text:
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lists of works

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

Useful links to years-in-xxxxx and piping the links
If we're going to tell readers that T.S. Eliot published The Waste Land in 1922, then why not link to 1922 in poetry on that line of the T.S. Eliot section? And if we're going to link to 1922 in poetry or literature, the unpiped links would overwhelm the look of the list, making it more difficult to read (please follow the link and look at it). It seems most useful to readers to allow them to follow the links to the topical year articles where appropriate. So long as the readers are informed (that can easily be done very briefly at the top of a list), then a piped year-in link shouldn't be confusing to anyone. The idea of not piping year-in/topical year links seems to have been meant for prose passages, not lists, as far as I can tell. I've proposed this kind of exception for year linking at Wikipedia talk:Only make links that are relevant to the context and the section below it. No one has objected so far, or responded to the idea. Please take a look. Reconsideration (talk) 23:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * See Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Date Linking RFC. Very disputed still. -- Quiddity (talk) 01:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Per WP:EGG, I agree with you that the MoS on this topic does not apply to size-constrained areas such as lists or tables, but is limited to prose.-- 20 08 Ol ymp ian chitchat 10:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

No book or published works box?
I've been finding the awards boxes very helpful in articles I've been working on & wonder if a 'published works' box exists, as I'm now working on a subject who has published books, DVDs and audio recordings. Thanks in advance for any help.--Tyranny Sue (talk) 03:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Not that I know of. I'd suggest searching the WP:FAs and WP:FLs for guidance/ideas. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

I can see pros and cons for both these approaches.

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

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

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

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

order of works
The MOS says to list earliest works first. This is certainly appropriate for literary authors. It is not for academics, where the almost universal convention, for currently active people, is to list the later works first, as in a a sense superseding the earlier ones. I invite discussion. DGG (talk) 17:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My feeling is that earliest works first is also appropriate for academics. First, print encyclopedias mostly use this convention, even for academics. Second, I think the latest-first convention for academics has partly arisen from CVs: though these may be an increasingly important genre of academic self-description, it's rather important to keep wikibios distinct from résumés. In an encyclopedic survey of an academic life, an overall survey of activity is wanted rather than presentist demonstration of research activity. (I also think cut-and-paste lists of works by academics often need pruning if they are not to unbalance an article.) Dsp13 (talk) 10:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Porn star filmographies
There is consensus at WP:WikiProject Pornography that porn star articles shouldn't include full filmographies, yet MOS:WORKS states "Complete lists of works, appropriately sourced to reliable scholarship (WP:V), are encouraged". Should porn stars be made an exception to this, or is WikiProject Pornography wrong to discourage the inclusion of full filmographies? Epbr123 (talk) 14:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally I think the wikiproject is wrong. If you have a filmography in the first place, then I prefer a full one over a selected one. Also, despite the criteria I just read on the project's page I think it goes against NPOV to say which film should be listed and which film should not. Garion96 (talk) 15:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think an encyclopedia would intentionally limit a list of works in an article about a creative artist or a performer, except for space considerations. Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, for example, includes complete lists of works for even some lower-tier composers. Not all composers have complete lists-- presumably because it's a print encyclopedia with limited space. (This may have changed with the move to online access-- I don't know.) With Wikipedia being neither paper nor censored, I see no reason to put an arbitrary limitation of six on these filmographies. Also, I agree with Garion96 that NPOV issues are involved. Who says which six are to be listed? Dekkappai (talk) 17:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * IMO, porn star filmographies shouldn't be listed except for those films that are significant or notable. So many actors have been in a number of series titles (e.g. Cum Dumpster #1, Cum Dumpster #4, etc.).  To the average reader, these are simply trivia.  It's cruft.  Additionally, there's the question of whether we should list only original films or should we list compilations as well that were cheaply put together by the production company without any original material (e.g. Best of Cum Dumpsters #1-10).  Dismas |(talk) 14:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * All I'm seeing above is "I don't like it." All articles and statistics on sports figures are pure trivia and "cruft" as far as I'm concerned, but I would expect an encyclopedic article on the subjects to include this information-- not that I'm ever going to even look at it, much less read it. Sure, a lot of people sneer at the subject area of pornography-- and you've done a good job above-- but performer's list of works is an integral part of any biography of them. If we're going to cover the subject area, we should write encyclopedic articles on them. Unless you are proposing that all filmographies should be limited to four or five works, you are advocating censorship which is against policy. Dekkappai (talk) 16:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

What about television?
Are their any established guides for listing television episodes? (In particular, for a short series of no more than eight episodes.) 82.15.17.129 (talk) 11:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * See Category:Lists of television series episodes and WikiProject Television/Episode coverage. HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Should episode counts be included in actor's filmographies?
IMO, episode counts should be completely eliminated from filmographies. We are not IMDb and listing of episode counts is largely trivial except to die hard fans of an actor or show. Furthermore, episode counts of shows in current production require daily/weekly/monthly maintenance. All that maintenance leads to inaccuracies. If the counts are to be included, do we count those episodes where a dead character appears in a flashback using old footage? Dismas |(talk) 14:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Full description of a performer's body of work is encyclopedic: "comprehending a wide variety of information; comprehensive" Dekkappai (talk) 17:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

filmographies for actors and filmmakers
Hi. There has been a lengthy RfC concerning the presentation of filmographies at:

 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers

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

 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers

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

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

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

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

Listing of individual articles, short stories or poems
I have hunted around the place and can't see a guideline, but I believe that 'works' refers to whole books, albums, anthologies etc and should not list individual articles, short stories or poems. It would not be possible or desirable to list every article a journalist has written or every poem a poet has published. There are certain 19th century poets' articles I have seen that attempt to list their every individual work. I would hope to curtail them to volumes published. Your thoughts and/or MOS links welcome. Ta. Span (talk) 03:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about MOS links, but for poems and books I can provide a few examples from one perspective: See Featured lists for a few bibliographies that include exhaustive listings. I would guess similar lists can be found in Featured lists, but I'm not particularly familiar with any of them.

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

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

 * Thanks for your pointers. Span (talk) 03:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * i would agree that anthologies for someone like E. E. Cummings would be overkill, however for Major Jackson, or Larissa Szporluk, or Nicholas Christopher, the only example of the poets work may be the anthology in the local library (or google books online). Accotink2 talk 16:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi again, Accotink2. I would note that all of these three poets have substantial collections behind them, which are listed. Span (talk) 17:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of lists for scientists and academics
I have created a proposed guideline specific to scientists and academics, here. It's possible that it should be merged here or that it should remain as a daughter guideline. In any case, community discussion is highly sought after and appreciated. Basket of Puppies 05:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It would appear this is unresolved. Either this article should be amended to make it clear scientists are not excluded, or a separate guidance should be provided. I note the above editor has left WP. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

RFC: restructuring of the Manual of Style
Editors may be interested in this RFC, along with the discussion of its implementation: "Should all subsidiary pages of the Manual of Style be made subpages of WP:MOS?" It's big; and it promises huge improvements. Great if everyone can be involved. N oetica Tea? 00:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Discographies
Hi. I'm interested in the Discography section of this guideline. The current wording of the guideline that interest me is "Vital information is the title and year; label and notes are optional." This is fine wording, but I've been hearing from an editor that it's good reason to exclude said optional information from a discography merely because it states here that it is not required. I think that (in particular) record label information is quite important, especially for musical artists which do not have separate discography pages, and while I think the recommendation here is fine for an article about a group or musician with a separate discog article, such an interpretation could be restrictive for shorter articles. I'd like to try and bring this guideline into harmony with the wording at WikiProject Musicians/Article guidelines, which states: "'The discography section of the musician's primary article should also provide a summary of the musician's major works. In most cases this is done using a simple list of their studio albums, leaving a complete listing of releases to the discography article. For example:

 * Mariah Carey (1990)

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

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

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

Leaving aside the format, this would mock up as:

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

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

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

 * Added a few things. First, changed the formatting but kept the Sloan examples instead of the fake ones proposed above; less of a shock. Also changed the wording a bit to make it clearer that these are suggestions for good practice, rather than requirements. Added some verbiage directly from other pages - the first two bits are lifted verbatim from WikiProject Musicians/Article guidelines, about when to split off a new discography, and what is good to include in a discography not split off. The last bit is paraphrased from WikiProject_Discographies/style, about the format following from the needs of the article rather than the other way around. Chubbles (talk) 07:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks good, and the explanation of sources is appreciated. -- Quiddity (talk) 06:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Given that we've had Title (year), Label here for years, I don't see the advantage in changing this to Title (Label, year). We will just get inconsistency between older and newer articles, and there's no real consensus for changing a long-standing style guideline. --Michig (talk) 11:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I never really saw that format standardized anywhere except on pages that already had separate discographies, where people seemed to want as little information as possible presented on the artist page and most of it moved to the discography page. Since discographies vary so much, there wasn't really a standard format (or a desire for one, for that matter, so far as I could tell). I felt mostly forced into these proceedings by a discography troll who ended up being banned for sockpuppetry. The main advantage to this format, I think, is that it makes clear the case for notability per WP:MUSIC bullet 5. Lots of articles get A7'ed even though they meet this requirement, simply because it is not made clear in the discography that the artist meets this criterion, and so as a practical matter I always preferred that format. In any case, I support the inclusion of more information in discographies simply as being user-friendly; that's where I go to find information (I almost never read prose sections of biographies, even though I write them frequently for others). Chubbles (talk) 14:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * but we already had a 'standard' format of 'Title (year), label' that many have followed for years - all of the articles that I have created have used this format, basically because I referred to the manual of style to see how they should be formatted. I agree totally that labels should be included, particularly as it highlights that in many cases an artist satisfies the notability criteria, but I don't see how having the label in brackets before the year is better than having it after the year, which is what we had before. A couple of people discussing this isn't really going to provide sufficient consensus to change a style guideline that has stood for several years. --Michig (talk) 15:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Six years, in fact. --Michig (talk) 15:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I looked for a consensus, actually, and couldn't really find one, at least not here. It looks like the page was just formulated and this became the format because it was how it was written by the original author. To be honest with you, it doesn't matter to me at all where the label is placed, and nothing in this guideline prevents people from putting it before rather than after; certainly there's no reason to change every page, and given how varied discographies are, I don't really see a need to standardize the format in the first place. This is really just a suggestion, right? Chubbles (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine with reverting to the prior/original version, with our examples placing label after the year.
 * (Personally, I'm irritated by most mentions of "publisher" or "distributor" or "label". It's a useful additional context in some cases (eg. "oh, this book is from a vanity-press publishing house, sigh", or "huh, an album distributed by Puffin Books, nifty"), but is often irrelevant. The name of the editor that an author worked with (in a publishing house), or the name of the sound board technicians (that a band worked with in a studio provided by the label) would often be more informative. It all boils down to Completism (include everything) vs Selectivism (only include the highly-pertinent details), and "label" or "publisher" is just the easy/cheap answer. muttermutterrant ;) —Quiddity (talk) 20:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, record labels work much differently than book publishers do in terms of distribution and cultural impact, so I'd try and discourage thinking of them in similar terms. Certainly, I'd like to see bands associated more in terms of, say, common producers, but that's a lot rarer in the literature than label association (though common in promotional blurbs). Well, Michig wrote a few thousand articles one way, and I wrote a few thousand articles another way, and we're only two people who have probably written .000000001% of all band articles. I have no intention of going through and standardizing my own articles, and I'd consider a fool anyone who did that for either of our articles (it would be an incredible waste of resources on information that, in either case, is already well-organized and presented). So I guess I'm arguing it doesn't matter to me how this page reads, as long as it doesn't result in some puritanical streamlining campaign. Chubbles (talk) 23:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've replaced the other style, in addition to the your preferred style, so hopefully that covers the meat of the matter, and prevents future quibbles.
 * Re: labels, just out of personal curiosity, could you link me to something, or give a super-condensed explanation (I happily extrapolate bullet points :) for how labels are different from publishers? They both handle PR (sending out review copies, organizing book/band tours), design work (cover art), technical assistance (editors/advisors, studio/producers), distribution, and legal hoopjumping. All of which will vary considerably based on the size of the company, and what the musicians/author can provide for themselves. (Semi-relatedly to film studios [or executive producers, aka the bankrollers] which we don't usually mention in filmographies). What aspects am I overlooking/forgetting? —Quiddity (talk) 01:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, functionally, in the broadest sense, they do the same things, especially at the major-label level in the past couple of decades (EMI, Sony BMG, and Warner are your Random House/Penguin/what-have-you), but independent labels often carve out niches that are very important culturally in terms of what styles, genres, and subcultures they are associated with. People seek out music by label, and expect certain sounds or subcultural signifiers, in terms of labels more than they do with books (this may be closer to some boutique publishers like McSweeney's, or even specialized genre publishers in scifi, harlequin romance, theological fiction, and such). Review sites review by label, and associate the music critically, more than with books, at least so far as I am aware (while I read a moderate number of book reviews, I'm not as familiar with them as I am music reviews). Chubbles (talk) 05:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok. That's where I thought you might be headed. Eg. I'm happy to sample most anything from Thrill Jockey, Ninja Tune, Matador Records, etc. And yes, similarly, will follow certain publishers, like Phaidon, Taschen, Fantagraphics Books, etc. Film studios aren't quite in the same ballpark, but I guess entities like Fox Searchlight Pictures could be considered semi-equivalent - it's a form of demographic indicator, so I guess "entry in a particular film festival" might also be equivalent. Anyway, thanks for the reply :) —Quiddity (talk) 07:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Consistency is certainly something we should aim for, and the fact that we have not yet achieved it is not, in my view, a reason not to try. From the reader's point of view, moving from one article to another, having discographies in a consistent format is likely to aid their understanding compared to finding a different format at every article. My preference would be (for discographies within an artist article at least) to have one recommended plain list format and one recommended table format, but I would agree that there are better ways to use our time than trying to change all of the existing articles. --Michig (talk) 17:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I kinda feel like I got dragged here in the first place, and the reason I got dragged here is now an SPI case rather than a real editing issue, so I'm happy to bow out and let others take the reins on the final wording here. Chubbles (talk) 22:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Ordering
This section seems to be based on literary works or the visual arts, rather than music. In the music world, catalogue and opus numbers are used to order works. (Dating can often be problematic.) Can we amend this section to reflect this?  Klein zach  03:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. I gave the page a complete overhaul in late 2006, mostly just making it match our guidance elsewhere (that I could find) and our actual in-use practices (based on FAs/FLs that I looked at). I.e. It follows the old dictum of "Descriptive, not prescriptive". My overhaul was instigated by discovering far too many bibliographies/discographies/filmographies that were in reverse-chronological order (usually copied from amazon/allmusic/IMDB, who have an understandable bias towards recent products).
 * Please do update it, to include missing information, or to correct outdated information. The shorter the better. –Quiddity (talk) 19:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added a sentence. Looking at other sections, it seems we could add examples of music list. These are complex pages, typically sortable tables, something that is not mentioned here. I'll try to come back to this. -- Klein zach  02:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

An example of untranslated books under "Books in languages other than English"?
Under "Bibliographies", Could we get an example in "Books in languages other than English" of how an untranslated book should be formatted? The example only gives three books that have been translated, while the guideline says, "Add an English translation of the title where helpful", but with no example how to format it. It seems to me "English translation:" would imply a translation is available. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The only example I can think of immediately (having written most of it) is Italo Calvino, but I'm not sure if that's a good example...

 * When in doubt, look at the Featured examples! Would something out of Featured lists fit what you're looking for? Add freely to this page, it does need love and work (but avoid instruction-creep - simplicity is good). :) –Quiddity (talk) 05:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, but I was looking for something that was not in a table. I'll look around at some FAs.  Thanks again! Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Numbering in bibliographies
How do you recommend handling lists of works that are part of a numbered series where the number is a half number? See Carolyn_Crane for an example. They're numbered, but the spacing doesn't nicely match up with the other numbered list. Thank you for any assistance! plange (talk) 15:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's a technically accurate way to do this (per no pertinent information at MOS:NUMLIST). It's probably best to just add ":" before each line. I've done so at Carolyn_Crane. It isn't ideal, but is hopefully a bit clearer than it was with the  s. Quiddity (talk) 02:40, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

It also seems silly to have Title before Year - The year column just looks out of place..... – Davey 2010 Talk 21:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

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

 * Title (year), role&nbsp;– notes

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

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

Thanks! --Culix (talk) 06:00, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that shouldn't be a hyphen, it should be an en dash, per MOS:DASH.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Aha! Thank you. I will fix both. --Culix (talk) 12:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

Podcasts
More and more, performers (actors, directors, etc...) are either guest starring, appearing, or actually starring or creating podcasts. Are there any MOS guidelines on how they should be listed?--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 01:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:01, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Before we discuss how they should be listed, perhaps we should discuss whether they should be listed (or not). Blueboar (talk) 17:38, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Short version: the medium is irrelevant. However, the question is unclear, so there are multiple possible longer answers.:
 * Do you mean, how should the titles of podcasts be styled? See MOS:TITLES; podcasts are not magically different because they're on the Internet; they have essentially the same the character as a radio show or TV talk show, so they'd be styled the same, in italics, with specific episode or segment titles in quotation marks.
 * If you mean, how should people be listed, credits-wise, with regard to such productions, again they are not strangely apart from the rest of humanity's works, and would be treated exactly as in crediting a TV show, documentary film, or other production.
 * If you mean, in lists of a notable subject's works (or in-prose coverage of them), should their podcast(s) be included, then the answer is (again) not different for this than for anything else: if reliable sources address the work, then include it, but if we can't find any RS that talk about it, then it's unencyclopedic trivia – just like any bio subject's books, or film appearances, or published editorials and articles and essay, songs and albums released, etc., etc., etc. E.g., you will not find that Steve Buscemi's article here mentions the then-young actor's appearance in an MTV short film (in which he delivers a monologue of pick-up lines all drawn from song lyrics), because RS do not with any frequency mention it much less go into detail about it, no matter how memorable it might be to some TV viewers.  By contrast, the Dave Winer article has entire sections on various of his early blogging and podcasting projects, since they're socially significant (at least within the context of online media history), deeply entwined with his notability, and frequently covered by RS.
 * In short, there is no universal "always/never include" rule to found, about this or about any or  of publication/production. If something's included, treat it consistently with other publications regardless of its format or it method of distribution.

Examples not clear
The guideline says: "Basic lists are used in the majority of articles, e.g. Henry James or The Illuminatus! Trilogy or The KLF." Personally, I don't find the links to the latter articles particularly clear -- would it make sense to link directly to the applicable section, e.g. The KLF, if that's what the reader is being directed to? NE Ent 14:57, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would clearly be helpful (and would help identify examples that need to be replace eventually, e.g. if the section in broken out into a side article and is no longer where were said it was).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 * Johannes Schade Although your interpretation makes sense, I would think (and strongly hope) that the "sanctions" clause above refers to editing the MOS itself (an important guideline that shouldn't be trashed), not the talk page. It is ambiguous.
 * In much of Wikipedia, there is a fair amount of flexibility in how things are done; that is, there is not a single sanctioned format. Looking at various articles that have been given the official classification of "good article" would provide you with a guideline for some acceptable ways to make a list of works. And when editing an existing article, it is probably best to follow the existing format (there's probably a supporting citation for that claim, but I'm not going to look for it). It is also the case that guidelines for something are often spread over multiple sections or documents.
 * I have made some small changes to the MOS (related to the use of external links in "Lists of Works"), but it was either based on guidelines documented elsewhere, or on a solicitation of consensus (Requests_for_comment). On the other, clarification of something in the MOS that is unclear (without changing meaning) probably doesn't require that (although, based on personal experience, I'd tread carefully as a newbie, because sometimes long-timers may jump on you). Finney1234 (talk) 16:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

 * Johannes Schade I actually haven't looked at the text you're referring to, but if you think the content could be clarified (e.g., your description of the "essential formatting instruction" being hidden), one option is to post your suggested changes here and ask if anyone objects (as I did above a few items above at "Bibliography/Publications"), and then do the change in a week or so. This is *not* an official suggestion, but strikes me as a reasonable approach. Things in Wikipedia only get fixed if someone cares about them, and sometimes someone new has a better perspective than someone who's been around for years.Finney1234 (talk) 14:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The page started with a simple and logic structure: Discography, Filmography and Bibliography and then developed into something much less coherent and understandable - This seems to become a dialogue and should perhaps stop here. Johannes Schade (talk) 12:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discographies of classical compositions
See current discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music, which may affect the guidance given here (please discuss there, not here). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:45, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Acceptable sources for discography entries
What is our threshold for inclusion of self-released albums? I assumed a discography should not include items that are non-notable self-published releases. Apparently this is incorrect? But are we allowing an independent artist's Spotify release schedule as a reliable source for discography entries? Is an album self-released on a digital streaming platform a "publication" proper? It's self-published yes, but are these items worth listing in a discography? An example is Andrew Huang. If yes, are we not lower the bar here for discography inclusions? Acousm</b><b style="color:#9969c7">a</b><b style="color:#804fb3">n</b><b style="color:#6a359c">a</b> 09:10, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * A discography should include an artist's releases, self-published or not. Per WP:NNC, the notability status of a release is not the threshold of inclusion in an artist's discography - if the artist is notable, we should provide a full discography (albums, EPs, and singles) as basic encyclopedic content. A Spotify entry is not ideal sourcing, but it is permissible per WP:SELFSOURCE when there is no physical release to refer to. A physical release is a publication, and does not need its own independent sourcing, any more than a book needs an independent source for its own bibliographic data. If a release is Spotify-only (or Bandcamp-only, etc.), then that is a publication, as well. Chubbles (talk) 02:38, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "A physical release is a publication, and does not need its own independent sourcing": OK, but to clarify, it still needs to fulfill WP:VER? else we could have strings of fictional releases entered in our discographies, some reliable sourcing concerning the item's existence is surely required? <b style="color:#552586">Ac</b><b style="color:#804fb3">ou</b><b style="color:#9969c7">s</b><b style="color:#b589d6">m</b><b style="color:#9969c7">a</b><b style="color:#804fb3">n</b><b style="color:#6a359c">a</b> 13:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "Does this album exist" is substantiated per WP:V by a physical copy of the album. (Treat it just as we would a book.) It is also substantiated by a digital download or streaming link. We rarely have to deal with people populating discographies with fictional entries; it's WP:SKYISBLUE and only needs exceptional/independent sourcing when there is a good-faith question as to existence (a recently resolved example was All Lights Fucked on the Hairy Amp Drooling). Chubbles (talk) 02:12, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * NNC doesn't trump WP:NOTAWEBHOST and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Wikipedia is not a repository of everything verifiable nor is it one of the social media outlets to include things to the liking of article subject's public relations effort. Graywalls (talk) 01:55, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

To respond to this in series, top to bottom: — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "Non-notable" has nothing to do with inclusion a broader article like a discography or the discography section of a band article; WP:Notability determines what may have  article. Whether material should be included in an article is governed by WP:NOT (and sometimes other parts of WP:NOT, depending on the nature of the material). The only exception is when some list that could have very broad scope, like List of veterinarians, has an explicit "notable entries only" scope criterion, per WP:LISTCRITERIA. A discography of a particular artist would pretty much never be limited in that way, since the number of possible entries is finite and short and.
 * An album being self-issued is basically irrelevant, since for many performers, early rare demos are legendary and thus the subject of encyclopedic interest, while in the modern music market, more and more material is entirely self-produced at home studios or rented studio-time with no label involvement, then self-released exclusively online through venues like Bandcamp and Spotify and YouTube, so again of encyclopedic interest. (The days when it required a commercial record label to become musically notable are long over.) And WP:SELFSOURCE in WP:RS (a copy-paste of the actual policy, WP:ABOUTSELF in WP:V, and now slated for merging) does make it clear that it applies to online self-published source material, not just works on paper or vinyl.
 * Yes, an album (that is not totally lost, like one of Tim Rose's 1970s albums which was black-holed by the record label and then the masters lost) is like a book or other published work: its own primary source for what it contains. Being hard to find or costly to obtain/access is not an exception, per WP:SOURCEACCESS. (I recently cited a book that only exists in 40 copies. It is a valid citation, as the work be can accessed at various, mostly European, libraries, and once in a blue moon copies become available for sale on eBay or some other site, which is how I got it, for significant cost, but less than the cost of trans-Atlantic plane ticket, heh.)
 * Graywalls's idea that WP:NCC is somehow in conflict with WP:NOTAWEBHOST and WP:NOTEVERYTHING is not sustainable, since including a self-released album in a discography (like a self-published book in an author's bibliography) is not social networking, treating WP as a game, hosting a résumé, acting as file storage, self-publishing by an editor of promotional or opinional material, being a personals ad, serving as a memorial, or hosting content unrelated to the encyclopedia. More broadly in that policy section: it is not a dictionary-style definition of something, forum or original-research material by an editor, spam, advocacy/propaganda, scandal-mongering, a mirror of off-site writing, a directory-style entry with no encyclopedic context, attempting to conduct business, serving as a textbook or guide, trying to predict the future, reporting news-style on current events, acting as a "who's who" listing of non-notable people, acting as a summary-only review, being a lyrics republication, presenting unexplained statistics, or publishing a changes log, nor censoring anything.In short, you need to actually read the content of a policy page and be certain of its applicability before thumping its shortcut like a bible verse. And it is entirely wrongheaded to try to pit a guideline against a policy or against another guideline to begin with; WP:P&G, WP:LAWYER, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:NOT, WP:GAMING, and many other pages make it abundantly clear that our P&G material should always be interpreted as a working synergistic system, never a legal-system style set of hard rules that can be manipulated to find loopholes and escape clauses to produce results that are contrary to their intent or to the project's interest. (In the rare event of an actual, objectively definable conflict between two P&G pages, a WP:POLICYFORK, this needs to be raised on the talk pages of the P&G in question and resolved as soon as possible).Anyway, what an album's entry in a discography doing is presenting a line-item of pertinent encyclopedic information in a list of works that would be incomplete without that citation.

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

"WP:DISCOGSTYLE is dormant"
To:

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

 * Hi! I assumed, based on the notice at WP:DISCOGSTYLE, that the page no longer reflects current styling consensus, because that page is listed as dormant / inactive. If this isn't the case, please revert my edit. I don't strongly believe it should be removed, it just felt misleading to point to a page that doesn't seem to still be maintained. — PerfectSoundWhatever  (t; c) 21:14, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I have retargeted the shortcut to Manual of Style/Lists of works, since it's an actual guideline not a years-dead proposal with no consensus. MOS:DISCOGSTYLE also goes to the guideline section.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

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

Should director names be excluded from the filmography?
An edit war
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Minami_Hamabe&curid=54776267&action=history

Should director names be excluded from the filmography? I believe it's worthwhile to include information about which directors the actor has collaborated with. Please share your thoughts. --55go (talk) 08:02, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * In lists of works, yes. That information is good in prose discussion, but in a filmography it places undue weight on the importance of the director, which implicitly creates a bias toward the theory of auteurism. It would be equally worthwhile to include information about other actors or which studios the actor has collaborated with, but that clutters filmographies in a way that makes them less useful. Director information is available on the film's article page, a mere one click away. Chubbles (talk) 08:14, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your kind assistance. I will comply. --55go (talk) 08:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with Chubble's rationale, other than "In lists of works, yes. ... but in a filmography [no]", since a filmography is a list of works.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think we are actually in complete agreement; the sentence reads in shorthand, "In lists of works, yes. In prose, no, but in a filmography, yes." (responding to the question "should they be excluded?") Chubbles (talk) 03:27, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Got it now.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:33, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Second-round RfC on titles of TV season articles
Please see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:54, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

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


text:
Talk:César Luis Menotti

Addenda
The article does not mention (and it's a good thing) some stuff, to wit:
 * His outrageous statements to Gente magazine in his glory days (e.g. "I would go to bed with Graciela Borges")
 * The insulting, un-PC nature of some of the comments he made when attacking Bilardo (e.g. "he is hysterical like a pregnant woman")

The article now does link here... the full Spanish language text, and some figuritas, of the IMHO classic book "El DT del proceso" (The coach of the military regime), a well-documented (albeit biased) critique of Menotti's ideas football, choice of players, personal ethics, and links to the dictatorship... elpincha 21:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The pronunciation
Hello. When the two given names are pronounced together, we had better transcribe them [sesarˈlwis]. See.

"También suele ser átono el primer elemento de los nombres de pila compuestos: José Luis [joseluís], María Luisa [marialuísa]) y el de otras expresiones compuestas: tres mil [tresmíl], veintidós mil [beintidosmíl], boca abajo [bokabájo], cuesta arriba [kuestarríba], etc."

The first element of the compound names is also atonic: José Luis [joseluís], María Luisa [marialuísa] and that of other compound expressions: tres mil [tresmíl], veintidós mil [beintidosmíl], boca abajo [bokabájo], cuesta arriba [kuestarríba], etc. LoveVanPersie (talk) 18:42, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

 * It's, not . voices the preceding . Mr KEBAB (talk) 18:47, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

 * Yes, I should be more clear. Thanks. LoveVanPersie (talk) 18:49, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

 * What you should do is to respect the topic ban. It's there for a reason. Mr KEBAB (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

 * Yes, so I just talk. LoveVanPersie (talk) 18:53, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

 * This still forces people (in this case me) to correct you when you're wrong, which is very often (see ANI). Mr KEBAB (talk) 19:05, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:César Luis Menotti


text:
Information World Review

Information World Review was an English monthly trade magazine covering the information industry. It was established in 1976 and initially published by Learned Information Ltd and subsequently by VNU Business Publications.It was finally by Bizmedia Ltd. under license from Incisive Media. The magazine was initially headquartered in Oxford before subsequently moving to London.

title: Information World Review


text: User talk:69.192.168.218

title: User talk:69.192.168.218


text:
Batata harra

Batata harra (بطاطا حرّة) is a vegetable dish native to Lebanon and some parts of the Middle East. It consists of potatoes, red peppers, coriander, chili and garlic that are all fried together in olive oil. They can be served plain or in a pita.

Etymology
Baṯāṯā ḥārrah literally means "spicy potatoes".

title: Batata harra


text:
Michel Chasles

Michel Floréal Chasles (15 November 1793 – 18 December 1880) was a French mathematician.

Biography
He was born at Épernon in France and studied at the École Polytechnique in Paris under Siméon Denis Poisson. In the War of the Sixth Coalition he was drafted to fight in the defence of Paris in 1814. After the war, he gave up on a career as an engineer or stockbroker in order to pursue his mathematical studies.

In 1837 he published the book Aperçu historique sur l'origine et le développement des méthodes en géométrie ("Historical view of the origin and development of methods in geometry"), a study of the method of reciprocal polars in projective geometry. The work gained him considerable fame and respect and he was appointed Professor at the École Polytechnique in 1841, then he was awarded a chair at the Sorbonne in 1846. A second edition of this book was published in 1875. In 1839, Ludwig Adolph Sohncke (the father of Leonhard Sohncke) translated the original into German as Geschichte der geometrie, hauptsachlich mit bezug auf die neueren methoden. Shortly thereafter, in 1841, Charles Graves published an English version as Two Geometrical Memoirs on the General Properties of Cones of the Second Degree and on the Spherical Conics, adding a significant amount of original material.

Jakob Steiner had proposed Steiner's conic problem of enumerating the number of conic sections tangent to each of five given conics and had answered it incorrectly. Chasles developed a theory of characteristics that enabled the correct enumeration of the conics (there are 3264) (see enumerative geometry). He established several important theorems (all called Chasles's theorem). In kinematics, Chasles's description of a Euclidean motion in space as screw displacement was seminal to the development of the theories of dynamics of rigid bodies.

Chasles was elected a Foreign Honorary Member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1864. In 1865 he was awarded the Copley Medal.

As described in A Treasury of Deception, by Michael Farquhar (Peguin Books, 2005), between 1861 and 1869 Chasles purchased some of the 27,000 forged letters from Frenchman Denis Vrain-Lucas. Included in this trove were letters from Alexander the Great to Aristotle, from Cleopatra to Julius Caesar, and from Mary Magdalene to a revived Lazarus, all in a fake medieval French. In 2004, the journal Critical Inquiry published a recently "discovered" 1871 letter written by Vrain-Lucas (from prison) to Chasles, conveying Vrain-Lucas's perspective on these events, itself an invention.

Modern assessment of contribution
In 1986, Alexander Jones published a commentary on Book 7 of the Collection of Pappus of Alexandria, which Chasles had referred to in his history of geometric methods. Jones makes these comments about Chasles, Pappus and Euclid:

 * Chasles's contribution to our comprehension of the Porisms tends to be obscured by the inherent unreasonableness of his claim to have restored substantially the contents of Euclid's book on the basis of the meagre data of Pappus and Proclus...one still turns to Chasles for the first appreciation of the interest in the Porisms from the point of view of modern geometry. Above all, he was the first to notice the recurrence of cross-ratios and harmonic ratios in the lemmas, and because these concepts suffuse most of his restoration, it is probable that many of his inventions coincide with some of Euclid's, even if we cannot now tell which they are.

Chasles's name is one of the 72 names inscribed on the Eiffel Tower.

Publications

 * M. Chasles (1837) Aperçu historique sur l'origine et le développement des méthodes en géométrie, originally published by Hayez in Bruxelles, now from archive.org.
 * M. Chasles (1841) Two geometrical memoirs on the general properties of cones of the second degree, and other spherical conics, Charles Graves translator, originally published in Dublin, now from Cornell University.
 * M. Chasles (1852, 1880) Traité de Géométrie Supérieure, Gauthier-Villars.
 * M. Chasles (1865) Traité des sections coniques, Gauthier-Villars, from University of Michigan.
 * M. Chasles (1865) Traité des sections coniques, Gauthier-Villars, from University of Michigan.

title: Michel Chasles


text:
C. Achutha Menon

Chelat Achutha Menon (13 January 1913 – 16 August 1991) was an Indian politician and lawyer who served as the 4th Chief Minister of Kerala from November 1969 to August 1970 and again from October 1970 to 1977. He is viewed as one of the most influential Chief Ministers of Kerala.

Personal life
He was born in a Hindu Nair family to Madathiveettil Achutha Menon (after whom he was named) and Lekshmykutty Amma at Puthukkad, Thrissur District on 13 January 1913. His brother-in-law V. V. Raghavan was also a Communist Party of India politician from Thrissur city. V. V. Raghavan was the Member of Parliament from Thrissur Lok Sabha constituency, in 1996 and 1998. He was married to Ammini Amma, and had three children including 2 daughters and V. Ramankutty.

Education
Being a brilliant student, he studied on merit scholarship throughout his student life, and stood first in the SSLC examination in the then State of Kochi. He is a former student of Church Mission Society High School, Thrissur (CMSHSS, Thrissur) And after finishing the intermediate level in St. Thomas College, Thrissur, he continued his college education in the St. Joseph's College, Tiruchirappalli Madras. There he won a gold medal for academic excellence and was a role model for other fellow students. Menon, then went on to study Law in Government Law College, Thiruvananthapuram and scored the highest marks in Hindu Law. After the B.L. degree, he started legal practice in various courts of Thrissur, during which time he began to get involved in many social issues.

Political life
Achutha Menon started his political career by associating himself with the State Congress, and actively took part in the Congress meeting held at Thrissur. He subsequently became a member of the Kochi rajya prajamandalam. He joined the Communist Party of India in 1941 through his involvement in the "Labour Brotherhood" movement. Menon became a Member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of India and a member of its Executive Committee and Central Secretariat. He continued his political activities, even when the Communist Party was banned. He was imprisoned for many years. The first imprisonment Achutha Menon underwent was in 1940, for one year for making an anti-war speech; and the next in the wake of the "Quit India" movement of 9 August 1942 as a detainee for more than a year. He was forced to evade arrest and live "underground" for more than three years during the period 1948–51.

Legislative career
Achutha Menon was elected to the Travancore-Cochin State Legislature while "underground" in 1952. When Kerala became a separate state in 1956, Achutha Menon prepared a pamphlet in which he beautifully expressed his dreams of future Kerala. The pamphlet titled "Towards a more prosperous and plentiful Kerala", became the manifesto of the Communist Party in the general elections held in 1957. The election witnessed the political victory of the Communist Party, and Kerala became the second state in the world in which the communist party came to power through the ballot paper. Achutha Menon also became elected to the Kerala Legislative Assembly, thus becoming the first Finance & Agricultural Minister of Kerala in the Ministry headed by E.M.S. Namboodirippad in 1957. He presented the first Budget of Kerala state on 7 June 1957. As the so-called Vimochanasamaram (Liberation Struggle) gained momentum the Home Minister was found unfit to handle the situation and was divested of the crucial portfolio which then was handed over to Menon. He was again elected to the Kerala Legislative Assembly in 1960. Menon also became a member of the Rajyasabha during 1968–69.

Split of Communist Party
During the Communist Party split, he continued to remain with the CPI. The political instability during the late sixties had paved the way for a realignment in coalition politics, which had far-reaching implication on the political history of the state. He was elected as the State Secretary of C.P.I. too, many times, and was also a member of the National Council of the C.P.I.

Chief Minister of Kerala
In the 1967 Kerala Legislative Assembly election, his party contested as part of a seven-party alliance named Saptakakshi Munnani. E. M. S. Namboodiripad was sworn in as the Chief Minister but had to resign in 1969 due to internal dissensions within the alliance. Following this, the CPI exited from the coalition and constituted a mini-front that formed the government with external support from Indian National Congress. Achutha Menon was sworn in as Chief Minister on 1 November 1969. Noted as one of the best chief ministers Kerala has had, he continued till the dissolution of the third Kerala Legislative Assembly. The split in the Indian Socialist Party, a coalition partner, and group politics within the Congress party led to the fall of his government on 1 August 1970.

It was under his stewardship that Kerala signed on to continue with the Mullaperiar Dam agreement with Tamil Nadu, as a part of reviewing the pre-independence agreement between the Kingdom of Travancore and the Madras Presidency. Experts on the subject believe this agreement frittered away the interests of Kerala and became the prime reason for the unenviable situation that Kerala finds itself in today in the Mullaperiar issue. He was not a member of the Kerala Assembly then but subsequently got elected from Kottarakkara (State Assembly constituency) in the by-election held in April 1970. In the mid-term poll conducted in 1970, he was again elected this time from Kodakara in Thrissur District and was sworn in as Chief Minister on 4 October 1970 and held office till 1977. Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology, Trivandrum was set up during his period. His ministry continued in power for about seven years and implemented reform measures of basic importance such as the Land Reform Act, the take-over of private forests without compensation, law on agricultural labour, the gratuity of industrial workers, one-lakh housing scheme, etc., not to mention significant steps towards industrialization of Kerala. It was this ministry which enunciated a Science Policy and established a number of "Centres of Excellence" in Scientific research in the state. Many institutions like Keltron and NATPAC were started during his tenure.

Achutha Menon retired from active politics in 1977. He suffered multiple health problems during the final years of his life. He died on 16 August 1991, aged 78, at Sree Chithira Thirunal Hospital in Thiruvananthapuram after suffering from a massive heart attack. Incidentally, the place where he died was set up during his period. He was cremated with full state honours at Thrissur, his hometown.

Developmental works
He started a lot of institutions for industrialization and inclusive development of Kerala. More than 50 institutions in the fields of science, technology, public health, planning, housing, education, social sciences,  geology, forest protection, water management, environment conservation and so on were started.

In the fields of social sciences, research, environment and technology institutions such as Centre for Development Studies, Electronic Research and Development Center (C-DAC Trivandrum), Regional Research Laboratory, National Centre for Earth Science Studies, Kerala Forest Research Institute, Centre for Water Resources Development and Management (CWRDM) were set up during his tenure as chief minister of Kerala.

He pioneered industrial development in Kerala by helping K. P. P. Nambiar set up Kerala State Electronics Development Corporation (KELTRON) in 1973. He was instrumental in bringing Apollo Tyres company to Kerala. The two specialised universities of the state namely the Kerala Agricultural University and Cochin University of Science and Technology were started during his tenure. In the field of health care Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology, Trivandrum was started during his ministry.

The Kerala State Planning Board, constituted by Second Namboodiripad Ministry was strengthened during his period as the chairperson.

The most controversial and discussed decision he has made is the renewal of the Mullaperiyar dam lease contract with Tamil Nadu for 999 years. This decision was denied by two of the Chief Ministers before his tenure as the Chief Minister of Kerala. Tamil Nadu still leads and won the legal battle against the Kerala Government's poor plea on the matter in the Supreme Court with the backup of the lease deed signed by him. This puts his clean image in the shadow of disgrace by the Kerala people worrying about their security.

In 1985, a non-profit organisation named Centre of Science and Technology for Rural Development (COSTFORD) was formed by him along with K. N. Raj and Laurie Baker.

Literary works
A talented writer, Shri. Achutha Menon had authored many books. He wrote many books and articles, mostly related to Marxism, Communism and Indian History. He also translated H.G. Wells' "Brief History of the World" into Malayalam. "Soviet Land", "Kissan Padha Pusthakam", "Keralam – Prasnangalum Sadhyadhakalum", "Smaranayude Edukal", and "Manushyan Swayam Nirmikkunnu" (Translation) are his other famous works. Along with those, he has contributed many noteworthy articles in newspapers and periodicals.

title: C. Achutha Menon


text:
Stadion Hristo Botev (Plovdiv)

Stadion Hristo Botev (Стадион „Христо Ботев“, 'Hristo Botev Stadium') is a football stadium currently undergoing reconstruction in the Kamenitsa neighbourhood of Plovdiv, Bulgaria. It is the home of Botev Plovdiv. Originally named The College, it is still popular by this name amongst fans, as in the early 20th century the pitch was owned by Saint Augustine Catholic College.

The stadium hosted the 2000 Bulgarian Cup Final. In the past it has also been used as a home ground by other football teams from the city; Lokomotiv Plovdiv played their home matches on the venue during the second half of the 1979–80 season, as well as one match in the 2003–04 season. It was also used by Spartak Plovdiv for several games during the 1995–96 season.

Since the middle of 2014 the stadium's reconstruction is on hold, due to the lack of financing. It is estimated that nearly €15,000,000 are needed in order for it to be completed. Since then, finances have been found and the reconstruction of the stadium is currently ongoing. The first phase of the reconstruction, which involved making the stadium suitable for hosting football matches, was completed in March 2023.

History
The story of stadium goes back in the early 1920s when priest Ausone (Henri) Damperat on behalf of the Saint Augustine College purchased a large plot of land in the quarter of Kamenitza, then east outskirts of Plovdiv. Due to following urban regulations, the terrain was almost expunged and a neighbouring cadastre plot had substituted it whilst half a million Leva being spent to acquire. In 1923 the pitch was inaugurated and by mid-1940s had been best sports venue in town. In 1959, the authorities allowed the construction of a new club stadium at the place of the old field in the neighborhood of Kamenitza. As a result, building works began, and nearly two years later, Botev Plovdiv returned to their home ground. The reconstructed stadium had a capacity of 35,000 people and electric lightning. On 14 May 1961 it was inaugurated with a friendly match between Botev Plovdiv and Steaua București, which won by the club from Bulgaria with 3–0. In the years from 1926 to 1947, Botev Plovdiv played six international matches on the ground, they were against Admira Vienna (1–7), Kecskemét (3–2 and 2–4), Beşiktaş (0–0), Bohemians Prague (1–3) and the famous "wonderteam" of Austria Vienna (sensational win with 5–4). The attendance record of 40,000 people was set on 27 February 1963 during the quarter-final of the Cup Winner's Cup against Atlético Madrid (1–1). The record of 37,000 people for the Bulgarian championship was set in 1966 against Levski Sofia (0–1). Due to the riots between the fans, and the rush of fans on the field, Botev Plovdiv was forced to host its derby matches at the Plovdiv Stadium.

1993
The renovations from this period include moving the away team's changing room to the eastern part of the stadium. In order to connect the changing room with the field a tunnel was built under the east and north stand, this slightly affected the overall capacity of the stadium.

1995
In 1995 electric lighting was installed, but it failed to reach the standards of the Bulgarian Football Union.

2008
The stadium underwent minor renovations in the summer. The away team's changing room was moved under the central stand once again, the room was then modernised, other actions included improving the overall safety and security.

2012
The renovations included replacing the field's old grass surface with a new one, under which were set up new drainage, watering and heating systems. New football goals were placed, and 400 seats were mounted on the central stand.

Reconstruction
Following the renovations in 2012, which were the first phase in the reconstruction of the new stadium, in mid 2013 the second phase was activated and the east stand was demolished. The initial plan was to demolish the old stands and rebuild them one at a time and closer to the football field, but in order for the stadium to host the 2015 UEFA European Under-17 Championship, a new less time-consuming plan was designed and in December the same year, all of the remaining stands were decimated. The change in plans forced Botev Plovdiv to play its home games on the club's training base, the Botev 1912 Football Complex, which is located in the neighbourhood of Komatevo.

On 5 March 2014 a new and improved version of the stadium was presented by the directors of the club and the designing architect. The club decided to change the vision, due to the higher targets they wanted to meet. The new stadium had to be ready for operation by mid 2015, in order to host the 2015 UEFA European Under-17 Championship. The plans included an overall capacity of 18,777 spectators, of which 1500 places were for the visiting fans. Other concepts included covering 75% of the seats, as well as building a parking with a capacity of 600 places for cars and 7 for buses. The stadium was supposed to be able to host semifinals from the European club tournaments, such as Europa League and Champions League.

In the summer of 2014, the reconstruction of the new stadium temporarily stopped, due to the fact that Botev Plovdiv's main sponsor ‒ Corporate Commercial Bank experienced issues. On 6 November 2014 the license of the bank was revoked. The reason for the revocation, according to the Bulgarian National Bank, was a significant exposure of the bank's credit sheet to investors related to Tsvetan Vasilev (who at that time was the owner of Botev Plovdiv and the chairman of Corporate Commercial Bank). The lack of financing forced the club to stop the reconstruction, and search for new investors.

After ages of problems, lack of investment and several reconstruction setbacks, the stadium hosted its opening match on the 29th of April 2023 against Levski Sofia.

title: Stadion Hristo Botev (Plovdiv)


text: File:Post Captin cover.jpg

title: File:Post Captin cover.jpg


text:
Hedjet

Hedjet (𓌉𓏏𓋑) is the White Crown of pharaonic Upper Egypt. After the unification of Upper and Lower Egypt, it was combined with the Deshret, the Red Crown of Lower Egypt, to form the Pschent, the double crown of Egypt. The symbol sometimes used for the White Crown was the vulture goddess Nekhbet shown next to the head of the cobra goddess Wadjet, the uraeus on the Pschent.

History

The white crown, along with the red crown, has a long history with each of their respective representations going back into the Predynastic Period, indicating that kingship had been the base of Egyptian society for some time. The earliest image of the hedjet was thought to have been in the Qustul in Nubia. According to Jane Roy, "At the time of Williams’ argument, the Qustul cemetery and the ‘royal’ iconography found there was dated to the Naqada IIIA period, thus antedating royal cemeteries in Egypt of the Naqada IIIB phase. New evidence from Abydos, however, particularly the excavation of Cemetery U and the tomb U-j, dating to Naqada IIIA has shown that this iconography appears earlier in Egypt".

Frank Yurco stated that depictions of pharonic iconography such as the royal crowns, Horus falcons and victory scenes were concentrated in the Upper Egyptian Naqada culture and A-Group Nubia. He further elaborated that "Egyptian writing arose in Naqadan Upper Egypt and A-Group Nubia, and not in the Delta cultures, where the direct Western Asian contact was made, [which] further vitiates the Mesopotamian-influence argument". According to David Wengrow, the A-Group polity of the late 4th millenninum BCE is poorly understood since most of the archaeological remains are submerged underneath Lake Nasser.

Stan Hendrick, John Coleman Darnell and Maria Gatto in 2012 excavated petroglyphic engravings from Nag el-Hamdulab in Aswan, the extreme southern region of Egypt that borders the Sudan, which featured representations of boat procession, solar symbolism and the earliest depiction of the white crown with an estimated dating range between 3200BC and 3100BC.

Nekhbet, the tutelary goddess of Nekhebet (modern el Kab) near Hierakonpolis, was depicted as a woman, sometimes with the head of a vulture, wearing the white crown. The falcon god Horus of Hierakonpolis (Egyptian: Nekhen) was generally shown wearing a white crown. A famous depiction of the white crown is on the Narmer palette found at Hierakonpolis in which the king of the South wearing the hedjet is shown triumphing over his northern enemies. The kings of the united Egypt saw themselves as successors of Horus. Vases from the reign of Khasekhemwy show the king as Horus wearing the white crown.

As with the deshret (red crown), no example of the white crown has been found. It is unknown how it was constructed and what materials were used. Felt or leather have been suggested, but this is purely speculative. Like the deshret, the hedjet may have been woven like a basket from plant fiber such as grass, straw, flax, palm leaf, or reed. The fact that no crown has ever been found, even in relatively intact royal tombs such as that of Tutankhamun, suggests the crowns may have been passed from one monarch to the next, much as in present-day monarchies.

title: Hedjet


text:
Solar Designer

Alexander Peslyak (Александр Песляк) (born 1977), better known as Solar Designer, is a security specialist from Russia. He is best known for his publications on exploitation techniques, including the return-to-libc attack and the first generic heap-based buffer overflow exploitation technique, as well as computer security protection techniques such as privilege separation for daemon processes.

Peslyak is the author of the widely popular password cracking tool John the Ripper. His code has also been used in various third-party operating systems, such as OpenBSD and Debian.

Work
Peslyak has been the founder and leader of the Openwall Project since 1999. He is the founder of Openwall, Inc. and has been the CTO since 2003. He served as an advisory board member at the Open Source Computer Emergency Response Team (oCERT) from 2008 until oCERT's conclusion in August 2017. He also co-founded oss-security.

He has spoken at many international conferences, including FOSDEM and CanSecWest. He wrote the foreword to Michał Zalewski's 2005 book Silence on the Wire.

Alexander received the 2009 "Lifetime Achievement Award" during the annual Pwnie Award at the Black Hat Security Conference. In 2015 Qualys acknowledged his help with the disclosure of a GNU C Library  function buffer overflow.

title: Solar Designer