Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (lists)

WT:NCLL

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists was copied or moved into Wikipedia:Naming conventions (lists) with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

List of foo: A

This seems to be the most commonly used format:

-- Reinyday, 03:09, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I prefer List of foo: A as well. I doubt that this will need to come down to a poll, but with little discussion as of yet one can't tell. -Sean Curtin 21:22, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

If this is the most popular, then I'd say the consensus has already formed on this convention. Hiding talk 08:08, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spanning Lists

While we're at it, we may as well discuss how to do it if the list spans categories:

List of foo: A-B
List of foo: A - B
List of foo: A to B

I would vote for the first. Chuck 15:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I will be using the first option on New Hampshire Historical Markers Jokermage ^{"Timor Mentum Occidit"} 07:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support the first. Rich Farmbrough 20:55 25 February 2006 (UTC).

Support first --Donar Reiskoffer 08:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicts sharply with WP:MOS: en-dashes, not hyphens, are used to indicate ranges. Adjusted the text to account for this. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was also thinking about a navigational template that would group like the buttons of a telephone:

List of foo: A-B-C
...
List of foo: W-X-Y-Z

would work much better than the other proposed choices. So count me in for the first. --Francis Schonken 08:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{CompactTOC8}} has long since surpassed this; virtually everything about it is customizable. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion over "List of mammals in (or of) Foo" articles

Resolved

– Moot.

A discussion has started at Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)#List naming dispute: "in" vs. "of" about whether "List of mammals of Foo" or "List of mammals in Foo" is more appropriate. The discussion brings up broader points about how Wikipedia editors should name lists. Interested editors, please comment there. Noroton (talk) 21:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, WP:CFD and various other fora have long settled this issue; it's "of", not "in", since "in-ness" can be temporary. For example, if I bring a Chinese giant salamander to Texas for a week of exhibition, it is an amphibian in Texas, but certainly not of that area. Anyway, this is why we have Category:Politics of Germany, not Category:Politics in Germany, and many, many other such categories and articles. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Substantive update

This was a good start, but it's just been sitting here not being improved and not keeping up with what's actually happening, and even in places conflicting with other guidelines. I've overhauled it for all of the following:

Typos and grammar fixed
Unclear wording rewritten
Ranting, excessively longwinded near-attack on a Bach article trimmed and toned down
Missing basic advice added
How NCLL relates to other guidelines explained
Compressed redundant material into a simple-to-absorb preferred style
Documented how exceptions have worked, and why
Consistent style used in the guideline prose
Removed self-contradiction
Updated for more capable templates
Fixed abuse of tables and other markup
Toned down the constant use of bold and italics
Many usability points added
Reduced off-topic chatter
Linking and crossreferences added
Better sectionalization performed
Improved logic flow
More of an intro written
Directly deprecated ambiguous and otherwise user-hateful naming style
Lots more.

If there are any substantive objections to anything, please discuss it here rather that going on some blanket revert. This was a lot of work, and I think every aspect of it can stand (or be challenged) on its own merits. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Article series was a closely-related guideline, then was demoted and marked as disputed in May, then was recently re-promoted, and I reverted back down to essay. Folks agree it's not ready for primetime, and there's overlap with this page. This is material I'm not familiar with, but I thought I'd pass this along in case you want to grab any material from there. One editor indicated he may work on that page and try to re-promote. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 01:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably worth working on. I don't see much that is useful to port into here, since this is an NC page, not a style or content guide. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see Francis substituted the current version of the example article for McCandlish's specific version; Francis makes a good point that the issues seem integral to the article as it currently stands, but even if it's okay here, I think it sets a bad example to use a moving target as an example for a naming convention. Thoughts? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 13:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Two problems with doing this (one of which I tried to address by linking to a specific version of the article, and the other by toning down the assault a bit) is that the example will be invalid eventually, as the article is improved, and also that the editors of the article are likely to feel that their work is being attacked and made an example of. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naming conventions for lists

A discussion has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions#Naming conventions for lists regarding the titles of lists. It is there so there isn't two threads here and at Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move and merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was articles merged. WhirlWithoutEnd (talk) 00:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I propose moving this to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (lists), WP:NCLIST, and merging in the naming-related material from WP:SAL, since that is a style guideline. There is already a section here on lists in general, so that is where this material would go. WP:NCLL and its longer name would redirect to the new name. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 23:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support that. It's ridiculous that there is more than one page dealing with this and that have different guidelines. Do you propose adding something along the lines of what was said at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions#Naming conventions for lists? I'd support that, too. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, go for it. Plus, I think that this page needs some improvements. Eklipse (talk) 12:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This got forgotten about; someone just re-tagged the section MOS:SAL#Naming conventions for merge here. I don't see any objections in over 3 years, so I suggest we proceed before we forget again! :-) I volunteer to sandbox a merged page. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 04:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would not merge it into to WP:NCLL... as that is explicitly for long lists. I would create a new guideline WP:Title conventions (lists and indexes) (I suggest "Title conventions" to bring it into line with the policy, WP:Article titles... we really should get rid of the term "naming conventions" completely, but one step at a time.) Blueboar (talk) 15:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Splitting up a long list into sub-lists - comments welcome

Comments are invited on whether the very long List of alumni of Jesus College, Oxford should have sub-lists created, and if so, how. The discussion is at Talk:List of alumni of Jesus College, Oxford#Time to split into sub-lists?. Bencherlite ^Talk 07:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"List of foos: People" or "List of foos: people"?

At WP:FLC, some discussions have recently taken place on whether a sub-list should use a capital letter after the colon or inside the bracket (e.g. whether it should be a capital "p" in "List of foos (People)" or "List of foos: People"). The examples given on the convention page here would seem to suggest that the capital letter is to be used even when the sublist does not start with a proper noun e.g. "List of foos: Physics and chemistry". The discussions arise, in part, from my previous (unanswered) post on this page, directly above, but have arisen in other list discussions too. Are people happy that the convention is accurate, or should only proper nouns take a capital letter, for grammatical accuracy? Bencherlite ^Talk 00:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the statements made at Colon_(punctuation)#Use_of_capitals are correct regarding sentence case after colons, and I've also checked in reference books I have that are not used to reference the article, which back up those statements. Page titles should absolutely follow the correct grammar of the English language. They are the first thing people read; if we can't even get that right, what the hell is wrong with us? Matthewedwards : Chat 05:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Real example=List of United States Military Academy alumni (Superintendents). Should S be upper or lower? I say upper as Superintendent of the Academy is an official position. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with that. Bencherlite ^Talk 19:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name suggestions requested

List of World War I flying aces is being cut up into more manageable sublists, but so far the sublists don't have what I consider to be the best names (World War I aces credited with 5 victories: Names beginning with G - Q for example). Are there any suggestions for more proper titles? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 05:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration request

Please could we have a third party rule on which of the following is preferred:

See User talk:Skittleys#Spurious caps. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Football player lists when split

An RfC has begun on the WT:FOOTY#Name of football player lists page regarding proper naming. Sandman888 (talk) 19:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:List of Arcade Video Games Navbox

Template:List of Arcade Video Games Navbox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 17:38, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of symphonies by number example (Special cases section)

See Template talk:Symphonies by number and name#Disambiguation pages?. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Missing advice: Don't create a "master" page for a split list without significant content

Some narrow advice on this been in MOS:GLOSSARIES for years, but is missing here at the more general guideline. This proposed text is for the "Long (split) list naming recommendations" section, and should go immediately above "Models (see examples below)".

Wikipedia should usually not have an article at "List of foos" and also have "List of foos: A-C", "List of foos: D-F", etc.

If the page centralizes significant and lengthy introductory information that is not practical to include in all the sub-articles, it is permissible to have a "List of foos" index article for the list series; otherwise this title should redirect to the first article in the series (e.g. "List of foos: A-C" in this example).
If the page indexes a complex series of list articles arranged sectionally or with names that do not form a single series, it should be at "Lists of foos" or a similar title .
If the page provides significant background, historical, or other non-list (and not just list-introductory) material, then it should be merged into the main article for the topic (or become that main article in absence of one), at "Foo", or at "Foo (disambiguating term)" if necessary.

Main articles on topics should prominently link to the related list series. How to do so depends on context; examples include a summary-style section and {{main list}} template; in a infobox parameter for certain types of lists (episode lists, discographies, etc.); in the "See also" section; in a Navbox; by working a piped link to the list into the regular article prose; or a combination of any of these.

[End of proposed addition.]

This represents actual practice, so it should be in the guideline (some additional copyediting notwithstanding). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 14:56, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish: I was just wondering about this, and this post is the most relevant discussion I could find. When split lists use a parenthetical qualifier, or even the preferred colon format, it suggests something should be at the base name. Normally this would be a dab page, but the base term isn't ambiguous per se, it's just been split into different locations. For instance, I see for the New Hampshire historical markers example, there is nothing at List of New Hampshire historical markers. This page should either contain or be a redirect to a place where the various sub-lists are listed. In this case, it should obviously be a redirect to New Hampshire historical markers#List of markers (I will create this shortly). If no such target exists, perhaps a "Lists of Foo" should be created with the list of sub lists, and then the "List of Foo" base term redirected there. I can see how redirecting to the first list could be a reasonable alternative, but then there is not easy navigation to the other lists (at best, there is a link to the next list in the order, or you must scroll down to a template at the bottom of the page). Anyway, just interested in your thoughts, as it does seem like there should be some guidance on this to ensure something exists at the base list name that offers navigation to the sublists. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:28, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that sounds reasonable, and could be worked into the proposed advice. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming pages that start as "List of Vietnamese people" or "list of people from Wyoming"

My pinch of salt would be that these articles titles are funny... like "look guys we have the complete list of people from Wyoming" and so I wanted to ask if anyone was planning to change the titles to "List of notable people from [location]" or is it an unspoken tradition on Wikipedia to name it like the way it is.

The above proposal was copied from the Wikipedia:Teahouse where i was advised to suggest it here if I wanted to. LostCitrationHunter (talk) 18:22, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Collection, bundles and lists

Hi fellow Wikipedians, I find the page List of lists of lists rather confusing to read and navigate. What if we were to stop calling articles List of... or Lists of... and started naming these articles containing one and multiple lists List:Any title and Bundle:Any title respectively, and, what if we were to rename List of lists of lists to Collection:Wikipedia articles?

Then the hierarchy between these concepts would be the following: multiple lists make a bundle and multiple bundles make a collection. In other words, Collection:Wikipedia articles would then contain a multitude of Bundle:Any titles. A Bundle:Any title page would contain a bunch of List:Any titles, and lastly, a List:Any title page would consist of traditional prose articles (without the :-notifier).

It will of course take quite some time and effort to rename all these pages, but it may result in less ambiguity and more clarity, at least that's what I expect. To anyone reading this, what is your opinion on this matter? Infogiraffic (talk) 16:01, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Second-round RfC on titles of TV season articles

FYI

– Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Follow-up RfC on TV season article titles. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:54, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing disambiguation confusion

Proposal: Move the "Foo (bar)" format to the list of deprecated formats for the naming of split-up long lists, so we have an approved list of "Foo: bar", "Foo, bar", and "Foo – bar". Using the exact same "Foo (bar)" format as parenthetical disambiguation is confusing and weird, and we have literally no need of any kind to do that (plus the affirmative reason to not do it that some things actually need both parenthetical disambiguation and a split-long-list designation).

So we should just deprecate it, and then move any oddball split-list articles using that format to one of the other formats (presumably "Foo: bar" since it's listed as preferred).

PS: The use of this kind of "pseudo-disambiguation" for split-long lists has already been deprecated at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television), where it was historically used for split-by-season episode lists (though which of the other format to switch to is still under discussion in a followup RfC). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So far, the TV RfC is supporting "Foo bar" without punctuation, rather than any of the options listed here. Certes (talk) 11:24, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give some examples? —swpb^{T • beyond • mutual} 15:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of what? Nothing in this is dependent on any examples of anything. It's simply not useful for us to use "Foo (bar)" format to mean both "Foo, disambiguated as a sort of bar" and "Foo, a list, split up in this case into a section called bar". There's just nothing helpful to anyone about doing that, and we already have multiple permissible other formats for list splitting. If you need some kind of examples, see the TV discussion already referred to, in which various people spent weeks in confused argument about whether split lists of episodes were in fact a form of disambiguation rather than split lists. If the confuses even "expert" editors, it is obviously going to confuse casual readers. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:10, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]