Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lists of works

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:WikiProject_Discographies/style#Ignore_all_rules, about the format following from the needs of the article rather than the other way around. Chubbles (talk) 07:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, and the explanation of sources is appreciated. -- Quiddity (talk) 06:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

Six years, in fact. --Michig (talk) 15:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ah, ok. That's where I thought you might be headed. Eg. I'm happy to sample most anything from

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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? Kleinzach 03:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. --Kleinzach 02:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The only example I can think of immediately (having written most of it) is Italo Calvino#Selected bibliography, but I'm not sure if that's a good example...

When in doubt, look at the Featured examples! Would something out of Wikipedia:Featured lists#Literature and theatre 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

MOS:J#Titles of media, but it discusses something other than translations. Anyway, thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

@

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 <br>s. Quiddity (talk) 02:40, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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..... –Davey2010^Talk 21:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yes, but that shouldn't be a hyphen, it should be an en dash, per

MOS:DASH.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Aha! Thank you. I will fix both. --Culix (talk) 12:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Esprit15d: 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 type or medium of publication/production. If something's included, treat it consistently with other publications regardless of its format or it method of distribution.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:01, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@NE Ent: 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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 {{Cite Book}} 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 {{Cite Book}} is fine, why not also {{Citation}}? 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)[reply]

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 (Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

There is an active discussion about a

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• A discography should include an artist's releases, self-published or not. 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)[reply
  ]

@

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)[reply

]

"Does this album exist" is substantiated per

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)[reply

]

NNC doesn't trump

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)[reply

]

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

To:

Hi! I assumed, based on the notice at

PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 21:14, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I have retargeted the shortcut to

MOS:DISCOGSTYLE also goes to the guideline section.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

In lists of works, yes. That information is good in prose discussion, but in a filmography it places

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)[reply

]

Thank you very much for your kind assistance. I will comply. --55go (talk) 08:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ah, I see. Got it now.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:33, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Follow-up RfC on TV season article titles.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:54, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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