Maps, Directions, and Place Reviews
Required(?) selection criteria
It's always been my understanding that § Selection criteria denotes rules, and § Common selection criteria gives a partial list of examples of following those rules. Can other editors confirm or deny this? And if my understanding is wrong, then it's just confusingly presented, so can we get a consensus to edit the section to make it more clear? Thanks. --174.141.182.82 (talk) 19:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
It is important to remember that all our rules have occasional exceptions... and that WP:Ignore all rules is actually a Policy. There are many "shoulds" to Wikipedia... there are very few "musts". Blueboar (talk) 22:22, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
MOS content guideline
Is it even appropriate for § Selection criteria--a section about content--to be included in a style guideline? (ArbCom, for one, has stated that "[Style guides] do not affect content, but rather how that content is presented.") Should this section be moved to another page? --174.141.182.82 (talk) 03:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I guess what should be in the list should be in a WP:IINFO-like place. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
the OP's complaint that the sentences in LSC are being interpreted in a way that includes or excludes material
-- User: WhatamIdoing
If the text were moved to some page about article content, this wouldn't be an issue.
-- User:74.141.182.82
Would there be any objections to making a public proposal for moving the selection criteria out of this style guideline and into a content guideline? (Meaning, are there any reasons not to have that discussion?) --67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Best Acne Body Washes Video
Straight-up recycling of another list
Most valuable sports clubs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article takes a Forbes list and simply restates the first 15 or so entries - no more to it than that. I remember seeing somewhere that a Wikipedia list shouldn't just recycle someone else's list, but like so many things in life, finding that policy or guideline again has proven too much for me. So I'm here to ask, is this an appropriate article, and, does anyone know what I might've been reading that one time long ago, so I can go back and read it again? Thanks - JohnInDC (talk) 13:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
RFC: "Common selection criteria" ambiguity
The subsection § Common selection criteria appears to be a little ambiguous in intent. I don't find it ambiguous myself--I read it as "these are what we usually end up doing"--but some editors have interpreted it rather differently, as "these are your only options." So whichever way it's meant to be, could we add a short explanation to that subsection, above the list? And is there any reason that list is presented #ordered rather than *unordered?
(Note: Some of this was briefly discussed earlier, but no resolution was reached.)
--67.14.236.50 (talk) 16:10, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- It means "these are what we usually end up doing". That's why it says "common selection criteria", not "sole and exclusive list of acceptable selection criteria". This ought to be obvious, but if it's not, it would be easy enough to add something like "These are the most popular selection criteria on the English Wikipedia, but they are not the only possible choices." WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:26, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing: Are you choosing from OP's two selections or responding to me as well? I agree that's the closer of the two interpretations, but don't actually think it's appropriate either. Stated that way, it's just a description of historical trends, turning it into a guideline that doesn't provide guidance (guidance, of course, being about what to do not about what has happened). The guidelines are based on past discussions, but in an attempt to use those past discussions to pave a way forward. It's about the reason why it's common. I'm not saying we should implement anything rigid because list topics vary so much that there needs to be flexibility, but the point here is to provide guidance based on how stand-alone lists fit in with existing Wikipedia policies/guidelines/consensus. -- Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- I am choosing from the OP's two options.
Additionally, I disagree with your claim that an accurate description of "what has happened" is not suitable for a guideline. In fact, "what has happened", or more precisely, what experienced editors have done across many, many thousands of articles, is the primary and most reliable source of policy and guidelines, because it is the best indication of consensus. (If you've ever heard the phrase "descriptive, not prescriptive" in policy discussions, that's what the editor meant.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC)- (many edit conflicts -- forgot to hit save earlier :) ) -- It seems to me that if something exists as a guideline at all, that means experienced editors have done it this way and there is a consensus that it should be a guideline, but wording it that way in the text of the guideline just isn't effective communication. The guideline should talk about stand-alone lists and how to edit them, not what editors have said about stand-alone lists and how people have edited them in the past -- all that is implied (and making it explicit doesn't clarify anything about how to write stand-alone lists for anyone who doesn't know as much). The point should be to take the product of those discussions and use it to provide guidance to other editors for future decisions. Several times I've seen people dismiss the CSC because it's talking about what's "common" and therefore means nothing when it comes to particular article X that we're talking about today. As written, it could just as easily be understood as offering an idea for an inclusion criteria you could use in case you can't think of one yourself. We know that in the culture of Wikipedia, because everything operates according to consensus, past discussions inform how things should be done in the future, but to anyone else it's just talking about the past. -- Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- "Anyone else" as in, fellow Wikipedians? --67.14.236.50 (talk) 01:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Many of our guidelines and policies need copyediting work, or they would not have been changed much since they were written. We work on them all the time, so, yes, "just isn't effective communication" is worthwhile thing to address. -- SMcCandlish ? ? ¢ ???????? 03:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- (many edit conflicts -- forgot to hit save earlier :) ) -- It seems to me that if something exists as a guideline at all, that means experienced editors have done it this way and there is a consensus that it should be a guideline, but wording it that way in the text of the guideline just isn't effective communication. The guideline should talk about stand-alone lists and how to edit them, not what editors have said about stand-alone lists and how people have edited them in the past -- all that is implied (and making it explicit doesn't clarify anything about how to write stand-alone lists for anyone who doesn't know as much). The point should be to take the product of those discussions and use it to provide guidance to other editors for future decisions. Several times I've seen people dismiss the CSC because it's talking about what's "common" and therefore means nothing when it comes to particular article X that we're talking about today. As written, it could just as easily be understood as offering an idea for an inclusion criteria you could use in case you can't think of one yourself. We know that in the culture of Wikipedia, because everything operates according to consensus, past discussions inform how things should be done in the future, but to anyone else it's just talking about the past. -- Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Rhododendrites: By "what we usually end up doing," I meant it's commonly been found to work--it's a best practice. Sorry for the confusion. To elaborate further, best practices are discovered, not dictated; they're descriptive, not prescriptive (especially on Wikipedia). The alternate view I presented was a prescriptive and restrictive one I have previously encountered, and one that I disagree with, but I opened an RFC because it seemed the best way of finding out what the consensus view is. --67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- I am choosing from the OP's two options.
- @WhatamIdoing: Are you choosing from OP's two selections or responding to me as well? I agree that's the closer of the two interpretations, but don't actually think it's appropriate either. Stated that way, it's just a description of historical trends, turning it into a guideline that doesn't provide guidance (guidance, of course, being about what to do not about what has happened). The guidelines are based on past discussions, but in an attempt to use those past discussions to pave a way forward. It's about the reason why it's common. I'm not saying we should implement anything rigid because list topics vary so much that there needs to be flexibility, but the point here is to provide guidance based on how stand-alone lists fit in with existing Wikipedia policies/guidelines/consensus. -- Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
This is a rough draft for conversation purposes and not an "official" proposal, but maybe it would be useful to start the WP:CSC section with text along the lines of:
"As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a directory, repository of links, or means of promotion, and should not contain indiscriminate lists, most lists should not seek to be exhaustive. Criteria for inclusion should thus usually include justification for inclusion that goes beyond verifiable existence."
In other words, a brief explanation of why CSC are so common. -- Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that it is "these are what we usually end up doing". I also agree that this should be clarified, because I, too, keep encountering people who think "these are the only options", even people who misinterpret the section to mean "no entries are permissible if they are not notable and don't already have their own articles". While that specific inclusion criterion is actually appropriate for many "top level" lists, taken to an extreme it defeats the purpose of lists generally. The draft above is a good start, but should address this issue generally, and also more concretely address the issue it was drafted to take on, by actually include the words "encyclopedic" and "relevant". We should linked to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and Wikipedia:Relevance; the former is a basic principles page people don't read often enough, and the latter concisely ties together some core essays like WP:Handling trivia, WP:Writing better articles, and WP:Coatrack. "Usually" would be gamed, so illustrate the point with examples, don't give a loophole. And "include justification for inclusion" is repetitive and confusing. Suggested redraft:
As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and is not a directory, repository of links, or means of promotion, and should not contain indiscriminate lists, most lists should not seek to be exhaustive. Criteria for inclusion should thus factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence. For example, all known species within a taxonomic family are relevant enough to include in a list of them; but List of Norwegian musicians would not be encyclopedically useful if it indiscriminately included every garage band ever mentioned in a local newspaper. While notability is often a criterion for inclusion in overview lists of a broad subject, is may be too stringent for narrower lists; one of the functions of many lists on Wikipedia is providing an avenue for the retention of encyclopedic information that does not warrant separate articles, so common sense is required in establishing criteria for a list. Avoid red-linking list entries that are not likely to have their own article soon or ever.
The structure and general wording of CSC suggests CSC #1 is the one that ought to be used in most if not all cases, with the exception of short/limited lists like lists of minor characters, particularly when it claims that "Many of the best lists on Wikipedia reflect this type of editorial judgment" (is that based on a calculation?) As another editor asked, why is the CSC numbered and not a bulleted list? Lapadite (talk) 03:19, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Why to not get too detailed here
I'm skeptical we can reasonably get much more detailed than something like the redraft I suggested above. The possible inclusion criteria vary too widely by topic and even subtopic. "Recognized by some list of acceptable, external, authoritative sources", if you will, is (in one form or another) a common version of CSC3. We might want to articulate this in the guideline, without being prescriptive. It works where the "group" is defined as the external authorities define it, the authorities accepted are actually the reasonable ones to accept, and no notable cases are rejected by all of these authorities. These two examples illustrate why/how this sometimes does and does not work, and someone who was not a subject-matter expert wouldn't be able to predict it by the topic:
- It's possible for List of cat breeds to become exhaustive but not over-long, under a criterion like "recognised by one or more national or international breeder and fancier organisations", because of how the cat fancy is organised.
{{Infobox cat breed}}encompasses every known non-trivial organisation of this sort, and they all publish breed lists, with imperfect but very substantial overlap and consistency. Nothing like that is true of horse breeding, which is entirely unregulated by any national or international bodies, but principally a matter of a huge profusion of breed clubs that are not independent of the breeds they promote; thus WP:EQUINE has settled, perhaps necessarily, on the WP:GNG as a criterion at List of horse breeds and even its sublists. - Some WP:WikiProject Cue sports article reorganization that needs to take place (current lists like List of snooker players are unhelpfully mingling pro and amateur players): It's possible for both List of professional snooker players and List of professional three-cushion billiards players to become exhaustive but not over-long, simply because they are a rarified bunch, sanctioned [in the positive sense of that word] by a single world-wide professional sport governing body for each discipline (WPBSA and UMB, respectively). By contrast, no such exhaustive article could be written at List of professional pool players, because that other cue sport has no single world-wide governing body, but numerous competing ones, and some national-level independent ones (WPBSA, USPPA) of more professional significance than international ones like the WPA, plus numerous independent pro tournaments; as a result there are thousands of pro and pro-am players at varying levels. Yet strict GNG notability is not a useful criterion for such a list, because even out of the top 100 players in the world, only some percentage of them generate substantial secondary source coverage in independent sources. It's important for encyclopedic coverage to include them at least in a list (and see how poor our coverage still is at WP:CUEBIOS).
-- SMcCandlish ? ? ¢ ???????? 23:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I note that 67.14.236.50 has added this paragraph to the guideline:
As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and is not a directory, repository of links, or means of promotion, and should not contain indiscriminate lists, only certain types of list should be exhaustive. Criteria for inclusion should thus factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence. For example, all known species within a taxonomic family are relevant enough to include in a list of them; but List of Norwegian musicians would not be encyclopedically useful if it indiscriminately included every garage band ever mentioned in a local newspaper. While notability is often a criterion for inclusion in overview lists of a broad subject, it may be too stringent for narrower lists; one of the functions of many lists on Wikipedia is providing an avenue for the retention of encyclopedic information that does not warrant separate articles, so common sense is required in establishing criteria for a list. Avoid red-linking list entries that are not likely to have their own article soon or ever.
I'm going to hold off reverting for now in the hope of this being worked out, but please note my objection in the section above to the "While notability is often a criterion [...] required in establishing criteria for a list" part. I think the specific examples need to flesh out why those are representative examples, too. Maybe it would be better for examples to accompany each of the three points rather than in the overview? If nobody else has proposed another version by tomorrow night I'll take a crack at it. -- Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
RfC regarding application of List Selection Criteria
An RfC at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television#RfC_-_Should_TV_network_pages_include_future_programming_lists.3F regarding how "As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and is not a directory, repository of links, or means of promotion, and should not contain indiscriminate lists, only certain types of list should be exhaustive. " should be applied to not-yet-broadcast programs in lists of programs broadcast by a station. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Constructive criticism
I hope the admins don't mind some criticism here, but I somewhat disagree with the peoplelist policy, specifically for radio and television stations. As long as their names are featured on the company's website, they should be included in the article as well, even if they don't have their own article. An incomplete list of anchors looks atrocious. Either have a complete list, or no list at all. MikeM2011 (talk) 04:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Question regarding how to include "series" in a list
In the process of reviewing the ALA Guide to Reference for inclusion of the material in it in the various Bibliography of encyclopedias pages, I find one of the listed items in the guide is in fact a series of "historical dictionaries" relevant to a specific geographical area, with a link included to indicate which all books are specifically included in that grouping, which is, as the source indicates, published as a "series" of works under a common group name. I know that there is at least one other similar collective inclusion in one of the other subpages of the GtR, although I haven't gotten to that page itself yet.
Would it be more appropriate to add only the series title, which is the only one specifically mentioned in the ALA source, in the place of the works, or would it be acceptable to include all the works named individually, using the reference to the series title and the link to the publisher's series in the description of that item in the GtR, as sufficient grounds for including them all individually, or should I do something else? John Carter (talk) 00:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
"List of British ordnance terms"
I've presented a proposal to change the name of this article to more accurately describe it's contents.
The question is, does this article fit the definition of a Wikipedia list, per Wikipedia's guidelines for a stand-alone list?
Please help sort out this issue at talk:List of British ordnance terms#Rename proposal: British ordnance terminology, 1850-1950
Thank you. The Transhumanist 19:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
"Apple" automatically in "List of fruits"?
A statement reads "It is generally expected that obviously appropriate material, such as the inclusion of Apple in the List of fruits, will not be supported by any type of reference, since plenty of good references exist at the article."
The problem here is that a verifying editor must go to the appropriate article and verify for herself that an apple is indeed a fruit. This isn't exactly like using Wikipedia to verify Wikipedia, which everyone agrees is wrong, but it is "clase enough" to be annoying to each individual editor who is forced to examine another article to verify an entry, when the person doing the changes could have used a WP:RS quite easily, unless, of course, they were writing "top of their head'/WP:SYNTH.
The reason we would not cite the inclusion of apples in List of fruits has nothing to do with how obvious the information is. The reason is because there are literally thousands of sources that support inclusion... so many sources that it is highly unlikely that anyone would challenge the inclusion.
That said... if some idiot actually does challenge the inclusion, my advice is to not argue about it. Just cite it. Consider the alternatives: you can either spend hours trying to convince the idiot that a citation isn't necessary... or... you can spend around thirty seconds to do a quick google search, find one of those thousands of sources, and slap a citation into the article... that shuts the idiot up (I call this the "Let the Wookie win" principle). Blueboar (talk) 22:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Another reason not to cite in cases like this is that being a fruit is a defining characteristic of an apple, and that better be the first thing mentioned in the lede of the article on Apple - in other words, finding a WP:V-meeting citation there should be overly trivial. In contrast, saying that John Q Smith graduated from a certain high school is not something I would necessarily expect easy to find from a single glance at the article on John Q Smith so a inline cite on the list "Graduates of (high school)" makes sense. --MASEM (t) 23:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Nomination of Texas Longhorns football series records for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Texas Longhorns football series records is suitable for inclusion as a stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Specifically, the article presents issues of the interpretation and application of our notability and suitability guidelines to lists of sports statistics, The discussion may be found @ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Texas Longhorns football series records. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
No definition of list included!
I've just noticed that this guideline does not include a definition of what a list is. Neither does Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists.
Some articles are misnamed lists, and this guideline does not provide a way to differentiate between regular articles and list articles.
What is a list?
Also, while list is a type of article, what is a non-list article called? "Regular article"? "Prose article"? "Standard article"?
Just wonderin'. The Transhumanist 19:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Interwiki links
Many editors have been directed here by a vigilante, erythrophobic editor with administrator privileges after he/she deleted their entries claiming that this page forbids adding people/places/etc. to a list with an interwiki link only (or with an interwiki link plus any number of links to solid bios that this editor deems not reliable sources). I have not been able to find a hint of this in this guideline, but it may be several links away if it exists. For a recent example, in this editor's mind debatably notable and poorly-referenced Elmira Antommarchi, Hugo Jamioy Juagibioy and Oscar Perdomo Gamboa belong in the List of Colombian writers while the unquestionably notable and well-referenced Julio Flórez, Aurelio Arturo, Candelario Obeso and Arnoldo Palacios do not. The latter two he/she specifically deleted, leaving an irrational message at a poor new editor's talk page. The current version of this alphabetical list is a more or less random subset of Category:Colombian writers and basically adds no value to wikipedia, though I'm getting the impression that for some this result is their inscrutable goal.
Can we add to the guideline that the addition of entries with interwiki links to referenced foreign-language articles is encouraged? Even the most devout monoglot can use google translate these days to confirm notability. There are numerous advantages expanding lists this way, not the least of which is adding notable and quickly accessible information to the English wikipedia. Afasmit (talk) 05:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Article titles for lists of works
See current proposals at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Proposals. Please discuss there, not here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
RfC: Policies for music genres
I'd like to propose some common sense guidelines for #Citing sources and/or MOS:MUSIC. There are virtually no guidelines for music genres, and because of that, I often find myself in edit wars making these same arguments over and over again, so I would like official consensus on these matters:
- WP:GENREVERIFY (clarification of WP:VERIFY)
- Music genres are almost always likely to be challenged. Exceptions may be made for high-level root genres like rock, pop, electronic, folk, etc.
- Thus, all entries must be verifiable for exemplar subgenre articles like List of psychedelic pop artists, List of blues rock musicians, and List of trip hop artists.
- "The source is in their respective articles" is not a valid rationale (WP:CIRCULAR). If it is the case, then simply copy over the relevant source(s) to establish verifiability and notability.
- WP:EXPLICITGENRE (clarification of WP:STICKTOSOURCE and WP:SYNTH)
- References must be explicit in saying that the artist belongs to a genre. For instance, a source that identifies the Beatles' Rubber Soul as "a folk rock album" does not mean that the Beatles count as a folk rock band.
- Sources must directly support cited genres. When a source writes that a work "mixes experimental, rock, and jazz", it does not necessarily follow that it is a work of experimental, rock, and jazz. By the same token, if a source cites a work of pop music for using synthesizers prominently, this should not lead an editor to refer to the work as "synthpop" if not explicitly stated by the source.
--Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Question regarding "List of ... (title)" article titles
Titles to several "List of Presidents of the United States by ..." have recently been changed (Presidents -> presidents) citing Wikipedia:Manual of Style & MOS:JOBTITLE. One editor stated that he was "simply correcting grammar." Is MOS for Stand-alone list titles being accurately interpreted here? If so, should pluralized job titles in similar article titles (lists of: "Governors of ....", "Prime Ministers of ..." "Secretaries of State of ..." and etc.) be changed to lower case? Your input and guidance will be greatly appreciated. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 17:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
obviously appropriate material may not need a source, but also doesn't require the absence of a source
I'm about to make a semi-bold edit. First is the entirety of the WP:LISTVERIFY section right now (with changing content in bold):
Stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines for articles, including verifiability and citing sources. This means statements should be sourced where they appear, they must provide inline citations if they contain any of the four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations.
When an inline citation is not required by a sourcing policy and editors choose to name more sources than strictly required, then either general references or inline citations may be used. It is generally expected that obviously appropriate material, such as the inclusion of Apple in the List of fruits, will not be supported by any type of reference.
And here is my edit:
Stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines for articles, including verifiability and citing sources. This means statements should be sourced where they appear, they must provide inline citations if they contain any of the four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations.
When an inline citation is not required by a sourcing policy and editors choose to name more sources than strictly required, then either general references or inline citations may be used. It is generally presumed that obviously appropriate material, such as the inclusion of Apple in the List of fruits, does not require and inline citation.
Rationale:
The spirit of the sentence in question would seem to be that "obviously appropriate material" is not the sort that one would expect to be challenged in good faith, and thus not something that requires a citation. That said, it seems contrary to the spirit of WP:V and WP:CITE to say that reliable sources should be disallowed. In other words, "will not be supported by any type of reference" has been construed to mean "should not be supported by any type of reference". Based on my understanding, the reword is closer to the spirit.
Should someone see it fit to revert, I'd appreciate it if you would link me to a discussion in which there was consensus to avoid citing sources if editors consider it to be [subjectively, of course] "obviously appropriate". -- Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Selection criteria for timelines
The section WP:LISTCRITERIA doesn't really deal with timelines. What are appropriate inclusion criteria for a timeline article? When does inclusion become WP:OR? See for example Timeline of WhatsApp, currently up for deletion, which appears to me to be almost entirely WP:OR assembled here in Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 14:16, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
- A "timeline of X" is simply a "history of X" presented in a graphic, listified format instead of a prose format... so, if an event would be deemed noteworthy enough to include in a prose History of X article, then it can be included on a timeline. The same sourcing requirements would apply... as would harder to define concepts, such as relevance (i.e. we must use editorial judgment to ask "is this event really worth mentioning.") The problem with graphic format timelines is that there is no way to distinguish the significance of events... events are presented with equal weight. With prose, however, we can give significant events more weight by spending more article space on them, and can give less significant events less weight by spending less article space on them (or not mentioning them at all). Blueboar (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2017 (UTC)0
- Repeating what I said at the AfD. Timelines can be WP:INDISCRIMINATE in the exact way described by the user essay Wikipedia:Discriminate vs indiscriminate information which backs up WP:NOT, and is linked from it. WP:NOT is a valid policy on which to reject timeline articles. Here's why. The essay says a collection without distinctions is junk. Without criteria to create a timeline article, it is impossible to conduct a valid evaluation of any random news story mentioning the timeline's subject in order to either include the event in the timeline or reject it. It becomes an indiscriminate matter of taste or attention of anyone who approaches the timeline article. They will become poor coatracks for any random thought someone has about the company they cover. This fits the essay description "assembled without care or making distinctions" perfectly. So the timeline needs more than just a subject; it also needs tight criteria for which to choose a point on the timeline. Otherwise it slides into subjective OR/SYNTH or a venue for worse WP:ADVERT and other nefarious stuff on Wikipedia.
- Whether to include something in a timeline doesn't seem like a very different question than whether to include something in a history section of an article. Unlike a typical "list of..." the content is an inter-related flow rather than grouping of things in a given category or with a given property. Hence you can't expect the inclusion criteria to work the same way. There is something between OR/whimsy and quasi-calculable inclusion criteria: the same basic content policies on which we base decisions regarding what to include in an article. Sometimes people add OR-based content to a history article, then someone else can challenge whether it seems like a significant aspect of the subject such that it should be included (WP:WEIGHT and whatnot). -- Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
- A general rule of thumb is that if x is notable enough for an article, then "timeline of x" is presumed notable too. For many subjects a chronological treatment is inappropriate, but a chronology is still useful. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
A company or organization may be included...
This text seems misleading:
A company or organization may be included in a list of companies or organizations whether or not it meets the Wikipedia notability requirement, unless a given list specifically requires this. If the company or organization does not have an existing article in Wikipedia, a citation to an independent, reliable source should be provided to establish its membership in the list's group.
I've seen this many times referenced to imply that companies and organizations have a sort of privilege/priority/exception in relation to other sorts of subjects when it comes to inclusion in a list, such that they do not have to be notable. In fact, for nearly all subjects, there's no absolute requirement of notability to include in a list. In my experience, other than for lists of people, lists of companies are at least as likely -- and probably more likely, given COI/paid editing issues -- as other subjects to require notability to include.
My guess is that it's there to play off of the immediately preceding explanation that lists of people should contain only notable members, but the two are in separate headings (on equal heading levels), so it appears to be separate.
As these all fall under "Appropriate topics for lists" rather than what's fit for inclusion, and as I don't think this means that companies/organizations are to be treated more permissively than all of the other unnamed non-person subjects, it seems like the entire subsection about companies should just be excised as out of place and misleading. -- Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Source of the article : Wikipedia
EmoticonEmoticon