Bibliographies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibliographiesWikipedia:WikiProject BibliographiesTemplate:WikiProject BibliographiesBibliographies articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.
To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Somerset, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Somerset on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SomersetWikipedia:WikiProject SomersetTemplate:WikiProject SomersetSomerset articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects,
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bristol, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bristol-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BristolWikipedia:WikiProject BristolTemplate:WikiProject BristolBristol articles
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: No move.Cúchullaint/c 14:04, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not a bibliography, so the suggestion is a flawed one. This format is fine for lists of career histories of work done in mixed media. "List of works by Keith Floyd" would be deeply misleading: his television and radio appearances are not works by him: they include appearances, but are by the production companies. – SchroCat (talk) 16:32, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
NCLIST does not "recommend": it says it's a common practice – SchroCat (talk) 16:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You did: "...also be WP:CONSISTENT with articles of the same type. See Category:Bibliographies by writer." It's the flawed premise of your argument – SchroCat (talk) 16:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand. As I clarify but it is inconsistent with other lists of the same type, as I've illustrated from the category, which not only includes bibliographies, but also lists of works in mixed media, all of which start with "List of works by...". --
See WikiProject Bibliographies: "Author bibliographies that contain other types of published works such as music (discography), or film (filmography) in addition to published literature should be called Works of Author, Works of Rambhadracharya for example." Sinden, I suggest you withdraw the closure request. If you've already moved pages based on your misunderstanding of the MoS, I also suggest you go back and fix your error as soon as possible. – SchroCat (talk) 17:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Guidelines are supposed to document current practice. This Wikiproject recommendation seems to be largely ignored (see
So you are basing your divisive and obstuctionist stance on nothiong more than your own petty dislike of something, as far as I can see. Considering how disruptive you have been on a number of articles on which I have worked, I am not surprised that even a good guideline reflecting current proactice is enough to make you admit that you have got it wrong again. Time to disappear from here Sinden and be "useful" elsewhere. – SchroCat (talk) 10:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Considering how disruptive and divisive you are, AGF is in short supply where you are concerned. The guidelines point one way, and there isconsistency where that is concerned: you're pissing in the wind in trying to force your wants onto article titles when there are specific guidlines for this sort of list. – SchroCat (talk) 10:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per SchroCat. Can you explain,
Robsinden, why adding "list" makes this a better title? CassiantoTalk 17:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
No, consistency among article names does not make it right. Just because it is a list, doesn't mean it should be entitled as such. If we are going along that vein, then why don't we call normal pages: "Keith Floyd article" etc,.. I think you maybe talking through your bottom again, Rob. CassiantoTalk 19:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Or small-minded inflexible inability to read the guidelines and admit that you've fucked up once again? – SchroCat (talk) 10:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't lie: I don't hold grudges, and if you had done something half intelligent I'd not have said anything, but you have a habit of stalking and harrassing (Flashman, Carry On, Bond, etc) based on flawed rationales that goes beyond anything constructive, particularly when the fucking guidelines have been shown to you, and you still can't admit when you're wrong. Consistency is present here: it's consistent with the guidelines and with similar articles of mixed media, as suggested by the fecking guidelines! – SchroCat (talk) 11:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please withdraw your accusations of stalking, harassment and the accusations in the previous comments, or this goes to
My AGF only stretches so far: you seem to make enough forays into articles on which I am working or on which I have worked to raise my suspicions. When you are unable to even accept a guideline that is shown to you as justification for the naming of an article (for example), but are still disruptively trying to push the issue in a direction that you want to take it, based on nothing more than your own dislike of something, then there are conclusions of inflexibility that are unavoidable. You are free to run to ANI if you wish, but I hope you like a mirror being held to your long-term behaviour of interaction while you are there. – SchroCat (talk) 11:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per SchroCat.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The suggested move is misguidedly comparing apples with pears. The title of the page is clear, sensible, and compliant with WP rules. Tim riley talk 12:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per SchroCat; I don't see how adding "list" would improve this title. JAGUAR 13:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per SchroCat et al - The proposed title isn't an improvement in any shape or form... –Davey2010Talk 21:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support to conform to other works articles I've seen on Wikipedia. It's clearly a
WP:FL), with an added lede section (as many list articles have). Softlavender (talk) 02:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
See WikiProject Bibliographies: "Author bibliographies that contain other types of published works such as music (discography), or film (filmography) in addition to published literature should be called Works of Author, Works of Rambhadracharya for example." Lists do not always begin with "List of": there is nothing that says they should or that they have to. Additionally "List of works by Keith Floyd" is misleading: his,television programmes are by production companies, not Floyd. – SchroCat (talk) 06:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per reconsiderations. Waste of time.--Moxy (talk) 16:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
