user, and therefore I am perfectly knowledgeable on how to use categorization to find things.
Newer users are not as knowledgeable, and therefore having the lists in articles is helpful for, as an example, finding all the difference models in the YT-series. Not to mention, having the lists doesn't hurt anything or detract from an article. If there is a concern about status articles, make it a rule that lists cannot be included in a required word count for status articles. If it is about too much white space, we can make long lists have 2-3 columns or put them into a scrollbox as Richterbelmont10 suggested. Or we could take Dionne Jinn's suggestion of using a template like this as a solution. It lists what needs to be listed, but does not affect things like wordcount or create empty space. - JMAS 
Hey, it's me! 19:15, October 10, 2013 (UTC)
Vote
Allow lists in articles
- Per my reasons above and below. - JMAS
Hey, it's me! 19:15, October 10, 2013 (UTC) - Stop deleting descriptive lists.--Richterbelmont10 (come in R2!) 23:13, October 11, 2013 (UTC)
- See below. Bo Shuda (talk) 03:13, October 12, 2013 (UTC)
- Some lists can and should be replaced with prose and/or category links, but not all. (Declaration of the Alliance of Free Planets and Why Do We Fight the Empire? have reasonable uses of lists.) —Silly Dan (talk) 05:23, October 12, 2013 (UTC)
Remove lists from articles
Lists should be discouraged
- I've been seeing this and it works better than saying "you need to keep lists." Certain editors keep them and some remove them. Yet, some also try to turn lists into a paragraph or two. Imo, lists generally offer little, since their only purpose is to direct readers to a different article. Let's be more encyclopedic and write. JangFett (Talk) 18:24, October 12, 2013 (UTC)
- To be clear, does "Lists should be discouraged" mean "It's ok to remove lists from articles?"--Richterbelmont10 (come in R2!) 20:24, October 12, 2013 (UTC)
- There should be no problems when it comes to removing lists and turning the lists into writing (personally I like this practice) or keeping lists. However, the practice of maintaining or creating lists should be discouraged. Please do not read me wrong (I read your concern regarding the "descriptive" lists). We are an encyclopedia and various sized lists should be integrated into the prose. Having descriptive sentences beats having a list. On another note, it is one of the reasons why lists in a bts is a thing of the past. It is obsolete and quite frankly mediocre/amateur looking. I hope this clarifies my vote. JangFett (Talk) 00:30, October 13, 2013 (UTC)
- Also to clarify, "Allow lists in articles" does not equate to "you need to keep lists." It means they are allowed. Also, I do think that if someone is going to remove a list, then they should be required to translate all the information in the list into prose to replace the list. - JMAS Hey, it's me! 00:51, October 13, 2013 (UTC)
- Not quite. Imo - voting keep translates to articles need to have them (I do see a strong favor for this in the discussion below) or lists should remain in an article. Those who voted for keep (not including Dan) are not saying "you can turn those lists into writing." In fact, they are showing disagreement when it comes to removing them in general. JangFett (Talk) 01:15, October 13, 2013 (UTC)
- Well, if the "Lists should be discouraged" vote passes, I hope a note will be made that this does NOT mean that lists should be summarily deleted from articles. Otherwise we will continue to have complete removal of lists (as I mention in "Discussion") with people citing this CT and saying, "Lists are discouraged, therefore I am deleting this list."--Richterbelmont10 (come in R2!) 04:12, October 13, 2013 (UTC)
- For the record, since there seems to be confusion over what exactly the voting options mean, and since JMAS and Dan have given explanations that seem to be more in agreement with some explanations of votes for this option from my interpretation, and since even I am not sure exactly what each one means, I'm tempted to close this thread early as "no consensus" and start a new thread with better-defined voting options, because IMO the only result that can come of this thread is mass confusion. However, it will be Monday UTC before I can do so, since I will be away from my computer all day tomorrow (Sunday). —MJ— Holocomm 04:59, October 13, 2013 (UTC)
- The next iteration should probably be some sort of Layout Guide amendment proposal. That'd make everything very clear. "Lists in articles are not forbidden and may be called for in select circumstances. However, editors should endeavor to convert lists to prose whenever possible." ~Savage
15:14, October 13, 2013 (UTC)
- After getting a
goodshort night's sleep and mulling it over while at an amusement park today, I've decided that I just don't care about this issue enough to go to the hassle of closing this and starting a new thread. An LG amendment proposal probably should be the next step, but I'll leave that to others and remove myself from this discussion, at least for the time being. —MJ— Comlink 01:55, October 14, 2013 (UTC)
- After getting a
- The next iteration should probably be some sort of Layout Guide amendment proposal. That'd make everything very clear. "Lists in articles are not forbidden and may be called for in select circumstances. However, editors should endeavor to convert lists to prose whenever possible." ~Savage
- For the record, since there seems to be confusion over what exactly the voting options mean, and since JMAS and Dan have given explanations that seem to be more in agreement with some explanations of votes for this option from my interpretation, and since even I am not sure exactly what each one means, I'm tempted to close this thread early as "no consensus" and start a new thread with better-defined voting options, because IMO the only result that can come of this thread is mass confusion. However, it will be Monday UTC before I can do so, since I will be away from my computer all day tomorrow (Sunday). —MJ— Holocomm 04:59, October 13, 2013 (UTC)
- Richter, if you read the comments, no one is favoring the complete deletion of lists. (that's the section above this one). Lists, at the moment, are allowed but people have been removing them as a general practice. My section basically enforces that people shouldn't modify or create lists. Instead, they should consider turning the lists into writing, instead of deleting them wholly. JangFett (Talk) 14:00, October 13, 2013 (UTC)
- I have reread all the comments, and I have found that some do favor the removal of lists. One wrote that lists should be obliterated in any status article nomination. Master Jonathan also noticed that there seems to be confusion over what exactly the voting options mean. If the goal is that people shouldn't modify or create lists but neither should they just delete them willy-nilly, then this should be made absolutely clear, rather than an ambiguous "Lists should be discouraged". --Richterbelmont10 (come in R2!) 18:10, October 13, 2013 (UTC)
- It's not confusing at all. You're making it confuse you. See my section title as "Rewrite lists into writing," basically, Richter. And as for MJ, the CT cannot be closed yet. JangFett (Talk) 20:13, October 13, 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with the idea to "Rewrite lists into writing." But perhaps some may not read that idea in the words "Lists should be discouraged." All I'm saying is some might read this CT as saying lists should be discouraged and therefore feel that deleting lists would be in harmony with that statement. --Richterbelmont10 (come in R2!) 22:54, October 13, 2013 (UTC)
- They won't, Richter, because removing lists completely falls under the second section of this CT. And we have a lot of smart editors who wouldn't do that. This sort of worry happened before in the talk page policy CT. I was wrong and shouldn't have worried then. JangFett (Talk) 23:09, October 13, 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with the idea to "Rewrite lists into writing." But perhaps some may not read that idea in the words "Lists should be discouraged." All I'm saying is some might read this CT as saying lists should be discouraged and therefore feel that deleting lists would be in harmony with that statement. --Richterbelmont10 (come in R2!) 22:54, October 13, 2013 (UTC)
- It's not confusing at all. You're making it confuse you. See my section title as "Rewrite lists into writing," basically, Richter. And as for MJ, the CT cannot be closed yet. JangFett (Talk) 20:13, October 13, 2013 (UTC)
- I have reread all the comments, and I have found that some do favor the removal of lists. One wrote that lists should be obliterated in any status article nomination. Master Jonathan also noticed that there seems to be confusion over what exactly the voting options mean. If the goal is that people shouldn't modify or create lists but neither should they just delete them willy-nilly, then this should be made absolutely clear, rather than an ambiguous "Lists should be discouraged". --Richterbelmont10 (come in R2!) 18:10, October 13, 2013 (UTC)
- Well, if the "Lists should be discouraged" vote passes, I hope a note will be made that this does NOT mean that lists should be summarily deleted from articles. Otherwise we will continue to have complete removal of lists (as I mention in "Discussion") with people citing this CT and saying, "Lists are discouraged, therefore I am deleting this list."--Richterbelmont10 (come in R2!) 04:12, October 13, 2013 (UTC)
- Not quite. Imo - voting keep translates to articles need to have them (I do see a strong favor for this in the discussion below) or lists should remain in an article. Those who voted for keep (not including Dan) are not saying "you can turn those lists into writing." In fact, they are showing disagreement when it comes to removing them in general. JangFett (Talk) 01:15, October 13, 2013 (UTC)
- Also to clarify, "Allow lists in articles" does not equate to "you need to keep lists." It means they are allowed. Also, I do think that if someone is going to remove a list, then they should be required to translate all the information in the list into prose to replace the list. - JMAS
- There should be no problems when it comes to removing lists and turning the lists into writing (personally I like this practice) or keeping lists. However, the practice of maintaining or creating lists should be discouraged. Please do not read me wrong (I read your concern regarding the "descriptive" lists). We are an encyclopedia and various sized lists should be integrated into the prose. Having descriptive sentences beats having a list. On another note, it is one of the reasons why lists in a bts is a thing of the past. It is obsolete and quite frankly mediocre/amateur looking. I hope this clarifies my vote. JangFett (Talk) 00:30, October 13, 2013 (UTC)
- To be clear, does "Lists should be discouraged" mean "It's ok to remove lists from articles?"--Richterbelmont10 (come in R2!) 20:24, October 12, 2013 (UTC)
- Per Jang.--Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 18:31, October 12, 2013 (UTC)
- I was just thinking of adding an option like this. Well said. Cade Calrayn 18:32, October 12, 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed. Lists should not be summarily removed, but they should be discouraged in favor of writing. ~Savage 19:05, October 12, 2013 (UTC)
- Per Jang. Lists are already implicitly discouraged because they do not feature in any of our standard article layout guides, so it would be contradictory were we to outright support their usage. --Jinzler (talk) 19:12, October 12, 2013 (UTC)
- Per all above. It's basically reiterating what we already do. CC7567 (talk) 19:17, October 12, 2013 (UTC)
- This sounds better. 1358 (Talk) 19:59, October 12, 2013 (UTC)
- Per Xd. Also, I would like to blame Cade, Jang, Jesus and the President of the United States for removing lists when they are, to some extent, allowed. Winterz (talk) 22:00, October 12, 2013 (UTC)
- Makes sense. Per Jang.—Cal Jedi (Personal Comm Channel) 22:46, October 12, 2013 (UTC)
- Per the "be well written" guideline, lists are going to be obliterated in any status article nomination or the nominator will get laughed off the page. We don't need to go on a Great List Hunt right this minute, but lists are not to be encouraged by any stretch of the imagination. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 05:38, October 13, 2013 (UTC)
- Per Jang. Nahdar Vebb (talk) 20:18, October 13, 2013 (UTC)
- Definitely. Corellian PremierThe Force will be with you always 18:36, October 15, 2013 (UTC)
Discussion
If Wookieepedia is meant to be easily accessible and useable for both experiences and novice users, then I believe these lists should be added back into the articles. They aren't hurting anything, and in my thinking, only help new users. - JMAS Hey, it's me! 19:15, October 10, 2013 (UTC)
- Lists are already allowed in articles. They're just generally discouraged in favor of prose. Why are we voting to approve something that isn't restricted? Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 19:25, October 10, 2013 (UTC)
- Because for the last several months I've seen lists being arbitrarily removed for articles. As there was nothing in the CT archive about it, I figured it must have been something decided at a Mofference (something I'm not usually able to attend). No one countered that assumption in the Senate Hall thread, so I thought it would require a vote to make it official. - JMAS Hey, it's me! 19:58, October 10, 2013 (UTC)
- Because for the last several months I've seen lists being arbitrarily removed for articles. As there was nothing in the CT archive about it, I figured it must have been something decided at a Mofference (something I'm not usually able to attend). No one countered that assumption in the Senate Hall thread, so I thought it would require a vote to make it official. - JMAS
- The main problem I see with lists in articles is that they are static, and therefore frequently out of date and incomplete. For example, if you wanted to list all the CEC products in an article, you'd have to manually update it every time something new is introduced. However, a category is dynamic and theoretically more accurate. Just my 2 creds. <-Omicron(Leave a message at the BEEP!) 19:29, October 10, 2013 (UTC)
- It sounds like we need something in WP:MOS that explains the use of lists in articles one way or another. - Esjs(Talk) 19:36, October 10, 2013 (UTC)
- Lists are often being deleted on Wookieepedia. What I really don't get is the removal of descriptive lists, that is, lists that include descriptive information. For example, a list of Notable Zabrak was removed twice from the article here and again here. I had to manually re-enter the list as prose in order for it to stay, which I found silly. It was good information that didn't deserve to be removed just because it was in "list form." Notable individuals is even requested in the Layout Guide! But because it was a list, it got completely deleted.--Richterbelmont10 (come in R2!) 16:27, October 11, 2013 (UTC)
- It looks much better as it is now, as prose. Lists are lazy; they're bullet points. Do they provide information? Sure. Should they be summarily removed from articles? Probably not. But I support the idea that lists should be converted to prose whenever possible. It's perhaps not worth having a CT one way or the other, but it should continue to be part of the "be well-written" part of our various status article nomination processes. ~Savage 20:16, October 11, 2013 (UTC)
- And there's the problem: They are being summarily removed from articles. "Because it's a list" is not a good reason to remove valid information. --Richterbelmont10 (come in R2!) 23:12, October 11, 2013 (UTC)
- It looks much better as it is now, as prose. Lists are lazy; they're bullet points. Do they provide information? Sure. Should they be summarily removed from articles? Probably not. But I support the idea that lists should be converted to prose whenever possible. It's perhaps not worth having a CT one way or the other, but it should continue to be part of the "be well-written" part of our various status article nomination processes. ~Savage
- I wholeheartedly agree with all the reasons to keep lists. I too find it frustrating when information that is presented in list form is removed in it's entirety by a user without any attempt by that user to reinsert the information into the article somehow. It's tantamount to vandalism. Lists could work quite well if the lists themselves were presented similar to the presentation of an infobox or image; alternating from left-to-right as is the common practice here. A smaller font could be used but each entry in the list should be sourced. This would allow prose text to flow uninterrupted while allowing new users to quickly identify key information. Think of how most of the essential guides, RPG sourcebooks, etc. are laid out with text boxes peppered throughout the text. Or a template that is able to be condensed similar to the appearances template could be used to discreetly allow lists in articles. Thoughts/comments? Bo Shuda (talk) 03:13, October 12, 2013 (UTC)
- Complete agreement with that --- if a list is removed from an article without that information being reinserted as prose, then it's removal of content tantamount to vandalism. It should never happen. Menkooroo (talk) 03:37, October 12, 2013 (UTC)
- Well, it's been happening at a rampant rate the last several months. - JMAS Hey, it's me! 06:01, October 12, 2013 (UTC)
- Well, it's been happening at a rampant rate the last several months. - JMAS
- Complete agreement with that --- if a list is removed from an article without that information being reinserted as prose, then it's removal of content tantamount to vandalism. It should never happen. Menkooroo (talk) 03:37, October 12, 2013 (UTC)
- And the destruction of lists continues and once again if you need more proof. Is this what those voting for "Lists should be discouraged" want? --Richterbelmont10 (come in R2!) 20:25, October 12, 2013 (UTC)
- Let me comment here. I myself have deleted a list from Rebel pilot because it was full of OOU speculation about "notable" pilots and additionally, it was unsourced. So yes, some lists should be removed. And in some cases, they could be useful. Corellian PremierThe Force will be with you always 23:14, October 12, 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, if either of those lists was sourced, I'd oppose their summary removal (and encourage their conversion into prose). However, without citations, anything is fair game to be yanked per our rules. ~Savage 01:16, October 13, 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, if either of those lists was sourced, I'd oppose their summary removal (and encourage their conversion into prose). However, without citations, anything is fair game to be yanked per our rules. ~Savage
- Let me comment here. I myself have deleted a list from Rebel pilot because it was full of OOU speculation about "notable" pilots and additionally, it was unsourced. So yes, some lists should be removed. And in some cases, they could be useful. Corellian Premier
- WANW and all that, but frankly I think that we should be taking a leaf out of Wikipedia's book and having separate pages for the lists, which means that we've got the freedom to be a little bit more inclusive without embiggening the topic's main article. Just a thought. Thefourdotelipsis (talk) 02:32, October 17, 2013 (UTC)
- I completely agree with you here Fourdot. - JMAS Hey, it's me! 04:06, October 17, 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah. Lists can offer things that simple categories can't --- eg, Galactic Empire/Legends#Rulers_of_the_Empire. It's a chronological list with sourced dating and other tidbits of info that Category:Heads of state of the Galactic Empire couldn't do. Yes, it could just be prosified, but there's still a lot of utility in a chronological list that tons of readers would appreciate. Hence Fourdot's idea being a good one. Menkooroo (talk) 04:59, October 17, 2013 (UTC)
- This is a very good point and another reason why lists can be useful and shouldn't be deleted or banned.--Richterbelmont10 (come in R2!) 15:28, October 17, 2013 (UTC)
- In response to Menk, I'd actually say that what a separate page gives us the opportunity to do is make the lists tables, augmenting them with images, years, factions, all sorts of other details that might be pertinent. The by-product of this is that there will be readers who are looking for a certain character whose name they don't know but they know what they look like, and I think this will serve as something of a benefit. Not unlike this. Thefourdotelipsis (talk) 00:32, October 18, 2013 (UTC)
- That's a great idea. We do have something similar to that, for example, list of planets A. I think we should do a similar list/table to things like sentient species.--Richterbelmont10 (come in R2!) 15:59, October 18, 2013 (UTC)
- The List of use of Aurebesh was recently broken out from the Aurebesh article, and I think it not only helped the readability of that article, but by putting that info in a list, it no longer violated the in-universe spirit of the Wook (a list of all writing ever depicted in the alphabet might be encyclopedic from an out-of-universe perspective, it's clearly not so from an in-universe one). So, at least in this case, a separate list page is a huge improvement. jSarek (talk) 17:16, October 18, 2013 (UTC)
- I completely agree with you here Fourdot. - JMAS