Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (books)/Archive 2

< Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (books)
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Gonnym in topic Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Creating a consistent naming convention style for character names across media types
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

WP:SUBTITLE vs. WP:NATURAL

Latest comment: 10 years ago25 comments9 people in discussion

I generally approve of WP:SUBTITLE, but is it the best guidance when the short title needs disambiguation anyway? For one example, WP:SUBTITLE supports the current title of Jury Nullification (book), but WP:NATURAL would give us Jury Nullification: The Evolution of a Doctrine. How short does a subtitle have to be to fit the former's standard of "short titles, for disambiguation purposes"? --BDD (talk) 21:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I find the section WP:SUBTITLE to be rather unclear. What is meant by The only exception to that is short titles, for disambiguation purposes.? Is this guidance intended to AVOID use of qualifiers such as "(book)" or "(novel)" when there is a subtitle? Or does short mean a subtitle can be used for disambiguation if the title is not overly long? The reason I raise this is a number of recent moves by Good Olfactory. Which of the following pairs are better article titles under this guideline?
And there are more, but that should be enough for discussion. older ≠ wiser 23:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. My understanding has always been that for books, if we need to disambiguate, step 1 is to use the subtitle, if any. Only if the name with the subtitle remains ambiguous do we move to step 2, which is to add "(book)" or a similar parenthetical. This approach seems to be in accordance with WP:NATURAL. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Does that presume that the books with the subtitles are a more common name or that they are somehow more recognizable than the short name? I wonder if Francis Schonken might enlighten us as to what he intended when he wrote the guideline. I find it very confusing to have a statement such as Usually, a Wikipedia article on a book (or other medium, such as a movie, TV special or video game) does not include its subtitle in the Wikipedia page name followed by a statement describing what may be a narrow exception, especially when there is an entire section describing of parenthetical qualifiers as standard disambiguation. Note also that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) make no similar mention of use of subtitles vs. parentheticals for disambiguation. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (video games) does mention the use of subtitles for disambiguation. older ≠ wiser 23:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • It might; though I don't know if a generalization can be made in this respect that would apply to all situations. But to me, given the number of articles that are affected, it makes more sense to have a standard convention that is relatively easy to apply and to follow it rather than adopting a case-by-case method. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • A page that I very recently ran through DYK was just the victim - or perhaps beneficiary - of one of Good Olfactory's very recent moves. If we can, I'd be in favor of some sort of character-count-based cutoff rule of thumb if a title needs disambiguation. For example, we could say: If title+subtitle is <40 characters, then use subtitle for disambiguation. Otherwise, use "(book)" for disambiguation (unless that too gives >40 characters). That's a straightforward, cut-and-dry guideline, and it would avoid the ridiculously long page names in older/wiser's examples, which to me would be preferable. My gut says: Just as very lengthy book titles are listed in reference lists, people are sometimes called by their social security numbers -- but that doesn't mean we need to use either of those for a page name. --Presearch (talk) 05:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I hope that the note for use of subtitles on short book titles is a nod to WP:COMMONNAME; that is, that "Orlando: A Biography" is the way that that book is most commonly referred to in reliable sources. So, the rule could be rewritten "The exceptions to that are (a) where the subtitle is part of the common name or (b) for disambiguation purposes. But if the subtitle make the article title unwieldy, standard disambiguation should be used instead." -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree. This isn't something that we can (or should) make a firm and fast (one size-fits-all) "rule" about. Its a judgement call. How best to entitle an article about a book (or any other topic) depends on balancing the various criteria stated in the policy against eac hother... and the end result will be different from one book to another. The important thing is to come up with an article title that a) clearly identifies the topic (a book), and b) can not be confused with some other topic. When it comes to articles about books, in some cases the best way to achieve this will be to include the subtitle of the book in our article title... in other cases it will be to use a parenthetical disambiguation. There is no "right" way to do it... and no "wrong" way to do it. And the "best" way to do it will be different from one book to another. Blueboar (talk) 13:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I think this suggestion is closest to the spirit of the guideline. I also don't think the existing wording was unclear—all of the shorter versions of the titles above are the books' common names. czar ♔ 12:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. So ... given this discussion (and I think probably everyone is in general agreement)—if anyone thinks any of the new subtitled names are "unwieldy", just let me know and I can revert the move. Or you can revert it without me being upset. I've already reversed a few of them that are obviously unwieldy. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC) (I've now reverted all the changes I made under my apparent misunderstanding (or the bad writing of, or whatever) of the guideline. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC))
Comment: Clearly, recent unilateral page moves with zero prior discussion on their respective talk pages is controversial, per above discussion. An easy way to mitigate this would be to attempt to have polite discussion on the article talk pages, before making such rapid page moves in quick succession without discussion. — Cirt (talk) 07:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, it was an implementation of the guideline as written. I think this discussion has clarified that the guideline needs a slight tweaking. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I think this discussion has clarified that unilateral page moves in rapid succession without prior discussion on their article talk pages, can be potentially controversial as a general practice. — Cirt (talk) 07:18, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
You know, sometimes the best strategy to get guidelines seriously examined and actively discussed by other users is—ironically enough—to implement the guideline. Some users may not be comfortable with that fact, but it's a tried and true approach that many editors use. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for calling my thoughts:

I propose to change "The only exception to that is short titles, for disambiguation purposes" to "The only exception to that is short page titles, for disambiguation purposes". The meaning of short can be qualified to avoid further ambiguity as far as I'm concerned. Then I'd say a page title exceeding ten medium sized words can no longer be called short in the sense of this guideline. And then still, I rather think of no more than five words as being short in this case.

Clarifying how come "Usually, a Wikipedia article on a book (or other medium, such as a movie, TV special or video game) does not include its subtitle in the Wikipedia page name" was included in the guideline: this was common practice at the time. I think it all derives from the "common names" idea: quoting subtitles is not all that common when referring to a book. I suppose the principle is still valid.

For the record Orlando: A Biography is not a common name, that's why it's an "exception". The common name for that book is Orlando (Orlando has of course many, many meanings). Why the exception makes sense is further explained in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books)#Precision. The exception to the common names principle is, in this case, justified by the precision principle.

Re: "My understanding has always been that for books, if we need to disambiguate, step 1 is to use the subtitle, if any. Only if the name with the subtitle remains ambiguous do we move to step 2, which is to add "(book)" or a similar parenthetical.": Incorrect understanding, these are not the steps proposed in the guideline. Use of subtitles is uncommon, and thus generally discouraged for the main article page, with a single limited exception.

Francis Schonken (talk) 10:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Re: "My understanding has always been ..." The entire guideline as a whole (ie, not just the section on subtitles) can be read that way, however. That may not have been the intent of those who wrote it; it may just have that meaning due to careless wordings. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Now I see, the lead paragraph has been written so that it does not reflect (nor even summarize) the content of the guideline. Francis Schonken (talk) 10:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree and do think that's better; we were getting various versions of the lead that could be read as offering slightly different advice than the subsections set out. For now, I think it's worthwhile sorting out what the subsections mean before we have a summary section at the top. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: I like the full titles better than the disambiguations. The full titles are encyclopedic. For example, Library of Congress doesn't do this silly disambiguation thingy process. — Cirt (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Full names for books are important to use in a library catalogue system. It's not as important in an encyclopedia when we're deciding on the name of the article. The full name should always be included in the text of the article, though. Good Ol’factory (talk) 15:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
    (after ec) The Library of Congress also doesn't have a technical limitation against entries sharing a title. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
    I think it's unlikely two entries would share the same exact title, and the same subtitle. — Cirt (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
    I prefer Francis Schonken's resolution of the 4 or 5 examples above, which generally involve using something like "(book)" to disambiguate, rather than a lengthy subtitle. I guess that diagnoses me as leaning on the side of WP:COMMONNAME, with the corresponding clarification of the guideline. Using lengthy subtitles when something clearer and shorter is ready-to-hand, and consistent with WP principles, just seems needlessly windy, perhaps even verging on pompous, or at least somewhat stilted. Wikipedia has it's own distinctive approach and logic - we want to be accurate and deliver high-quality information in good time (i.e., easy and rapid to find), but need not unnecessarily be Brittanica or LOC wannabes, in my opinion. -- Presearch (talk) 23:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
    It's not at all unlikely that two entries would share the same exact title, particularly if they lack a subtitle. How about "Acceptable Losses: A Novel" by Edra Ziesk and "Acceptable Losses: A Novel" by Irwin Shaw? -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Anyway WP:CONCISE appears to be the applicable policy principle here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Bibliographies

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I think that it would be beneficial to add a section to this page to set out guidelines for naming bibliography articles. Consistency is one of the five pillars of a good Wikipedia article title, and the lack of a guideline for these articles has led to inconsistent title formats, which I would argue is confusing to readers. By far the most common title format currently used for bibliography articles is "Jane Doe bibliography" (ex. George Orwell bibliography). Other title formats that have come into use include "List of Jane Doe works" (ex. List of Maya Angelou works), "List of works by Jane Doe" (ex. List of works by Chairil Anwar), "List of works of Jane Doe" (ex. List of works of William Gibson), "Bibliography of Jane Doe" (ex. Bibliography of Whittaker Chambers), "Works of Jane Doe" (ex. Works of Demosthenes), "Works by Jane Doe" (ex. Works by Fran Levstik), and "List of books by Jane Doe" (ex. List of books by Jacob Neusner). At present, these title formats are used fairly randomly, except for the fact that the "Jane Doe bibliography" format is used in the vast majority of cases (as can be seen by a review of Category:Bibliographies by writer), and that the word "works" tends to be preferred in the title when the list includes non-literary works. So that there will be more consistency in how these articles are named, I propose that the following section be added to this guideline:

Articles that serve to list the literary works written by an individual writer should have a title that starts with the writer's name and ends with the word "bibliography" (ex. George Orwell bibliography, Fyodor Dostoyevsky bibliography). Literary works include non-fiction books, novels, plays, poetry, short stories, articles, speeches, sermons, letters, screenplays, and song lyrics. If the list includes creative works that are not literary works, then the word "bibliography" does not have a broad enough definition to encompass the entire list and therefore the title should read "List of works by" and then the name of the individual (ex. List of works of William Gibson, which includes both a bibliography and an acting filmography). Non-literary works include filmography (other than screenwriting), discography (other than songwriting), visual art, dance, and architecture. Articles that serve to list the literary works written by different writers about a particular subject should have a title that starts with "Bibliography of" and ends with the name of the subject (ex. Bibliography of early American naval history), even when that subject is a person (ex. Bibliography of Abraham Lincoln).

I think that "Jane Doe bibliography" is the best title format for bibliographies by writer because 1) it is already the most well-established title format for these articles, 2) it is consistent with the standard title format for filmographies and discographies, 3) it is concise, and 4) it unambiguous and its meaning is clear. For articles that are not solely bibliographies, filmographies, or discographies, but are rather combinations of these or combinations with visual art, I recommend "List of works by Jane Doe" simply because it is more inclusive; this format is less concise and its meaning is less clear than "Jane Doe bibliography", "Jane Doe filmography", or "Jane Doe discography", so I suggest using the "List of works by Jane Doe" only when one of the other title formats are insufficient. The guideline I am proposing is consistent with standard practice already; I simply think that it would be wise to have a guideline on the subject so that it can be referenced when dealing with the minority of articles that do not already conform to this practice. Neelix (talk) 14:37, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I have notified the relevant WikiProjects of this proposal. No one has opposed the proposal, so I have added the section to the guideline per the above. Neelix (talk) 17:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation by year?

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

King Rat (1962 novel) v. King Rat (1998 novel).. was this following an earlier version of the guideline? In ictu oculi (talk) 10:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance of that question. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:58, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm just asking. In that it seemed rather well hat-noted. Anyway, per existing guideline ... Moved..... It's just a question. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

(Smith novel)

Latest comment: 10 years ago11 comments2 people in discussion

Question, when there is a novel which needs disambiguating by a surname that has multiple novelists

should the dab be (Smith novel) or (Wilbur Smith novel) (Zadie Smith novel)? In ictu oculi (talk) 05:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Is there an actual problem? Hypothetical questions not needing an actual solution can be interesting to throw your time at — but to what end?

Francis, I already cut to the chase in the first line: I'm asking "what the guideline is when there is a novel which needs disambiguating by a surname that has multiple novelists." What other question would I be asking? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Tx for the examples you posted at my talk page, none of these need "double Smith" disambiguation however.
Re. "...I'm not asking about Smith it could have been any common surname": there would only be a problem when there are two novels with the same title, written by two different novelists having the same surname.
Re. "what the guideline is when there is a novel which needs disambiguating by a surname that has multiple novelists": To disambiguate, add the type of literary work in parentheses, such as "(novel)", ... If further disambiguation is needed, add the author's surname in parentheses: "(Orwell novel)",... I don't think there is any doubt that that is what the guideline says. Nor do I see any problem with that when there is a novel which needs disambiguating by a surname that has multiple novelists.
In other words, for the content of parenthical disambiguators the guideline makes no distinction between author's surnames that are fairly unique and surnames that are shared by several authors, even when they're active in the same genre (like novels). --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
FWIW, there are at least two Asimovs writing short stories, so the "(Asimov short story)" example used in the guideline might have been a clue to your question. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for reply. Hmm. That doesn't seem like a good idea, at first sight the (Wilbur Smith novel) articles are more helpfully titled that the (Smith novel) Wilbur Smith ones. Orwell and Asimov are mononyms like Dickens or Tolstoy. If another Asimov had a novel article I hope it would be at (Foo Asimov) to help readers. If the objective of the guideline is to guide against given names, even where authors are not easily identifiable, then the example should be changed:

add the author's surname in parentheses: "(Orwell novel)", "(Asimov short story)",

To:

add the author's surname in parentheses: "(Smith novel)", "(Jones short story)",

And with perhaps the addition of instruction not to add given names even when several Smith authors exist:

add the author's surname only in parentheses: "(Wilbur Smith novel)", "(Zadie Smith short story)", do not include given names

If this is the guideline then this would make it helpfully clear. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
The guideline is clear as is. No need for this unhelpful expansion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, I disagree, I think stating it in black and white would be clearer than inferring it. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
I think the current verion more robust for the case when, eventually, two writings might turn up with the same name, in the same genre, by two different authors with the same surname. I don't want to legislate something that is not a current issue. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
For the rest I return to my first question: what problem is this trying to solve? I'm opposed to solutions without a well-defined problem they're supposed to handle. So, if the problem can't be defined, no solution needed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Using a series title as a disambiguator

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In recent months, the following was added and then removed, without discussion in either case as far as I can tell:

A book which is part of a series may be disambiguated by series title, especially if this would result in a more recognizable title, such as with The Underground (Animorphs) or Betrayal (Star Wars novel).

Is there, in fact, a consensus for or against this?

More broadly, in cases where disambiguation is needed, is there a preference for medium (e.g. (novel), (audio drama)) vs. series (e.g. (Doctor Who))? Where would be the best place to discuss this: Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation, Wikipedia talk:Article titles, or somewhere else? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Latin incipits

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

See discussion here: WT:AT#Italicization of Latin incipits (well, it relates to WP:NCB#Poems and lyrics) --Francis Schonken (talk) 02:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguating books by just surnames

Latest comment: 9 years ago52 comments6 people in discussion

In the light of Talk:The Devil's Advocate (Morris West novel)#Requested move, what can be done about books by lesser-known authors? --George Ho (talk) 03:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

See above, #(Smith novel) --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:06, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Too late; it's already archive. Shall we make a fresher discussion instead? --George Ho (talk) 08:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
But there really isn't a normal dab practice besides what's described on individual pages. Films are, I believe, never disambiguated by auteur or star. Albums and songs are almost always disambiguated by full artist name. In literature, it's more common to refer to authors by surname alone, and (Smith novel) is enough to distinguish an article unless another novel of the same name by someone named Smith [exists / has a Wikipedia article].Take your pick. More to the point, I don't know how or when this convention was established, but changing it is going to involve a lot of work for not a lot of benefit. --BDD (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
BTW "involve a lot of work for not a lot of benefit" - we don't have as many book articles as albums or songs. A single editor could move the surname only part of the book article corpus to dabs consistent with author articles in 3 hours, thereby also leaving redirects for those who don't know which Smith. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
"Britney Spears" and "Dickens" are differently treated. We can add a first name if the surname is too ambiguous. "Dickens" and "Austen" and "Shakespeare" are treated as well-known names, especially when first names is sometimes omitted. --George Ho (talk) 00:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
(Charles Dickens novel) and (Jane Austen novel) as still recognizable. We could list some specific exceptions for Shakespeare and Goethe which are more likely mononyms. I honestly don't believe "Austen" is a mononym, how often in books is she simply unintroduced as "Austen novel"? In ictu oculi (talk)
As of now, there is Katherine Austen, but she made less work than other Austen ever had. "Dickens" redirects to Charles Dickens article. Well, there is Dickens family, but "Dickens" is not that ambiguous because no one else has researched or been familiar with his descendants. --George Ho (talk) 00:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, as I said I believe "Austen" is a mononym, how often in books is she simply unintroduced as "Austen novel" - barely none? Authors are rarely known as mononyms, much much less than major composers. 1900 onwards almost never. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I would say that would be a bad example and irrelevant RM, it needs to be done on a more typical example - like Smith, Jones, Brown. Such as Lila (Robinson novel), that is what we are talking about here. Or one of the many like Rage (Wilbur Smith novel) which are created at consistent with author article titles and moved because of this local consensus guideline. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
It's not possible to get a broad consensus excluding the less typical examples ("broad" is not an extrapolation of "narrow"). For the time being, as far as I'm concerned, page moves in this sense are only possible after individual RMs, unless and until a broad consensus can be demonstrated. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree, all articles where first names have been removed should be restored. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Moving in agreement with current guidance is however to be considered uncontroversial, until RMs show it would be controversial. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Trying to make my stance perfectly clear: I would need to see something like this (i.e. an uninvolved closure after a broad consultation of the community) before I'd do something comparable to this on the WP:NCB page. And, of course, I'd oppose disruption of any kind. Minus the drama the process that led to a WP:NCNUM change in November last year worked fine. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd really rather we not take that approach. That's going to lead to anomalies. An RfC is the way to go, not piecemeal RMs. --BDD (talk) 18:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, RfC OK. A few RMs running concurrently usually helps focus, that is at least my experience. Changing guidelines without being sure WP:RM would lead to the same outcome is just off the table as far as I'm concerned, so a few RMs before the end of the RfC is a bare minimum (to confirm the broad acceptance of change or status quo before the RfC ends).
Note that RMs run (in principle) a week, RfC's (in principle) a month: so 5 or 10 concurrent RMs can give result on shorter term than a RfC (...however no more than the theoretical model).
For an RfC it's rather crucial to have a concrete question to start with. How would you formulate that? --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
"Is the current recommendation to use an author's surname to further disambiguate books sufficient, or should fuller names be used?" --BDD (talk) 19:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Adding some context to the question this should work imho. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, let's see whether a bolder approach can avoid red tape ([1]), starting from the assumption that The Devil's Advocate (Morris West novel) is a "stable" article title by now. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

  • There are so few book articles in our corpus I would leave it largely to article creators to determine if their author is a credible mononym. Your edit is an improvement, but we are still giving guidance to mononymize authors of 2015 books who are not WP:RECOGNIZABLE as mononyms. In 2014 I only see 2 maybe 3 big literature books whose authors could conceivably be mononyms, the rest are unrecognizable as surnames without context of barely notable authors of popular fiction. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
An additional issue : The Game (Diana Wynne Jones novel), aside from "Jones" being like "Smith" and "Brown" an ambiguous writer dab, which is the surname here - is it Wynne Jones or Jones? (the answer doesn't matter because readers won't know). In ictu oculi (talk) 00:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I would object to "Is the current recommendation to use an author's surname to further disambiguate books sufficient, or should fuller names be used?" because it is framed to produce the argument WP:STATUSQUO which would be fair if there was a proper consensus to establish this change, but it seems there wasn't. I would prefer a question not slanted to reference something that was barely discussed, instead : "Should writer disambiguators generally use full name as writer article, or generally surname only, or in each case decide on the basis of first mention usage". In ictu oculi (talk) 01:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
But it is the status quo, and around here, a status quo remains unless there's consensus to change it. A no consensus result means surnames continue to be the further disambiguator. The wording also signals that a "no" answer will entail changing many existing articles to conform to the new standard. --BDD (talk) 02:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
It is still a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS not a true status quo. Books were at (2006 novel) until a few months ago, that was the status quo. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:17, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
No, In ictu oculi. As long as this page has been marked as a naming convention, the recommendation has been further disambiguation surname. 25 January 2006, if you're interested, so over nine years and only "a few months ago" in the loosest sense. --BDD (talk) 19:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Then why were there so many (2006 novel) etc article moves a few months ago ? In ictu oculi (talk) 22:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Is it possible to name some examples of those "(2006 novel) etc article moves a few months ago," sorry for having no clue what this is about. Maybe some of these moves can serve as example in this discussion? --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Kicked it off with a WP:RM on The Devil's Advocate (Morris West novel) → The Devil's Advocate (novel) (see Talk:The Devil's Advocate (Morris West novel)#Requested move 31 January 2015) --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

That's a fair sentiment, but without some guidance, I think there would be a lot of wasted time with move-warring and RMs. It probably makes sense to make a broad prescription and allow for individual deviation (which is exactly what's going on right now). --BDD (talk) 16:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I would say that having guidance is what is causing a lot of wasted time with move-warring and RMs. Most of this is generated by those who think we have to "conform" disambiguation to a set standard, when we don't. Blueboar (talk) 17:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I would agree. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:17, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
One more. (Jones novel) is not any more helpful than (novel), since there are countless Joneses. (Dickens novel) suffices in most cases ... and yes, this does discriminate against any other writers that happen to be named Dickens or Shakespeare, but believe me, they have already suffered enough that this won't burden them overly. No reason to make a rigid rule. --GRuban (talk) 18:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Context matters. Obviously, "Jones novel" doesn't tell you a whole lot, but as a disambiguator, it does the job of distinguishing a subject from that of similarly named articles (cf.). If I'm looking for a novel called Foo by Stephen King and I see a title Foo (Jones novel), I know immediately that it's not what I'm looking for. --BDD (talk) 19:10, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Except it doesn't. What if someone impartially remembers name of novel (King novel) isn't as helpful as (Stephen King novel). What benefit to anyone is there from turning Stephen King into "King"? Where is the benefit? In ictu oculi (talk) 22:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Probably (King novel) would be avoided for similar reasons as why (Queen drummer) was avoided in the name of the page where Roger Taylor (Queen drummer) redirects to (see WP:NCPDAB). These are the exceptions though, as far as I'm concerned.
On second thought Finders Keepers (King novel) appears to be unproblematic, so I proceeded to set the Rage novel with the same parenthical disambiguator: [2] --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
On the content of the matter, I think BDD is right though. It's about the recognizability of the article topic, not about the recognizability of each individual component of the article title. E.g. we have Liebeslieder, Op. 114 (Strauss) and Oboe Concerto (Strauss): the Strauss of the first is not the Strauss of the second, but nobody cares while the article topic is recognizable to a person familiar with the subject area (policy quote!) without further information about the creator. That's WP:CONCISE weighing in once WP:RECOGNIZABLE is satisfied. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Classical/pop borderline

Whenever there's an issue about how article titles are treated differently in classical and pop cultures I have a look at what happens at the borderline between the two cultures. Nearly always (and also in this case) Gershwin comes to help:

I think there is some merit to the argument that modern pop fiction authors are maybe not usually cited as a mononym in a parenthical disambiguator... but we're still very far from demonstrating there's a consensus building around this idea. One of the difficulties is drawing the line between more "classical" literature and "modern pop fiction"... Classical vs. pop music is easier to distinguish (which has WP:NCM devided in two sections without much of a relation between the two), with very few exceptions (Gershwin... who else?). So more editor input is needed... Why didn't the RfC start BTW?

E.g. who is to say that Saramago isn't pop fiction? Because he won the Nobel Prize? Yet we have Skylight (Saramago novel) and The Double (Saramago novel). Compare this play by another Nobel Prize laureate: One for the Road (Harold Pinter play)... --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Potential compromise

How about using surname only for further disambiguation when a writer is primary topic for the surname? I'm not entirely convinced of this myself, because it's rather a high bar to cross. Even Orwell isn't primary topic, though it's qualified with a "usually refers to... George Orwell". This may mostly encompass odd (in English) surnames. Here's a few that it would apply to: Angelou, Asimov, Churchill, Dostoyevsky, Faulkner, García Márquez, Hemingway, Nabokov, and Steinbeck. Should this approach be adopted, it would be helpful to maintain a list of applicable names—not unlike the WP:USPLACE exceptions, though this would be a longer list perhaps better suited to a subpage. --BDD (talk) 16:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Unnecessary Instruction creep. We are never going to get rid of all arguments... but attempting to codify how to disambiguate causes more arguments than it resolves. Blueboar (talk) 17:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Having an instruction is not instruction creep. Anyway, you missed the boat—this disambiguation has been codified for nine years, and many other topics have prescribed methods of disambiguation. Embracing inconsistency in article titles would do a serious disservice to our readers. --BDD (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Being overly consistent also is a disservice to our readers. Blueboar (talk) 20:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
How so? --BDD (talk) 20:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Per User:BDD let's do as sources do. The number of mononym authors after 1900 is tiny. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Correct disambiguator for short story collections?

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Whilst the instruction for WP:BOOKDAB mentions "(novel)", "(novella)", "(short story)", "(dialogue)", "(essay)", "(play)", it doesn't mention the recommended disambiguator for short story collections. Looking through Category:Single-writer short story collections, there seems to be a variety of disambiguators used (including "book", which according to this guideline should be used for non-fiction works). I'm seeing "(stories)", "(story collection)", "(short story collection)", "(collection)" and "(omnibus)". Should the disambiguator be consistent? Do we have a preference? --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Changing "Bibliographies" section

Latest comment: 9 years ago14 comments5 people in discussion
REFERRED ELSEWHERE
Referred to Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:58, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

We have ongoing RM discussion at Talk:Woody Allen bibliography. Some suggest rewriting the section to reflect current prevalence of "person's name bibliography". Are there problems with current revision? If so, what change shall we propose? --George Ho (talk) 20:12, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd wait a couple of days, but if no one (else) responds (as I suspect may happen), I'd advise just being bold and revise the guideline to include "[Person name] bibliography"-type article title cases. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I think you'll need an RFC for this - it will affect a lot of articles. There is no current prevalance for "person's name bibliography" when the bibliography is about the subject as George suggests. Also, we still need to differentiate between bibliographies about the subject and bibliographies by the subject in some way. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
That said, "List of works about subject" might work. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

There are two versions of "Bibliographies" section: previous version and current version. If neither version is working, what is your proposal for the section? --George Ho (talk) 00:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

  • None. A Wikipedia bibliography page is not an article on a book in the sense of this guideline. There's a WikiProject about bibliography pages that agreed on some guidance on the subject: sort it out with them. Not something this page should say anything about, because, as said, it is not within its scope (when, but I don't know of any example in this sense, a Wikipedia article is about a separate bibliography published as a book, of course the NCB guideline applies, like it applies for Schubert Thematic Catalogue but there also nothing specific needs to be mentioned in the guideline) --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I have just noticed that Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies recommends Topical bibliographies where the topic is a person should be named: Bibliography of works on John Doe. This eliminates confusion with John Doe bibliography which lists works by John Doe (an author bibliography). --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
----

Mixed topical and author bibliographies: Some biblliographies contain both works written by the author and works about the author written by others. (...)

The Richard Nixon bibliography includes publications by Former President Richard Nixon and books and articles about him and his policies.

----
None of this is however a problem of WP:NCB, as said, better to sort it out with the project guys. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Rob, while that solution isn't horrible, it strikes me as somewhat inelegant, and less than the kind of precision and conciseness we want in an article title. Is there some other way we can get across the same idea in a less wordy fashion?! I still think "Bibliography on [person]" is a better way to go here... It seems to me like the best solution involves some combination of "Bibliography of [person]" (when those works are written by the person), "Bibliography on [person]" (for those bibliographies about a person, but not written by them), and "[Persion] bibliography (for bibliographies that contain both works by the person, and by other people?...). Is this workable?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that's grammatically correct, but I would happily defer to someone who knows more than me! Anyway, it seems the guideline has been removed here, so perhaps conversation should be continued at WT:WikiProject Bibliographies. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
The only other "concise" variation that I can come up with would be "Bibliography about [person]". Short of that, then you're probably stuck with some variation of "Bibliography of works on [person]" or "Bibliography on the subject of [person]", etc., which while less concise, may be more precise. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Smith

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

At some point we'll need a proper discussion about (Smith novel) (Lennon song). There has not yet been one. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

It isn't clear that there's support in the wider editorship for the current state of WP:NCB. Every time this has come up apart from the 1 or 2 who seem convinced that modern authors should be treated as mononyms as much as Tolstoy there's a view that (John Lennon song) etc is a better model. See Talk:Mariana (Monica Dickens novel) for an example of a case where calling the author "Dickens" would be ridiculous. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
You'll need an RFC for this as it affects thousands of articles. In the meantime, please stop wilfully ignoring the longstanding guideline. WP:CONSISTENCY is at play here. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to add subtitles in Wikipedia:Article_titles#Conciseness

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#Subtitles_proposal czar 09:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Refactoring examples given for translated and transliterated titles

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Was going to go ahead and make this change, but decided to bring it to the talk page first, in case there was an objection. One of the examples given for using English translations as titles is currently Oedipus the King, preferred over Oedipus Rex. However, Oedipus Rex is the more familiar title, even in English (probably due in part to the length of time it's been called that, and because "Rex" is still used in English when referring to kings, and thus its meaning is not obscure). That's also the article's current title, so it doesn't work as an example of the policy here. I suggest substituting another play that does fit; Seven against Thebes came to mind for obvious reasons, since it's a Greek play with both Latin and English titles, but only the English title is likely to be familiar to English speakers. Oedipus Rex is an obvious exception, but doesn't qualify as either a transcription or a transliteration. I suggest splitting it off into another line, although it could also be combined with the following line, perhaps by replacing transcription with translation (not really sure how transcription fits here).

Proposed text:

"If the original language does not use the Latin alphabet, the title is normally translated, preferably in English. For example, "Ἑπτὰ ἐπὶ Θήβας" → Seven Against Thebes (not "Septem contra Thebas", which is the Latin title).

However, in some cases, a work may be better known by a translated title, for example: "Οἰδίπους Τύραννος" → Oedipus Rex, where the Latin title is more familiar than the English translation, "Oedipus the King".

When a transcription..." P Aculeius (talk) 15:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Trump Tower: A Novel -- or Trump Tower (novel) ?

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The title for the article on the book Trump Tower: A Novel, is presently based on WP:SUBTITLES located on this page.

Should it be Trump Tower: A Novel or "Trump Tower (novel)" ?

A move discussion is taking place about this particular issue, at Talk:Trump_Tower:_A_Novel#Requested_move_20_June_2017.

Sagecandor (talk) 01:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Creating a consistent naming convention style for character names across media types

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Creating a consistent naming convention style for character names across media types . Gonnym (talk) 10:39, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(books)/Archive_2&oldid=1137425384"