Forum:CT:Return of the Lists

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Return of the Lists
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 reject proposal as worded. I do want to caution anyone reading this, now or in the future, that this consensus is not a blanket prohibition against all lists, nor is it justification for blindly removing lists from articles for no other reason than not wanting a list. Toprawa and Ralltiir said it best in these two quotes: "There are certain instances where lists may still convey information in an article more practically than any other presentation form, although prose is preferred whenever possible." and "Lists basically serve the purpose of temporary repositories of information until that list can be beautified into prose that is worthy of article status. There is nothing gained by just removing them outright." All users would do well to heed these words. —MJ— Training Room 22:58, February 26, 2015 (UTC)

As discussed in Forum:SH:Suggestion:_Return_of_the_lists, a number of people have noted that since dropping lists from pages in favor of relying on the category system, a fair amount of information has gotten significantly harder to access in an intelligible fashion, and not many seem to know about/use categories. Counterargument to this is that they take time to maintain, and people try and sneak fanon to this.ZeroSD (talk) 09:32, February 12, 2015 (UTC)

Support (Allow the addition of lists to pages and/or the creation of dedicated list page)

I think it would would be a useful inclusion to Wookieepedia's content and accessibility. ZeroSD (talk) 09:32, February 12, 2015 (UTC) (Vote struck, reason: Per policy: Productivity requirement -- Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 15:20, February 12, 2015 (UTC))
  1. Since the method of lists here is undefined, I'm going to say yes, using the category tree method I mentioned here. This could be on the article page itself, or on a subpage linked to on the page. Such as in a see also section. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 15:29, February 12, 2015 (UTC)
  2. People have used the previous CT and will use this one to seek out and destroy all lists on Wookieepedia. I don't think that's right. Also, I favor descriptive lists and tables, which can all be useful tools that simple categories cannot emulate.--Richterbelmont10 R2 sig(come in R2!) 04:50, February 18, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose (Don't add lists)

  1. No. Also, this will require more than 16 users to participate, as this was previously dealt with in an earlier CT. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 15:20, February 12, 2015 (UTC)
  2. Exiled Jedi Oldrepublic crest (Greetings) 15:23, February 12, 2015 (UTC)
  3. Nope. <-Omicron(Leave a message at the BEEP!) 15:23, February 12, 2015 (UTC)
  4. I'll just leave this right here. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 16:57, February 12, 2015 (UTC)
  5. Although I oppose this for the reasons that have and will continue to be stated, I want to point out that the original CT detailing this, which Cade links above, discouraged lists in articles. It didn't ban them outright. There are certain instances where lists may still convey information in an article more practically than any other presentation form, although prose is preferred whenever possible. That being said, there has of late been a campaign, for lack of a better word, to purge lists from non-status articles whenever they are discovered. Those users who have been prosecuting this purge are incorrectly using the aforementioned CT as their rationale for doing so, when in reality there is nothing on Wookieepedia that prohibits the use of lists or encourages their outright removal in lieu of categories. To repeat, that CT discourages lists in lieu of prose; translation: turn the lists into prose; don't just remove them. I absolutely sympathize with the notion that it's more difficult to find information in category pages when the information has been removed from an article just because it was in a list. Although this CT proposal is sure to fail, perhaps a less heavy-handed approach will give both sides what they want here. Lists basically serve the purpose of temporary repositories of information until that list can be beautified into prose that is worthy of article status. There is nothing gained by just removing them outright. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 19:50, February 12, 2015 (UTC)
  6. Extremely per Tope. —MJ— Comlink 20:46, February 12, 2015 (UTC)
  7. What Tope said. Green Tentacle (Talk) 20:50, February 12, 2015 (UTC)
  8. Agreed. Supreme Emperor (talk) 01:13, February 13, 2015 (UTC)
  9. IFYLOFD (Talk) 01:35, February 13, 2015 (UTC)
  10. Trip391 (talk) 02:46, February 13, 2015 (UTC)
  11. Coruscantfan (Talk) 06:18, February 13, 2015 (UTC)
  12. Manoof (talk) 02:01, February 15, 2015 (UTC)
  13. Per Tope. grunny@wookieepedia:~$ 11:26, February 16, 2015 (UTC)
  14. Per Tope. 1358 (Talk) 14:56, February 16, 2015 (UTC)
  15. Per Tope, with a caveat that I like lists like this and wouldn't mind seeing them implemented. JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 19:40, February 17, 2015 (UTC)
  16. Tope has indeed said it all. We are not strangers to or throughoutly against lists, as evidenced in List of planets. Heck, in a way, even our timeline articles (eg Timeline of the Galactic Civil War) fall into the lists category. However, many lists (those that were removed and are in no way encouraged) don't add anything else besides what the category function already does and those are the ones we oppose. Winterz (talk) 22:38, February 18, 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

So, as per what Toprawa and Ralltiir said (In a very useful clarification), putting in (to use the example I used in the prior discussion), a list of notable One Sith would be fine? I was under the impression there was an outright ban but 'only if one can't do so in prose' makes more sense to me. ZeroSD (talk) 05:53, February 13, 2015 (UTC)

  • Well, I suppose it depends what purpose the list is serving. I wouldn't consider a list of "notable" anything a viable purpose, primarily because "notability" is an out-of-universe construct that we have invented and misused. Unless something or someone is considered "notable" in-universe, we shouldn't be applying that label ourselves. What I'm really speaking to, to use a very general example, is a list of YT-1300 light freighters in the YT-1300 article. Ideally, the article should present that information within prose and not a list, but a list serves a temporary purpose. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 05:58, February 13, 2015 (UTC)
The purpose is to make getting actual information on the One Sith accessible, because the way the categories work, in order to get an idea which sith are actually members one needs to open up four different pages, three categories deep. I mean, I'm sure it's similar on *some* other pages too, but it was the examples that struck me as, 'ok, this is actively making it difficult to get information here.' It's information that wouldn't fit prose well, but the categories are no help at all. ZeroSD (talk) 11:13, February 16, 2015 (UTC)
Aren't they already listed in the infobox of the One Sith page? ProfessorTofty (talk) 02:14, February 17, 2015 (UTC)
That's just a small sampling. There's a lot more out there who have notable rank or roles in the plot, 30+ I think. And right now, the best way to check, 'alright, so which Sith are One Sith...?' is to go to the history and find the deleted list. ZeroSD (talk) 09:27, February 17, 2015 (UTC)
Or to make it much simpler, to see which Sith are One Sith, check the Category:Sith of the One Sith? Not only is that easier than trying to dig through the history and find when the list was deleted, but it's divided by rank as well. Trip391 (talk) 09:45, February 17, 2015 (UTC)
If you look through, you will find that you need to check 'Sith of the One Sith,' 'Sith Lords of the One Sith,' 'Sith Lords of the Fel Empire,' 'Sith Lords of Darth Krayt's Sith Empire,' and even 'Unidentified Sith of the One Sith' (which, yes, does include important figures, Darth Wredd's unnamed master is a pivotal figure in Legacy 2) in order to get everyone major. Five pages to flip between. I picked it as an example because it is the most convoluted hard-to-use case I could find on the wiki, and because it is so much easier to use the old list in the history at the moment. ZeroSD (talk) 11:06, February 17, 2015 (UTC)
I'm ineligible to vote on way or the other. I honestly find lists useful, but the problem is that they need to be regularly maintained. I was exploring the List of comics to help guide something I was working on, and I found that it was missing certain items. For example, no one bothered to add Star Wars: Darth Maul—Son of Dathomir to it. And the information on the relaunches is limited to series only, not issues. If no one plans to maintain a list, then the list's worth diminishes. Taral, Dark Lord of the Sith -Just shy, not antisocial: You can talk to me!- 14:07, February 17, 2015 (UTC)
Agreed that maintenance is needed (though, not so much with Legends subjects), but even an out-of-date one sometimes beats the heck out of a category mish-mash IMO. ZeroSD (talk) 14:13, February 17, 2015 (UTC)