Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lists of works/Archive 2

On ISBNs and "latest edition"s

I wondered why there was a certain uniformity to the bizarre lists of works I kept seeing. Now I know: People are assiduously following the advice given here. I think this advice is bad.

We read (after markup-stripping):

For ISBNs, give the most likely to be available edition, i.e. current paperback. / Title (year) ISBN # - notes / e.g.: / Naked Lunch (1959) ISBN 0-8021-3295-2

Copac has one copy of this, which turns out to be the 1991 Grove Weidenfeld (NY) edition. It's an edition that predates by a full decade the "Flamingo sixties classic" (London) edition, of which Copac has more copies. The latter may be the latest British edition (I'm too lazy to check), but I'd be very surprised if it was/is legally sold in the US, where there's Naked Lunch: The Restored Text (Grove, 2004, ISBN 0802140181), a still newer Harper Perennial edition (2005, ISBN 0007204442), and perhaps more besides.

"Current paperback" is an odd interpretation of "the most likely to be available edition" if you're looking in a library catalogue. If you're looking in an online bookstore, you must tackle the built-in obsolescence of this guideline -- and a hidden built-in obsolescence, too; as the "year" is that of the original edition, not the "latest" paperback. (I only found out that 0-8021-3295-2 is far from the latest edition by searching for it and finding this out for myself.)

Where you have a book that has come out in multiple editions that don't vary substantially -- and, not being a Burroughs fan, I don't know offhand if the "restoration" is significant -- then I suggest that the editor should normally skip the publication details of any edition. I mean, if I want to get hold of a copy of Zuleika Dobson, I can just type "zuleika dobson" into an OPAC or dealer's website and see what pops up.

If on the other hand it's hard to search for the book -- e.g. because its title is not in roman script; or the same author used the same title for very different books (there are at least two very different books by Tadahiko Hayashi titled Kasutori no jidai) -- and providing full publication details may avoid confusion, then give full publication details, ISBN included.

And of course give full publication details of any edition used for one or more citations that specify page number(s), as pagination may well vary among editions.

Here is an example of my way of doing it. The result is pretty informative (I hope), but (I hope) sensibly so. -- Hoary 08:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Understood. You're welcome to update the guideline however would be appropriate. Simplicity and consistency are my main goals (here and everywhere). --Quiddity 18:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll work on this, and shall post a draft here on the talk page before putting it in the page itself.

I'll keep it simple at first by only dealing with books that were written and first published in English -- though it really does seem to me that these are generally so unproblematic as hardly to need any advice; it's the "foreign" stuff that brings nightmares. -- Hoary 04:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Right then, here's a first sketch. It's dreadfully long, I realize. Comments, suggestions? -- Hoary 06:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Great stuff! Only suggestions would be to split the subsections apart with subheaders; One for foreign language details, one for ISBN. Also add a {{main|Wikipedia:ISBN}} to the ISBN section.

If you have the time/inclination, feel free to overhaul filmographies and discographies too. :) --Quiddity 19:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, prolix and disorganized stuff. I'll think it over and revisit it later today. And really, I'd rather put my limited energy into getting this right than also start thinking about discographies etc (about which I don't know that much). -- Hoary 23:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's a second attempt. I'll fiddle with it further a bit later today. -- Hoary 00:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I fiddled with it further. Flaws probably remain, but I'm certain that the year-title-ISBN advice is bad, and that a flawed replacement for this is an improvement, so I stuck it in (and deleted the draft from here). -- Hoary 04:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

i'm a bit confused with the bibliography section listing the example formats. they don't seem to conform with mla , apa, cms, or template:cite book formatting styles. --emerson7 | Talk 16:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

and neither does your capitalization, chum [smiley]

I don't suppose that they could conform with any of the first three, for this or that reason (e.g. because they may include ISBNs, surely not provided for, or possibly even advised/ruled against, by the style guides.

I have a deep dislike of the MLA book (as it was the last time I bothered to look at it) -- aside from its excellent section on plagiarism, which should be read and studied by many more editors here. I'm delighted to break its (plagiarism-unrelated) rules.

Specific style guides aside, let's look at likely "style" problems in the examples.

• Beerbohm list: Unproblematic, I think.
• Glashan list: Puts the author after the title. Well, this is a list of books illustrated by Glashan; it seems a commonsensical arrangement to me.
• Baker list (elaborate): Skips place and inverts publisher and year. Yes, bad. More importantly, the entire example is bad. Can you come up with a "real life" (actually appearing in en:WP) example where multiple editions, complete with ISBNs, are usefully provided?
• Baker list (simplified): Same as Beerbohm list.
• Nabokov list: I imagine that the style guides rule against non-roman scripts, Well, that's their failing. Otherwise, I don't suppose that this accords with style guides because it doesn't try to be a conventional bibliography. Irrelevancies: (i) Some guides and writers would say that "(Подвиг (Deed))" should instead be "(Подвиг [Deed])". (ii) "English translation: Despair (1937, 1966)" looks a bit odd: if it's one translation, why two years? If two identically titled translations, why "translation", singular?
• Stoškus item: Won't accord with the style guides as the author's name is missing. The book has a single [main] title and two alternative subtitles, one in Lithuanian and the other in English. I thought that Vilnius: Senamiesčio fotografijos / Photographs of the Old Town would be easy to understand and less laborious/condescending than Vilnius: Senamiesčio fotografijos / Vilnius: Photographs of the Old Town, but I might have misjudged this. I also don't know about the use of the slash; presumably the style books don't go in for this; but something like "Lithuanian title: Vilnius: Senamiesčio fotografijos; English title: Vilnius: Photographs of the Old Town" would be ghastly, I think. And if the use of the slash is good, perhaps it would benefit from an explanation.
• Jumonji item: There's the non-roman issue and the slash–alternative issue; see Nabokov and Stoškus above respectively. (There's also the small issue of whether 『』 are helpful; when the title is surrounded by roman text, as here, I now tend to think that they aren't, that they merely clutter.)

The Baker example (rather than its mere formatting) aside, where's the beef?

I'm certainly open to objections to this lengthy replacement. Meanwhile, I'm certain that even in its current dodgy state it's better than its ISBN-emphasizing predecessor, whose baleful influence can be seen all over the place, e.g. Richard Dawkins, whose every book comes with a single ISBN, probably misleading in one English-language book market or other (US/UK). -- Hoary 00:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC) ..... Slight revision 01:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Necessity of forking bibliography from main article

Here is an excerpt from a recent discussion on bibliographies taking from this AfD:

Aesthetics is a legitimate argument while notability is not. Sometimes a writer is known for writing in a particular genre but not another genre (to the general public) but that does not make his/her other writings uninteresting. Black Harry, you seem to be assuming that users only want a superficial understanding of each subject and only want to reinforce what they already know - why would they not want to learn something new about William Monahan, for example? Why include only his "famous" works which readers will already come to the page knowing about? Some of us want more than that and wikipedia has a unique opportunity to educate readers. BillDeanCarter, you should check out WP:LOW, which describes how to write a bibliography, discography, etc. I have already invoked it above. I believe that many of your concerns are addressed there. Perhaps a sentence could be added about the necessity of forking at times (this would have to be discussed on the talk page, of course). Obviously many editors have already done this, so there is a lot of precedent (there is even a category, as you know). In fact, the page itself references some lists already. All of which should demonstrate to those debating here that this is an accepted and necessary practice amongst those of us who write about art and artists. Awadewit ^Talk 20:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I propose that a section be written in the MOS (list of works) about when you can create a separate article for a bibliography, forking from the main article. As well as a recommendation to add the Category:Bibliographies by author to bibliographies that currently exist, and that are to be created.-BillDeanCarter 21:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps even Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes and Wikipedia:List guideline should have some clarification on this issue.-BillDeanCarter 21:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This policy change is supported by WP:FLC criteria 1(a)3 for featured lists, which states: "The list contains a finite, complete and well-defined set of items that naturally fit together to form a significant topic of study, and where the set's members are not notable enough to have individual articles." and 1(b) which states: ""Comprehensive" means that the list covers the defined scope by including every member of a set..." See Bibliography of Hunter S. Thompson for an example of such a list of works.-BillDeanCarter 01:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment The example you cite could use some serious copy editing for compliance to MoS:T and reference formatting. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is the additional piece of policy I propose at the head of the Bibliographies section

Bibliographies are included for authors, illustrators, photographers and other people who have published books, or substantial portions of books. If a person is notable enough to have an article, then a separate article for a list of his or her works is warranted if the list is long enough to cause aesthetic problems in the person's main article. The notability of the individual contents of the list of works is not required. It is encouraged that complete bibliographies of authors, illustrators, photographers and other people who have published books be tabulated. If a complete bibliography has a separate article then a selected bibliography may be detailed in the main article even though its contents will be duplicates.

This policy clarification can be used to defend AfD proposals that may target list of works.-BillDeanCarter 01:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Guideline, not policy ;)

It'd be a good idea to post pointers to here at Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes and Wikipedia:List guideline, as they predate and outweigh this guideline.

Other than that, it looks fine to me. --Quiddity 01:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I alerted them.-BillDeanCarter 01:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

"Long enough to cause aesthetic problems" sounds a bit vague—how long should a bibliography be before it warrants forking? Links to WP:SIZE and WP:SS may be appropriate here. Surely separate articles for bibliographies should only be created if they will contribute by keeping the main article at a manageable size and providing for greater comprehensiveness. The wording isn't really unclear on this respect, but I did take issue with your comment of a "pro-bibliography position", so we may want to be very careful and very clear in noting this: create bibliographies when necessary, make sure they comply with other manuals of style (particularly MoS:T, and, of course, with LOW as it applies to in-article lists. Also, shouldn't we mention something on separate discographies? (I don't think "bibliographies" applies to musicians as you mentioned above :) I'd think they would be rather common, and certainly warranted for artists with a long history. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

On discographies, true. So these thoughts should move up a level to generally lists of works. This guideline addition does need to be better defined. Isaac Asimov is an interesting case to consider, where the selected bibliography is almost too long, and then there is a complete Bibliography of Isaac Asimov. I'd say page length is a more important consideration than KBs in this situation. But the length might be best left as a judgment call, and considering as well that the bibliography in question may not be complete, with room needed to expand.-BillDeanCarter 03:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll stick with the bibliographies section for the moment, so I removed mention of a musician.-BillDeanCarter 17:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Examples and Proposal

(Outside of music, to be discussed later), I can think of 3 examples in WP where such a list would be justified:

List_of_books_by_P._G._Wodehouse There are 90 odd books, and many stories. Some of the stories are located in some of the books, some published separately and collected different ways in different editions of the book, and about half the works have different US and UK titles. furthermore, there is a WP article about almost every novel, and about some of the individual short stories. (There's even a separate List of short stories by P. G. Wodehouse, which is perhaps justified by the degree of complication, and the individual articles about individual stories.) There is furthermore at least one book and one book chapter devoted to discussing what should be on the list. Criteria: number of works, number with separate articles in WP, RSs, complexity I've removed importance because I mean world-wide importance over time. I'm a fan, and I have read about 90%, but I don't want to judge on that basis.

J. R. R. Tolkien There is not at present a list. I think there ought to be one because, there are multiple works in several different genres, the material in many of the books is composed in a complicated way posthumously by his son and others from the authors drafts,and there's a substantial literature on just what counts as included in the Tolkien canon. Criteria: number of works, number with separate articles in WP, RSs, complexity Again I don't list world-wide importance--I'm almost as much a fan here as for Wodehouse, but I can't really say which if either will be a permanently important part of literary history.

Eric Asimov complete bibliography This represents the 512 books only: novels, short story collections, nonfiction. I suspect it was based on OR, as it lists no sources. All the novels, some of the short story collections, & almost none of the nonfiction have individual articles in WP. Criteria: number of works, separate articles in WP, possibly RSs, possibly complexity Again I don't list world-wide importance--I strongly doubt any of them except the novels and short stories can possibly be a permanently important part of literary history.

and five borderline ones:

List_of_works_by_Charles_Darwin 33 books (Not complete. He did not publish masses of short scientific papers in the current sense. Essentially all of them with a WP article. There is a great deal of complexity in the editions of some of them, because he rewrote them to a significant extent, but the article doesn't really discuss this. Criteria: number with separate articles in WP, world-wide importance of works, RSs, complexity But not a very long list, at least in WP.

List_of_books_by_Barbara_Cartland 657 novels. A much longer list of works than the already long article, and an author notable to a large extent for productivity alone. Criteria: number of works. I think this is borderline, because it could equally well have been done by columns in the article.

List of the writings of Kurt Vonnegut ; he has 14 novels each considered notable enough for a separate article, 7 short story & essay collections, each considered separately notable, & 5 playscripts 3 considered notable. Criteria: proportion with separate articles in WP, possible world-wide importance of works I'll say possible world wide importance--I think that's still to be determined.

List of books by G. K. Chesterton 81 separate books (and there are 200 stories & 4000 essays and other journalism, not listed in detail) Reason the list is too short, without complexity; if the short stories were listed also, even though there would probably not be WP articles them, it might be justified, permanent notability uncertain. )

List of books by Graham Greene 67 books, of which there are several dozen notable, & 50 stories in collections, listed. Criteria: possibly high enough permanent importance, possibly complexity and individual articles on most But relatively low number.

Two very different special cases

List_of_books_by_Madonna. Here the books are a completely different phase of her career, and the list is more than just a list, it's where the books are discussed. At least the children's books are notable on the basis of prizes, and t here has been a good deal written about the. Criteria:separate importance from the main career, proportion with separate articles in WP--I think this is more of a subject fork--it should be retitled without the word List , as Madonna: literary work, or something like that.

List of books by Martin Luther (this is in my opinion mistitled, it's a formal bibliography, listing collected editions, editions of his translation of the Bible, etc.)

There are also some existing lists I do not think justified.:

List of books by Friedrich Hayek (the economist) 19 books, almost all notable with articles in WP Rreason: the list is too short, without complexity.

List of books by Frank Macfarlane Burnet (the Australian immunologist) 37 books. (and he wrote 500 articles) Reason: too short, though the world-wide importance is very high--he founded the modern science of immunology. Articles of scientists are almost always not listed individually--there's at least one exception: Albert Einstein, but only some few of his hundreds of articles are included)

List of books by Thomas Hunt Morgan (the American geneticist) 21 books. (and there are 100s of articles, not listed--same as above) Reason: too short, even though he is the founder of the modern science of genetics.

List of the writings of William Monahan Currently contains 11 stories, and a few dozen essays and book reviews, and 1 screenplay--I think there are more screenplays to be added, and a novel. (Potentially more book reviews and essays, since he was a journalist, but I cant think of any place in WP where we'd want to list that kind of detail. We don't even list all of Einstein's papers). 1 screenplay & 1 novel have separate articles. Reason: too short, not enough separate WP articles, not complex, no RSs. The main reason I see is the conviction of some fans that the work is of high literary interest to them.. The other reason, given above by BillDeanCarter, is aesthetic: he thinks it would look better.

There are of course many voluminous authors without separate lists: Shakespeare, Balzac, Trollope, Cicero, ....

Composers--it's different with composers, because there are standard numbering systems for their work. For major composers, there will be books about what compositions are to be listed and how they are arranged. For example

List_of_compositions_by_Johann_Sebastian_Bach--there are over a thousand works, they have standard numbering, and there are whole books devoted to that numbering--not merely about his work but about exactly how to list them. It actually meets the primary N rule. Criteria: number of works, large number with separate articles in WP, world-wide importance of works, RSs, complexity.

::List_of_compositions_by_Ludwig_van_Beethoven Several hundred by the standard lists. The article lists them twice, once by genre, and once more completely by standard number. Again, there are whole books devoted to that numbering--not just about his work but about how to list them. It too meets the primary N rule. Criteria: number of works,large number with separate articles in WP, world-wide importance of works, RSs, complexity and then for about 60 other musicians. [[1]]

This would probably work for discographies also, though these are usually even more extensive & any idea of a complete discography for a major composer absurd to contemplate--see below for why it would be OR.

Filmographies etc need more thought. When not selective, they will usually involve OR as well

I summarize this into the beginnings of criteria.

1. The first one I see is that it is much more possible to justify the article for composers where there is a standard numerical listing, and books about it. So that's one set of rules.
2. Otherwise, a very minimal one is to go back to general N: two or more independent works deal primarily with the listing itself--not the works in a musical or historical sense, but which are to be included in the lists and how they should be arranged. Most classic literary authors would be included here, as a standard professional separately published bibliography does this. but perhaps too many. I think we need to narrow it down some more. But that seems at least a starting point: if such works do not exist, the article is certainly not justified. The MOS doesn't really serve justify articles, but just say how they are to be written.
3. I think it would be folly to try to establish complete bibliographies here. If they are not excerpts from other standard works, they are OR, and much too extensive to undertake.
4. There is furthermore no need whatsoever to have separate listings of individual book reviews or periodical pieces--I think it's to be discouraged. This really involves OR in the full sense of the word, and those wishing to do so should use more appropriate places to publish their work. It would be better to encourage good articles on their major literary works, prepared from reliable secondary sources in addition to the web. DGG 03:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• First of all, you have forgotten visual artists such as Andy Warhol. His page demonstrates why secondary pages are needed. Awadewit ^Talk 07:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• It is flawed logic to say that the only lists that are acceptable are lists that have already been compiled several hundred years ago (as in the classical music world). That would mean that contemporary music could not be compiled because U2 doesn't have opus numbers. Awadewit ^Talk 07:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• It is flawed logic to separate "classical literary authors" from other literary authors. Who are those authors? Do we all agree on that list? Does wikipedia support the idea that there is such a list of "great authors" (it does not, by the way)? There are published bibliographies for authors whom I assume DGG would consider "non-canonical" and no bibliographies for authors whom I assume s/he would consider "canonical." Publication is not a test of canonicity. Awadewit ^Talk 07:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• The MOS does implicitly serve to justify articles. Without it, the articles could not be written. Awadewit ^Talk 07:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• It is not "folly" to have complete bibliographies here. It is extremely helpful. I just used the Bach one myself the other day. Scholars have personally contacted me about the "obscure" pages I have put up and their lists of works. They are clearly useful to the average user and the academic. Awadewit ^Talk 07:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Wikipedia does not elevate one art form over another (note its extensive coverage of reality shows, video games and cartoons - all of which make extensive use of episode and character lists, I might add, in addition to many other kinds of lists). To say that there should not be lists of book reviews or newspaper articles is to make a value judgment regarding those genres that wikipedia does not make in other venues. Some authors' major literary works are journalistic; DGG is judging that work. Wikipedia is supposed to present information as objectively as possible. It is not objective to eliminate entire genres from lists simply because some editors feel that it isn't important. Awadewit ^Talk 07:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• DGG's strongest argument is that unpublished bibliographies that are assembled by wikipedians themselves are original research. This is true, they are. In academia, that kind of work is called "bibliographic research." It is an entire field of study that some scholars undertake and it is extremely difficult and time-consuming. I do feel, though, that assembling a list and noting on the page that it may be incomplete may still be acceptable. It is when the page claims to be a complete and exhaustive description of an artist's work that we have a problem because most of the people assembling these lists (if they are assembling them) do not have any bibliographical training. If that is announced, I would feel fine with it. This could be taken up at the "original research" page, though. Awadewit ^Talk 07:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comments, point by point

Visual artists--yes, I realize I have not discussed that group--it has a different set of problems--There are a few, the most extensive being the group under List of Picasso artworks (by decade). I do not know about completeness or quality. Perhaps we should postpone this part--enough complications for the time being.

I do not think that we should separate out authors, artists, musicians, etc. It would create a confusing set of rules. Awadewit ^Talk 07:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Composers--again, this is somewhat of a specific case, because their are both lists of works and discographies. The ones with opus numbers or special numbering fall easily into lists. As for those without, again, there are probably some justifying it, such as the several lists for the Beatles--The Beatles discography, List of Beatles songs by singer, etc and U2_discography, a magnificently prepared list I think a main consideration might be the number of individual songs with WP articles. Discographies -- classical or pop --are almost always more complex than lists of works.

Writers. I don't think it has anything to do with classical or canonicity. The strongest point of WP ha been the coverage of contemporary culture.

The three I think most appropriate are Wodehouse, Tolkien, and Asimov, and that's mainly because of the intense widespread interest at WP that has led to the creation of detailed individual articles.

Warhol is interesting, because of the range of genres. At present there is one article covering them all & it would be a good idea to have a separate article about each. Only the films are discussed in detail in WP. The list of them fits nicely into their section on Warhol, & only a few have separate articles. There's a lot more to do there; The first step might be an article on the paintings. 20th century visual artists are difficult to do well, because of the copyright problems.

The standard for varying degrees of notability is dependent not of artistic quality--it is dependent upon the amount of discussions on the subject. An individual piece of article-length journalism doesn't warrant its own article until there are published works dealing with that individual piece. There are a few. An individual book review similarly. I do not offhand know of any book review (or record review or exhibit review or performance review) that's in that category. When is a complete list of individual book reviews or news stories worth compiling? that's an interesting question. My short answer is never. My examples are Chesterton, mentioned above, and Mencken. There are too many and it would be OR. To some extent this is not a question for MOS.

But scholars have discussed journalism and specific journalists; when they do so, they quote from specific reviews, articles and periodicals. To have such a list to refer to is eminently useful. A journalist's output is not "newspaper articles" or "reviews" - it is a specific article or review from a list of those things. Generally journalists make there mark with a series of articles, thus the series must be listed somewhere. Also, the definition of journalism has changed over the years. Are you going to exclude the bulk of Daniel Defoe's works, too, merely because they were journalism? Awadewit ^Talk 07:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

That's the kind of important bibliography you can do at Wikipedia. If someone took an interest in Daniel Defoe they would probably come to the point where they had a nearly complete bibliography pulled together on a piece of scratch paper, or a text file. Why not encourage them to write a bibliography for Defoe and work on it at Wikipedia?-BillDeanCarter 15:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I totally dismiss the argument on aesthetics or usefulness --I have not heard a single reason why they are more effective in separate articles. The length limits are less important than at WP's start, and computers aren't limited to a single view of an article at a time. Whatever normal formatting is needed for a list can be done in a section. The only time it might be out of place is where there are many images, as with U2. Can we have an example of how it would help in an ordinary list.?

Here are at least three reasons to consider. Do you really want to scroll down through the List of works by Mary Martha Sherwood and List of works by Joseph Priestley everytime you want to check a footnote? Also, I have heard arguments at FAC about loading times for computers (I myself do not understand these, but often reviewers complain about articles over 50kb). Lastly, you should care how the page looks aesthetically - no one wants an ugly page - readers' judgments are affected by those sorts of things. Awadewit ^Talk 07:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

What I am concerned about is consistency--there should be some reasonable guideline based on objective outside criteria or the importance of the article or article group in WP. A list makes most sense when there is already an article group on other criteria.

This is vague. Awadewit ^Talk 07:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm also concerned about fragmentation. The visual and cross-reference overhead is greatly increased by dividing up articles unnecessarily. In most cases this division represents attempts to put special emphasis on a particular person or book which is not justified by the content. Some of it is a residue from the time when WP couldn't do redirects to individual article sections, and reducing to a section with a redirect meant getting lost in the article. That was solved about half a year ago, giving the needed flexibility. We might think about systematically merging some of the earlier small articles.

So I now have three suggested guidelines, for authors--that's the easier part.

1. A separate article for a list requires as a minimum that there be two or more substantial published works specifically devoted to the composition or arrangement of the list. There are for Tolkien. There are not for Cartland. This isn't really a question for MOS, but for N., butwe could centralize the discussion here for the time being.

2. In addition, a separate article is not usually justified unless

2.1. there are more than [ ] works ?50 , and more than [ ]% ?33% of the works in it have individual articles in WP. OR

2.2. the material for the author is so extensive that there is more than one article on him in a group.

(I can also see asking for both 2.2 AND 2.2 (#2 is my suggestion for dealing with importance--it puts the factor where it belongs, on the N of the individual works and the author). Wodehouse meets both. Cartland meets neither. DGG 06:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess I just don't understand what problem you are trying to solve with these rules - it looks to me like instruction creep. Are there bibliographies running amuck? Why do you think that bibliographies are detrimental to wikipedia? Frankly, I can only see them in a positive light - they provide relevant information on a subject that has already been deemed notable. I'm just not sure that I see the dire straits that require a reining in of the "bibliographies gone wild." Awadewit ^Talk 07:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• I am very uncomfortable with the establishment of too many rules. i) For one thing, it inevitably leads to contradictions: if we use the guidelines suggested above, we would lose existing material on writers, while still maintaining obsessively detailed lists (and I mean that in a good way) on other topics, such as television shows. ii) For another, as Awadewit has pointed out, who is to decide what is notable? There is some excellent work out there on the romance genre, and the Barbara Cartland list is no doubt useful for such research. To call Cartland "an author notable to a large extent for productivity alone" is to ignore a whole sub-field of popular literature. No one, I trust, would argue that she deserves a Nobel prize but "literary quality" has long ceased to be a category that scholars use without quotation marks. Please note that I am not criticising anyone for not being aware of a whole sub-field; I am critical, however, of rules and policies that would restrict or dismiss such sub-fields. Implicit in such policies is evaluation, and such evaluation is all the more insidious for not being acknowledged. If you talk to people actually working in literary studies you will find that they are looking at an astonishing range of texts, many of which would have been laughed out of the academy not too long ago. But the field has expanded and people are now interested in literary culture in a broader sense, and not just high culture. iii) Another point: lists are often starting points for much more work. For example, I have worked on a couple of lists of writers, many of whom do not have their own articles. But now at least they are on a list, and slowly, over time, I (and others, I hope!) am creating articles. It's a bit of a chicken or egg question, really: if it doesn't have an article is it important enough to go on a list? (I would argue yes: lists are just that, lists. By implication, not everything on them is important enough to warrant an article, but it's useful to know it exists). Lists can be wonderful organizing tools for editors developing particular fields. iv) I suppose in conclusion I would just say that I think the coverage of particular fields should be shaped by the people working on the material, and not from the top down. Obviously there are non-negotiable elements to anything on Wikipedia (proper references, balance and neutrality, &c), and the encyclopedia has to be cohesive. But what works for one field does not necessary work for another. My four cents! — scribblingwoman 13:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

For me, a list of books is the same as any other Wikipedia page insofar as it is a body of information. When I am working on an article, I only reference the works I mention or cite, though I might add some further-reading and external-links information. For certain authors, particularly short-story writers, it would take up too much space to list all their works on the article page, and so a daughter page makes sense. These pages are helpful up to a point, though as Awadewit says, it is a specialist task to write them professionally. The only problem would come if an article cited a book which was only listed on the bibliography page: all books cited should be listed in the notes and/or references sections of the article page, whether they also appear on the bibliography page or not. qp10qp 14:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been away from this project page (or whatever it's called) and its talk page for a couple of weeks. The arguments above that follow the stuff about ISBNs are therefore all new to me. I appreciate the politeness and willingness to reach agreement; still, something troubled me about it. Simply, imagine that all worthwhile lists-of-works (bibliographies, etc.) had been compiled. (Fat chance, I know.) Now think how many of these would be problematic. A very low percentage, I suggest.

And perhaps a smaller number than what you think, too. Somebody writes above: There are of course many voluminous authors without separate lists: Shakespeare, Balzac, Trollope, Cicero, .... The best known of these is Shakespeare. Without bothering to check, I'll assume that 100% of the plays attributed to him (with or without coauthors) have articles. A quick count of the plays in an ageing edition of the complete works comes to 36. There are three substantial poems and the set of sonnets. Let's suppose they've been exclusionist; we can round this up to fifty. And in terms of bytes or centimetres of screen space, fifty is not a long list.

Ah, you may say, but these aren't any fifty; they're fifty items so important that each has its own article. Right: and it's these articles that can describe the textual/bibliographic complications of each play.

Yes, some separate lists are warranted. When they're done, they should of course be done well. But I don't think forking is a trend that should be encouraged. -- Hoary 01:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that you have confused the issue somewhat. No one has proposed that all bibliographies should be included as separate lists. What we are talking about here is separate lists of works of authors, artists, musicians, etc. We are not talking about annotated bibliographies that detail all of the scholarship on those works (that is a separate issue entirely). Again, I cannot understand the harm caused by including a list of an author's, artist's or musician's works. When those lists become long (such as List of works by Joseph Priestley and List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach, the majority of which do not have their own page) and unwieldly, the only sensible thing to do is to fork them. I would not claim that all of the works listed on those pages need their own page, but I would claim that since the people who wrote them are notable, it is only beneficial to the readers interested in Priestley and Bach to list them. Again, I cannot see the harm in providing this information; I do not see how it detracts from wikipedia. Wikipedia is expanding the definition of an encyclopedia and providing its readers with more than they ever thought possible; I believe that these restrictions are based on an idea of a print encyclopedia. Because wikipedia is online, it can reenvision what an encyclopedia should be. There is no reason why an online encyclopedia cannot provide a list of works of authors, artists, and musicians—such lists are integral to an understanding of their work. Wikipedia need not be bound by the conventions of the print world. Awadewit ^Talk 04:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Good, we've gotten a step forward. We may agree on something yet. Priestley is not too hard to manage in an article. Bach is. Look at them and see the difference. Nobody says this material should not be there. We're trying to keep the number and arrangement of articles within reason. We're also trying to keep the detail relatively appropriate. Excessive spotty detail harms the encyclopedia--it makes it look without standards. That's the real reason for notability.

The point about Cartland is that nobody on WP thinks the individual works notable enough for their own article. Some but not all of them have probably been the subject of two full reviews, rather than just mentions. If there are, they would be potentially notable/. If people did write articles on many of them, then it would be worth a separate article for the list. The intrinsic quality or intrinsic notability is presently considered not to matter on WP about any subject. As pointed out, it would be difficult to say what they mean is a way that wouldn't involve personal likings. Incidentally, the present Cartland list has no sources. From where was it derived? That's one of the problems of lists of works: unless other people have prepared them, how can they be written? DGG 05:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I would disagree that the Priestley list can be integrated back in - it is just so long (the article itself is already 50kb, by the way - it has reached the limit and I am only half-way through Priestley's life - major pruning will be required). Almost all of those books on Priestley's list went through multiple editions (a big deal in the eighteenth century - a sort of "notability" test, one might say) and were reviewed by multiple journals in the eighteenth century. They are sometimes referred to by twenteith-century critics (some much more than others, obviously). Does each one deserve its own page? It's hard for me to say. I tend to want more research available for a page than many editors, I think. I have found that the "notability" criteria for modern books is very different for historical books and in many ways this bothers me. Why are we offering each and every book published this year a page because it was reviewed somewhere but not every book published in the eighteenth century (and by the way, if we had a page for every book published in the eighteenth century, it would probably be less than all the books published in like 5 years now or something like that). Now, I am not advocating that we have all of those pages, I am simply asking why the criteria for inclusion is so different (I tend to think that "notability" requirements for modern books are too low - the bar should be set higher somehow - perhaps we agree on this). Also, perhaps no one yet has done articles on the Cartland books; maybe in the future Cartland will be considered a very influential writer. We should leave that possibility open (perhaps the most famous example of this is Shakespeare - no one thought anything of him during his lifetime - he suddenly became a "genius" during the eighteenth century (100 years later) - a very interesting story - I could go on forever about that). I do have qualms about personally prepared lists (I have made this known at the Novel project, for example, where they encourage editors to include lists of editions). I think that either the lists have to be taken from sources (as mine were) or have to have disclaimers. I am particularly worried about lists claiming exhaustiveness through their layout, etc. when they have not been vetted in any way. For me, that is the most difficult part about this. I don't want to discourage people from assembling such lists because they can be extremely useful, but I see many pitfalls there and I believe that they should be distinguished from lists that have been collected by scholars. This is where we agree the most, I believe. Awadewit ^Talk 06:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem with distinguishing somehow in the lead whether the list has been expertly prepared from previous bibliographic research or personally prepared for the first time. My list (List of the writings of William Monahan) is WP:NOR in its totality even though its contents are well annotated with proper references. But then again some FAs are original research in their totality, such as Aaron Sorkin and William Monahan, because no one has ever collected the biographical information together in one article before.. I think we are being way too tough on literature lists compared to the plethora of detailed articles on pop culture, which is the real "excessive spotty detail [that] harms the encyclopedia." Although not annotated the lists( List of published material by Alan Moore, Bibliography of Hunter S. Thompson, List of works by Neil Gaiman) are irrefutably the kind of information Wikipedia wants to be delivering. Wikipedia is after all whatever we want it to be and doesn't claim to be perfect.-BillDeanCarter 09:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I hadn't thought that anyone was proposing that lists of works should in general be hived off from the articles on their creators. But on the other hand I also hadn't thought that people would be creating lists of articles, as I now see exist for Priestley, Thompson, and perhaps others. The latter don't trouble me, but they do surprise me: I'd have thought that anybody with sufficient interest in Priestley to want a list (and indeed with access to a sufficiently good library for such a list to be of any use) would also have access to a reliable printed-and-bound bibliography of his works. ¶ Meanwhile, some of the ideas expressed above are very strange indeed. My fave: Also, perhaps no one yet has done articles on the Cartland books; maybe in the future Cartland will be considered a very influential writer. We should leave that possibility open (perhaps the most famous example of this is Shakespeare - no one thought anything of him during his lifetime - he suddenly became a "genius" during the eighteenth century (100 years later) - a very interesting story.... Pull the other one! If nobody had thought anything about S. during his lifetime, his reputation certainly received remarkable a fillip with his death, what with the publication of the folio. And please don't suggest that Cartland will become a very influential writer: I realize that what's influential on so-called culture these days is quite stunningly bland and saccharine (witness Takashi Murakami), but I'd been hoping against hope that there were limits to this. -- Hoary 13:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• If we define "influential" in terms of what people actually read, I'm afraid Cartland is right up there. So, it pays to know what she is writing, no? I know this is getting tangential, but it seems to me that otherwise level-headed editors who do their best to avoid betraying POV have no problem displaying all sorts of unexamined assumptions when it comes to literature and what is valuable. — scribblingwoman 20:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Read your history, please. The folio was published by Shakespeare's friends - it was a vanity publication. If you want to understand how and why Shakespeare came to be considered a "great" writer (which he most certainly was not during his own lifetime), one place to start is Gary Taylor's Reinventing Shakespeare. Also, don't pretend to predict the future; you may not like Cartland (although somehow I doubt you have read a single work), but there is simply no way that you can predict what will be considered important or influential literature in the future. The history of literature is littered with people predicting that sort of thing and they are almost always wildly wrong.
• Also, I'm wondering why you think people with an interest in Priestley's articles should be forced to go to the library and obtain one of the two books with that list of articles in it? What if their library does not have that book? Why should people interested in other topics have the ease of the internet but not those people? Why discriminate? It is a very odd argument. Awadewit ^Talk 19:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Those judgment calls are what this new guideline addition hopes to avoid. I think Monahan's writings are some of the best out there (and NY did too once upon a time), so Cartland may find his readers for whatever reasons in the future, and they may not have anything to do with his writing style but maybe his opinions. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is very popular these days but you have to wonder how popular she will be in a hundred years. The point is not to make those judgment calls and to simply allow a bibliography to exist as its own article when it becomes too long for the main article.-BillDeanCarter 16:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, my reaction was the opposite to yours when I saw the Hunter S. Thompson bibliography. I would like to see that one improve and perhaps even give a sense of the different stages in Thompson's life and the travels he made, with annotations, etc... And the thing is: it is what people want. People want to know more about Thompson, and especially to have excellent references on him which Wikipedia is currently providing. The other thing is, and this is not an argument, just sentiment, that there are featured lists about the List of Tampa Bay Buccaneers first-round draft picks and the 2001 NFL Draft, as well as List of counties in Texas and List of premature obituaries and List of Kashimashi episodes, and we are choosing to be picky about which writers we shall bestow the honor of having a bibliography at Wikipedia? Why do we want to keep literature lists on a short leash?-BillDeanCarter 16:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I must agree with this sentiment. I do not quite understand the desire to rein in the "list of works gone wild." Check out the lists on anime, for example. To me, it seems like wikipedia is developing a bias against artists who are not celebrities and do not appear on the cover of People, and perhaps even specifically against historical artists. Awadewit ^Talk 19:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• If we define "influential" in terms of what people actually read, I'm afraid Cartland is right up there. Well, yes, maybe. But I thought that "influence" here meant influence on writers. Still, whether it's influence on readers or writers, I'd thought that what was big now among the ladies was so-called "chick lit": I've very little idea of what this is but I was under the impression that it was unlike Cartland. Whatever it is, it's probably doomed; and yes, it's certainly imagineable that there'll be a kind of fad for retro-schlock that will bring Cartland back in. ¶ The folio was published by Shakespeare's friends - it was a vanity publication. If a thousand or so examples were printed of the first folio alone, then his friends seem to have been remarkably grateful, generous, optimistic, or some combination thereof. That in itself would suggest he wasn't a dramatic/literary non-entity. (NB I hadn't argued that he was recognized as a "great writer"; I'd merely questioned the remark that "no one thought anything of him during his lifetime".) ¶ there is simply no way that you can predict what will be considered important or influential literature in the future. True. And a lot of quite dreadful stuff is earnestly touted as masterful, taught at universities, is the subject of conferences, and is even read voluntarily. For example -- er, no, mustn't start any more flamefests. ¶ I'm wondering why you think people with an interest in Priestley's articles should be forced to go to the library and obtain one of the two books with that list of articles in it? What if their library does not have that book? Why should people interested in other topics have the ease of the internet but not those people? Why discriminate? It is a very odd argument. Reasonable points. First, now that the list has been compiled and contributed, I certainly wouldn't suggest that it should be removed. I'm just wondering what purpose it might serve. To help somebody who's preparing a dissertation on Priestley, is in the guts (must we always say "bowels"?) of a university library, but has omitted to bring their photocopy of the relevant few pages of a printed bibliography? ¶ it seems like wikipedia is developing a bias against artists who are not celebrities and do not appear on the cover of People, and perhaps even specifically against historical artists. But of course! NB "historical" means something like "more than ten years ago". Still, WP is more catholic than People: For example, it encourages articles on the most humdrum and ephemeral aspects of Japanese "popular culture" (giant eyes, tousled hair, superpowers, you get the idea). ¶ If anyone's interested, my own most recently created extensive, messy bibliography is that for Takashi Okamura. (And unfortunately it really is a mess.) -- Hoary 00:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• No, influence does not only mean influence on other writers - it also means cultural influence.
• Again, stop assuming that some genre of literature is "probably doomed." You cannot make these predictions (you have no time machine) and wikipedia should not make its policies based on your personal idea of the future.
• A thousand copies of the first folio? You might compares that to truly popular works. Thomas Paine's Rights of Man, which went through 200,000 copies. Anyway, read Shakespeare's reputation and theh book I mentioned. We seem to be squabbling over an example rather than the larger point which is legitimate. During Shakespeare's lifetime, his plays were not valued the way they are now; I simply used this as an example to demonstrate that we should not assume what will be considered valuable literature in the future. Let's not get hung up on the details of the example.
• And a lot of quite dreadful stuff is earnestly touted as masterful, taught at universities, is the subject of conferences, and is even read voluntarily - Wikipedia is not the business of making these judgments, nor is literary studies anymore, by the way.
• I'm not sure why you think that the only people interested in Priestley are those writing dissertations on him. There is a popular biography of him (World on Fire by Joe Jackson) and a whole society dedicated to him. Apparently, there are people interested in Priestley who are not graduate students. These people, as well as academics, might be interested in Priestley. Also, why can't wikipedia be the place where someone learns about Priestley and says "I want to read some of his works, what are they"? What is this resistance to learning? Awadewit ^Talk 08:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

All right, I'll put aside all the points other than the last. As for the last one, perhaps I wasn't clear. I certainly do not "think that the only people interested in Priestley are those writing dissertations on him". With some but I think not much exaggeration, I was suggesting that the only people with a serious interest in the exact location of Priestley's papers were those writing PhD dissertations on him. To your question "Also, why can't wikipedia be the place where someone learns about Priestley and says 'I want to read some of his works, what are they'?" No reason whatever; but making it such a place does not necessitate a list of contributions to issues of periodicals that are two hundred years old and will not be in the libraries of many universities or big cities in the anglophone world, let alone elsewhere. I do not think that this list should be deleted and I don't particularly want to warn people off creating lists such as this. However, I see no reason for encouraging their creation; I'm sure that the energy is better directed elsewhere, for example in creating a more compact introductory guide to Priestley's works, concentrating on those that have had the main impact or otherwise are most important, have been accessibly reprinted (or of course rendered into etexts), or both. -- Hoary 03:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

No. I don't know much about Priestley, but it's definitely interesting to look at what he wrote by title alone. Get a good idea of how much he wrote, the kind of stuff he wrote, etc... I mean he wrote sermons, theological papers, scientific papers... If we're going to have an article on Priestley let us also have this complete bibliography. It would be wrong for an editor not to put up a complete bibliography if they had one.-BillDeanCarter 03:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly what I mean. Getting a sense of the breadth of Priestley's writings from the list is helpful even to a reader who does not know much about Priestley. Also, I know that the Royal Society webpage itself used to have all of its publications online (which would mean that all of Priestley's scientific papers are available online). I haven't checked to see if that is still the case, but I know it was a few months ago, so at that time, users would not have to dust off books or read microfilm or be subscribed to any database through a university to easily access them. Also, again, this argument is short-sighted. Even if these papers were not easily available, they may be in the future. To not list them because the are not now available is to limit wikipedia and to restrict ourselves unnecessarily. I would also actually encourage editors to create such lists (if they are reliable). I posted the list one night while I was too tired to write the Priestley article itself (which explains many of the texts and their impact - I also think this is very important, by the way, if you look at the contributions I have made to wikipedia); such lists are easy to put up (if they are already assembled) and help the reader see, at a glance, the kind of writer Priestley was. Also, as I said, for Priestley, anyway, this list was not easily available - now it is. I am currently adding a list of the full-text google books at the bottom of the Priestley page, if you want to help out - it will take a while. Awadewit ^Talk 04:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Are we all more or less agreed on the new policy (except for the category bit, which we are still working out)? I would like to go back to writing articles. :) Awadewit ^Talk 04:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, no, if only for the simple reason that I don't know what "the new policy" is. I realize that I should take a considerable part of the blame for digressions, but even after the talk about Shakespeare, Cartland, etc., is extracted, I don't know what the policy is. (Maybe I'm just dense.) Awadewit, perhaps you could recapitulate the proposal here. No, better, in a fresh three-equals-signs subsection -- Hoary 07:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess was assuming that there was some sort of consensus since the actual policy page had been changed several times. I myself altered the wording to exclude the word "bibliography" since there was dispute over that word at Talk:William Monahan. Here is how it reads right now (the filmography and discography section is separate):

Lists of works are included for authors, illustrators, photographers and other people who have published books or substantial portions of books. If somebody is notable enough to have an article, then a separate article for a list of their works (such as List of books by Graham Greene) is warranted if the list is so long that its inclusion in the main article would be an irritation. (Notability of the individual items in the list is not an issue.) Complete lists of works are encouraged. If the list has a separate article, then a greatly simplified version of this list may also be provided within the main article.

From what I read, I'm assuming you will have a problem with "complete lists of works are encouraged." If you want to remove that, I am fine with that. Although I do think such lists should be encouraged, I do not necessarily think they should be encouraged as a matter of policy/guideline, merely as matter of best practice. Awadewit ^Talk 08:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the enlightenment. Whew, on the matter of things becoming irritatingly long.... I hope you don't mind, but I'm about to copy this below. in a fresh section. -- Hoary 08:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Articles in desperate need of a separate bibliography page

So Piers Anthony's page has been given the cleanup label 'This article or section resembles a fan site.' for the sole reason, according to my reading, that it has an extensive messy bibliography. There needs to be an article List of works by Piers Anthony to clean up the problem. What to do?-BillDeanCarter 21:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I get a different impression of this article (about somebody of whom I know nothing). There's a longish and rambling section on a "hullabaloo" that isn't mentioned in the template objection but might have helped to sour whoever provided the template. and then there are a number of mini-lists such as:

• Apprentice Adept
  1. Split Infinity (1980)
  2. Blue Adept (1981)
  3. Juxtaposition (1982)
  4. Out of Phaze (1987)
  5. Robot Adept (1988)
  6. Unicorn Point (1989)
  7. Phaze Doubt (1990)

My first reaction was that this should be cut to

• Apprentice Adept (seven novels, 1980–90)

On reflection, though, that's not a good idea: Somebody might want to read about, say, Robot Adept and should be able to search within this one page for it and quickly find where to read more about it. So instead, something like:

• Apprentice Adept (seven novels, 1980–90)
  • Split Infinity (1980), Blue Adept (1981), Juxtaposition (1982), Out of Phaze (1987), Robot Adept (1988), Unicorn Point (1989), Phaze Doubt (1990)

(If they are novels, that is.) This is just as informative, is more compact, and doesn't look as if it's intended to impress. To save bytes:

• Apprentice Adept (seven novels, 1980–90)
  • Split Infinity, Blue Adept, Juxtaposition, Out of Phaze, Robot Adept, Unicorn Point, Phaze Doubt

(Hm, I wonder what a "phaze" is.) -- Hoary 00:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but according to his Wikipedia biography he is "one of the most prolific science fiction/fantasy authors of all time." so I'd say fork the bibliography and chronicle his prolificness. Keep a select bibliography, a decision for others and the article's talk page, in the main article and clean up the complete bibliography (or nearly so).-BillDeanCarter 00:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

First you said (I think) that the problem (or perceived problem, or misperceived problem) with this article was caused by "an extensive messy bibliography". Well, I tried to make it less messy, just about as informative, and considerably more compact. Perhaps I didn't succeed, but I tried. Now you're saying that the fact that he's prolific is what should cause a fork in the bibliography. I have no idea why. My longer version lets anyone do a Ctrl-F or whatever within the one article in order to find the string "Robot Adept", and then to take a link to a second page ("Apprentice Adept") to find more. This would I think be better than expecting people to jump from the main article to the bibliography article and thence to a third article. Have I misunderstood something? -- Hoary 07:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Prolific, meaning his bibliography will get longer if it's to be complete. Easier, meaning whomever wants to work on the Piers Anthony article will not have to deal with a huge bibliography strangling the screen. I'm sure there are quirky ways of making everything work in one glut, but for the sake of presentation...-BillDeanCarter 16:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Categorization for Bibliographies

I would like to start a discussion about adding a section at the end of the Bibliographies section that would recommend that the article be categorized in Bibliographies by author. Something along the lines of:

Categorization

It is recommended that articles that contain bibliographies be included in the Category:Bibliographies by author. If there is a select bibliography and a complete bibliography for the author, then choose only the complete bibliography for inclusion. The sort key used will be the author's last name followed by his first name. Here is an example for Graham Greene for the article List of books by Graham Greene:

[[Category:Bibliographies by author|Greene, Graham]]

What do you think?-BillDeanCarter 00:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure it's well-intentioned but I don't like it.

Whatever you mean by "author", a very large number of author articles have something trying, successfully or feebly, to be a bibliography. A very small percentage of these have hived off their bibliographies to separate articles. You seem a lot keener than I am for more articles to hive off their bibliographies, but I suspect that even if WP implements your PoV on this the percentage of separate bibliographies will remain very small. Thus most of the bibliography category will be author articles. Who will this help?

What I think might be a good idea is to attempt consistency in the naming of separate bibliography articles, where they exist.

Back to the start, and the meaning of "author". Would you count, say, illustrators as authors, or would you want [[Category:Bibliographies by illustrator|Bentley, Nicolas]]? Oh, hang on: If we go for the latter, we have to remember that in his anthologies Bentley was not an illustrator but instead a ("standalone"?) cartoonist. So [[Category:Bibliographies by cartoonist|Bentley, Nicolas]] as well? [[Category:Bibliographies by cartoonist/illustrator|Bentley, Nicolas]] instead? (Bentley was also a prolific writer (notably on Victorian subjects), but let's not labor the point.) -- Hoary 07:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Please remember that a previous poster in this conversation (somewhere) has objected to the term "bibliography" because it is deceptive. Perhaps we should go with "List of works" as that can cover a multiplicity of genres and works well for somebody like Andy Warhol. I do not think we should isolate this policy to authors, as I have repeatedly stated. It is awkward to divorce authors from other artists. Moreover, many artists were authors as well as illustrators, for example, and their lists of works should include both art forms. Awadewit ^Talk 08:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. As for me, I used "bibliography" rather unthinkingly, mostly because I was writing in response to a suggestion by BillDeanCarter that used the term. But if the suggestion were instead about (say) lists of works, I'd have virtually the same (unenthusiastic) reaction. -- Hoary 08:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that's a good idea. So perhaps Bibliographies by author should become a sub of List of works, or simply renamed to List of works. Either way the idea is to collect all the list of works out there together with the guidelines on list of works. Get a clearer idea of what's been going on and how to move forward.-BillDeanCarter 16:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

That's fine with me. I think the category would be useful. Awadewit ^Talk 20:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Some paragraphs above, I wrote a comment starting Whatever you mean by "author", a very large number of author articles have something trying, successfully or feebly, to be a bibliography. Awadewit politely objected to my use of the term "bibliography". Fine. But there hasn't been any response to my main point: Would the vast amount of work needed to create such a category -- more likely a category tree; "Category:Lists of works by Canadian fiction writers" etc. -- be likely to be of much help to people, particularly as the huge majority of the members of the category (tree) would be author (or illustrator, photographer or whatever) articles, not lists of works? -- Hoary 03:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I was just bringing in somebody else's objection to the word "bibliography," by the way - trying to keep the consensus going. Why would this be a category tree in the way you are suggesting? I see it more like "Category:Lists of works" and then "Category:Lists of works of authors", "Category:Lists of compositions by composers", "Category:Lists of artworks by artists", "Category:Discographies", "Category:Filmographies", etc. I do not see the necessity for nationality, gender, race, etc. to be brought in here. Those are covered by other categories such as "Category:Austrian composers" or "Category:Women writers". Awadewit ^Talk 04:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you intending to use this on every general article about an author that has list of works, because every article on an author artist etc should contain some sort of a selective bibliography, & the ones that don't have them should get them. It's a somewhat different use of category tags--I cant think of any that are worded and used this way to refer to features of the article--If that is what you mean it should be worded something like "Articles containing a list of works" DGG 05:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking it would only be used for separate pages that are relatively if not totally complete lists of works. I generally agree that categories shouldn't be geared toward a section would not be appropriate. But, then again, if an author's entire oeuvre fits into a section and doesn't need a separate page, shouldn't that list that be reflected? (Jane Austen is a good example - she wrote very little). Awadewit ^Talk 06:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Here I'd tend to agree with you, Awadewit, but I'd still disagree (and, I venture to guess, you'd disagree) with the suggestion at the top of this section by BillDeanCarter, that this project page should [recommend] that articles that contain bibliographies be included in the Category:Bibliographies by author. Believe me, I'm not keen on classifying creators and other people by their nationality, ethnic group, sex (whoops, gender), religion, sexual predilections, etc etc. But that's the way it's done in this 'Pedia, and if you did have a category to cover every list-o'-works (covering e.g. the humdrum list of books within Seiji Kurata) you'd have a humongous category that people would insist should be subcategorized. -- Hoary 07:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I would recommend that this category be included for complete or substantial partial bibliographies (all of the short stories of Edgar Allen Poe, for example). Categories on gender, nationality, etc. are useful because authors and artists are studied that way. Being a woman in eighteenth-century England, for example, affected the ways in which one could publish and thus often affected what women could write. Having categories that reflect these trends in scholarship only makes sense. I don't see why the bibliography categories would include all of this information, though. As I understand it, categories cannot become too specific and they have to have a sensible organization. Since there are already categories that group authors by nationality, grouping their bibliographies by nationality is unnecessary. The bibliographies are interesting for another reason. Awadewit ^Talk 20:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

[Immediately below is Awadewit's proposal, copied from a gruesomely long section somewhere above. -- Hoary]

Lists of works are included for authors, illustrators, photographers and other people who have published books or substantial portions of books. If somebody is notable enough to have an article, then a separate article for a list of their works (such as List of books by Graham Greene) is warranted if the list is so long that its inclusion in the main article would be an irritation. (Notability of the individual items in the list is not an issue.) Complete lists of works are encouraged. If the list has a separate article, then a greatly simplified version of this list may also be provided within the main article.

From what I read, I'm assuming you will have a problem with "complete lists of works are encouraged." If you want to remove that, I am fine with that. Although I do think such lists should be encouraged, I do not necessarily think they should be encouraged as a matter of policy/guideline, merely as matter of best practice. Awadewit ^Talk 08:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Even aside from the matter of encouragement, this needs more thinking.

I'm pretty sure that what's meant is substantial contributions. But that's not what's said.

• Somebody could add a list of all the book cover designs by Nicolas Bentley: "Well, yes, each is a single sheet; but it's a tremendously important one: people really do judge a book by its cover, and publishers are careful to choose illustrators accordingly." I believe that there were dozens of these.
• Somebody could add a list of all the contributions to Asahi Camera (let alone other magazines) by Ihei Kimura: "Asahi is probably the biggest camera/photo magazine in the world. Kimura is certainly among its three most famous and highly regarded contributors." I wouldn't be surprised if there were thousands of these. The guy's everywhere. Even now, decades after his death, the magazine devotes at least two pages of each issue to his works.

List of books by Graham Greene is a poor example, if only because a lot of what's listed (notably the individual short stories) aren't the books promised in its title but instead parts of books, and a lot more (e.g. the screenplay for The Fallen Idol) aren't even in any book, as far as I know. Perhaps it would be acceptable if retitled.

Here's a messy sketch at a rewrite:

Lists of books or substantial portions of books are included for authors, illustrators, photographers and other people who have had these published . The individual items in the list do not have to be sufficiently notable to merit their own separate articles. However, they should be substantial: even if they would merit inclusion in a book-length list of works, individual drawings or photographs, brief forewords to books by others, letters to newspaper editors, and the like, are normally unsuitable. (Particularly famous exceptions may be allowed.) The goal must be to help the certain kinds of encyclopedia users (minorities among them, perhaps, but not tiny minorities): it should not be to create stunningly long or comprehensive lists or to browbeat the reader with the editors' erudition or stamina. Moreover, any list must be of a type such that there is a reasonable expectation that it can be kept accurate and defended knowledgably against anything from well-intentioned additions of mistakes to insidious deliberate addition of untruths. If these warnings and qualifications are heeded, complete lists of works are encouraged. If the list has a separate article, then a greatly simplified version of this list may also be provided within the main article.

Gaah, it's so verbose. Oh well, feel free to hack away. -- Hoary 09:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Lists of whole or partial texts should be included for authors, illustrators, photographers and other artists who have had such works published. If an article already exists on an author or artist, then a separate article for a list of his or her works (such as Bibliography of Jorge Luis Borges or Robert A. Heinlein bibliography) is warranted if the list becomes so long that its inclusion in the main article would be a major irritation. The individual items in the list do not have to be sufficiently notable to merit their own separate articles. Complete lists of works, appropriately sourced to reliable scholarship (WP:ATT), are encouraged, particularly when such lists are not already freely available on the internet. If the list has a separate article, a simplified version should also be provided in the main article.

Yes, it was verbose - and preachy! It's like you were taking your animus out on the guideline! I have revised it. Do I sound too preachy now? Awadewit ^Talk 10:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't sound preachy, but it's bizarre from the start. "Whole or partial texts"? I guess this means something like "whole books or periodicals or parts thereof". How small a part can they be? Short forewords? Letters to editors? If on the other hand you really do mean text, then photos, illustrations, etc are out. If photos are OK and you really want complete lists, then would it be OK if some fanatic started by typing in the list of Ihei Kimura's every contribution to Asahi Camera (a very long list is available), added individual photos published elsewhere, and polished this off with title plus page number of every photo posthumously published in AC? Kimura's safely dead and famous; what happens, though, when vanit conflict-of-interest articles on almost-nobodies are embellished with bibliographies listing appearances of individual photos within local newspapers? -- Hoary 13:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The word "text" is usually considered to have a broad meaning - can you think of a better word that is not so confusing?. I was just trying to cut down on the verbiage and I don't want to limit the list. Also, I'm not quite sure about your resistance to lists of photographs. For photographers, those are their works of art, are they not? I'm not sure that wikipedia could justify saying "we are going to list Ansel Adams' photographs but not those of a journalist from the New York Times - we cannot make those kinds of artistic judgments. Awadewit ^Talk 19:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Like anything else, it will depend upon the amount of material written about them. I'm not sure the NYT is quite the right example here, as many of their photographers, and even individual photographs, have been quite famous. If there is not sufficient literature about an artist/writer etc. to justify a list of works at all, then it can not be justified for the mere sake of completeness. The amount written about someone will depend on both the academic interest and the popular interest, and either is of course equally satisfactory as a reason. The basic standards of notability should hold here as everywhere else--well-known writers or photographers are well-known for many potential reasons, and artistic quality is just one of them. DGG

• I was trying to pick a photographer who would have many photographs but not necessarily a lot of published scholarship on them the way Adams would. We do not want to get hung up on the individual examples again! I'm sure you saw the idea of what I was getting at and those examples are not on the guideline page. Awadewit ^Talk 07:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• Also, you seem to be missing the point of the guideline somewhat; it already states that the person has to be notable enough to have their own article in order to have a list of works. No one is suggesting that we have lists of works for people that are not notable enough to have articles - I have not seen that suggestion anywhere (strawman argument). Awadewit ^Talk 07:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• Finally, artistic quality has never been a criteria for notability (thank god) nor is it here. There are very good reasons for this. I can enumerate them to you elsewhere if you like because this has already been accepted at notability and here. But I'm sure that you know them already, if you what you list on your userpage is true. Awadewit ^Talk 07:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• So, what problems do you have with the revision of the guideline above? Awadewit ^Talk 07:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

We read: Lists of whole or partial texts should be included for authors, illustrators, photographers and other artists who have had such works published. ... The individual items in the list do not have to be sufficiently notable to merit their own separate articles. Complete lists of works, appropriately sourced to reliable scholarship (WP:ATT), are encouraged, ... (my emphases)

On the term text: "This" is text, is not text. (Yes, recently there was indeed an odd fashion for a notion that any phenomenon was a "text" to be "read", but I don't think it affected that 90%+ of the anglophone population that doesn't like to have its prose sprinkled with earnest references to French philosophasters.) Works would be better. And with works, you could avoid the bizarre whole or partial. How about published works?

We can surely agree that Vladimir Nabokov merits his WP article. (Not for the quality of his writing, of course. Gosh no, that would be elitist. No, for having written a best-seller, for having coined or at least popularized nymphet, etc.) And since he does, I think we can also agree that if his list of works becomes too long to be included in his article, it merits its own article. OK then: I have on my bookshelf a descriptive bibliography of his works running to over seven hundred pages. This includes over seven hundred "periodical appearances" ("C items") alone. WP is egalitarian and I shouldn't assume that you have access to this rather expensive volume; I might instead decide that I'd benefit humankind in general -- if not Michael Juliar, its compiler, in particular -- by typing its contents into WP. (In my own words, of course: no copyvio!)

Let us never forget that artistic quality has never been a criteria [sic] for notability (thank god) nor is it here. What's good enough for Nabokov is good enough for anyone, e.g. a not-particularly-straw man I'll call Joe Bloggs, who on the strength of two minor novels just about scrapes past the notability concerns and has a small yet legitimate article in WP. Now, my own efforts to provide a monster bibliography for Nabokov are hugely aided by the good work of his earlier, dead-trees bibliographer, Michael Juliar -- in effect, I'm simply ripping Juliar off -- and if anyone questions the veracity of what I write, I can appeal to Juliar's book, which was put out by a reputable publisher (Garland). However, WP editors don't have to appeal to any earlier bibliography; I can instead legitimately say that poem X appears in issue Y of obscure Russian-language emigre periodical Z; and that if you don't believe it, you should look it up in Z for yourself. (If, as is 99.99% percent likely, you have no access to Z, tough luck for you.) Likewise, the fanatical Bloggs aficionado User:John Doe doesn't have to appeal to any published bibliography of Bloggs; he can instead simply state that Bloggs's column "Musings from my Window" does appear on these days and these pages of a seven-year span of the Podunk Plain Dealer (five screenfuls of list!); anyone who challenges any of this is free to obtain the relevant microfiches and check for himself.

Unless I misunderstand the proposal or WP rules or both, the proposal seems to encourage both (i) large-scale de facto rip-offs from published bibliographies and (ii) fanatical inclusionism; it's likely to encourage listmania and be a boon to the creators of vanit conflict-of-interest articles: bulked-up résumés will be legitimized. Still, if this is what you want from WP.... Hoary 00:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I tire of this debate. Please state your arguments in a cogent, non-judgmental fashion. Both of us should the keep the sarcastic comments to a minimum. They are not advancing the consensus.

• The odd fashion of calling multiple objects "texts" to be "read" has not disappeared - I live in that world. But since that word does not make sense to most people, let's use "full and partial works" as you suggested.

• The problem of citation exists with all sources, not just here. If you question a quotation that claims to be from the single remaining copy of a book in the entire world and an editor says "it's in the rare books library at such-and-such library - go look at it" - it is the same problem. All print sources suffer from the same problem of accessibility. Lists of works cited from a printed bibliography are no different. That is a non-issue; if you want all cited sources to be electronic, take it up with WP:ATT. I suggest you think long and hard about that, though. Most academic sources in the humanities are not electronic which would mean that wikipedia would have no reliably sourced humanities articles.

• The intellectual property question is an interesting one. I'm not sure on that. You would have to check with a lawyer.

• I'd just like to mention that another computer scientist term is FUD. This IP issue sounds like FUD at the moment, though there may be some merit to it or not.-BillDeanCarter 06:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• If there are no legal problems with copying from published bibliographies, I don't see the problem with it. We are disseminating information to a wider audience. Wikipedia operates on trust as does much of academic work itself, by the way.

• I have a hard time believing that an academic who went to such lengths to come up with a bibliography of an author would be against letting that information reach a wider public. I could be wrong, because maybe that's all they do and all they can lay claim to. Probably they'd be glad to share it, and probably they'd be glad for the greater readership they'd be bringing to the author in question. Anyways, as I said below this is another argument separate from the greater issue of whether anyone (or nearly anyone) can have a bibliography at Wikipedia.-BillDeanCarter 06:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• I am not quite sure where you are going with the resume bit. A resume combines several different kinds of information. What this is proposing is only a list of works relevant to the person's artistic output, not their education, their "skills," "community involvement," etc. Awadewit ^Talk 01:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You raise various interesting issues. I'm in a rush and thus shall limit myself now to the penultimate one. Your approach seems to be that uncritical copying is fine (indeed, you seem to think that selectivity is a Bad Thing). This is copying indeed. It is not something that is done in academia, as far as I know. Juliar's bibliography was preceded by Zimmer's; Juliar certainly used Zimmer's but made a considerable effort to locate and verify what was said about every single item within it, noting those rare occasions when he was unable to locate a particular item. That is academic work (of a rather odd sort). Having a printed bibliography lying at one side of your keyboard as you type in all the important bits (skipping stuff like the size of the pages and the nature of the binding) is not academic in any way that I understand that term; even if the law (so eager to protect movies, etc.) says nothing about it, such large-scale, uncritical recycling can reasonably be described as ripping off. -- Hoary 04:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Non sequitur. Awadewit ^Talk 21:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

narrowing down the issue

The fundamental disagreement is very simple: The supporters of this change thing that the criterion should be ". If somebody is notable enough to have an article, then a separate article for a list of their works (such as [example]) is warranted if the list is so long that its inclusion in the main article would be a major irritation." Hoary and I do not agree with that We agree that they should all have a list of works, but that it should normally be in the article about them, with rare exceptions for authors with lists of works that are so extensive that it cannot reasonably be accommodated, which is a much higher bar than "irritation" (for the moment, I have changed the text to "unsuitable", which is non-specific enough. Hoary further adds, and I agree, that the basic justification for a WP page should apply separately to the list of works, that it should be able to be compiled from secondary sources. Nabokov, Tolkien, Bach, U2--all have such sources, devoted primarily to considering what works are to be included. Minor novelists usually do not. Cartland does not--there are many books, but nobody has written about which one belong. Almost all journalists do not. Only the very most important scientists do, such as Darwin & Einstein and Newton. Many visual artists will, because determination of their oeuvre is generally a major goal of scholarship. We also agree that the basic content rule is that the material should be encyclopedic: that if a major author, such as Chesterton, has also written hundred of pieces of journalism, then the major works are encyclopedic and the journalism probably not. There may be exceptions to that--possibly for Dickens. I think the solution is not to discuss in detail when a separate article is needed--that its a part of WP:N, not MOS.

I mention in illustration Piers Anthony. A separate articles was just created on the basis of a comment that "these belong on fan pages, not on a Wikipedia entry." That's turning things upside down--the comment was that they do not belong of WP at all, and the response was not just to keep them, but to make a separate page. This is a case where the length might justify an article, but where there seems no be no reliable secondary sources discussion which novels are to be included. I've challenged it, in anticipation of a discussion about which factor is more important. DGG 00:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Hoary indicated it would be theft of intellectual property to use such bibliographies, so I'm not sure that you agree.
• The judgments just go on and on. Why is Dickens' journalism notable but recent journalists' not? We cannot make those kinds of decisions. One of wikipedia's strengths is that it has refused to make those kinds of value judgments. I would say, for example, that Judith Miller's stories are extremely important. To have a list of those is vital - I think that it is unnecessary to explain why. Awadewit ^Talk 01:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• On Piers Anthony: Clearly that bibliography was getting in the way of any further improvement to the main article. I believe the article on Anthony can now be worked on much easier because you don't have that blight taking up more than half the article.
• On Judith Miller: What stories? Maybe someone should do an FA on Miller. Why not do a list of her works as well? Are we against educating people on exactly what they wrote?
• Basically DGG and Hoary would like to impose their view of who is notable and who isn't. I'm totally against that. I want to see people write up who _they_ are interested in and include complete bibliographies if they are able. Don't harass me with long unwieldly bibliographies in the main article just to get one single glut where everything is located. That's nonsensical especially considering we are in the information age.
• Awadewit is bringing us articles on the artists of the past and it's very interesting to see and read. I am working on more current artists like Sorkin and Monahan. GhostPirate is concentrating on Thompson. There is no set of proper artists out there. This is what Wikipedia is about.-BillDeanCarter 02:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Basically DGG and Hoary would like to impose their view of who is notable and who isn't. I would? This is news to me. ¶ I would say, for example, that Judith Miller's stories are extremely important. So would I, for some of them. They very likely helped start a war. (See Frank Rich, The Greatest Story ever Sold.) But To have a list of those is vital - I think that it is unnecessary to explain why. I disagree. A list of the particular stories that clearly or even possibly made a particular impact would be fine. I see no more point in listing her every article than I do for, um, let's say for listing Einstein's every day spent at Princeton. I'm willing to be persuaded that I'm wrong here. But my default position, from which I need to be persuaded, is that an encyclopedia condenses, that WP is "NOT" an unlimited collection of information (or shovelware). -- Hoary 04:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• You are mixing up categories. Einstein is notable for being a physicist, so listing every day he was alive (wherever) is not relevant. He is not notable for being alive every day - everybody would qualify under those conditions. There is no logic in that argument. The lists of works we are proposing relate to the subject's notability. A journalist writes stories, an author produces novels, short stories, poems, etc., an artist, paintings, sculptures, photographs, etc. No one is suggesting that we make irrelevant lists. Awadewit ^Talk 04:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Also, why can't wikipedia have "unlimited" information? Wikipedia is not paper. That is why it can reinvent the encyclopedia. Yes, its articles are condensed introductions to subjects (although most are far more expansive than any encyclopedia, which I think is wonderful) but that does not mean that every section of the encyclopedia has to be that way or that the encyclopedia cannot supplement the article with more extensive information. I hardly see an organized bibliography as useless (I had to look up "shovelware" - I did not know what it meant - according to wikipedia's page, "the derogatory computer jargon term shovelware refers to software noted more for the quantity of what is included than for the quality or usefulness." I fail to see how adding lists that are relevant to the subject of the article and, in the cases of the ones that I added, were available nowhere else on the internet until I added them are useless. Considering I have already had people contact me regarding their usefulness, I know that this is not so. Awadewit ^Talk 04:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I have not yet heard a good argument for why this helpful, interesting and related information (lists of works) should be deleted from wikipedia or not encouraged on wikipedia. If there are legal issues, then let's consider those very carefully and in detail and have a lawyer lay them out. But I am waiting to hear what is so terribly wrong with providing information to users - that is wikipedia's mission and it is redefining the way encyclopedias do that as it evolves. There is nothing wrong with that - it is on the frontier. Awadewit ^Talk 03:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't mentioned the law.

You invoked the idea of intellectual property above and below; if it is true that we cannot copy published bibliographies directly without violating copyright and intellectual property, then this is a concern. Awadewit ^Talk 04:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you think that WP should only be constrained by the law, Awadewit?

No. Please show me where I said that. Awadewit ^Talk 04:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Juliar, if I may follow up on the example above, spent thousands of hours compiling his bibliography, a large percentage of whose items were unknown until it was published. He's alive and well (the last time I heard) and thus free to copyleft it. As far as I know, he hasn't copylefted it or provided any other encouragement to people to recycle his work. He hasn't donated a version here and he surely would have been asked to do this. No encyclopedia that I have ever heard of systematically goes through a list of seven hundred items compiled at great personal cost by one other person, reproducing the entire lot. That's not only because other encyclopedias have limited space, it's also because encyclopedias value helpful condensation, value the intelligent discernment of their contributors, and respect what could be reasonably claimed to be private intellectual property even when no law happens to protect it. -- Hoary 04:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Again, you are invoking intellectual property; if wikipedia is breaking the law, we need to know it. Second, wikipedia is not like every other encyclopedia - it has much more information and covers many more topics. Would you prefer that it did not? If so, that is a topic that is not isolated to this topic and would best be discussed elsewhere. Lastly, I do not understand your argument about condensation; condensation is relevant for articles. Why cannot wikipedia have these lists of works in addition for those who want them? What is wrong with catering to multiple audiences, both those who want only a condensed version of the information and those who want more information? I think that you are relying on too narrow a view of what an online encyclopedia can be. Wikipedia is not really an encyclopedia in the twentieth-century sense, anyway; it aims to actually be an encyclopedia. Jimmy Wales describes it in a quote: "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." (Jimmy Wales). Awadewit ^Talk 04:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Now we are introducing a new argument about whether or not complete bibliographies violate someone's copyright. Maybe it's possible that some other author can claim that he/she has copyright on another author's complete bibliography because they took the time to acquaint themselves with it. Seems odd, but you never know. Anyhow, it's not a relevant argument to the greater issue of allowing bibliographies to flourish at Wikipedia when they meet certain criteria and have to be forked into separate articles. I believe that criteria should be wide open to all kinds of artists, not just the ridiculously famous ones.-BillDeanCarter 05:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Just about copyright: In the US, there is no copyright in a mere mechanical list; there is copyright in a list produced by intellectual labor and creativity. If you copy a plain list from a website, it is probably OK; if you make a copy or paraphrase of someone's separate significant publication, it is definitely not. However, you can use the data--we can list Bach's works by BWV, but we can't copy the arrangement or wording of the books devoted to establishing that list. This is true not just for complete lists, but for any substantial part. It's an absolute limitation, and whatever is decided has to work within these limits. DGG 06:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Other matters. WP is an encyclopedia, and the current mood at AfD has been to delete quite a number of lists containing what is regarded as trivial details. I've spoken for retaining some of them, but the consensus seems to be consistently otherwise. The same is the case for many small articles. First almost all transmission tower articles were deleted, and then many radio stations. Almost all elementary school articles are being merged or removed. Many smaller malls also, and many middle schools. There's a suggestion to remove or merge articles on bus routes. I've never been a fan of doing work that is likely to be deleted.

I'm not sure that I see the connection here. You are comparing articles that are non-notable with ours. We have already established that the author, artist, etc. must be notable to have a list and that list must be a relevant list of published works (one cannot understand an artist unless one knows what their works are), not a list of irrelevant facts (i.e., trivia). Awadewit ^Talk 07:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

At present the impression that is being given is that this entire argument is devoted to rescuing one particular list. This will be seen , rightly or wrongly, as WP:POINT; others have suggested it above. If you really want to preserve the principle of making separate articles for medium sized lists, the best thing to do is not press too hard on the smallest ones. I'd give this advice to anyone in any similar position, regardless of my personal feeling on whatever is in question: it is not wise to try for too much--it gets noticed and defeats the purpose. This place works by compromise. Attempts to suddenly shift consensus do not work here. In some ways it's a pity, but that seems to be the way it is. I've learned this by unfortunate experience. DGG 06:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Monahan's list has already been decided upon and I am certainly not arguing over that list in particular; it may have gotten me into the debate, but I am arguing on principle. Moreover, who is this impression being given to? I would prefer that we argue in the abstract, actually, because we keep getting hung up on individual expamples. Furthermore, no one is suggesting (that I can see) that we keep small lists—it was decided early on that only intrusively large lists would be forked. I think that BillDeanCarter forked his article because he knew it would get longer eventually. Perhaps he should have waited to fork it until then, but I did not realize that one had to wait to fork until an article is too long - one can anticipate length problems (I'm sure he did not anticipate this craziness - I would not have). When I started entering my lists, I knew how long they were at the start and knew they were too long for the article - should I not have immediately created a new page as I did? These questions seem trivial to me. The people who put the Monahan list of works up for deletion/merge did not seem to take into account that it was not complete, arguing that it was too short for its own article, among other things. BillDeanCarter had to repeatedly state (over and over and over) that it was incomplete (it was as if they had not even looked closely at the page). Also, politically, the advice always is: go for more than you actually think you will get; that way, when you compromise, you get what you wanted in the first place. Awadewit ^Talk 07:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I have pasted in the lastest version of the guideline. Please note that this page describes how to format lists of works. That is its function. If wikipedia did not want to have lists of works, it would not have had this page in the first place. We are just trying to update it, in a way. We are not introducing a new concept to wikipedia. Wikipedia has always had lists of works, as is evidenced by this page. This page does not require complete lists of works, I might add, and the people who will come here are those already interested in doing a list. I quote from the listcruft essay, which I assume that you have sympathies with, "It is very appropriate for the article on Zoology to include a list of notable zoologists within it, and for the article on the fictional series character Rick Brant to include a list of the Rick Brant books. Valid examples of standalone lists would include List of University of Chicago people and The 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." Awadewit ^Talk 07:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It's extraordinarily difficult for me to follow what's said above, and one reason is that at least one person likes to stick their own comments between the paragraphs of other people, paragraphs that thereby become unsigned. Please don't interrupt this message. (Below it, you're welcome to disagree with any or all of it as vigorously as you wish. Or even agree with bits of it.)

The version pasted into the "project page" comes pretty close to pleasing me, and I thank Awadewit for the good work.

To me, the main issue now is of how significant works should be in order to be listed.

A response to that which is simple and attractive in its simplicity is: "It is not for us to judge this; we just supply the information." If this is your response, consider: Nabokov wrote a fair number of short letters to newspaper and magazine editors. A good proportion of these are very short indeed, correcting mistaken descriptions of the young Pasternak, objecting to credulous treatment of claims by communist regimes, and so on, in just one or two sentences. Juliar (mentioned above) lists these, and rightly so. Would a listing of these belong in WP? If you say that yes it would, then you and I disagree (and please see below). If you say that no it wouldn't, then we agree on the need for some sort of indication that there's a limit to what should be listed.

I'll assume that Einstein did something useful every day he was at the Institute of Advanced Research (or whatever it was called; I'm writing this offline) while he was at Princeton. Detailed, day-by-day accounts of what the Beatles did in recording studios have been published; it's not obvious to me that Einstein's day-by-day intellectual activities (if verifiable) are less significant. (To me personally, they're hugely more significant than are the minutiae of this or that "fictional universe", but this may place me in a minority among WP editors.) Above: A journalist writes stories, an author produces novels, short stories, poems, etc., an artist, paintings, sculptures, photographs, etc. Yes indeed. And if the artist is Warhol, Murakami, Kusama or similar, they produce [sotto voce: get their assistants to produce] dozens and dozens of artworks, many of which are near identical. Wikipedia is not paper, yeah right; but it's also not Wikibooks: It seems to me that an article on Kusama or appended list could reasonably list every show she was in, every book of her work, every museum that has her work in its permanent collection, every series of her works, every work that was in a permanent collection -- but not everything graced by her name. If somebody wants to do the last of these and copyleft it, fine: Wikibooks is just one possible outlet.

I hadn't realized that "shovelware" was a little known term. If WP says it refers to software noted more for the quantity of what is included than for the [its?] quality or usefulness, fine, yes: "software" aside, that's what I meant. I don't know what lists Awadewit has made; even if he and I seem to disagree quite a bit, I'll concede that he seems a reasonable sort of chap [sorry if I've guessed the sex wrong], so I'd expect that his lists or other article contributions would be potentially useful and am not surprised that they have been praised as having actually been useful. To me, this doesn't imply that others' lists of individual photographs, etc., would be useful.

• H: Do you think that WP should only be constrained by the law, Awadewit?
• A: No.
• H: [blah blah blah blah] respect what could be reasonably claimed to be private intellectual property even when no law happens to protect it.
• A: Again, you are invoking intellectual property; if wikipedia is breaking the law, we need to know it.....

We do indeed. You'll also notice that I explicitly discussed intellectual property as not covered by the law. However, as for the law:

DGG: In the US, there is no copyright in a mere mechanical list; there is copyright in a list produced by intellectual labor and creativity. If you copy a plain list from a website, it is probably OK; if you make a copy or paraphrase of someone's separate significant publication, it is definitely not. IANaL (or in or of the US), but that has a familiar ring to it.

So yes, there could also be a legal angle here that needs consideration.

(Thank you for the link to List of University of Chicago people. That was an real eye-opener. U Chicago has a lot to answer for: Ashcroft, Wolfowitz....) -- Hoary 15:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

"Published artistic works"? Very few people, although there are some, would consider Nabokov's correction letters artistic works. The point is to generate lists of works relevant to that person's status as an artist. Could something about relevance be added? Would that please Hoary, DGG and co.? (Artists who make their mark by farming out their work to a group on purpose are very complicated cases. Let us leave those aside as they are special cases. We are trying to write a general guideline - special cases can be decided on their own merits. Guidelines can never cover every eventuality.) Awadewit ^Talk 16:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the exact wording -- I'll examine that and consider it later today -- but I certainly agree with the general thrust of what you're saying here. -- Hoary 23:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't even know why my sex is relevant to this discussion or why people are guessing it? Why is this coming in? (Also, who says I'm a chap? I missed that part.) Also, I can see why List of works by Mary Martha Sherwood and List of works by Joseph Priestley would rile Hoary and DGG. They are copied from a source (because I wanted them to be reliable), list lots of texts few people have every heard of and that do not deserve pages of their own. I was arguing that these lists, though long, were a benefit to wikipedia both inherently (the information on the authors is important) and because this information had not been available previously on the internet until I put it up. Awadewit ^Talk 16:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Your sex is indeed irrelevant, but the English language (i) requires that a clause has an overt subject yet (ii) lacks a sex-independent 3rd-person-singular pronoun that is idiomatic anywhere. Above, I could have forced an unidiomatic [in my idiolect] use of singular "they" and written: "I don't know what lists Awadewit has made; even if they and I seem to disagree quite a bit....", but then "they" would have seemed to refer to the lists rather than you. Nobody says you're a chap; it was merely the chance result of a flip of the "gender" coin.

I have no objection whatever to lists of texts that few people have ever heard of and that do not deserve pages of their own. (Indeed, I have created such lists myself.) I objected to encouragement to others to do more or less the same thing where the latter (i) could be the result of simple appropriation of what might be termed intellectual property (whether or not this is recognized by the law) and (ii) could extend to such minutiae as short letters to editors. -- Hoary 23:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you think that WP should only be constrained by the law, Awadewit? - Please consider how the word "only" is being used here. I did not say that WP should not be constrained by the law - I said it should not only be constrained by the law, meaning WP should be constrained by the law and something else (like these guidelines). And, yes, of course, we need to check on the intellectual property issue. I have already posted that question on the talk page of an intellectual copyright attorney here at wikipedia. I don't think we are, though. Lists that are divided into natural categories can be copied. We are not copying annotated bibliographies here, an entirely different beast. Awadewit ^Talk 16:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The first third or so of the paragraph above: Of course. (I'm puzzled to think that you could have imagined for a moment that I'd have made such a bizarre misreading.) -- Hoary 23:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

RfC - subpaged or large single bibliographies

I'm unsure what to do regarding Talk:List of books by Enid Blyton. I had a fairly long discussion with him, but can't seem to convince him that a merge is preferable to 28 small lists ({{Blyton bibliography}}). Also he's an admin/arbcom, so I'm thinking I must be missing something from consideration. Any input appreciated. --Quiddity 03:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Lists of author works are not copyrightable

An element in the debate over author bibliographies was whether a list of an author's works per se can be copyrighted. The answer is "no", I believe, under U.S. law, which has jurisdiction since the Foundation's servers are located in Florida. Facts cannot be copyrighted, including such bibliographic facts as that an author published a book under a title in a year through a publisher; the U.S. Constitution mandates that works are copyrightable only if they have sufficient originality. The following excerpt from a 1991 Supreme Court decision seems pertinent to our discussion of bibliographies

(a) Article I, 8, cl. 8, of the Constitution mandates originality as a prerequisite for copyright protection. The constitutional requirement necessitates independent creation plus a modicum of creativity. Since facts do not owe their origin to an act of authorship, they are not original, and thus are not copyrightable. Although a compilation of facts may possess the requisite originality because the author typically chooses which facts to include, in what order to place them, and how to arrange the data so that readers may use them effectively, copyright protection extends only to those components of the work that are original to the author, not to the facts themselves. This fact/expression dichotomy severely limits the scope of protection in fact-based works. Pp. 344-351.

(b) The Copyright Act of 1976 and its predecessor, the Copyright Act of 1909, leave no doubt that originality is the touchstone of copyright protection in directories and other fact-based works. The 1976 Act explains that copyright extends to "original works of authorship," 17 U.S.C. 102(a), and that there can be no copyright in facts, 102(b). [499 U.S. 340, 341] A compilation is not copyrightable per se, but is copyrightable only if its facts have been "selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship." 101 (emphasis added). Thus, the statute envisions that some ways of selecting, coordinating, and arranging data are not sufficiently original to trigger copyright protection. Even a compilation that is copyrightable receives only limited protection, for the copyright does not extend to facts contained in the compilation. 103(b). Lower courts that adopted a "sweat of the brow" or "industrious collection" test - which extended a compilation's copyright protection beyond selection and arrangement to the facts themselves - misconstrued the 1909 Act and eschewed the fundamental axiom of copyright law that no one may copyright facts or ideas. Pp. 351-361.

Thus, a scholar who collected the list of author works cannot copyright the list itself, but only a significantly original analysis or arrangement of those works. Expressed another way, only authors can obtain a copyright, not collectors.

Hoping that this clarifies the issue and resolves this element of the debate, Willow 21:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for these excerpts. It seemed an odd thing to be able to copyright and I'm glad you clarified the legality of publishing lists of works.-BillDeanCarter 21:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I thought it probably only the "annotated" parts of annotated bibliographies that were copywritten. Awadewit ^Talk 21:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

More on copyright from a wikipedian who is a copyright attorney:

The case on these issues is Feist (1991), and it said that copying a telephone directory is not copyright infringement. The argument that it was copyright infringement was called the "sweat of the brow" argument and the US Supreme Court said clearly, in Feist, that sweat of the brow is not sufficient for a copyright; originality is required. Here's the generic analysis for this kind of issue: Copyright requires an original work of authorship, originality being the operative word. The items in a list of this nature are facts, not original expression, and so not copyrightable. What is copyrightable in such a list is a) selection criteria and b) organization scheme. Selection or organization can be thinly copyrightable, available for lots of fair use, if there is any originality involved. Selecting "all" of some obvious category (like an author's works) has basically zero originality in terms of a selection, and so there would be no copyright for a complete bibliography. Sorting by the obvious sort-keys, such as alphabetical by title, chronological by date, or the basic genre of works (articles; books; essays; etc.) is also not original, so no copyright. To imagine a copyrightable list of someone's works is hard for me, frankly. Maybe, if someone developed a unique theory of how the works hung together, and then sorted them according to that theory ...? In any question, copying a standard-issue bibliography is fine (and something librarians and reference work publishers and scholars of all sorts do all the time). --lquilter 14:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I think, therefore, that we are fine on copying the bibliographies. Awadewit ^Talk 12:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

List of arguments

Hi, I found it a little hard to follow the various threads of arguments, so I hope that no one objects to me listing them all in one place. This section is not for discussing the validity of the arguments, but rather for defining them. I'll give them codes "P#" for the pro arguments (for bibliographies) and "C#" for the con arguments, and "N#" for neutral arguments. Please feel free to add ones that I missed! Willow 02:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we all agree with the following two neutral arguments:

N1) Separate bibliographies for non-notable authors should be excluded.

N2) Bibliographies should be separated from the main article only under two circumstances:

N2a) when it becomes overly long. For definiteness, there should be two size thresholds, S₁ and S₂. Once the list exceeds S₁ in length, it may be separated from its parent article; whereas if it exceeds S₂ in length, the list should be separated.

N2b) when the author's listed works, although less than S₁, are so important that many readers would find such a list useful. This condition should be extremely rare, but might pertain to a few authors such as Shakespeare, Plato or Aristotle.

The arguments in favor of allowing separate bibliographies for notable authors include:

P1) Such lists may be useful and desired by Wikipedia's readership. A central goal of WP is to provide quick and easy fact-checking for its readers, and such lists help to fulfill that mission.

P2) Removing lists of works from articles, when over S₁ in size, helps keep articles smaller, more navigable and more attractive to readers, and is consistent with summary style.

P3) Bibliographies can bring significant good, and there is little risk of harm from them. A key advantage of WP over paper encyclopedias is that it can go into much more detail about topics, having effectively unlimited space. Lists exploit this intrinsic advantage.

The arguments against allowing separate bibliographies include:

C1) The composition of such lists is original research.

C2) Even if an author is notable, the list of their works may not be notable or useful.

C3) Such bibliographies may be incomplete.

C4) Two articles for one author may seem to give undue importance to "lesser" authors.

C5) Before allowing a separate bibliography, at least two independent sources for the lists themselves should be cited.

C6) If separate biographies are to be allowed without two sources, high thresholds should be set on

C6a) number of works, AND

C6b) fraction of works with an independent article at WP, AND/OR

C6c) the length of notes attached to the listed works, such as a one-sentence summary of its plot or reception.

Are there other arguments that should be included in the list? Thanks for your help! :) Willow 02:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

"Neutral arguments"

Thank you for your effort to clarify, WillowW.

I hate to be a dick, but I disagree with N2. First, 5kB sounds paltry to me. Secondly, while William Shakespeare#Bibliography seems oddly titled (I might call it "Works" rather than "Bibliography") I think it's fine where it is and can't think of any advantage of hiving it off elsewhere.

While I may be wrong about N2 (and while it may be warmly greeted by many others), I don't think it's neutral.

One way to help neutralize it would be to change let's say 5 kB, roughly two sections of a typical article to let's say X kB, where X is a number we can discuss later.

Indeed, I'm not sure that it should be a simple number. Pardon the apparent complication, but perhaps two numbers would be better: Lists of works may be separated when they're over X kB, and should be separated when they're over Y kB. A bit more prolix, but actually more palatable.

More later, but first I have to attend to my paying job. -- Hoary 02:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we will need to go with "a reasonable length" -- which will not by itself settle any individual case, but these are guidelines, not fixed compartments. i was thinking of "longer than the rest of the article" , but that doesn't work for small articles or for very long ones. I might as well say my definition of long is a list over 32 K, 32 K being the obsolete definition of a "long" article in days of slow dial-up connections. In practice, some of us will not accept any number which makes the WM list automatically acceptable, and others will not accept any number that make it impermissible. (it is presently 14k) We could say the presumption is against the list if under 10K, and in favor if over 20. But I think any fixed number is an incentive for those who want lists on a favorite author to engage in padding with trivia. DGG 06:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Having two numerical thresholds is an excellent idea. If the exact values of S₁ and S₂ are a key point of the debate, then it would be wonderful if we've isolated it so quickly (see next section). Numerical criteria seem preferable, because they are objective and will allow wiki-debates to be concluded more rapidly and with more finality, which is definitely in the best interests of Wikipedia (e.g., less debating=more writing). Such numerical criteria are used in analogous settings within WP, e.g., the minimum number of articles recommended to start a new "stub" template.

The issue of whether the list contents are themselves notable is covered by argument C2. More generally, I believe that guidelines should be based on what's best for Wikipedia and appropriate for most authors, don't you? Willow 10:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that instituting a size suggestion helps as well (we don't have to write it in stone), but we can say: "Based on the recommended article size of 30-50kb, a list of works should be no more than 5kb of that article. If it exceeds that amount, the editor is strongly encouraged to fork it." Awadewit ^Talk 05:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I've misunderstood, but this looks like (can be misread as) a relative size suggestion. Readers may wonder (and I wonder) what you're saying about an article that's 20kB long.

I'm not going to measure the ingredients of the Ihei Kimura article, but clearly the booklists are long and disproportionately long. (This wasn't by design. It's just that I started the booklists and developed them before I or anybody has got around to moving the article beyond a mere stub.) Now, I'm open to criticism of the content of these lists (too wordy, too much attention paid to elusive and obsolete editions, etc), but if they're too long I don't think that this is even in part because the preceding text is short. -- Hoary 10:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Size thresholds

Personally, I would advocate making S₁=5 kb, or maybe 6kb, based on the following two examples:

• List of books by Frank Macfarlane Burnet (4159 bytes)

• List of books by Graham Greene (5785 bytes)

both of which seem too long to be read like text; rather, they seem designed to be searched. Willow 10:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

For comparison, Shakespeare's bibliography is 2722 bytes. I agree that it seems too short to separate out; the triple columns are a neat solution and much preferable to a long, left-adjusted list, don't you think? Willow 01:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. It might be useful to refer to the page on embedded lists where there is a discussion about turning lists into prose for comparison. Neither of these lists could possibly be turned into prose while the Shakespeare lists have a chance. I also thought that the multiple columns were an excellent solution. Awadewit ^Talk 10:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

As another comparison, Aristotle's bibliography is 5643 bytes. It's interesting to me that this list seems more navigable than the comparably-sized list of books by Graham Greene. That may be partly because (1) there are fewer works and more explanation, (2) there are more sections punctuating the bibliography, and (3) I'm pretty familiar with Aristotle's works, having translated a few of them. I still maintain that we should seek a quantitative criterion, to forestall protracted debate among well-meaning Wikipedians of different perspectives. Willow 02:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be a recommendation or a strong recommendation. There is always some exception that comes up in the future that, oddly, will prove the rule ridiculously wrong in a very few cases and I wouldn't want the guideline to be worded in such a way that wikilawyers would say "but if it is over 5kb it must be forked and that is that." Unfortunately, it does not seem to be that people very easily agree on statements such as "oh, that's the spirit of the guideline even if it is not the letter - that's fine." Awadewit ^Talk 10:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

One key difference between the Aristotle and Graham Greene bibliographies is their length on the screen, i.e., their numbers of lines. Although both bibliographies have roughly the same number of bytes, the Greene bibliography is roughly twice as long as the Aristotle bibliography on the screen. Perhaps we should suggest that every effort be made to present the list as compactly as possible? Just a thought, Willow 02:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Essentially, I think you are highlighting the importance of mentioning utility in the guideline. The list should be easily navigable. We could suggest compactness as one way to achieve this. Again, I do not want to demand compactness because perhaps that would not work for every list (too many specific requirements doesn't make for a good guideline, in my opinion, because it restricts the ways in which lists can then be assembled) but the guiding principle of utility does make a lot of sense. There is no reason to have the list if it is unusable. Awadewit ^Talk 10:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

That's an excellent idea, to lay out the spirit of the guideline and its motivation(s), even if people don't always listen to them. William Smellie has some strong words about the importance of "utility" in the first edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica. :) "Navigability" seems as though it should be mentioned, and perhaps the "search vs. read" distinction? I also agree with the inevitability of exceptional cases and that we should allow for flexibility; that's implicit in why they're called "guidelines", and not "rules". The wording of the guideline should be gentle and strong at the same time, the way a mother holds her baby. :) Willow 11:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, in principle, on a nudge toward compactness. (Cough. I did earlier bring up the matter of compactness in my illustrative reworking of a part of some SF list a few screenfuls above.)

I don't think the Greene list has to be separated from the main Greene article. But I've no objection to such a separation (whereas I do think that separating the Shakespeare list would be daft).

Should one specify numbers? I think that on balance they're a good idea. (They may indeed encourage occasional instances of padding in order to create a separate article. Indeed, it's the kind of thing I'd have done when I was eleven or so. But is that desperate degree of fandom that prevalent?) If there are numbers, then having a higher and a lower number seems to allow a lot more flexibility (and, groan, more ingenuity in silliness) than having a single number.

If there are two numbers, then how about 5kB and 8kB? -- Hoary 10:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Those numbers seem fine for me; I love how this seems to be resolving itself so effortlessly! :) Willow 11:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with those as well. Awadewit ^Talk 11:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I was involved in a real-world row yesterday. (Amazingly, about something I could aggrandize as the semantics of propositions.) Whew. 'Nuff of that; I'm Mister Affable today. In that spirit, I'll add that the numbers 5 and 8 were not reached after careful consideration; feel free to push them around. -- Hoary 11:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I am feeling just the same as 2 days ago, and a number which would put the bias at separate pages for as little as 8 is not acceptable to me, as it would mean biasing towards separate articles for about 1/3 the literary authors pages, and I think it makes more sense to aim at 1/10. When examples are shown, I don't think it will be acceptable generally. The only thing if you must have numbers is a very wide range, and I would accept 5 and 25. Its a sort of an equivalent: we can set the first number so low as to permit almost anything to have a separate page, if the second has to be high enough to not force very much to have one. As for a few minor points over the weekend,

Aristotle wrote very few books, and those with compact conventional titles. If we were to do a reasonably full bibliography listing translations it would run about 10 times the size, even with only one edition per translation.

In general, there's more point in a useful categorized lists with comments than a compact tone, for allowing a line or two of description can save on separate articles. All that is needed is good navigation. A long list is fine if you can get to where you want.

As for padding, to adding book reviews in newspapers to a list of publication is padding.

Fortunately, this is not quite as critical a matter as holding babies.

Burnet is a good example where a separate list was not needed--it's my field, but I can't figure out why anyone tried. Shakespeare on the other hand doesn't need a list because the individual works are so well known that the text can be followed, and the works in each genre are distinct and known. There is no way to avoid dealing separately with the problems posed by each separate author. DGG 05:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Okay, I too support the size limit recommendation.-BillDeanCarter 02:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we'd do better to call it a size guideline, not limit, because no matter what it is we will probably find ourselves wanting to make exceptions in all directions, and now we just have to negotiate the numbers. I am not happy with a maximum guideline of less than 20 because I don't think other eds. will, and this has to have some chance of general acceptance, I'll accept any reasonable minimum guideline, even as low as 5. This has the advantage of leave the particular case that got this started in the middle, because thats the one where the disagreement arose. Personally I'd prefer 24 and 32, or a single mark at 32, but I don't think that would have general support either. If we insist on advancing our own views completely we wont get anywhere. DGG 06:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. I'm satisfied with a compromise along the lines of what all of you have been leading towards. There's an excellent interview with Jimmy Wales here where he talks about how most often Wiki decisions come down to a case by case situation, or something like that... anyways, some guideline agreed upon will do well as a start. It will evolve, change, etc... I think we're all just kind of tired of this debate, though it has been interesting. I'm pooped. Can't quite contribute any longer to this so if a quick resolution could come about that would be great.-BillDeanCarter 08:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that we thought the whole paragraph should read like a suggestion. DGG, what do you think about listing the size restrictions in terms of percentage of the article? Ex: "If the list of works exceeds 20% of the article, editors should consider forking the list onto a new page." Awadewit ^Talk 10:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Final proposal?

Lists of published works should be included for authors, illustrators, photographers and other artists. If an article already exists on an author or artist, then a separate article for a list of his or her works (such as Bibliography of Jorge Luis Borges or Robert A. Heinlein bibliography) is warranted if the list becomes so long that its inclusion in the main article would exceed around one-fifth of the article's total size. The individual items in the list do not have to be sufficiently notable to merit their own separate articles. Complete lists of works, appropriately sourced to reliable scholarship (WP:ATT), are encouraged, particularly when such lists are not already freely available on the internet. If the list has a separate article, a simplified or selective version should also be provided in the main article.

Can we agree on this? I think that the beginning should say "should" since it is referring to lists while the second part should say "encouraged" since it is referring to complete lists. That takes into account Hoary and DGG's concerns, I believe. Does the 1/5 solution address the problems of size? Awadewit ^Talk 12:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. --Quiddity 18:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me too. DGG includes (below): "As a rough guideline, lists that form more than one-third the article and more than 50 items should be considered for division." could be used. 1/5 to 1/3... the general idea is there. Though I should point out that if the article has only a paragraph or two on the author (for lacking of try lets say) then the warrant might or might not be there. Possibly that list of works will be a problem whether or not the article is FA or not. But yeah, this is good.-BillDeanCarter 05:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been following the discussion, but I am surprised there is no guideline on the lists of works by academics. Should all authored papers be included? Chapters in books? Coauthored books? It can get tricky. nadav (talk) 00:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally I don't think many academics merit a wikipedia page, but putting that aside, I would say that all journal articles, book chapters, edited books and books should be included (conference papers, because they are unpublished, should not). I don't see any trickiness there. Those are all works that count toward tenure, for example, and are usually substantial works of scholarship, so there is no reason not to include them. Awadewit ^Talk 00:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• maybe if one-fifth is changed to one-half, ) a tremendous number of articles have ref lists of one-fifth--thats about average for a good article if someone wrote more than a few books. . (there's still a minimum size problem: e.g., a 5 line article with 2 lines of bib.) And of course it must be worded as optional at every point. A previous attempt to force the division of extra long articles where it was made required was a disaster, and soundly rejected. Furthermore, the MOS is not the place to dictate the notability of the contents in articles--it a MO STYLE.

As far as academic works go, the policy has been to list only a few of the best, because anything more has been used at Afd as cause for rejection as "Like a Resume" (I've tried to include them, and always lost.). The acceptability of different kinds of works is not appropriate for a MOS--this would need a long discussion, especially since in computer science the main work is often conference papers. At many of the top universities, only a limited number of works can be submitted for tenure, by the way:for example, using a place I know, the Princeton Physics department wants 5 and no more than 5. Anyway, this is a manual of style, and not a manual of notability. Taking all this into account, I suggest

• Lists of published works should be included for authors, composers, illustrators, photographers, and other creative professionals. If an article exists on an author or artist, then a separate article for a list of his or her works may be warranted if the list becomes so long that its inclusion in the main article would be unacceptable. As a rough guidline, lists that form more than one-third the article and more than 50 items should be considered for division. If the list has a separate article, a simplified or selective version should also be provided in the main article. The inclusion of individual items on the list is subject to the normal standards for WP article content. Whether the lists are to be complete or selective is an editing decision.

This version has 5 advantages:

1/it establishes the idea that separate lists are permited as a matter of course

2/it lets the individual editors on a page do whatever they decide is appropriate

3/it provides some rough idea of what is going to be scale envisioned, but doesnt make it prescriptive

4/it does not dictate acceptable article content, which is no part of the MOS. I think it would depend on the article.

5/it does not provide an excuse for arbitrarily deleting the list of works on any particular author that started this discussion, nor does it provide a reason for necessarily requiring it.

There is one unsolved question--do matters about the accetability of a separate article belong in XfD or in RfC & mediation. DGG 00:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree with some parts of DGG's version. ¶ Lists of published works should be included for authors, composers, illustrators, photographers, and other creative professionals. Too simple. This doesn't even hint at the degree of significance of the works. Yes indeed this is a matter that's difficult to describe concisely, but the difficulty should be no excuse to chicken out from an attempt. There is an attempt later, with The inclusion of individual items on the list is subject to the normal standards for WP article content; however, this is meaningless as there seem to be no such standards; indeed, it seems to me that once a subject is accepted as worth an article, any degree of (verifiable, relevant) trivia within it is acceptable: see the minor contributions rather desperately listed within Pinky Bass, Karen Graffeo, Clayton Colvin, etc. (I've already addressed this matter in a comment that's still on this talk page; either get your browser to search through it downwards from the top for the string "(such as [example]) is warranted" or look at what's at the foot of this old version.) ¶ If an article exists on an author or artist, then a separate article for a list of his or her works may be warranted if the list becomes so long that its inclusion in the main article would be unacceptable. As a rough guidline, lists that form more than one-third the article and more than 50 items should be considered for division. I disagree with the notion of "more than [proportion]" whether that proportion is one third or anything else. I wrote my objection at what is still the foot of the section above titled "Neutral arguments"; nobody responded to it (about which I can't complain), but people don't seem to have read it, which seems a pity. ¶ If the list has a separate article, a simplified or selective version should also be provided in the main article. The inclusion of individual items on the list is subject to the normal standards for WP article content. Fine. ¶ Whether the lists are to be complete or selective is an editing decision. This too is fine when taken in the spirit in which it's intended. I fear that it won't be, and that the wording of the guideline will then be taken as explicit approval of list-stuffing. ¶ And therefore: ¶ Lists of substantial published works are welcomed for authors, composers, illustrators, photographers, and other creative people. (The meaning of "substantial" is not defined here and is left to the judgment of the editors; it will include "standalone" publication, short stories, etc., but will exclude contributions of a mere one or two pages to books or periodicals unless these contributions are shown to be particularly significant.) Whether the lists are to be complete or selective is a decision for the editors of the article. If an article already exists on an author or artist, then a separate article for a list of his or her works may be warranted if the list becomes so long that its inclusion in the main article would be unacceptable. Division should be considered for a list that both (i) forms more than one-third of an article whose main text alone would make it of at least average length for a "Good Article" and (ii) has more than 50 items. If such a separate article is created for the list, a substitute of within one third of its length should also be provided within the main article; until and unless it is possible to make such a shortened list, the fuller list, however long, should remain within the main article. ¶ This was written in a hurry and no doubt would benefit from further improvement, in content as well as prose style. One minor point: I avoid "professionals" as a lot of creative people whose works are worth discussion get little or no money, and may be amateur in the best sense of the word. -- Hoary 04:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

  This is a particular kind of list-stuffing here we're dealing with. As people stuff Wikipedia with lists of works we'll get a better idea of what's going on, and where there are problems. Let's capture the spirit we're going for and let the further details be hammered out over time.-BillDeanCarter 05:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree with Hoary that his version is very close, and I like the GA standard. And I agree with BillDeanCarter that we should not attempt to resolve all issues here and now, primarily because we will not succeed in doing so. This is not making a policy which cannot be further adjusted or changed. We are not revising an old policy, but trying to propose a new one--one that has to appeal to more than just the few of us, or it will be ignored or rejected, as many over-detailed first attempts have been. I have one or two points:

1. short stories shouldn't be specified to be automatically included or not included--there are authors like Salinger where they obviously should be, but there are others where they are totally overshadowed by longer works. Similiarly for any other small work: the individual sonnets of Shakespeare are significant--& could probably even have articles--the individual Child ballads do. similarly for some other poets, such as Emily Dickinson.
2. And a related problem: many visual artists have not many hundreds, but many thousands of works. I'm not sure we should include illustrators and photographers specifically, since we may need a separate rule for them--but neither should we explicitly include them.
3. There are plain lists and extensively annotated or formatted ones, such as the one for U2's recordings, or the one for Madonna's literary works. Such lists can also be seen as article sections.

So: ¶ Lists of substantial published works are welcomed for authors, composers, and other creative people. (The meaning of "substantial" is not defined here and is left to the judgment of the editors; it will normally include full length independent "standalone" publications (such as novels or plays) sometimes shorter works such as short stories, poems and individual songs, but will normally exclude contributions of a mere one or two pages to books or periodicals unless these contributions are shown to be particularly significant.) Whether the lists are to be complete or selective is a decision for the editors of the article. If an article already exists on an author or artist, then a separate article for a list of his or her works may be warranted if the list becomes so long that its inclusion in the main article would be unacceptable. Division should be considered for a list that both (i) forms more than one-third of an article whose main text alone would make it of at least average length for a "Good Article" and (ii) has more than 50 items. If such a separate article is created for the list, a substitute, normally within one third of its length should also be provided within the main article. In some cases, a multi-section article can appropriately take the place of a list. ¶

DGG 04:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I can, of course, argue with some points in that, but it seems pretty acceptable. However, can we change "a mere one or two pages" to "a very few pages" or similar? That aside, niggles: (i) Hyphenate "full length". (ii) Either "independent" or "standalone", not both. (iii) Not parentheses but dashes around "such as novels or plays". (iv) Comma after "one third of its length". -- Hoary 04:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The consensus version directly above works for me. I do wonder, though, if we should add a line about such bibliographies being encyclopedic. There has been a push lately on a number of author articles to replace the bibliography section with templates like Template:Charles Dickens, Template:Nathaniel Hawthorne, and Template:Edgar Allan Poe. The reason stated for this change is that some people believe bibliography lists are "unencyclopedic." This issue has also come up on William Shakespeare. Personally, I'm opposed to replacing bibliographies with simple "author works" templates b/c the templates usually offer less information than the bibliography. Would people want to add something about this? Or does the current consensus language above already imply that bibliographies are an integral part of any author's article?--Alabamaboy 14:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The above language does imply that lists of works are an integral part any author's article and, I believe, a consensus on that. Since wikipedia is a new type of encyclopedia, it can redefine "encyclopedic," as I keep saying. This is one excellent way that it can do so. Personally, I find such templates horrifying. They are unaesthetic and take up a huge amount of room on a page. The kinds of lists of works that we have been discussing here do not lend themselves to such a template, anyway, because they involve hundreds of works or, if you look at List of works by Joseph Priestley, scientific papers and sermons as well as books on theology, political theory, education, grammar, history... Awadewit | talk 16:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree. I just wanted to get other opinions on this b/c I'd hate for this "biographies are unencyclopedic" movement to gain ground. Best, --Alabamaboy 17:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The latest version with Hoary's slight modifications looks good. I still wish we also addressed academics though, but that can wait for another day. nadav (talk) 04:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I will reformat it tomorrow and put it on the page as an agreed text and spread the word a little, so we can use it in discussing the stuff below. (that fact that we actually agreed on something may help, once people get over the surprise. I think for academics we will have to say that it depends on the person--I do know that for currently active people I run into great resistance over 10. success with this depends on not pushing people too far. (smile) DGG 04:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Campaign to save bibliographies

I totally agree. I just wanted to get other opinions on this b/c I'd hate for this "biographies are unencyclopedic" movement to gain ground. Best, --Alabamaboy 17:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

That's horrifying. Have their been casualties? Those templates completely kill off any kind of context that a list of works offers. I don't see a Poe bibliography. Was it AfD'ed? Hawthorne doesn't have a bibliography either. Did Dickens, Poe and Hawthorne ever have one? If they had bibliographies and they've been deleted then they need to be brought back. Those guys are big names in the world of literature and as a reference site Wikipedia is the place for a complete list of their works. I wish that I could be notified every time one of these bibliographies goes to the guillotine. I get the feeling that there are those who are trying to compress and compact information on literature, deeming it old and dusty, while oblivious to how information on pop culture is being expanded upon.-BillDeanCarter 18:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

There needs to be a study group looking at which kind of lists of works have been deleted in the past, and then they should be revived. That is if there is an archive of deleted articles. Is there? And for good measure, these practices need to be absolutely stopped.-BillDeanCarter 18:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Outrageous. I can't believe there is a "bibliographies are unencyclopedic" movement. Maybe literature becomes stronger from these wars. If someone were to start a "keep all bibliographies" movement I would join up and do duties. Anyone interested in leading such a watchdog group at Wikipedia?-BillDeanCarter 19:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there have been casualties. Charles Dickens's bibliography was deleted and now has a template instead, while Edgar Allan Poe and Nathaniel Hawthorne lack bibliographies all together and both use a template in their place. See the discussion at Talk:Charles_Dickens#List_of_works_by_Charles_Dickens and Talk:Charles_Dickens#Navbox for why that "list" was removed. I'd definately be happy to join in a campaign to fix this sad state of affairs. There is also a discussion at Talk:William_Shakespeare#Remove_Bibliography on why the bibliography there should not be removed. I believe we can make a strong case by showing people this very guideline! Perhaps we should start by going to the Charles Dickens article and reinserting the bibliography.--Alabamaboy 20:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I've now reinserted the Charles Dickens bibliography and stated why at Talk:Charles_Dickens#Bibliography; I also added a bibliography for Nathaniel Hawthorne while also raising the issue of creating a bibliography for Edgar Allan Poe on that article's talk page. I hope everyone will add their two-cents worth. Best, --Alabamaboy 20:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Dickens is of course appropriate for both a bibliography in the article and a separate list. If there is any classic author for whom it makes sense to include the detailed publication history it would be him, because the publication in parts was so important to the structure of the novels--and, fortunately, because there are any number of secondary works to be cited on the manner of publication and its importance. I'll be glad to make amends for any delay that may have taken place trying to get this right by joining in as needed. I just put in a word at Shakespeare. 04:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I have put in my two-cents at Dickens and will do so at the other pages as well. Awadewit | talk 06:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Starting again with "final" proposal

Lists of substantial published works are welcomed for authors, composers, and other creative people. (The meaning of "substantial" is not defined here and is left to the judgment of the editors; it will normally include full length independent "standalone" publications (such as novels or plays) sometimes shorter works such as short stories, poems and individual songs, but will normally exclude contributions of a mere one or two pages to books or periodicals unless these contributions are shown to be particularly significant.) Whether the lists are to be complete or selective is a decision for the editors of the article. If an article already exists on an author or artist, then a separate article for a list of his or her works may be warranted if the list becomes so long that its inclusion in the main article would be unacceptable. Division should be considered for a list that both (i) forms more than one-third of an article whose main text alone would make it of at least average length for a "Good Article" and (ii) has more than 50 items. If such a separate article is created for the list, a substitute, normally within one third of its length should also be provided within the main article. In some cases, a multi-section article can appropriately take the place of a list.

I'm sorry that I've been away, but I had a concussion and I sprained/broke my ankle. I was not up to discussing MOS. Any way, now I'm back. I find the new version (which I believe this is) unacceptable for two major reasons:

• "substantial published works" - the definition given already leaves out any important essay printed in a periodical. Apparently the entire Spectator, the most important periodical of the eighteenth century, whose articles were all written by these two guys named Addison and Steele, would not meet this definition. This definition relies too much on a discarded notion that the only important literature is "big" literature; it also privileges particular genres. The definition says "sometimes" shorter works such as short stories, poems or songs would be included. The language here implies that these are always less interesting to the reader and less relevant to the article. The guideline cannot be so specific since it is trying to cover so many categories. Much of our initial discussion was about this - the whole point of a complete list is not to exclude based on assumptions about what interests readers or what is important to particular editors. Awadewit | talk 06:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• I also cannot accept that the statement "whether the lists are to be complete or selective is a decision for the editors." I think that we should encourage editors to include complete lists of works. There is no point in writing a guideline if it is so wishy-washy that editors can do whatever they want anyway. We should be more definitive. Awadewit | talk 06:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

  Okay, there are a lot of drafts going on, but I thought we were working from this one (without perhaps an addition or two about the length needed),BillDeanCarter 09:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC):

Lists of published works should be included for authors, illustrators, photographers and other artists. If an article already exists on an author or artist, then a separate article for a list of his or her works (such as Bibliography of Jorge Luis Borges or Robert A. Heinlein bibliography) is warranted if the list becomes so long that its inclusion in the main article would exceed around one-fifth of the article's total size. The individual items in the list do not have to be sufficiently notable to merit their own separate articles. Complete lists of works, appropriately sourced to reliable scholarship (WP:ATT), are encouraged, particularly when such lists are not already freely available on the internet. If the list has a separate article, a simplified or selective version should also be provided in the main article.

I thought so, too, but then I looked over the recent discussion and I thought that the draft had changed to the one I posted above. Was I wrong? Awadewit | talk 10:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think the first "Final proposal?"(/proposal directly above my comment) is better than the version presently in the guideline. However, I prefer DGG's recent version. I agree with the opinion that in many cases it is more useful to have a (somewhat) selected bibliography than a full one. The general reader will not be able to distinguish the relative significance of the works in an indiscriminate list that contains entries generally regarded as trivial and would thus find it much less useful than it could be. I think that we can only encourage comprehensive lists of works if we require them to be annotated. This would make clear the nature of each work. nadav (talk) 10:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing too trivial if it was written by the author except maybe blurbs. To understand an author you need to see that before they wrote screenplays and novels, they wrote serial narratives and book reviews and cover stories. If Shakespeare had written some odd pamphlets about some movement, then they would be important. If we don't included book reviews in complete lists of works then we're rewriting history. As for confusing the reader, that is why you have a selected bibliography and then as a separate article a complete bibliography.-BillDeanCarter 10:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Having two versions, a selected list on the bio page and a separate list/article, does indeed address this issue. However, in cases where there is only one version, I think my concern outweighs the reason for a full list. We are first and foremost writing for people with no knowledge of the subject, not people already familiar with the artist who want to further explore his development and influences. So if there is no selected list for laypeople, then there should be annotation to explain the level of notability of each work. nadav (talk) 10:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Nadav1, who does the selecting? Who decides what is important? What is important to you might not be important others. Any "selections" are invariably also a work of "original research" since such a list claims "these works are more important than the rest." Also, I would hope that the article itself would explain the "notability" of various works in the list to some extent. If you are worried about readers not understanding what works are the most significant, I would focus first and foremost on articles, not lists. That kind of information belongs in the article - along with any disputes about it. Awadewit | talk 16:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

not always--judgment is used as in anything else. It depends upon the nature of the works and the importance of the writer--and the interest of people here. I do not think we agree whether we generally do ant complete lists or generally do not want complete lists; what I do know is that there are very few complete lists here, or even that try to be. If we want agreement on anything ,we have to leave this point open. I will agree to say either 1/ that we need them in only exceptional cases, 2/ or that only major woks should be listed completely except in exceptional cases, or , as an extreme compromise, that it is up to the editors on each page. I will not agree to say that they are preferred or that they should be done if possible. So it is clear we wont convince each other-- Awadewit, I'll meet you in the middle. OK?

First, you cannot easily determine the "importance" of a writer. Is it more important that a writer invents and experiments with new forms? That s/he affects a lot of other writers? That s/he affects society at large? Not even scholars agree on this, so you are not going to be able to find a consensus of statements on who the most "important" writers are. I would prefer the position to me that such pages require a complete list (or a forked page), but since that seems an impossible position to reach here, I have compromised with the language "encourage editors." It does not matter if the current lists are incomplete - they are works in progress, like much of wikipedia. The question is what we want those lists to aim for - I would like them to aim for completion. What would exceptional cases be? To me, this language is so fuzzy as to invite disaster. Leaving it up to the editors is akin to having no guideline at all - there is no point in that. I do not consider it a compromise when the guideline would basically say "oh, you can do this if you like" or "do this only in some undefined extreme instance." Since I view lists of works as vital to understanding an author (as does any scholar), I am not comfortable with such a vague guideline that will rarely encourage editors to make lists of works. Editors often need to be helped out with suggestions - leaving everything up to them is not always a good idea. Awadewit | talk 07:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

shakespeare

The opinion at the AfD on Shakespeare's List of Works [2] is running very strongly to delete. I am almost the only keep. DGG 07:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The opinion seems to be fairly strongly for redirecting to William Shakespeare#Bibliography, which seems like a good choice. That other list is both more complete and properly wikified, but the skeleton of the redirected article will remain in the history in case the author (or someone else) decides to suddenly expand the subject into a full article. I do note that noone has informed the original/sole author. Bad etiquette. I'll do it now. --Quiddity 07:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I find your comment for your "keep" vote unpersuasive. Ways to make the list useful would be (i) to link the list items to their articles; (ii) to distinguish among them by the degree of authorship, perhaps (a) what are attributed to WS by virtually everybody who thinks that he wrote anything, (b) what are attributed to WS and a cowriter, (c) what are dubiously attributed, (d) attributions made intelligently at the time but no longer taken seriously by any scholar, (e) notable (article-worthy) hoaxes. You could also add alternative titles when these have been widely used (and not just for the sake of completeness, which is what the "search" function is for). Sorry, I can't help with this enterprise; I'm busy elsewhere. I'd like to be persuaded; I'd like to vote "keep". Persuade me (and others). -- Hoary 07:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I will paste here what I posted at AfD. Perhaps it will convince you Hoary:

Since Shakespeare's article is one of the top fifty viewed sites at wikipedia, I do feel that his articles and subpages deserve careful consideration. It is unfortunate that this page is not yet a full bibliography, listing the various quartos, folios, and other important editions for each work, but that is beside the point. The question is whether the concept of the page is legitimate. Obviously it is; there are many such lists of works on wikipedia and the MOS even encourages them. We should not limit the editors working on Shakespeare to a simple listing of the plays. This kind of page, which is obviously a work in progress, can include much more information than the current William Shakespeare page and can be sourced to any number of Shakespeare bibliographies such as McManaway and Roberts' A Selective Bibliography of Shakespeare: Editions, Textual Studies, Commentary.

• Shakespeare's plays is not a detailed listing of the plays and their publication history. It is an article about the plays themselves. Trying to integrate a detailed list of important editions would be disastrous.
• Shakespeare's sonnets is also an article about the sonnets themselves, not a detailed list of all 100+ sonnets. Including such a list would strain the page.
• Chronology of Shakespeare's plays – Oxfordian is a proposed chronology for the authorship of the plays, if they were written by Oxford, not a listing of publication dates and information about those publications.
• Chronology of Shakespeare plays tries to sort out the mess of dating Shakespeare's plays. It is not a page about publication information.

None of these other pages has the same purpose as this one. I have not seen a convincing argument from those who want to delete that relies on wikipedia's deletion policy. Simply because the page is incomplete at this time does not mean it merits a deletion. The page's concept is legitimate and much more information can be added to flesh it out and make it useful. If the editors here who are in favor of deletion want to delete all incomplete pages, they should begin by eliminating all "start" and "stub" articles and demanding that any new article that is posted be relatively complete. I was under the impression that wikipedia was supposed to improve slowly over time and ideally multiple editors would contribute to each page in order to make it better. Deleting legitimate but incomplete pages does not encourage such practices. Awadewit | talk 07:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Hoary, I agree with your suggestions for the page's improvement (perhaps you should paste them on the article's talk page), but I don't feel that an incomplete page should be deleted simply because it is incomplete. That way leads to madness, as I tried to explain in my "vote" quoted above. Awadewit | talk 07:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Hoary, you might also read the author's statement at the voting - s/he had no intention of leaving the page that way and is intending to implement many of the topics you mentioned. Awadewit | talk 09:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

For the record, the nomination was withdrawn, after it was promised the lists would be improved & expanded in scope. That's how an AfD should end. DGG 03:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Cite book

Work is underway to make {{cite book}} suitable for use in single-author bibliographies. Please see Template_talk:Cite_book#Edits. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 14:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Filmographies

I'm wondering if there's an established form for incorporating an actor's non-filmed work (ie stage, radio etc). Does it go under notes? Is the heading "Filography" an agreed on point, even when the list includes stuff in other media?

Discographies

Hello. I'm working on some rappers' discographies, namely Kanye West discography and Eminem discography. My question is: should list of mixtapes, list of singles the artist is featured in, and list of songs the artists is featured in be included in the artist's discography? I have a strong wish of removing such lists. Mixtapes are not notable at all, they shouldn't have their own articles per WP:N, so they provide nothing but name, lists of singles and songs the artist is featured in are some kind of repetive information, because such songs are mentioned in articles of artists in songs of whom the artist is featured. Daniil Maslyuk 14:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If in doubt, refer to policy. WP:SOURCES and WP:RS being most relevant here. In the examples you point to, the "mixtapes" sections should be removed as listcruft, but the "As featured performer" or "Guest appearances" sections appear to be relevant (the artists actively contributed to these original works. whereas mixtapes are just unofficial fan-made compilations). Hope that helps. --Quiddity 18:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)