Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lists of works

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  No book or published works box? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Articles in compilations, editorships 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: order of works

message: 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)
thread_title: Stand-alone bibliographies

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Porn star filmographies

message: 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)
replies: text: See :Category:Lists of television series episodes and Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Episode coverage. HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about television? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Should episode counts be included in actor's filmographies? 

message: Hi. There has been a lengthy RfC concerning the presentation of filmographies at:
* Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Filmography RFC
I would have pinged this page during the now-closed discussion, had I been aware of it. There is ongoing discussion at:
* Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Implementation discussion
The core issues addressed are font-size (in tables), bulleted list or a table (when to use what), template use (vs. hard-coded styling), and color.
Xenobot will be taking a pass across the pages to deal with a lot of this.
Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  filmographies for actors and filmmakers 

message: 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)
thread_title: MoS naming style

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Discussion of lists for scientists and academics 

message: 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.  NoeticaTea? 00:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC: restructuring of the Manual of Style 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Instrumentation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Putting bibliographies into collapsible tables 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Variation in Filmography Styles 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Iconography 

message: 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)
thread_title:  lists of all non-notable works 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Wikifying research 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Citing translations by ''including the translator's name'', please 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Single book 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Referencing the items in the Bibliography and Further reading sections 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Discography formatting 

message: 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..... –Davey2010Talk 21:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Years before title 

message: Hello, I see that Filmographies recommends a non-breaking space (nbsp) before the hyphen for lines that have notes:
* Title (year), role – 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)
replies: text: Yes, but that shouldn't be a hyphen, it should be an en dash, per MOS:DASH.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Aha! Thank you. I will fix both. --Culix (talk) 12:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  When to use non-breaking space 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Scientific Publications 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Put most recent items first 

message: 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)
thread_title:  When are citations needed within the discography? 

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

message: This page currently recommends  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)
thread_title:  Complete list of works vs. NOTDIR/NOTCV 

message: Couldn't find any earlier discussion of this: Should television films be listed in a filmography's section for Television, Film, or both?
i imagine many actor articles have this problem; the one that inspired me to come here was David_Keith#Filmography, which includes both David_Keith#Film and David_Keith#Television, with quite a few Television movies listed under the latter but not the former. While redundancy is redundant, i feel like listing TV films in both places is the only way not to have at least one of the lists incomplete.
Maybe a dedicated section for TV films, with both of the existing sections saying "See also: #Television films"?
--96.244.220.178 (talk) 08:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  television films listed as Television, Film, or both? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Request for comment on television filmography

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

message: 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)
replies: text: @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)

text: You're welcome. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography: multiple editions 

message: :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)
thread_title:  [[:Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies]] has an [[WP:RFC|RFC]]

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

message: 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? Acousmana 09:10, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  : 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? Acousmana 13:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: "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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Acceptable sources for discography entries 

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

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

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

message: An edit war
#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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thank you very much for your kind assistance. I will comply. --55go (talk) 08:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Ah, I see. Got it now.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:33, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should director names be excluded from the filmography? 

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

message: does not work on the  parameter of the  template. RodRabelo7 (talk) 02:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|Lang}}