Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (long lists)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcut: WT:NCLL

Contents 1 List of foo: A 2 Spanning Lists 3 Discussion over "List of mammals in (or of) Foo" articles 4 Substantive update 5 Naming conventions for lists 6 Proposed move and merge 7 Splitting up a long list into sub-lists - comments welcome 8 "List of foos: People" or "List of foos: people"?

[edit] List of foo: A

This seems to be the most commonly used format:

• List of people by name: A
• List of places by name: A
• List of acronyms and initialisms: A
• List of songs by name: A
• List of drugs: A
• List of books by title: A
• List of airports: A

-- 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)

[edit] 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)

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

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

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

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

[edit] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Proposed move and merge

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)

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

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)

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

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)

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)

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