Talk:Community care access centres#Removal of lists

@162 etc., please provide further explanation for why you removed 2 lists from the article. The lists had independent citations for their content. Legend of 14 (talk) 22:33, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:Such indiscriminate lists which include no useful wikilinks are discouraged per WP:NOTADIRECTORY. 162 etc. (talk) 22:40, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::WP:NOTADIRECTORY is about lists of links to articles, there were no links to wikipedia articles, other than the corresponding Local Health Integration Network in the second list, which is directly related to the opposing CCAC. Legend of 14 (talk) 22:43, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Yes, the fact that these lists contain no useful wikilinks makes them quite unnecessary. 162 etc. (talk) 18:07, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::::@162 etc. I have referred the matter for WP:3O. Legend of 14 (talk) 18:11, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Hi @Legend of 14 and @162 etc., here to give a 3O.

:::::First, I want to note that this is not a cut-and-dried matter. For whatever reason, people have been arguing bitterly about lists across the entire wiki for years. This is not the first 3O I've given about whether or not a set of lists is extraneous and I doubt it will be the last. I'm neither pro- nor anti-list; both sides always have a set of strong arguments at their disposal and the matter is often settled through a bitter and contentious RFC. We may be able to escape that fate if we really try to work together. Ultimately I don't think policy gives strong blanket guidance either way; it's something that has to be approached article-by-article and I think the best way to approach it is pragmatically—what do the lists add, what is their cost, is there a beter way of structuring the information or not, etc.—rather than making simple and broad arguments based on policy.

:::::I don't see WP:NOTDIRECTORY as applicable here. It's about stand-alone list articles like Lists of words having different meanings in American and British English, which this article is not. Note that the WP:NOTDIRECTORY page directs the reader to review the pages on stand-alone lists, and that the criteria for inclusion starts out saying "Wikipedia articles are not…" (emphasis mine). I don't think it's reasonable to subject every single list across the wiki to that level of scrutiny.

:::::However, that doesn't mean that we should necessarily keep the lists. They have to serve a useful purpose in the article in encyclopedic terms, and one that couldn't be better-satisfied through some other presentation of the information. It's also worth considering the maintenance burden the lists might introduce; some lists may have to be updated frequently and will easily become stale, and that may be a mark against their practicality.

:::::That being said, @162 etc., I strongly encourage refraining from WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT-style arguments about lists. Saying the contents of a list are simply "indiscriminate" and "not useful" is unlikely to convince me without further explication; I could just as well say "I think they're quite discriminate and highly useful" and that would hold an equal amount of weight. Remember that, both for the sake of achieving the highest article quality and for the sake of keeping up editor morale, it's always better to improve content rather than delete it; deletion and reversion should be last rather than first resorts, when no improvement is reasonably possible. Therefore, being very precise about what issues you see in the lists is probably best, not only because it will help me to see your side but also because it might illuminate ways the information covered by the lists could be better-conveyed rather than simply removing it.

:::::On the other hand, @Legend of 14, would you be willing to clarify for me what the intent is behind the lists on this page? Did you add them, or do you use them regularly? It would be helpful for me to hear about what purpose they're meant to serve from someone who favors them. From reading the article I understand that they're lists of buildings in Ontario where someone can apply for homecare services(?), or maybe buildings that used to exist for that purpose? I still feel kind of confused though. 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 02:00, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::CCACs are former organizations that people would contact to access home and community care services. The lists were there to help readers understand the changes discussed in the prose. The article mentions the reorganization of CCACs following the introduction of Local Health Integration Networks. It is hard for readers unfamiliar with the topic to really understand what this means. The lists were there to help readers understand how the CCACs were restructured, which is why the list includes successor organizations like the other CCAC or LHIN that repalced the CCAC. The lists were also a good format to share facts about specific CCACs that were not noteable enough to warrant their own article. They also helped with navigability and searchability, especially considering some CCACs had irregular names like "Access Centre for Hastings and Prince Edward Counties" or "Durham Access to Care". This way readers searching for the name of a specific centre were more likely to find this article, since none of the centres have an individual article. Legend of 14 (talk) 02:15, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Okay, thank you! Just to make sure that I have a good handle on what you're saying, in summary it sounds like the reasons you're citing in favor of the lists are:

:::::::* they illustrate the changes discussed in the article more precisely, on a center-by-center level,

:::::::* they provide a place to give information about specific CCACs, since the article is general in scope, and

:::::::* they make it easier to find this page if you search for the name of a specific CCAC, especially considering that some CCACs have irregular names.

:::::::Does that sound right? 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 03:50, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Yes. Legend of 14 (talk) 03:53, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Okay, great, thanks (and I realize I should've said "had irregular names" ;^^). Also, just for our convenient reference, here's the most recent revision that has the lists, so we can easily take a look at them.

:::::::::Something I wonder is if maybe those two tables could be consolidated together to convey the changes you're describing more directly. I'm not sure if we really need the "Date of Incorporation" column for the purposes you've enumerated (although I guess maybe it has some historical interest); it might be sufficient to just say in the article body that the original CCACs were incorporated in the years 1996–1997, for instance. Also, since most of the entries lack anything in the "Notes" column, the information that is there might also be able to be added to the main article body without having to drop it from the article. That would leave one table with "Name of Centre", "Successor CACC", and "Corresponding LHIN", which would preserve the searchability you're describing and might convey the changes over time more clearly. What do you think? I wouldn't mind making those edits if it sounds good to you—it might make a good compromise and I think the legibility of the article might be enhanced somewhat. 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 04:37, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Sounds good. Legend of 14 (talk) 19:21, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Okay, great. I'll probably add that stuff this evening. 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 14:30, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Done. Feel free to modify if you see anything you think needs changing. Hopefully this will be at least tolerable for everyone. 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 14:50, 5 June 2025 (UTC)