Manual of Style

This page falls within the scope of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the Manual of Style (MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style articles This page falls under the contentious topics procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style, and the article titles policy. Both areas are known to be subjects of debate. Contributors are urged to review the awareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing. For information on Wikipedia's approach to the establishment of new policies and guidelines, refer to WP:PROPOSAL. Additionally, guidance on how to contribute to the development and revision of Wikipedia policies of Wikipedia's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations.

	Lists Project‑class
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles Project This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

This is part of a standardisation proposal for lists of works. It is open to discussion about its relevance, the ways in which it could be implemented and the layout and format to be chosen.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

Also: Examples

If we're going to tell readers that T.S. Eliot published The Waste Land in 1922, then why not link to 1922 in poetry on that line of the T.S. Eliot#Bibliography section? And if we're going to link to 1922 in poetry or literature, the unpiped links would overwhelm the look of the list, making it more difficult to read (please follow the link and look at it). It seems most useful to readers to allow them to follow the links to the topical year articles where appropriate. So long as the readers are informed (that can easily be done very briefly at the top of a list), then a piped year-in link shouldn't be confusing to anyone. The idea of not piping year-in/topical year links seems to have been meant for prose passages, not lists, as far as I can tell. I've proposed this kind of exception for year linking at Wikipedia talk:Only make links that are relevant to the context#Chronological articles: exception and the section below it. No one has objected so far, or responded to the idea. Please take a look. Reconsideration ( talk) 23:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC) reply

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Date Linking RFC. Very disputed still. -- Quiddity ( talk) 01:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Per WP:EGG, I agree with you that the MoS on this topic does not apply to size-constrained areas such as lists or tables, but is limited to prose.-- 2008Olympian ^chitchat 10:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply

I've been finding the awards boxes very helpful in articles I've been working on & wonder if a 'published works' box exists, as I'm now working on a subject who has published books, DVDs and audio recordings. Thanks in advance for any help.-- Tyranny Sue ( talk) 03:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Not that I know of. I'd suggest searching the WP:FAs and WP:FLs for guidance/ideas. -- Quiddity ( talk) 19:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Forgive me if this info is somewhere, but I can't seem to find it.

Firstly, what is the correct way of formatting a subject's contribution to a multi-author compilation? A couple of alternatives for a fictional example:

• Reagan and Gorbachev, chapter in The Life Of Ronald Reagan, John Doe (ed). Publisher, Date, ISBN.
• The Life Of Ronald Reagan, ed. John Doe. Publisher, Date, ISBN. Subject wrote the chapter Reagan and Gorbachev.

I can see pros and cons for both these approaches.

Secondly, when the subject was the editor of a work, how should this be listed? Should it even be included in a list of works?

Sidefall ( talk) 07:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I just found someone else asked basically the same question at Template_talk:Cite_book#Citing_chapter_written_by_authors_in_a_book_with_editors. Sidefall ( talk) 07:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC) reply

This is sorted now - the Cite book template does have the facility. I've added an example to the documentation - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cite_book Sidefall ( talk) 16:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC) reply

The MOS says to list earliest works first. This is certainly appropriate for literary authors. It is not for academics, where the almost universal convention, for currently active people, is to list the later works first, as in a a sense superseding the earlier ones. I invite discussion. DGG ( talk) 17:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC) reply

My feeling is that earliest works first is also appropriate for academics. First, print encyclopedias mostly use this convention, even for academics. Second, I think the latest-first convention for academics has partly arisen from CVs: though these may be an increasingly important genre of academic self-description, it's rather important to keep wikibios distinct from résumés. In an encyclopedic survey of an academic life, an overall survey of activity is wanted rather than presentist demonstration of research activity. (I also think cut-and-paste lists of works by academics often need pruning if they are not to unbalance an article.) Dsp13 ( talk) 10:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply

The contributors to this talk page seem to have some strong views about bibliographies on wikipedia so I thought I'd ask my questions here. Among the views on this page I find some agreement with my own view that in some cases very long bibliographies should be moved into a separate stand-alone articles. I feel that they are useful sources of information for people looking for thorough, detailed references on a topic that don't clutter up the main article page.

During my time on wikipedia, however, I've come across other users who feel very strongly the opposite way on this - they feel that stand-alone bibliographies are "unencyclopedic" and should be merged into "Further reading" sections in other articles. My most recent encounter was with User:Cybercobra who hacked apart a bibliography I'd been working on and spread the entries across a variety of different articles. To appease them I merged the bibliography into the main article but looking at their " To do" list it seems they're intent on doing a similar job on a host of other bibliographies. I feel I should warn other people that this might happen and also to ask the following question:

Are there any "official" guidelines about stand-alone bibliographies or is it a case-by-case basis where every stand-alone bibliography has to fight to survive? StevenJohnston ( talk) 15:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC) reply

There is consensus at WP:WikiProject Pornography‎ that porn star articles shouldn't include full filmographies, yet MOS:WORKS states "Complete lists of works, appropriately sourced to reliable scholarship (WP:V), are encouraged". Should porn stars be made an exception to this, or is WikiProject Pornography‎ wrong to discourage the inclusion of full filmographies? Epbr123 ( talk) 14:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Personally I think the wikiproject is wrong. If you have a filmography in the first place, then I prefer a full one over a selected one. Also, despite the criteria I just read on the project's page I think it goes against NPOV to say which film should be listed and which film should not. Garion96 (talk) 15:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I don't think an encyclopedia would intentionally limit a list of works in an article about a creative artist or a performer, except for space considerations. Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, for example, includes complete lists of works for even some lower-tier composers. Not all composers have complete lists-- presumably because it's a print encyclopedia with limited space. (This may have changed with the move to online access-- I don't know.) With Wikipedia being neither paper nor censored, I see no reason to put an arbitrary limitation of six on these filmographies. Also, I agree with Garion96 that NPOV issues are involved. Who says which six are to be listed? Dekkappai ( talk) 17:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply

IMO, porn star filmographies shouldn't be listed except for those films that are significant or notable. So many actors have been in a number of series titles (e.g. Cum Dumpster #1, Cum Dumpster #4, etc.). To the average reader, these are simply trivia. It's cruft. Additionally, there's the question of whether we should list only original films or should we list compilations as well that were cheaply put together by the production company without any original material (e.g. Best of Cum Dumpsters #1-10). Dismas| ^(talk) 14:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC) reply

All I'm seeing above is "I don't like it." All articles and statistics on sports figures are pure trivia and "cruft" as far as I'm concerned, but I would expect an encyclopedic article on the subjects to include this information-- not that I'm ever going to even look at it, much less read it. Sure, a lot of people sneer at the subject area of pornography-- and you've done a good job above-- but performer's list of works is an integral part of any biography of them. If we're going to cover the subject area, we should write encyclopedic articles on them. Unless you are proposing that all filmographies should be limited to four or five works, you are advocating censorship which is against policy. Dekkappai ( talk) 16:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Are their any established guides for listing television episodes? (In particular, for a short series of no more than eight episodes.) 82.15.17.129 ( talk) 11:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC) reply

See Category:Lists of television series episodes and Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Episode coverage. HTH. -- Quiddity ( talk) 18:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC) reply

IMO, episode counts should be completely eliminated from filmographies. We are not IMDb and listing of episode counts is largely trivial except to die hard fans of an actor or show. Furthermore, episode counts of shows in current production require daily/weekly/monthly maintenance. All that maintenance leads to inaccuracies. If the counts are to be included, do we count those episodes where a dead character appears in a flashback using old footage? Dismas| ^(talk) 14:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Full description of a performer's body of work is encyclopedic: "comprehending a wide variety of information; comprehensive" Dekkappai ( talk) 17:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi. There has been a lengthy RfC concerning the presentation of filmographies at:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Filmography RFC

I would have pinged this page during the now-closed discussion, had I been aware of it. There is ongoing discussion at:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Implementation discussion

The core issues addressed are font-size (in tables), bulleted list or a table (when to use what), template use (vs. hard-coded styling), and color.

Xenobot will be taking a pass across the pages to deal with a lot of this.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply

There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB ( talk) 20:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC) reply

I have hunted around the place and can't see a guideline, but I believe that 'works' refers to whole books, albums, anthologies etc and should not list individual articles, short stories or poems. It would not be possible or desirable to list every article a journalist has written or every poem a poet has published. There are certain 19th century poets' articles I have seen that attempt to list their every individual work. I would hope to curtail them to volumes published. Your thoughts and/or MOS links welcome. Ta. Span ( talk) 03:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure about MOS links, but for poems and books I can provide a few examples from one perspective: See Wikipedia:Featured lists#Literature and theatre for a few bibliographies that include exhaustive listings. I would guess similar lists can be found in Wikipedia:Featured lists#Music, but I'm not particularly familiar with any of them.

A list of articles by a journalist would be a somewhat different matter. It would probably boil down to whether a RS listing could be found. I.E. The works by Edgar Allen Poe have been collated elsewhere previously, but the articles written by small-town-editor/writer-X are only being collated by himself (and his mother). Or something along those lines ;)

The only general MOS-sy recommendation I can think of, is to spin out the list from the main article when it gets too large (per WP:SUMMARY). HTH. -- Quiddity ( talk) 18:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your pointers. Span ( talk) 03:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC) reply

i would agree that anthologies for someone like E. E. Cummings would be overkill, however for Major Jackson, or Larissa Szporluk, or Nicholas Christopher, the only example of the poets work may be the anthology in the local library (or google books online). Accotink2 talk 16:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi again, Accotink2. I would note that all of these three poets have substantial collections behind them, which are listed. Span ( talk) 17:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC) reply

I have created a proposed guideline specific to scientists and academics, here. It's possible that it should be merged here or that it should remain as a daughter guideline. In any case, community discussion is highly sought after and appreciated. Basket of Puppies 05:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC) reply

It would appear this is unresolved. Either this article should be amended to make it clear scientists are not excluded, or a separate guidance should be provided. I note the above editor has left WP. -- Michael Goodyear ( talk) 16:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Editors may be interested in this RFC, along with the discussion of its implementation:

Should all subsidiary pages of the Manual of Style be made subpages of WP:MOS?

It's big; and it promises huge improvements. Great if everyone can be involved. Noetica ^Tea? 00:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC) reply

In the case of lists of works by instrumentation, are there any rules as to how such lists should be ordered? -- Toccata quarta ( talk) 06:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC) reply

I would like to propose long lists of works be put into collapsible tables, as they in some cases can become so bloated that navigating the articles containing them is daunting. I give the proposal in more detail here. 134.71.140.129 ( talk) 07:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi. I'm interested in the Discography section of this guideline. The current wording of the guideline that interest me is "Vital information is the title and year; label and notes are optional." This is fine wording, but I've been hearing from an editor that it's good reason to exclude said optional information from a discography merely because it states here that it is not required. I think that (in particular) record label information is quite important, especially for musical artists which do not have separate discography pages, and while I think the recommendation here is fine for an article about a group or musician with a separate discog article, such an interpretation could be restrictive for shorter articles. I'd like to try and bring this guideline into harmony with the wording at Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Article guidelines#Discography section, which states:

"The discography section of the musician's primary article should also provide a summary of the musician's major works. In most cases this is done using a simple list of their studio albums, leaving a complete listing of releases to the discography article. For example:

• Mariah Carey (1990)

...For artists without separate discography pages, relevant discographical information, such as record labels, date(s) of release, chart positions, and sales certifications, may be included in the discography section. The use of a table may be advisable to keep the information readable and organized."

The latter sentences were a wording I advocated for, and I think something a bit more robust might be helpful here, as well, in encouraging discographies to be more fleshed out while still well-organized. Chubbles ( talk) 15:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Not particularly concerned or surprised that there were no responses to this; the editor I referred to was blocked for editwarring and sockpuppeteering, and no one rose to defend his more restrictive style of presentation in discussion. In other matters, would there be any objections to my offering a few other style suggestions, or changing the existing ones? The suggestions from Sloan (band) are well and good, but Sloan's discography doesn't look like that anymore, and I rarely see discographies formatted in the latter two ways suggested. Generally, I've been using the format Album Name (Label, Year), or Album Name Format (Label, Month/Day Year) if more information is given - e.g. Fred Astaire EP (Ginger Records, January 1, 1930), or Fred Astaire (Ginger Records, 1930). This has been a fairly common format for years, and one I've been using for several years myself on thousands of articles. I think this is slightly more streamlined and presentable than what's currently given, though I'm not strongly wedded one way or the other. Any thoughts? Chubbles ( talk) 22:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Leaving aside the format, this would mock up as:

• ''[[Title]]'' (label, year)nbsp;– notes
• Fred Astaire (Ginger Records, 1933)
• Fred Astaire II (Ginger Records, January 1, 1935)
• Fred Astaire UK (Ginger Records, 1 January 1937) - with Joseph Cotton and Jimmy Stewart

Obviously I can replace these with real album names, but maybe using a dummy album title will avoid pegging the style to a changing article. Chubbles ( talk) 23:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Updating the examples, to use the layout/format that is currently preferred in Featured Lists/Articles, would be great. Please do! -- Quiddity ( talk) 01:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Added a few things. First, changed the formatting but kept the Sloan examples instead of the fake ones proposed above; less of a shock. Also changed the wording a bit to make it clearer that these are suggestions for good practice, rather than requirements. Added some verbiage directly from other pages - the first two bits are lifted verbatim from Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Article guidelines, about when to split off a new discography, and what is good to include in a discography not split off. The last bit is paraphrased from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Discographies/style#Ignore_all_rules, about the format following from the needs of the article rather than the other way around. Chubbles ( talk) 07:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Looks good, and the explanation of sources is appreciated. -- Quiddity ( talk) 06:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Given that we've had Title (year), Label here for years, I don't see the advantage in changing this to Title (Label, year). We will just get inconsistency between older and newer articles, and there's no real consensus for changing a long-standing style guideline. -- Michig ( talk) 11:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC) reply

I never really saw that format standardized anywhere except on pages that already had separate discographies, where people seemed to want as little information as possible presented on the artist page and most of it moved to the discography page. Since discographies vary so much, there wasn't really a standard format (or a desire for one, for that matter, so far as I could tell). I felt mostly forced into these proceedings by a discography troll who ended up being banned for sockpuppetry. The main advantage to this format, I think, is that it makes clear the case for notability per WP:MUSIC bullet 5. Lots of articles get A7'ed even though they meet this requirement, simply because it is not made clear in the discography that the artist meets this criterion, and so as a practical matter I always preferred that format. In any case, I support the inclusion of more information in discographies simply as being user-friendly; that's where I go to find information (I almost never read prose sections of biographies, even though I write them frequently for others). Chubbles ( talk) 14:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC) reply

but we already had a 'standard' format of 'Title (year), label' that many have followed for years - all of the articles that I have created have used this format, basically because I referred to the manual of style to see how they should be formatted. I agree totally that labels should be included, particularly as it highlights that in many cases an artist satisfies the notability criteria, but I don't see how having the label in brackets before the year is better than having it after the year, which is what we had before. A couple of people discussing this isn't really going to provide sufficient consensus to change a style guideline that has stood for several years. -- Michig ( talk) 15:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Six years, in fact. -- Michig ( talk) 15:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC) reply

I looked for a consensus, actually, and couldn't really find one, at least not here. It looks like the page was just formulated and this became the format because it was how it was written by the original author. To be honest with you, it doesn't matter to me at all where the label is placed, and nothing in this guideline prevents people from putting it before rather than after; certainly there's no reason to change every page, and given how varied discographies are, I don't really see a need to standardize the format in the first place. This is really just a suggestion, right? Chubbles ( talk) 16:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC) reply

I'd be fine with reverting to the prior/original version, with our examples placing label after the year.

(Personally, I'm irritated by most mentions of "publisher" or "distributor" or "label". It's a useful additional context in some cases (eg. "oh, this book is from a vanity-press publishing house, sigh", or "huh, an album distributed by Puffin Books, nifty"), but is often irrelevant. The name of the editor that an author worked with (in a publishing house), or the name of the sound board technicians (that a band worked with in a studio provided by the label) would often be more informative. It all boils down to Completism (include everything) vs Selectivism (only include the highly-pertinent details), and "label" or "publisher" is just the easy/cheap answer. muttermutterrant ;) — Quiddity ( talk) 20:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Well, record labels work much differently than book publishers do in terms of distribution and cultural impact, so I'd try and discourage thinking of them in similar terms. Certainly, I'd like to see bands associated more in terms of, say, common producers, but that's a lot rarer in the literature than label association (though common in promotional blurbs). Well, Michig wrote a few thousand articles one way, and I wrote a few thousand articles another way, and we're only two people who have probably written .000000001% of all band articles. I have no intention of going through and standardizing my own articles, and I'd consider a fool anyone who did that for either of our articles (it would be an incredible waste of resources on information that, in either case, is already well-organized and presented). So I guess I'm arguing it doesn't matter to me how this page reads, as long as it doesn't result in some puritanical streamlining campaign. Chubbles ( talk) 23:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC) reply

I've replaced the other style, in addition to the your preferred style, so hopefully that covers the meat of the matter, and prevents future quibbles.

Re: labels, just out of personal curiosity, could you link me to something, or give a super-condensed explanation (I happily extrapolate bullet points :) for how labels are different from publishers? They both handle PR (sending out review copies, organizing book/band tours), design work (cover art), technical assistance (editors/advisors, studio/producers), distribution, and legal hoopjumping. All of which will vary considerably based on the size of the company, and what the musicians/author can provide for themselves. (Semi-relatedly to film studios [or executive producers, aka the bankrollers] which we don't usually mention in filmographies). What aspects am I overlooking/forgetting? — Quiddity ( talk) 01:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Well, functionally, in the broadest sense, they do the same things, especially at the major-label level in the past couple of decades (EMI, Sony BMG, and Warner are your Random House/Penguin/what-have-you), but independent labels often carve out niches that are very important culturally in terms of what styles, genres, and subcultures they are associated with. People seek out music by label, and expect certain sounds or subcultural signifiers, in terms of labels more than they do with books (this may be closer to some boutique publishers like McSweeney's, or even specialized genre publishers in scifi, harlequin romance, theological fiction, and such). Review sites review by label, and associate the music critically, more than with books, at least so far as I am aware (while I read a moderate number of book reviews, I'm not as familiar with them as I am music reviews). Chubbles ( talk) 05:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Ah, ok. That's where I thought you might be headed. Eg. I'm happy to sample most anything from Thrill Jockey, Ninja Tune, Matador Records, etc. And yes, similarly, will follow certain publishers, like Phaidon, Taschen, Fantagraphics Books, etc. Film studios aren't quite in the same ballpark, but I guess entities like Fox Searchlight Pictures could be considered semi-equivalent - it's a form of demographic indicator, so I guess "entry in a particular film festival" might also be equivalent. Anyway, thanks for the reply :) — Quiddity ( talk) 07:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Consistency is certainly something we should aim for, and the fact that we have not yet achieved it is not, in my view, a reason not to try. From the reader's point of view, moving from one article to another, having discographies in a consistent format is likely to aid their understanding compared to finding a different format at every article. My preference would be (for discographies within an artist article at least) to have one recommended plain list format and one recommended table format, but I would agree that there are better ways to use our time than trying to change all of the existing articles. -- Michig ( talk) 17:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Well, I kinda feel like I got dragged here in the first place, and the reason I got dragged here is now an SPI case rather than a real editing issue, so I'm happy to bow out and let others take the reins on the final wording here. Chubbles ( talk) 22:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Every time I look at the page of an actor, director or writer (film or TV), I see a different formatting. Sometimes TV and movies are kept together (like on IMDb), sometimes they are two separate categories. Works can be put into a table format or listed (I've even seen colored tables). Oldest>Newest, Newest>Oldest, there doesn't seem to be a set standard. While I'm not all about the rules, it's hard to know which entries to tidy up when I'm not sure which format of the various ones I'm seeing is the best or correct one.

It's also a problem with some musicians and their discography but it seems to be more of an issue with filmographies. 69.125.134.86 ( talk) 23:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC) reply

This section seems to be based on literary works or the visual arts, rather than music. In the music world, catalogue and opus numbers are used to order works. (Dating can often be problematic.) Can we amend this section to reflect this? Klein zach 03:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Absolutely. I gave the page a complete overhaul in late 2006, mostly just making it match our guidance elsewhere (that I could find) and our actual in-use practices (based on FAs/FLs that I looked at). I.e. It follows the old dictum of "Descriptive, not prescriptive". My overhaul was instigated by discovering far too many bibliographies/discographies/filmographies that were in reverse-chronological order (usually copied from amazon/allmusic/IMDB, who have an understandable bias towards recent products).

Please do update it, to include missing information, or to correct outdated information. The shorter the better. – Quiddity ( talk) 19:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC) reply

I've added a sentence. Looking at other sections, it seems we could add examples of music list. These are complex pages, typically sortable tables, something that is not mentioned here. I'll try to come back to this. -- Klein zach 02:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Under "Bibliographies", Could we get an example in "Books in languages other than English" of how an untranslated book should be formatted? The example only gives three books that have been translated, while the guideline says, "Add an English translation of the title where helpful", but with no example how to format it. It seems to me "English translation:" would imply a translation is available. Curly Turkey ( gobble) 21:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC) reply

The only example I can think of immediately (having written most of it) is Italo Calvino#Selected bibliography, but I'm not sure if that's a good example...

When in doubt, look at the Featured examples! Would something out of Wikipedia:Featured lists#Literature and theatre fit what you're looking for? Add freely to this page, it does need love and work (but avoid instruction-creep - simplicity is good). :) – Quiddity ( talk) 05:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Thanks for that, but I was looking for something that was not in a table. I'll look around at some FAs. Thanks again! Curly Turkey ( gobble) 06:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC) reply

I have a similar question regarding books/sources written in Japanese with no official English titles so I am adding it here instead of creating a new section. As pointed out above by Curly Turkey, adding an English translation is apparently OK where doing so would be helpful. I can translate the titles of the books, etc. I am interested in using as sources, but that would be my translation. Another Japanese-speaking editor may prefer a different choice of words. Would a personal translation be considered WP:OR? WP:TRANSCRIPTION seems to say no, but says refer to WP:NONENG for citations which says that translations by Wikipedians are acceptable for quotes, but mentions nothing about translations of the titles of cited sources. Is it simply preferable to leave the "trans_title" parameter in WP:citation templates empty when no official translation exists? In my opinion, an unofficial translation would be helpful for non Japanese-speaking readers, but it might also be mistaken as being "official" when it is nothing of the sort. If anybody is aware of any specific policy, guideline or discussion that covers this particular matter, then please let me know. The closest I could find was MOS:J#Titles of media, but it discusses something other than translations. Anyway, thanks in advance. - Marchjuly ( talk) 05:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply

It seems there are style guides for literary, audio, and video works, but none for a large number of media in the visual arts including painting or drawing. Some artists have separate articles for lists of their works such as in these pages, but a majority have none listed or only a few mentioned in their article. An encyclopedic article on an artist should list his works as thoroughly as it does any director or musician. Many pages include galleries and I understand the fair use limitations for displaying an artist's works, however much as bibliographies and filmographies don't display the works they list, I don't see why an iconography needs to display the art it lists. I think this would be very helpful, especially for historical artists with works that have entered public domain. JonRudnick ( talk) 23:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC) reply

I'm surprised to find this line here: "Lists of published works should be included for authors, illustrators, photographers and other artists. The individual items in the list do not have to be sufficiently notable to merit their own separate articles."

So if a baseball player wrote a couple articles for his/her college newspaper, include them? Turn every academic's article into a 10-page CV? This does not jibe with the rest of my experience on Wikipedia. I was brought here through a discussion over at Abby Martin (journalist) in which someone has added a list of "Selected work" including not just the TV roles that make her notable, but also a documentary she appeared in, articles in edited collections, and even a section "Artwork" to list a film poster she designed. Since she did these things, she's technically an author, illustrator, etc. and this line seems to back this kind of WP:UNDUE detail. Is there a reason this is so unlimited? --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  13:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC) reply

How do you recommend handling lists of works that are part of a numbered series where the number is a half number? See Carolyn_Crane#Bibliography for an example. They're numbered, but the spacing doesn't nicely match up with the other numbered list. Thank you for any assistance! plange ( talk) 15:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC) reply

@ Plange: I don't think there's a technically accurate way to do this (per no pertinent information at MOS:NUMLIST). It's probably best to just add ":" before each line. I've done so at Carolyn_Crane#Bibliography. It isn't ideal, but is hopefully a bit clearer than it was with the <br>s. Quiddity ( talk) 02:40, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Individual works by academics are normally not notable by itself, yet their subject matters usually are. Is there any common opinion on if is is a good idea to wikify lists of publications by linking the keywords of their titles? As in e.g. this diff. -- Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 10:23, 10 June 2015 (UTC) reply

I appreciate Wikipedia's intent observation of copyright aspects very much (though sometimes they cause more work) but please extend the concept of author to include translators as well (who in fact are the authors of the target language text, all the more so in the case of literature) -- and therefore please change the instruction to mention "English translation" to say something like "English translation by XY", maybe with an addendum that the former variant is appropriate when no name is given (known). As you may have guessed, I am a literature translator. -- WernR ( talk) 16:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC) reply

If a person has published a single book, e.g. their autobiography, does this warrant a section on "Books", or should it be added to "Further reading" or should it just be mentioned in the text with a reference? I can't find any firm guideline. Thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 14:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC) reply

I know this is not usual, but I think I've seen articles, where, some of the books/works in the "Bibliography" section were followed by a reference. My question is if such exceptions exist and if they are acceptable. Thanks —  Ark25  ( talk) 14:23, 23 November 2016 (UTC) reply

The way discography formatting is now, it's "Title (year)" but I always see "Year: title". It looks a little neater. I wonder if we should change it? -- Jennica✿ / ^talk 11:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Hi, So apparently having been on here for 5 years I've only just found out for singles etc Years apparently go after Titles - Wouldn't it make sense to change this back so it coincides with the Filmography table ?

It also seems silly to have Title before Year - The year column just looks out of place..... – Davey2010 ^Talk 21:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Hello, I see that Filmographies recommends a non-breaking space (nbsp) before the hyphen for lines that have notes:

• ''[[Title]]'' (year), role&nbsp;– notes

The Discographies section seems to use regular spaces for lines that have notes.

If both sections appear in an article, should I use non-breaking spaces for both Filmography and Discography sections to keep them consistent? Or is each intentionally different?

Thanks! -- Culix ( talk) 06:00, 18 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Yes, but that shouldn't be a hyphen, it should be an en dash, per MOS:DASH.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Aha! Thank you. I will fix both. -- Culix ( talk) 12:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC) reply

I've been looking around and I can't seem to find any guideline on lists of works for scientists. As seen on Helene Langevin , it's possible for almost any scientist to have a huge list of peer reviewed publications, but I'd argue that they probably don't constitute "works" as intended by this guideline. Articles on more prominent scientists don't seem to contain anything similar (usually mostly limiting themselves to actual books), possibly because they are scientific papers rather than artistic works, but it might be good to have some actual guidance to that effect somewhere rather than having to rely on individual page consensus on a case by case basis. -- tronvillain ( talk) 20:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC) reply

tronvillain: Has this actually been a contentious issue? I've been tweaking scientific biographies (geologists), and I think a lot of the most important work of scientists is in peer-reviewed articles (the books are often summaries of the articles, or books for a popular audience, or textbooks, not the ground-breaking work). I apologize if this is an issue, because I actually just changed this section to explicitly reference articles, just thinking it was something that had been overlooked, not an explicit decision. Finney1234 ( talk) 16:03, 2 October 2019 (UTC) reply

I will add that it is true that a *complete* list of articles by a significant scientist would be overwhelming, so perhaps there does need to be some adjustment. My own personal approach (not having read this page in detail before) is to create a "Selected Publications" page for a scientist and include their most significant articles (a judgment call, obviously), which I think is a good approach, but is not in line with "complete". Finney1234 ( talk) 16:11, 2 October 2019 (UTC) reply

More and more, performers (actors, directors, etc...) are either guest starring, appearing, or actually starring or creating podcasts. Are there any MOS guidelines on how they should be listed?--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 01:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Before we discuss how they should be listed, perhaps we should discuss whether they should be listed (or not). Blueboar ( talk) 17:38, 3 February 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Esprit15d: Short version: the medium is irrelevant. However, the question is unclear, so there are multiple possible longer answers.:

• Do you mean, how should the titles of podcasts be styled? See MOS:TITLES; podcasts are not magically different because they're on the Internet; they have essentially the same the character as a radio show or TV talk show, so they'd be styled the same, in italics, with specific episode or segment titles in quotation marks.
• If you mean, how should people be listed, credits-wise, with regard to such productions, again they are not strangely apart from the rest of humanity's works, and would be treated exactly as in crediting a TV show, documentary film, or other production.
• If you mean, in lists of a notable subject's works (or in-prose coverage of them), should their podcast(s) be included, then the answer is (again) not different for this than for anything else: if reliable sources address the work, then include it, but if we can't find any RS that talk about it, then it's unencyclopedic trivia – just like any bio subject's books, or film appearances, or published editorials and articles and essay, songs and albums released, etc., etc., etc. E.g., you will not find that Steve Buscemi's article here mentions the then-young actor's appearance in an MTV short film (in which he delivers a monologue of pick-up lines all drawn from song lyrics), because RS do not with any frequency mention it much less go into detail about it, no matter how memorable it might be to some TV viewers. By contrast, the Dave Winer article has entire sections on various of his early blogging and podcasting projects, since they're socially significant (at least within the context of online media history), deeply entwined with his notability, and frequently covered by RS.

In short, there is no universal "always/never include" rule to found, about this or about any type or medium of publication/production. If something's included, treat it consistently with other publications regardless of its format or it method of distribution.
 —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:01, 9 February 2019 (UTC) reply

The guideline says: "Basic lists are used in the majority of articles, e.g. Henry James or The Illuminatus! Trilogy or The KLF." Personally, I don't find the links to the latter articles particularly clear -- would it make sense to link directly to the applicable section, e.g. The KLF#Discography, if that's what the reader is being directed to? NE Ent 14:57, 3 February 2019 (UTC) reply

@ NE Ent: Yes, that would clearly be helpful (and would help identify examples that need to be replace eventually, e.g. if the section in broken out into a side article and is no longer where were said it was).  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC) reply

I'm pleased to see that "Items should normally be listed in chronological order of production, earliest first." Chronologically is much more useful than alphabetically.

However it's more helpful to put items in reverse chronological order, most recent first. Other things being equal, a user will want most the latest, not the earliest information. deisenbe ( talk) 14:06, 25 February 2019 (UTC) reply

Well, except in a biography, where it is often more useful to have the publications list mirror the chronological development of the biographical subject. Finney1234 ( talk) 14:19, 16 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Greetings! There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies#When are citations needed within the discography?

Your contributions would be highly welcome! Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya ( talk) 16:14, 17 June 2019 (UTC) reply

I would like to edit the title of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists_of_works#Bibliographies to "Publications/Bibliographies". "Publications" appears to be a more common use in Biographies, and it would be nice for the information in this section to be more accessible to people researching "Publications" sections. Any objections? Finney1234 ( talk) 14:17, 16 August 2019 (UTC) reply

This page currently recommends Complete lists of works, appropriately sourced to reliable scholarship (WP:V), are encouraged, particularly when such lists are not already freely available on the internet. Doesn't this conflict with WP:NOTDIR/ WP:NOTCV? I have seen articles where editors try to compile a list of articles a journalist has written or all articles written by an academic, and to me this wording encourages that behavior even when (as you can guess) the result resembles a CV. b uidh e 04:14, 25 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Couldn't find any earlier discussion of this: Should television films be listed in a filmography's section for Television, Film, or both?

i imagine many actor articles have this problem; the one that inspired me to come here was David_Keith#Filmography, which includes both David_Keith#Film and David_Keith#Television, with quite a few Television movies listed under the latter but not the former. While redundancy is redundant, i feel like listing TV films in both places is the only way not to have at least one of the lists incomplete.

Maybe a dedicated section for TV films, with both of the existing sections saying "See also: [[#Television films]]"?

-- 96.244.220.178 ( talk) 08:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC) reply

I came to MOS:WORKS to learn how to format a list of works in an article and I still do not know what is right after having read this page. Please allow me some comments.

(1) The first thing I learned (top of the talk page) is that I expose myself to discretionary sanctions by writing here. Sanctions might be needed to protect the MOS against wanton edits, but I feel that even novices like me should be allowed to discuss the MOS on the talk page without being threatened with disciplinary action.

(2). The lead is too short. I first thought the page discusses how to write the section called "Works", which is one of the standard sections of an article (MOS:LAYOUT), but then I realised that the subject is wider and tries to give rules for all lists of works whether they be stand-alone pages or embedded in articles, such as the Works section or Bibliography section.

(3) The section called "Basic list style - examples" seems to be a misnomer. There is no corresponding section "Advanced list style" and the section is not mainly about examples.

(4) The essential formatting instruction seems to be: "The standard form is: 'Place: Publisher, Year'". This statement is hidden away in a parenthesis in the middle of the section "Books in English". It would merit to be exposed more prominently and to be explained by an example given in full. This Standard Form probably also applies to books in other languages.

(5) The section "Template" says that {{Cite Book}} may be used in lists of works, with the author-mask parameter set if it is a list of works of a single author, like in the Works section of a biography. Should this format be preferred over the Standard Form described above? If {{Cite Book}} is fine, why not also {{Citation}}? One problem with both of these is that author-mask=0 suppresses the author name but not the author link. With many thanks Johannes Schade ( talk) 15:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Johannes Schade Although your interpretation makes sense, I would think (and strongly hope) that the "sanctions" clause above refers to editing the MOS itself (an important guideline that shouldn't be trashed), not the talk page. It is ambiguous.

In much of Wikipedia, there is a fair amount of flexibility in how things are done; that is, there is not a single sanctioned format. Looking at various articles that have been given the official classification of "good article" would provide you with a guideline for some acceptable ways to make a list of works. And when editing an existing article, it is probably best to follow the existing format (there's probably a supporting citation for that claim, but I'm not going to look for it). It is also the case that guidelines for something are often spread over multiple sections or documents.

I have made some small changes to the MOS (related to the use of external links in "Lists of Works"), but it was either based on guidelines documented elsewhere, or on a solicitation of consensus ( Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment). On the other, clarification of something in the MOS that is unclear (without changing meaning) probably doesn't require that (although, based on personal experience, I'd tread carefully as a newbie, because sometimes long-timers may jump on you). Finney1234 ( talk) 16:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Johannes Schade I actually haven't looked at the text you're referring to, but if you think the content could be clarified (e.g., your description of the "essential formatting instruction" being hidden), one option is to post your suggested changes here and ask if anyone objects (as I did above a few items above at "Bibliography/Publications"), and then do the change in a week or so. This is *not* an official suggestion, but strikes me as a reasonable approach. Things in Wikipedia only get fixed if someone cares about them, and sometimes someone new has a better perspective than someone who's been around for years. Finney1234 ( talk) 14:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC) reply

The page started with a simple and logic structure: Discography, Filmography and Bibliography and then developed into something much less coherent and understandable - This seems to become a dialogue and should perhaps stop here. Johannes Schade ( talk) 12:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Hello, if anyone has a few spare moments, I think we are close to concluding on how to handle a television filmography on the article on Ishirō Honda. If anyone could weigh in with discussion on it here, it would be greatly appreciated. :) Andrzejbanas ( talk) 19:23, 20 July 2020 (UTC) reply

There is an active discussion about a WP:NOTBIBLOGRAPHY redirect that was added to WP:NOT that really doesn't fit there, but better suited on this page, though this should apply to the types of writers that produce volumes of works that we don't normally document in full: that being mostly journalists (particularly those that specialize in a weekly long-form style article) and academics that may have hundreds of papers to their names. Normally we only include selected articles that have gained attention as a representative bibliography here, but this type of advice is not really reflected on this page (it speaks directly to those we do document in full, the more creative work types, but not these), and I would suggest some type of advice related to these types of bibliographies here. -- Masem ( t) 17:01, 27 September 2020 (UTC) reply

With a revised edition with or without a new preface or foreword, do I list publication information for the original as well as the new edition?

If there have been several editions with the latest not being as significant as, say, a 30th anniversary edition with another edition coming later, do I only list the original and the anniversary edition?

What should I do when there's a later edition with the original no longer in print: do I list both ISBNs; do I list publishing information for each edition?

Bottom line concern--if this is standard practice: I'm wanting to keep the list in chronological order by original publication date so people can easily see which works came first. -- PaulThePony ( talk) 04:42, 4 January 2021 (UTC) reply

@ PaulThePony, we usually list only the first edition for books. Other editions are normally listed instead of (not in addition to) the first edition if editors haven't been able to find the information for the first edition yet. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 21:17, 17 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Thank you for that clarification, WhatamIdoing. I appreciate it. -- PaulThePony ( talk) 20:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC) reply

You're welcome. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 21:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies has an RFC for a possible alternative format for singles discography tables. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Heartfox ( talk) 01:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC) reply

See current discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Recordings lists in articles on individual compositions, which may affect the guidance given here (please discuss there, not here). -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 12:45, 25 March 2021 (UTC) reply

What is our threshold for inclusion of self-released albums? I assumed a discography should not include items that are non-notable self-published releases. Apparently this is incorrect? But are we allowing an independent artist's Spotify release schedule as a reliable source for discography entries? Is an album self-released on a digital streaming platform a "publication" proper? It's self-published yes, but are these items worth listing in a discography? An example is Andrew Huang. If yes, are we not lower the bar here for discography inclusions? Acous mana 09:10, 15 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• A discography should include an artist's releases, self-published or not. Per WP:NNC, the notability status of a release is not the threshold of inclusion in an artist's discography - if the artist is notable, we should provide a full discography (albums, EPs, and singles) as basic encyclopedic content. A Spotify entry is not ideal sourcing, but it is permissible per WP:SELFSOURCE when there is no physical release to refer to. A physical release is a publication, and does not need its own independent sourcing, any more than a book needs an independent source for its own bibliographic data. If a release is Spotify-only (or Bandcamp-only, etc.), then that is a publication, as well. Chubbles ( talk) 02:38, 16 July 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Chubbles: "A physical release is a publication, and does not need its own independent sourcing": OK, but to clarify, it still needs to fulfill WP:VER? else we could have strings of fictional releases entered in our discographies, some reliable sourcing concerning the item's existence is surely required? Acous mana 13:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC) reply

"Does this album exist" is substantiated per WP:V by a physical copy of the album. (Treat it just as we would a book.) It is also substantiated by a digital download or streaming link. We rarely have to deal with people populating discographies with fictional entries; it's WP:SKYISBLUE and only needs exceptional/independent sourcing when there is a good-faith question as to existence (a recently resolved example was All Lights Fucked on the Hairy Amp Drooling). Chubbles ( talk) 02:12, 18 July 2022 (UTC) reply

NNC doesn't trump WP:NOTAWEBHOST and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Wikipedia is not a repository of everything verifiable nor is it one of the social media outlets to include things to the liking of article subject's public relations effort. Graywalls ( talk) 01:55, 12 December 2023 (UTC) reply

To respond to this in series, top to bottom:

• "Non-notable" has nothing to do with inclusion inside a broader article like a discography or the discography section of a band article; WP:Notability determines what may have its own article. Whether material should be included in an article is governed by WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE (and sometimes other parts of WP:NOT#EVERYTHING, depending on the nature of the material). The only exception is when some list that could have very broad scope, like List of veterinarians, has an explicit "notable entries only" scope criterion, per WP:LISTCRITERIA. A discography of a particular artist would pretty much never be limited in that way, since the number of possible entries is finite and short and the reader strongly expects it to be complete.
• An album being self-issued is basically irrelevant, since for many performers, early rare demos are legendary and thus the subject of encyclopedic interest, while in the modern music market, more and more material is entirely self-produced at home studios or rented studio-time with no label involvement, then self-released exclusively online through venues like Bandcamp and Spotify and YouTube, so again of encyclopedic interest. (The days when it required a commercial record label to become musically notable are long over.) And WP:SELFSOURCE in WP:RS (a copy-paste of the actual policy, WP:ABOUTSELF in WP:V, and now slated for merging) does make it clear that it applies to online self-published source material, not just works on paper or vinyl.
• Yes, an album (that is not totally lost, like one of Tim Rose's 1970s albums which was black-holed by the record label and then the masters lost) is like a book or other published work: its own primary source for what it contains. Being hard to find or costly to obtain/access is not an exception, per WP:SOURCEACCESS. (I recently cited a book that only exists in 40 copies. It is a valid citation, as the work be can accessed at various, mostly European, libraries, and once in a blue moon copies become available for sale on eBay or some other site, which is how I got it, for significant cost, but less than the cost of trans-Atlantic plane ticket, heh.)
• Graywalls's idea that WP:NCC is somehow in conflict with WP:NOTAWEBHOST and WP:NOTEVERYTHING is not sustainable, since including a self-released album in a discography (like a self-published book in an author's bibliography) is not social networking, treating WP as a game, hosting a résumé, acting as file storage, self-publishing by an editor of promotional or opinional material, being a personals ad, serving as a memorial, or hosting content unrelated to the encyclopedia. More broadly in that policy section: it is not a dictionary-style definition of something, forum or original-research material by an editor, spam, advocacy/propaganda, scandal-mongering, a mirror of off-site writing, a directory-style entry with no encyclopedic context, attempting to conduct business, serving as a textbook or guide, trying to predict the future, reporting news-style on current events, acting as a "who's who" listing of non-notable people, acting as a summary-only review, being a lyrics republication, presenting unexplained statistics, or publishing a changes log, nor censoring anything.
  In short, you need to actually read the content of a policy page and be certain of its applicability before thumping its shortcut like a bible verse. And it is entirely wrongheaded to try to pit a guideline against a policy or against another guideline to begin with; WP:P&G, WP:LAWYER, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY, WP:GAMING, and many other pages make it abundantly clear that our P&G material should always be interpreted as a working synergistic system, never a legal-system style set of hard rules that can be manipulated to find loopholes and escape clauses to produce results that are contrary to their intent or to the project's interest. (In the rare event of an actual, objectively definable conflict between two P&G pages, a WP:POLICYFORK, this needs to be raised on the talk pages of the P&G in question and resolved as soon as possible).
  Anyway, what an album's entry in a discography is doing is presenting a line-item of pertinent encyclopedic information in a list of works that would be incomplete without that citation.

 —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Authors' works lists. Welcome to join if you have something to say. 151.177.58.208 ( talk) 16:56, 18 August 2022 (UTC) reply

To: PerfectSoundWhatever
Dear colleague,
I was intrigued by your recent edit, here, because the fact that WikiProject WP:DISCOGSTYLE is currently dormant might simply result from the guideline itself being stable enough not to warrant any more discussions amongst the community of editors participating in the project. It therefore seemed strange to me to have removed the advice by which personalised discography articles "should follow the guidelines given by WikiProject Discographies", since it seems better to keep advising editors to follow that guideline than not.
However, as it is quite possible that I might be missing something subtle about the continued validity of guidelines issued by a WikiProject that has become dormant, please kindly let me know, whenever convenient. Otherwise, thank you for reconsidering your edit, on the basis of the guideline's continued usefulness, regardless of the WikiProject's dormant status resulting from the current lack of activity by its editors. Thank you.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee. ^{(talk)(become old-fashioned!)} 16:23, 11 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Hi! I assumed, based on the notice at WP:DISCOGSTYLE, that the page no longer reflects current styling consensus, because that page is listed as dormant / inactive. If this isn't the case, please revert my edit. I don't strongly believe it should be removed, it just felt misleading to point to a page that doesn't seem to still be maintained. — PerfectSoundWhatever ( t; c) 21:14, 11 November 2022 (UTC) reply

I have retargeted the shortcut to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists of works#Discographies, since it's an actual guideline not a years-dead proposal with no consensus. MOS:DISCOGSTYLE also goes to the guideline section.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC) reply

At Talk:Divya Dwivedi#Proposal for Selected works section, there is agreement to include books in a list of Selected works, but disagreement about whether to include articles, essays, and interviews that have received secondary and scholarly coverage. Additional participation is welcome and appreciated. Thank you, Beccaynr ( talk) 05:45, 20 November 2023 (UTC) reply

An edit war

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Minami_Hamabe&curid=54776267&action=history

Should director names be excluded from the filmography? I believe it's worthwhile to include information about which directors the actor has collaborated with. Please share your thoughts. -- 55go ( talk) 08:02, 7 December 2023 (UTC) reply

In lists of works, yes. That information is good in prose discussion, but in a filmography it places undue weight on the importance of the director, which implicitly creates a bias toward the theory of auteurism. It would be equally worthwhile to include information about other actors or which studios the actor has collaborated with, but that clutters filmographies in a way that makes them less useful. Director information is available on the film's article page, a mere one click away. Chubbles ( talk) 08:14, 7 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Thank you very much for your kind assistance. I will comply. -- 55go ( talk) 08:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC) reply

I tend to agree with Chubble's rationale, other than "In lists of works, yes. ... but in a filmography [no]", since a filmography is a list of works.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC) reply

I think we are actually in complete agreement; the sentence reads in shorthand, "In lists of works, yes. In prose, no, but in a filmography, yes." (responding to the question "should they be excluded?") Chubbles ( talk) 03:27, 8 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Ah, I see. Got it now.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:33, 8 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Please see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Follow-up RfC on TV season article titles.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:54, 27 December 2023 (UTC) reply

{{ Lang}} does not work on the Chapter parameter of the Cite book template. RodRabelo7 ( talk) 02:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC) reply