For those of you who are aware Wookieepedia is home to in-universe lists (List of battles), real-world lists (List of fanon elements in continuity), media timelines (Timeline of Legends comics), in-universe timelines (Timeline of galactic history/Legends), and real-world years. These pages take up a decent portion of our scope, and each offers useful information both to editors and readers. If I am not mistaken however, these types of pages are the only in-universe and out-of-universe pages which can not be nominated for status as of right now (besides the Wookieepedia site pages obviously).

Because of the lack of the possibility to bring such articles to status, these pages each lack standardization and many don't come close to the site's quality standard. While in my opinion, some lists work better in a bulleted format (List of phrases and slang), others work better in tables (List of planets). Currently, precedent seems to be that timelines use tables and years use bullets, which I am fine with. I believe that by creating and standardizing status rules for these type of pages, it would elevate their general status, and I am aware that some users do seek to bring such articles to status (I present to you the beautiful 2016 as built by admin NBDani).

The first issue that we arrive at, is how? What specific characteristics would separate a CA list from a GA list, or do we abandon that system for these kind of pages and create a new one entirely? I don't have any answer for this, and hope that this discussion will breed concepts and ideas for how such a system would function and operate. Also, the Legends lists and timelines likely won't run in to this problem, but the Canon lists and timelines would likely require constant updates. Thus, the status of some of these articles seems unlikely or absurd, but many of these pages aren't as large and can receive a status. Years shouldn't run into this issue as much.

At least for me, I don't see an issue with the concept, but have no idea for any kind of execution. I'm hoping that this discussion can bear some fruit. AmazinglyCool (talk) 22:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Discussion[]

• Presumably the best starting-off point for a list article status system would be just having one separate category that includes all lists, i.e., "This list has been granted the status of [insert descriptor of goodness]" rather than trying to tie them to the article tiers of FA, GA, and CA. Also, as far as articles on real-world years are concerned, imo those can potentially run into issues of their own. Namely, do we actually want them to be prosified article-like and/or should they retain their current bulleted list format (at least as a section of the article perhaps?)? And if so, not sure how that would work within the framework of the current SAN system's wordcount requirements. Imperators II^(Talk) 07:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Now that I’m thinking about it, it might be better to abandon word count requirements entirely when it comes to these lists. Perhaps we can judge off of some other metric like # of entries perhaps? AmazinglyCool (talk) 12:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
• Wikipedia has featured lists. Certainly worth looking at for examples. 01miki10 ^{Open comlink} 14:40, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
  • The featured list criteria really offers a really good framework that we could definitely incorporate. AmazinglyCool (talk) 20:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
• Agreed with Imp on using a different descriptor of completeness than the current three tier system. It would be imho nearly impossible to ever get spme of these to proper complete standards expected by those processes (particularly for years; which will always be missing a birthday or a magazine).—spookywilloww^talk 14:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
  • I think that some of them are impossible for sure, but there are a decent number that are realistically achievable. I'd argue that past years aren't too difficult to maintain as long as the nominator is devoted to making occasional/rare updates. AmazinglyCool (talk) 20:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
    • Years are supposed to list contrubutor birthdays, technically. Unless every creator page had its birthdate manually verified as not available or cited with what we have, under current nomination rules (requiring an article to be complete without exception and, not only to the known degree but the best-effort degree) those'd be impossible to do. I mean, lists of books and such; much different than years.—spookywilloww^talk 20:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
    • My firm opposition to incorporating it into the current process (as opposed to a separate list process as described above specifically for lists) is because it would inherently result in us allowing status articles to pass without every possible avenue for completion being sought, whereas any looser standard can run separate and not affect the integrity of the status article system.—spookywilloww^talk 21:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
      • Yeah, at this point I think a new system is needed for lists/timelines. I think the Wikipedia page that 01miki10 shared above offers potential, it would just require a decent bit of adjustment. AmazinglyCool (talk) 21:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
• Why not. My perosnal interest in this is that sweet referencing I'm seeing in Dani workbench. But it was already something I was planning to bring up at the end of the year, unrelated to status articles ^^. Also, I want to mention articles like list of media, that we definitely want to rework as non-list articles (still incorporating a list, but focused on propose). NanoLuuke^{Cloning Facility} 17:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)