Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists

Editor Zsteve21 (talk · contribs) has moved multiple "list of X films" articles to be "lists of X films" articles. A lot of these have been named the same way for a while and are technically still one list, being split out due to size. Is this really a proper set of moves? Example is list of cult films being moved to lists of cult films even though the list is merely broken out alphabetically due to size matters. Erik (talk | contrib) 20:40, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

That doesn't seem like a proper move to me. I'd attempt to revert it if I wasn't about to head out the door. I'd endorse a reversion, in any case. DonIago (talk) 21:06, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and reverted that. DonIago (talk) 02:53, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! To be clear, it's only because of the specific internal alphabetical breakout that you reverted? What about something like Lists of Bangladeshi films (moved from List of Bangladeshi films) where the breakout is by year? I guess I'm trying to get a better sense from WP:SAL editors about when to do "lists" vs. just "list". Erik (talk | contrib) 15:03, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

I think if we are dealing with a list that has been divided into sub-lists (either by alphabet or by year) we are principally dealing with one list, albeit spread over several pages. If it were a book we wouldn't refer to a single list spread over several pages as "lists". Betty Logan (talk) 23:48, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

I concur. I'd expect a list titled "Lists of Foo" to feature different kinds of lists about Foo, not a singular list about Foo that just happens to be broken up for convenience or similar reasons. DonIago (talk) 00:49, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Fact Check

There is a claim in the page about complete lists:

These should only be created if a complete list is reasonably short (less than 32 KB)

What's the rationale for that specific number?

In fact, is it ever observed? Selbstporträt (talk) 05:43, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

For reference, the number 32K survived since the very first revision of the page in 2003: Special:Diff/2004846. The wording with "less than" was added in Special:Diff/364773243, wikilink to kilobyte in Special:Diff/839429632, and finally the current version of formatting was written in Special:Diff/1226423182. —⁠andrybak (talk) 19:34, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks!

The first diff mentions a List of Finns, which I read has:

• HTML document size: 199 kB
• Prose size (including all HTML code): 218 B
• References (including all HTML code): 4028 B
• Wiki text: 48 kB
• Prose size (text only): 215 B (36 words) "readable prose size"
• References (text only): 182 B

Which of these numbers refer to the 32 KB limit?

(Assuming that a partial list too needs to respect that upper limit.)

Looks like this has very little to do with tables, for a citation alone can have almost 1K characters! Selbstporträt (talk) 00:30, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Generally size corresponds to Wiki text in WP. List of Finns is now a dynamic list, so it isn't covered by this criterion any more. I think some guidance is good, otherwise you may get editors who want to build complete lists that are megabytes long. Those would almost always be WP:INDISCRIMINATE — hike395 (talk) 13:47, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

The link under "dynamic list" leads to weird text:

Some lists, such as List of numbers, are intentionally inexhaustive, as they are only meant to list notable examples from a given category.

The first part is contradicted by the text for the dynamic list template itself:

This is a dynamic list and may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness. You can help by editing the page to add missing items, with references to reliable sources.

The point of having dynamic lists is that there are many lists for which we don't know the full extension. The call to action presumes we could one day get it.

The second part of the text is also completely wrong: N is for pages, not entries. We could choose notability as a selection criterion. Which means dynamic lists thus interpreted would need to abide by the 32KB standard, if it is one.

In both cases, if size corresponds to Wiki text, then the very example mentioned in the edit is 50% bigger than the 32KB requirement. Why should selections be 50% shorter than complete lists?

We already have N to meet INDISCRIMINATE. Once a stand-alone list meets notability, the argument seems to fizzle.Selbstporträt (talk) 18:11, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Per MOS:LISTTYPES, a dynamic list is any list that may never be fully complete (since it will only include notable examples from a given category), or may require constant updates to remain current. TompaDompa (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

"or may require constant updates to remain current" indeed. Selbstporträt (talk) 20:58, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

One random hit from the Category:Dynamic lists:

1540 in poetry

Which items are "notable" in the sense of N? Selbstporträt (talk) 21:02, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Clicking on "Dynamic list" in the text of the Dynamic list template leads back to the project text.

The text has a "To display all pages, subcategories and images click". If we click on it, we get a list. The first item from the list is List of ship launches in 1930. A sea of red links for the ships themselves. Very few pages on launches of ships in 1930, if any.Selbstporträt (talk) 21:14, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Now that I understand where that 32KB comes from, I would propose that we:

(a) remove it from the examples section

(b) put it in a section that discusses the page size of stand-alone lists

(c) clarify that this is about lists, not tables

Any reasoned objection? Selbstporträt (talk) 13:40, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't think it is clear that this suggestion would be an improvement, in part because it is not entirely clear to me what points (b) and (c) would look like in practice. TompaDompa (talk) 11:48, 23 May 2026 (UTC)