Essay on editing Wikipedia
Listcruft
is a term some editors use to refer to indiscriminate or trivial lists. The term derives from the older
hacker
term
cruft
, describing obsolete code that accumulates in a program. The term is a neologism largely restricted to Wikipedia and its mirrors; as such, it is inappropriate for use in the text of articles (per
Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms
and
Wikipedia:Avoid self-references
), although it is freely used in certain article tags and on article talk pages.
In general, a "List of X"
stand-alone list article
should only be created if X itself is a legitimate
encyclopedic topic
that already has its own article. The list should originate as a section within that article, and should not be broken out into a separate article until it becomes so long as to be disproportionate to the rest of the article. It is very appropriate for the article on
Zoology
to
include
a list of
important zoologists
within it, and for the article on the fictional series character
Rick Brant
to
include
a list of the Rick Brant books.
In particular, if X is an encyclopedic topic, the X page should
not
consist only of a "list of X", in effect
ostensively defining
the topic. Effort should be made to write an article which verifiably defines and characterizes the topic first.
[1]
Valid examples of standalone lists would include
List of University of Chicago people
and
List of Oz books
. In both cases, the lists correspond closely to encyclopedia articles?
University of Chicago
and
L. Frank Baum
, respectively?and in both cases the length and detail of the list justify breaking them out.
On the other hand, topics such as
List of small-bust models and performers
,
List of songs that contain the laughter of children
, and
List of nasal singers
should be considered highly questionable because there are no articles on those topics.
Embedded (within-article) lists
may also be crufty, especially when they are
indiscriminate
collections of
unimportant or irrelevant miscellanea
(trivia).
If a Wikipedia editor refers to a list as listcruft, it generally indicates they believe the list would not be expected to be included in an
encyclopedia
. More specifically, an editor's use of the term listcruft generally indicates they are asserting that one or more of the following are true:
- The list is of interest to
a very limited number of people
.
- The list is a violation of
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information
.
- The content is
unverifiable
: the underlying concept is
non-notable
or poorly defined.
- The list cannot be expanded beyond a handful of terms.
- The list is unlimited and/or unmaintainable.
- The list has no content beyond links to other articles, so would be better implemented as a (self-maintaining) category.
- Determining membership of the list requires adoption of a non-
neutral point of view
, and
reliable sources
for avoiding it are not available.
- Determining membership of the list involves
original research
or
synthesis
of ideas.
- The list's membership is volatile and requires a disproportionate amount of effort to keep up to date.
- The list attracts the addition of little that is of clear importance or even relevance in the context of the topic.
Generally speaking, the perception that an article is listcruft can be a contributing factor to someone voting for deletion, but it might not be the sole factor. In such cases, this perception is generally challenged by those voting for retention.
- ^
For example,
Humorist
was originally a list of "humorists", which also had the defect of not discriminating between humorists and
comedians
.
|
---|
Style
| |
---|
Content
| |
---|
Rationale
| |
---|
Existing lists
| |
---|
Templates
| |
---|
Assistance
| |
---|
Handling miscellaneous information
|
---|
Policies and guidelines
| |
---|
Essays
| |
---|
WikiProjects
| |
---|
About essays
| |
---|
|