Talk:Aleister Crowley bibliography

Requested move

FYI

 – User:JCScaliger has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Pmanderson (blocked for another year for abusive sockpuppetry).

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved: no concensus in 25 days. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

---

Works of Aleister Crowley → Aleister Crowley bibliography – This article is an author bibliography, in other words, it is a list of published works by a particular author. In the Category:Bibliographies by author, there are 244 entries. ~97% of those articles are entitled Author bibliography. Per WP:PRINCIPALNAMINGCRITERIA of which Consistency – Does the proposed title follow the same pattern as those of similar articles? Many of these patterns are documented in the naming guidelines listed in the Specific-topic naming conventions box above, and ideally indicate titles that are in accordance with the principles behind the above questions. is policy and the advice given in WikiProject Bibliographies, the proposed title is better from a consistency standpoint. Mike Cline (talk) 16:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. The proposed target would leave no title for the equally useful list of books about Crowley. That's a useful link; one of the other questions is whether the title describes the article precisely enough to distinguish it from other articles.

Should we combine the articles, as is done for many entries in the category mentioned? Probably not; this article is long enough already. JCScaliger (talk) 01:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

A useful move would be to List of works by Aleister Crowley. As it happens, The Works of Aleister Crowley is the title of the three volume collected edition of 1906-7, more recently reprinted. That's a (slightly) different topic. JCScaliger (talk) 20:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose the suggested title does not distinguish this from works about Crowley. Wikiproject Biblio indeed recommends exceedingly ambiguous terminology, which are grammatically equivalent in English to distinguish the two, and is substandard in quality in that regard. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 07:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support If we follow the new recommendations that we arrived at in this discussion, there will be no confusion:

• Books by an author: John Doe bibliography
• Books about an author: Bibliography of works on John Doe

I notice, by the way, that no one who has actually contributed to this article is weighing in on this issue. I hope they will voice their opinion. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• • That only clears up the second case, the naming of the first case still leaves an ambiguous title. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 10:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support per WP:PRINCIPALNAMINGCRITERIA, both conciseness and consistency. Claims of ambiguity are unnecessarily pedantic in my view.--MegaSloth (talk) 22:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
• Opposed to the reasoning above (and in a hurry, sorry). I do not like the look of this non-admin closure, and will have time later to add my reasoning. B2C, please do not close RMs when you are clearly involved. The whole point of closure is that it be done by someone who is disinterested. Tony (talk) 06:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Involved? What are you talking about? I went to the backlog at WP:RM, clicked on the discussion that was at the bottom, came here, read it, made my decision, explained it, and closed accordingly. How could I possible be any less involved? Why are you saying I'm "clearly involved"? --Born2cycle (talk) 06:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not sure if I personally have a strong stance either way, but am leaning toward "Oppose" (just because other articles are titled differently doesn't make them right). However, this discussion has gotten pretty stale and has been open for almost 3 weeks, so I think it should either be closed with "no consensus to move", or it could be re-listed in an effort to generate further discussion. I am not sure why Tony thought Born2cycle was not neutral enough to close this, although I haven't taken the time to look at his/her contribution history. Perhaps an explanation would be helpful. Otherwise maybe another admin will come along and close or re-list this? MsBatfish (talk) 10:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Weird sentence?

Quote: Class [A] consists of books of which may be changed not so much as the style of a letter: that is, they represent the utterance of an Adept entirely beyond the criticism of even the Visible Head of the Organization.

Am I the only one who finds this confusing and difficult to understand? And there are no links to explain this classification system or what it means. MsBatfish (talk) 11:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

List makeover

I've updated the posthumous works with missing info about their editors. However, the list of works published during Crowley's lifetime is still incomplete. Skyerise (talk) 17:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)