Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lists of works/Archive 1

message: In which order should the list be presented?  Earliest to latest or vice versa?  violet/riga (t) 09:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Order

message: When there are different types of releases (such as singles and albums) should they all be grouped together (stating on each what type they are) or placed in separate lists? violet/riga (t) 09:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Grouping

message: Hmmm.  I hadn't seen this before I started Wikipedia:Filmographies, but I had expected this to eventually be a natural extension of that.  Perhaps my tests could be used in some way.  RADICALBENDER★ 18:36, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
:What you've done there is excellent, and could well be merged in here and form some basic guidelines for all types of lists of works. violet/riga (t) 20:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: i heartily agree. would it be premature to add a Merge vote/template to this and the Filmographies pages, to draw other's attention? --Quiddity 20:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Filmographies

message: I understand that this project is about "presentation" of a person's works rather than the content. With regards to content, I've started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Filmographies#All_films_or_some_.3F as to whether a filmography should include all the works of the person or only the notable ones, in case the list of works is long (like 100+). Jay 19:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: All works or some ?

message: Hmm.. I'm specifically talking about music discographies here, but I guess it can be lightly applied to books and films... Anyway, I'm surprised there is no standard for lists of works. I'm very much against the use of tables to show a discography - mainly in terms of accessibility for disabled users, I mean they're a total waste of time for those users, but also because they contain mainly redundant data; generally the chart position. It's not really important in terms of an album release, I don't think. Anyway... somethink similar to...
* Year - Title of Work (Record Label)
...would be best I think. I really think there should be some sort of standard decided for this, but I guess it will be quite difficult for everyone to agree. I'm not sure what I'm talking about to be honest but hopefully this starts the ball rolling. SaltyWater 23:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If no one is going to comment I'm going to change the project page myself... SaltyWater 10:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll comment... I don't see a problem with formatting discographies in tables.  They look cleaner and they're able to hold more information than a bulletpoint or plain text list.  How exactly does a table make it difficult for disabled users?  If there is a serious problem with accessibility then obviously something will have to change, but at this point there are literally hundreds of articles in Wikipedia that utilize table formatting.  Most pages with tables were created because they previously had text lists which became very messy due to artists' long list of albums and singles.  Changing things back to non-table lists will not prevent people from adding comments, chart positions, countries, albums, remixes and various other bits.  Many discography tables also include album artwork.  You're the first person (at least that I have seen) to mention a problem with accessibility to the information so I'm interested to know how tables make things difficult.  If disabled people are having issues with tables then something should definitely be done about it, but I don't think the immediate response should be to remove tables. -- eo 12:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I believe tables can be beneficial, but generally only when wielded by an experienced editor. That is why i recommend lists for the guideline, but am happy for tables to be mentioned as an alternative method. --Quiddity 04:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the scenario I don't want to happen.  A filmography is a plain list.  I make it a table; add roles and notes.  Then someone comes along and says "nope, page X says lists is the way to go" and reverts my changes.  If we can work something out so that doesn't happen, then sign me up and let me go on my merry way making pretty tables. :) Cburnett 05:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Understood and completely agreed. Good stuff :) -Quiddity 05:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lists vs tables 

message: The discography for Keane, used as an example of a 'list' discography style, has changed. It is now more like the Oasis example: a list with cover thumbnails. I'm trying to think of an artist that has a thorough discography in the text-only list style, but thus far I can't find one that has all of the elements suggested (separate singles and albums sections; includes date, label, chart position). GentlemanGhost 17:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discography example has changed

message: I've attempted to work most of the discussion above into an overhaul of the proposal. (previously). Tell me what you think, or just overhaul my overhaul if you can improve it :) 
I've tried to give it some solid statements to argue/ratify, and some broad leeway to encompass all the still-evolving standard-methods we have.
The only thing I foresee as being potentially contentious is the chronological ordering of filmographies, but I suspect (hope) a supermajority will quickly emerge, once put to wider discussion, favouring both consistency and traditional listing standards.
I've posted requests for comment at various related WikiProject and Styleguide talkpages, and at Village pump (proposals) and (policy), and various user talkpages, and RfC/Policies, in order to get further feedback. -- Quiddity 02:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd add that using tables enables the year to be rowspaned and thus only linked once (it's what I tend to do anyway).  I can live with ordering earliest first (I prefer newest first though).  I also change filmographies, etc. to tables whenever I edit them for numerous reasons that I don't think need to be iterated right here.  Suffice it to say that so long as tables are just as acceptable as lists (with reduction from tables to a list being frowned upon) then I'm also fine. Cburnett 21:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Never too late - constant growth :) Yeah, an explanation of special circumstances needs to be added to that section, allowing variants for series works. That's a perfect example too. I've added a short  paragraph dealing with it, but feel free to rewrite/tweak. :) --Quiddity 21:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complete overhaul 

message: When listing things alphabetically, should one put numbers at the top of the list, before A, or within the list?  As a random example, if you were listing Stanley Kubrick films alphabetically, would 2001 come at the top, or would it be listed under T?  Cardinal Wurzel 21:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Numbers first, per Template:CompactTOC. -Quiddity 00:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Alphabetical lists

message: Can we change the filmography guidline?  We need one that takes into account individual TV episodes, now that we have a lot of pages for single episodes?  I think we should just copy IMDB's styling; is this a copy vio?  For example, check out Rachelle Lefevre. - Peregrinefisher 20:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't care if we list them new to old or old to new, but there are a lot of things that the current guidline doesn't capture.  The example is very simple and doesn't address more complex issues.  Do we do subsections for writer, director, actor if they have credits in various fields?  Do we append (writer) or something?  I see lots of dates linked to 200X in film instead of 200X, we should mention this in the guidline.  I see Partial filmography, Selected filmography, and Filmography section headers, we should decide on one.  What if an actor had more than 100 (or 200) credits?  Do we spin this off into its own page?  What should that page be name? List of actor_name credits, actor_name filmography, etc.? - Peregrinefisher 20:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've replied to the RfC questions with my opinions. As for what to do with large lists, yeah they can get split off into pages like Clint Eastwood filmography, or columnized like Dustin Hoffman#Filmography. —Quiddity 22:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd also suggest that you could create/draft a long-supplementary page at Wikipedia:Filmographies for detailed variations and instructions. You can either Delete/merge/update what is currently there. —Quiddity 03:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool.  I didn't know about that page. - Peregrinefisher 03:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Filmographies 

message: I've created an RFC to work out the details involved in making useful filmography sections.  Check it out at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Filmography. - Peregrinefisher 21:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Filmography RFC