:: wikimiki.org ::

II República Espanyola

Wikipedia:Archive:Votes for deletion/Lists

This page has been listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. Please see that page for justifications and discussion.

Straw poll

Keep all: # Kingturtle 19:28, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC) # Average Earthman 19:31, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC) # Nunh-huh 20:04, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC) # arj 20:07, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC) # Keep all. Davodd 20:23, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC) # Alex S 20:25, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC) # Decumanus | Talk 20:26, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC) #Keep all, delete this page. RickK | Talk 20:42, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC) # RadicalBender 20:45, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC) # fabiform | talk 20:51, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC) # Danny 23:10, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC) # Eric119 23:23, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC) # Sean 00:26, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC) # Timwi 03:52, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC) # Saul Taylor 09:13, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC) # Moncrief 19:45, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC) # Syntax 00:56, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC) # Rainier Schmidt 00:59, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC) # Elf | Talk 04:50, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC) # Keep all, get rid of this nonsense. Go and work on the Category system if you're that bothered. Otherwise stop tracking mud all over the house. Phil | Talk 15:24, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC) # Lord Bob 05:02, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC) # Ambivalenthysteria 11:10, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC) # Nikola 00:26, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC) # ChrisO 11:32, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC) Pure revenge nomination. # Agreed with ChrisO; 141 is simply nominating lists for deletion out of spite over some of his porn star lists getting the boot. Bearcat 05:06, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC) # Dori | Talk 06:52, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC) Will be very useful once categories are set up. # Dcrt888 11:21, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC) Delete all:
- Delete all "List of" pages, eventually. A bare list of links is not encyclopedic. Even a list of Popes should have extra info, e.g. dates, notes about the two-popes period, etc. Most importantly a list must have at least an initial blurb that defines the scope of the list, so that other people know what can be added. (Should "fictional cats" list also unnamed ones? Is Hobbes of Calvin and Hobbes a ficional cat? What about Schroedinger's cat?) Also the list must be rasonably closed and have some timelessness.Jorge Stolfi 20:54, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- But it comes down to how people use information. In and of itself, a list page might not be "encyclopedic" per se, but it helps to guide readers to related articles. If I'm at Carlsbad Caverns National Park, I might click on the link to List of U.S. national parks and view related content. The list pages are an equivalent to "See also", without having to put unwieldly lists of content in each article. Lists add to the usefulness of other articles and should not be considered unencyclopedic in and of themselves, but rather as encyclopedic in the context of the usefulness of the subject itself. This is why most of us consider List of fictional cats a valid list and not List of whateverwhatever porn stars who ate at Jack-in-the-Box. RadicalBender 21:59, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Agree in part: a list is OK
- if
- it is clearly subsidiary to some regular article that provides the necessary blurb and context. In your park example, the list should be (logically, if not physically) a part of the U. S. National Parks article, which (among other things) defines the scope of the list. The list of fictional cats would be OK if it were clearly an appendix of (or contained in) an article "Cats in literature" or "Felines in literature" or "Cats in movies" or "Cats in mythology". Then it would be clear whether tiggers qualify or not.Jorge Stolfi 00:15, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I Strongly Agree. This can destroy Wikipedia. Most are nonsence. Some lists are really useful but they must change how they are presented - addind text.
- I have no problem with your request, 141. I wonder whose agenda is being served when 'List of Albanian popes with more than ten toes' is considered a legitimate article... Denni 06:49, 2004 Mar 21 (UTC)
- I am sick of people saying lists are not "encyclopaedic". Lists are merely index pages which serve to group similar topics. How many of you (if and when you buy a paper encylopaedia) rip out the index pages?
SimonMayer 23:00, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC) : Agreed. How is one supposed to find anything without indexes? Granted, some of these are frivolous, but that's a matter for individual cases on VFD. Ambivalenthysteria 11:10, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC) : Peace and love... Subject indices are great, and Wikipedia defintely needs them. However the present unrestricted "List"s are NOT a proper subject index, and I wonder whether they will ever become one. (1) I don't want to disparage young responsible contributors, but bare lists are the sort of thing that kids create for fun. I don't think that Wikipedia is meant to be a playground for kids, is it? Yet the present List policy will attract and encourage precisely such thing (as it seems to be happening right now). (2) Lists are useful only if they are reasonably complete and accurate; but many of the lists that have been mentioned in VfD will never get even close to that. A "List of left-handed movie actors" will never list all
- actor pages
- that qualify, much less all
- actors
- . At present, creating a new List is definitely easier than fixing or adding an entry to an existing List --- and much easier than deleting a bogus one: you figure where that will lead... So I still maintain my suggestion: every List should be formatted as a normal article, with proper defintion and context; and/or it should be clearly "owned" by
- one
- normal page that provides that info. All the best,Jorge Stolfi 06:38, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC) Create new namespace for lists: # Anthony DiPierro 23:00, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC) Against creating new namespace for lists: # SimonMayer 23:08, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC) - All these various namespaces just complicate matters. For example, people rarely link to Wiktionary. It's more convenient to keep lists on the main Wikipedia. The ideal situation would probably be if a list could be merged into a proper article. #
- Wiktionary is not a namespace. It should be, but it's not. Anthony DiPierro 16:21, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC) #Strongly oppose. How are you supposed to link from that to all of the articles the List pages reference? RickK | Talk 23:12, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC) #
- I don't understand. It's a namespace. You link from that to the other articles the same way you link from the Wikipedia namespace to other articles. like this. Anthony DiPierro 16:20, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC) #
- It's simpler to do the ARTICLE NAME than to start going transwiki. What good is achieved by creating a new dumping ground. I think it's time Wikipedia users get over the "is it encyclopaedic?" debate and just admit that lists can be useful as can most things on here.
SimonMayer 16:30, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC) #
- Again, I fail to see what transwiki has to do with anything. Wiktionary is not a namespace. It's a completely separate entity. Is there an actual debate over whether or not lists are encyclopedic? I thought it was agreed they were not. Anthony DiPierro 16:35, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC) #
- Sorry, I misunderstood what a namespace was. I assume that with name spaces we'd have something resembling List:Famous cats. I am now largely unsure whether we should have this. It seems to make more sense. I think there should be a seperate debate on this, rather than grouping it in with VfD.
SimonMayer 18:57, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC) #
- Yes, using a namespace would work like List:Famous cats. anthony (see warning) 11:30, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC) # Opposed--why create a namespace that exists solely for the purpose of making transwiki links? -Sean 00:26, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC) # A general defense of lists: Some people seem to have an instinctive apathy towards all lists. I feel they can serve a purpose, even within an encyclopedia, because a list is one form for organizing information. If a person is reading an article on "Jed Bartlet" and finds a link to a "List of Fictional Presidents" he can then follow it to articles on "Jack Ryan" or "Lex Luthor" or dozens of other articles. One list can serve as a link between any number of articles sharing a common theme. An encyclopediac article giving this same information would have to be huge and would duplicate much of the information from the individual articles; a list conveys the information simply and efficiently. As I've already said, not all lists are created equal; some are good and some are bad. But we defintiely should not enact a blanket policy banning all lists. MK 17:42, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC) Against being against creating new namespace for lists: #Lists are not encyclopedic. Anthony DiPierro 16:17, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC) Keep some, delete some: # Some of these lists are useful and informative and some are trivial and ridiculous. The same will be true of future lists. We'll just have to continue deciding on a case by case basis. MK 06:16, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Discussion on issue

- Keep all unless specifically stated otherwise. This is a revenge nomination(s) and should be removed - Texture 17:49, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- not only you delete my lists, now you try to censor me! this isn't fair! 141 18:05, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- For the record, I voted to keep one of them. :P - Texture 18:12, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Regardless of the motivation for listing these, some of them probably do deserve consideration. I recommend that we let the process work. Note to User:141: Are you or have you added the VfD notices to all these pages so the interested parties can participate in the debate? Rossami
- I disagree. We cannot allow VfD do become a means for people who feel slighted to abuse the system. This page is now 175 Kb and has been almost completely unfunctional for some time. I pause before posting here anymore because I know that I will have to go through three or four edit conflicts before I can post. This abuse must stop. (Keep all.) RadicalBender 18:14, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Agreed w/RadicalBender. If I list Wikipedia for deletion will it be voted on or removed? It will be removed as an invalid candidate. Your motivation is very relevant to consideration. A nomination that you don't want deleted for a valid reason is not a valid nomination. - Texture 18:21, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I agree with RadicalBender and Texture. 141 is behaving like a vexatious litigant, and I believe it's time we should start ignoring people who post frivolous VfD entries. -- Arwel 19:13, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)~
- This is more like an attempt to sabotage the system than a sensible nomination. I vote keep all. If there are any that people think are particularly useless, nominate them in the normal fashion. But not en masse. Average Earthman 19:33, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- keep all I don't know about all of these articles, but they are being treated generically and this could lead to a permanent loss of valuable information. SimonMayer 18:49, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep all, for reasons mentioned above. --Mrwojo 18:59, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- This nomination is purely BJAODN — Sverdrup 19:07, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep all unless reasons are found otherwise. Most of these have absolutely no justification given. ("stupid", "silly", and "irrelevant" en masse don't count.) Sometimes there is are a few more words of nonsense like "Who cares about the Polish?" A few of these might merit deletion, but most don't. And this is not the right place to do it in. 141 probably doesn't even really want these deleted. Eric119 23:23, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)
- If any of these list do desrve to be deleted then they should be listed of VfD individually. But until then they should be kept. I'm very fond of the varios fictional animals lists and I think they're very valuable. Saul Taylor 09:18, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC) Please note that not a single one of these articles has a VfD header on it. RickK | Talk 01:56, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC) :Exactly! Based solely on that none of the lists should be deleted. I just noticed this page on RC. Dori | Talk 06:56, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)

List of fictional cats

- delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep - useful and encyclopedic. - Texture 18:13, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep - sounds silly but isn't. --Hemanshu 20:07, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. One of the most complete and useful List of Fictional (foo) lists. Fennec 15:45, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, agree with Hemanshu. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- keep.Pedro 04:44, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. — Timwi 05:58, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of historical cats

- delete. who needs it? 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, does seem faintly useless. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. History is enciclopedic. Pedro 04:36, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- keep.Pedro 04:44, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- keep. several cats deserve their notoriety SimonMayer 04:46, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. — Timwi 05:58, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Lists of fictional animals

- delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. A useful meta-list. Fennec 15:47, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, agree with Fennec. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- keep.Pedro 04:44, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of fictional apes

- delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Merge with list of fictional chimpanzees and monkeys; rename List of fictional primates PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- keep.Pedro 04:44, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- merge into primates. SimonMayer 04:47, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. — Timwi 05:58, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of fictional bears

- delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- ~~delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)~~
- Useful, there's a lot of them. Keep PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- keep.Pedro 04:44, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of fictional birds

- delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- ~~delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)~~
- Again, lots. Keep. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- keep.Pedro 04:44, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of fictional chimpanzees

- delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- ~~delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)~~
- Merge with list of fictional apes and monkeys; rename List of fictional primates PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Merge.Pedro 04:44, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- merge into primates. SimonMayer 04:48, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. — Timwi 05:58, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of fictional dinosaurs

- delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- ~~delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)~~
- Delete, not enough to be useful. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, what is wrong with small articles? This could be useful for someone who wants to write a light hearted quiz on dinosaurs. SimonMayer 04:50, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. — Timwi 05:58, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of fictional dogs

- delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- ~~delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)~~
- Keep, lots of them, very informative. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Pedro 04:38, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. — Timwi 05:58, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of fictional elephants

- delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- ~~delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)~~
- Delete, not quite enough. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- keep.Pedro 04:44, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of fictional horses

- delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- ~~delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)~~
- Keep. Has info on horses from mythology, literature, etc that were very important. Jacob1207 19:26, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, agree with Jacob. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Changed Opinion. I suggest that Mythycal animals should be merged in a single article, or a series of articles.Pedro 04:15, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. — Timwi 05:58, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of fictional mice and rats

- delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- ~~delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)~~
- Keep, lots and very informative. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Neutral.Pedro 04:44, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep SimonMayer 04:52, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. — Timwi 05:58, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of fictional monkeys

- delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- ~~delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)~~
- Merge with list of fictional apes and chimpanzees; rename List of fictional primates PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- mergePedro 04:44, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of fictional pigs

- delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- ~~delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)~~
- Keep, useful. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- keepPedro 04:44, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of fictional rabbits

- delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- ~~delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)~~
- Keep, useful. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- keep.Pedro 04:44, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of fictional tigers

- delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- ~~delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)~~
- Keep, useful.
- keepPedro 04:44, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of fictional animals (other)

- delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- ~~delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)~~
- Keep, useful. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- keepPedro 04:44, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of famous puppets

- delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, there's lots of them. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of historical animals

- delete. who needs such a list? 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Important list. Moncrief 22:53, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Jacob1207 19:26, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Important.
- Keep. — Timwi 05:58, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of extinct animals

- delete. who needs a list of things that don't exist anymore? 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- keep. it can be used as evidence whether or not that chickens descended from a dinosaur. which would clearly show that the egg came before the chicken. 172.196.88.30 00:43, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- keep. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Jacob1207 18:47, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Maybe someone who's doing a project on extinction needs it, 141? PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. — Timwi 05:58, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- keep Ensiform 00:53, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- keep --Mr. Snow 08:15, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)

List of fictional species

- delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Useful. Particularly in RPG planning sessions :) Fennec
- Keep, agree with Fennec.
- Keep. — Timwi 05:58, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of species in folklore and mythology

- delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- ~~Keep, necessary and informative.~~ PMC 04:39, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, the one below is much better upon closer inspection. PMC 04:39, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Put on cleanup, it needs a basic description of each species SimonMayer 04:55, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. — Timwi 05:58, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of species in folklore and mythology by type

- delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)~
- ~~delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)~~
- ~~Actually is silly, we should have either this one or the above. Delete this one. (Merging any useful info unto the above, of course)~~ PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Change vote, keep this one, delete above, merging any useful information. This one is much better organized. PMC 04:39, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Merge. with the above article. Pedro 04:18, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. — Timwi 05:58, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of species in fantasy fiction

- delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, very useful for RPG-ers, fantasy writers, and nerds (like me ^_^) alike. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, although not my cup of tea, I understand PMC's point
- Keep. — Timwi 05:58, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of aliens in fiction

- delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, interesting trivia.

List of historical apes

- delete. nobody needs it. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- merge into primates. SimonMayer 04:58, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. — Timwi 05:58, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of historical chimpanzees

- delete. nobody needs it. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- merge into primates. SimonMayer 04:57, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. — Timwi 05:58, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of historical dogs

- delete. nobody needs it. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of historical elephants

- delete. nobody needs it. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of historical horses

- delete. nobody needs it. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of historical monkeys

- delete. nobody needs it. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- keep. Very interesting way to organize info. --206.136.148.148 21:36, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

List of historical pigs

- delete. nobody needs it. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of major flops

- delete. irrelevant. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Jacob1207 19:28, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Amusing and useful. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. — Timwi 05:58, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of years in video gaming

- delete. unneeded. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Content merged into timeline of video games, just a redir now. -Mrwojo 14:44, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)