Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bibliographies/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Draft request to other projects for support

Fellow Wikipedians, I have taken the initiative, in consultation with a few others, to draft a WikiProject for Bibliographies. I hope it will be of interest to members of this project. The genesis of this effort has been a recent spate of AfD nominations of lists of publications. For the most part, the articles were not deleted, but that doesn’t mean many of them didn’t need work. A WP article entitled List of subject publications or any list of works, is by any other name, a Bibliography. Bibliographies within WP are specifically identified as a form of List in WP:List, are subject to List notability guidelines and the List Manual of Style. Unfortunately, many of the existing Bibliographies (or lists of publications) are not up to these standards. And there’s a high probability that new lists of publications or new Bibliographies won’t completely meet these standards as well, unless we as a community bring greater visibility to this genre of lists.

So the explicit goals of this draft project are to establish project-level advice for creating good bibliographies, gradually bring the existing set of bibliographies (400+) up to standard and to encourage editors to create bibliographies on topics and authors where appropriate. The goal is not to create bibliographies of everything or on everything.

I think the draft Bibliography project is logically connected to this project and members here would have a lot to contribute. If you are interested in participating, please sign up on the draft project page. If we get sufficient interest, I will move the draft into the Wikipedia space and we can press on. Also, please don’t hesitate to make suggestions on the draft here. I am sure it can be improved, will need some work to comply with Project guidelines and that it will evolve as this thing gets going. Thanks in advance for your support. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Manual of Style on bibliographies

The Manual of Style directions on bibliographies should be mentioned and the guidelines on this page made consistent with them. RockMagnetist (talk) 18:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Selection criteria

We should carefully consider selection criteria. My reading of WP:LSC is that, for bibliographies, we should probably be requiring that the works be notable – mostly having their own articles but a few having red links to indicate that they could become articles. That would make constructing the bibliographies easier. RockMagnetist (talk) 04:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Note that the notability criteria might not be all that restrictive. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Academic and technical books allows considerable latitude. RockMagnetist (talk) 04:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

This is an idea I will disagree with because it is much too restrictive. Restricting a bibliography to just notable entries, makes them nothing more than indexes of WP articles. While this is a perfectly acceptable approach, and possibly appropriate for topics where a lot of WP articles have already been written or requiring an article is the only way to eliminate 100s or 1000s of indiscriminate entries, it is not the only approach. The great majority of author bibliography entries don't have articles. Many bibliographies whose inclusion criteria is clear will probably have very few entries that would qualify for an article. One of the bibliographies I built years ago: Bibliography of Glacier National Park (U.S.) is a good example. None of the entries have articles or are ever likely to. Under your suggested restriction, that bibliography wouldn't exist.

Remember, the advice here builds on current list guidelines and MOS and applies them to bibliographies. List entries do not have to have WP articles. We don't want to create more restrictions over and above our current guidance. What we want to achieve is guidance that will allow and encourage editors to build good Bibliography articles--Bibliographies that are useful to readers interested in the literature of a topic or author. --Mike Cline (talk) 08:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

You're right, this shouldn't be a general guideline. But we could recommend that when the bibliography covers as broad a subject as Bibliography of biology, the articles should be notable. Such pages are very likely to get challenged (again) if they don't have such a criterion. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Ready To Move To Wikipediaspace

I think this wikiproject is ready to go live. There doesn't seem to be any more improvements, or improvement that is not crucial or critical that has not been written.Curb Chain (talk) 20:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Pages moves

List of important publications in mathematics has been moved to Bibliography of mathematics without a discussion on the article's talk page. This completely new project has somehow decided without consensus that it knows what articles should be called. "List of important publications in mathematics" went through an AfD very recently, as you know, where the consensus was keep. Not "rename", just "keep". And, to be clear, renaming was discussed and found to be unneccessary. A discussion of the proposal to rename as has just been done occurred on the talk page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science pearls and there was certainly no consensus for this move there. I gave there some of my reasons for why I think this renaming is ridiculous. Please revert this move and obtain consensus for it first. RobHar (talk) 21:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I've asked User:Curb Chain to slow down here. He's made these moves without any discussion. He even moved this project draft out of my user space without consulting me (haven't decided how to deal with that yet). Lets keep cool heads here and we'll sort this out. Please engage him directly in a civil manner. Thanks --Mike Cline (talk) 21:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason to prolong the renaming of these articles if there are no problems with the renames. Whereas if there is no consistency, Bibliography of biology should be moved back to list of important publications in biology and the lede should probably be reverted back as well.Curb Chain (talk) 21:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Where are the reasons?Curb Chain (talk) 21:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Curb, there are 400+ lists of publications and bibliographies on WP. We have had inconsistency here for half a decade. We don't need to or even want to try and fix everything at once. Every article stands on its own and as long as its existing title is compliant with WP:TITLE then its current title is fine. Making wholesale changes, especially without consensus is disruptive. This project was concieved to bring some consistent guidance for bibliography type articles and remind editors that bibliographies are lists and must comply with our list guidelines. Projects are not policy, projects are not guidelines and projects take time to mature and gain acceptance in the community. Don't cite this nacent project as justification to make changes without consensus. Please refrain from trying to make wholesale change overnight, it won't succeed. If you are passionate about bibliographies, then choose one and work to improve it. It will be energy well spent.--Mike Cline (talk) 22:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

This may have been inspired by my renaming of List of important publications in biology. However, I chose that one because few people seemed to care about it, aside from those who wanted to delete it. RockMagnetist (talk) 22:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I too want to move forward, but I want to make one point before I go on a wikibreak in a few hours. The moves by Curb Chain were inappropriate for several reasons. First, moving the project to main space was inappropriate because it was in Mike's space and he should decide. Also there was still discussion going on. Second, the renaming of the lists was inappropriate because it was too soon. There were discussions going on separately on some of the list talk pages, and some where discussion was likely to start. I was going to start a discussion on the talk page of the chemistry list for example. There has been no discussion for that move. The Maths people are quite right to object. This should have been done by careful thought over time. Curb Chain, your reckless bull in a China Shop approach needs to stop. We admire your enthusiasm, but it is best to not try to do things quickly, but to work for consensus. If some people want to move some of the lists back, that is fine, but there is probably no need to rush to move all of them back. We can put up with inconsistencies while we gain consensus. I leave it to others to sort out this mess. I'm off bush in a few hours. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Outside comment on page moves

The move of List of important publications in physics recently came up at WT:PHYS. This move, too, was performed with zero discussion. Per WP:LIST (a subset of WP:MOS), "List of.." _is_ the preferred/default naming scheme for collections like this.

With regards to process, renaming individual articles usually involves adding a "requested move" template giving a rationale. This also automatically places the page into a list of requested moves, to bring more people to the discussion. For a mass renaming, of the type this project seems to be engaged in, go through the RFC process first to establish consensus for the change. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 00:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Given that the moves were already made (and I don't approve either), would it be better to leave them as they are or change them all back and submit this RFC? RockMagnetist (talk) 01:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd lean towards changing them back, as the initial moves were out-of-process, but I'm a bit out of my depth with regards to precedents on that front. You could possibly ask for advice at WP:AN. The main question is, "would leaving them as-is or moving them back result in the least disruption?". I really don't know what the answer to that is. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 01:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:RM -- things are moved back, and a requested move is opened, when an undiscussed unilateral move is performed. This falls under the commonly respected guide called WP:BRD. 65.94.77.11 (talk) 04:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I like that solution. Especially since, judging from discussions and edit histories, these pages don't have many Most Interested Persons. RockMagnetist (talk) 05:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Move requests work for individual pages, but for a mass-renaming, an RFC is much more appropriate. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 06:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Ill conceived

While I admire and appreciate all the effort and reflection that has gone into this project (proposal?), I think it is ill conceived. Constructing "bibliographies" in a neutral, objective way is extremely difficult. This is an invitation for a lot of OR and a recipe for endless bickering about what to include or not. Sorry to be so negative... --Crusio (talk) 22:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Since Bibliographies are already "authorized" in WP:LIST, since there are already 400+ in the encyclopedia, and since any given Bibliography can and should be constructed with WP:NOTESAL and WP:LSC in mind, this project is actually designed to counter what you fear the most -- lot of OR and a recipe for endless bickering about what to include or not which in reality is what many Wikipedians fear about lists in general (56,000+ list at last count). Do you fear lists in general or only those you don't like?--Mike Cline (talk) 22:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with you that lists are one of the most problematic areas of WP. Most are just indiscriminate listings of (internal or external) links, without any added value compared to a category (and often much worse, because they tend to attract a lot of spam links). Very few approach even distantly the featured lists, which are, of course, actually more useful than a category. My prediction is that the existence of this project is going to be used as an excuse by many to create even more of these ill-conceived, idiosyncratic POV/OR lists. It's just my opinion I'm giving here, it's clear that mine is a minority voice and that this project will go on. Let's just hope I am wrong and that it will all work out for the best. --Crusio (talk) 07:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Advice guides

A lot of the project page is advice for page creators. I wonder whether it might be a good idea to use the templates in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide#Advice_pages? RockMagnetist (talk) 23:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Promoting the project

One way to promote this new project is to make a sidebar news request at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/WikiProject desk. Here is my suggestion for a blurb:

• WikiProject Bibliographies has just been created. Our aim is to improve this widely misunderstood form of list and expand their scope within Wikipedia. Together we can halt the flood of AfDs! RockMagnetist (talk) 06:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Go for it, but I'd drop the second sentance. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I really meant the AfD reference (3rd sentence), I changed the request page. --Mike Cline (talk) 17:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Bibliographies is in the sidebar of the current issue. RockMagnetist (talk) 02:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Good job! --Mike Cline (talk) 03:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Some types of bibliographies

TStein mentioned some types of bibliographies that might be worth developing recommendations for:

• Textbooks on a subject – perhaps they could be called List of textbooks on <subject>.
• A list of frequently cited references for a WikiProject. Should these reside in the project space? RockMagnetist (talk) 23:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Recreate category Bibliography stubs

Hi WikiProject Bibliographies colleagues, I found the problem why the assessment tables gave different results for the totals:

• The template Bibliography-stub counts double, first as template, but also as stub due to the parameter category=Stub-Class Bibliographies articles
• The category Stub-Class Bibliographies articles contains also an article currently in the user space without project/assessment template

With some search on other WikiProjects I found out that the category parameter for a stub template is never one of the standard assessment categories "Stub-Class topic articles", but a more generic one under control of Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting.

So I have:

• Recreated the category Bibliography stubs, inline with ones used in other WikiProjects
• Updated {{Bibliography-stub}} so the category parameter uses this new category

This took some research, but I found the problem :) Regards, SchreyP ^(messages) 21:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Funny, with this change the article User:Curb Chain/List of important publications in sociology doesn't list in Category:Bibliography stubs. Somehow user namespace articles are put outside this category, while before it was part of Category:Stub-Class Bibliographies articles. -- SchreyP ^(messages) 21:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

SchreyP, thanks for working on this. It's been a struggle getting all the templates and categories consistent. They really ought to have a step-by-step guide to this somewhere. RockMagnetist (talk) 22:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy I could help. I learned a lot on the journey. And yes, I agree that the documentation is not always clear or consistent. -- SchreyP ^(messages) 22:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Please don't make unilateral moves

There are lots of List of publications that might eventually be candidates for renaming to Bibliography of .... However, please do not make those moves unilaterally, but instead run the through WP:RM at the time the move is contemplated. Thanks --Mike Cline (talk) 00:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, let's focus on improving the articles before worrying about the name. RockMagnetist (talk) 02:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Something to worry about - on a few pages we are now being referred to as a "clique" that is "hijacking" articles for its own purposes. I have been doing some damage control, but the following discussions bear watching: talk:List of important publications in economics, talk:List of important publications in mathematics, and talk:List of important publications in statistics. RockMagnetist (talk) 07:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Unassessed articles

If you look at the tables in Reviews and Assessments, you will see a lot in the (???) category. That is because I requested a bot to tag all the articles in Category:Bibliographies. You can help by rating these articles. RockMagnetist (talk) 22:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Someone needs to run the Assessment bot as I have been adding the project banner to a lot of articles. --Mike Cline (talk) 03:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. This project is starting to look substantial! RockMagnetist (talk) 04:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Modifications to project banner

I believe is would be used to add a parameter to the project banner to identify the Type of bibliography the banner is tagging. This would extremely useful in evaluating and resolving titling and category issues. It would also help us identify advice issues for particular types that could be included on the project page. Based on my recent work tagging a number of articles I believe these would be the logical types:

• Author - the bibliography is an author bibliography listing the works of a specific author
• Topical - the bibliography is a topical bibliography listing the works on a specific topic
• Combination - the bibliography is both topical and author based
• Book - the bibliography article is actually about a published, notable bibliography
• Mixed - the bibliography articles contains other list of works types--filmography, discography, etc.
• Other - a catch all for articles that don't meet the above type criteria

What do others think? I know I can't make that kind of technical change to the project template, but I won't hesitate to enlist the support of those that can if there is consensus to do so.--Mike Cline (talk) 16:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know whether this is restricted to science bibliographies, but in a discussion on the Science pearls talk page I am proposing a further breakdown of the Topical bibliography:

• Bibliography of X
• Bibliography of textbooks on X
• Bibliography of popular X books

This is driven mainly by the widespread perception on talk pages for such bibliographies that textbooks and popular books are not notable enough to be on the main page. RockMagnetist (talk) 04:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I think we also need Bibliography of historically important publications on X. And I don't see why its content would be any more subjective than a Bibliography of textbooks or Bibliography of popular books. Dirac66 (talk) 13:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with both Rock and Dirac, but am not convinced that these ideas relate to the project banner, but more to article titling and lead paragraphs (inclusion criteria). A very good exercise might be for one of you all to create a project subpage that provides more detailed examples for the ideas that Rock has put forth. Those examples would include rock solid examples of lead paragraphs and inclusion criteria. The type parameter idea above for the project banner came out of my extensive tagging of the existing locus of bibliography articles and the need to have some mechanisim to reconcile specfic types of bibliographies, their titles, inclusion criteria and actual content. Right now, there's a lot of misalignment on that front. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:23, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

That would be a good exercise, and one that I have been thinking of doing. I think the same applies to your types. Before tagging the articles, let's see how the guidelines would vary. Also, it would be interesting to see some examples of each type – particularly "other"!. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Rock, I've started my end of the bargain here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies/Draft types of bibliographies --Mike Cline (talk) 10:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I think another good category would be Genre to cover lists like List of science fiction novels, List of children's books made into feature films, List of encyclopedias by branch of knowledge and so on. RockMagnetist (talk) 23:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Assessment and template Issues

Although I've figured out how to update the assessment tables, I am curious as to why the class assessments are not updating other than stub (on both the template and table). For Bibliographies that are books, i.e. published bibilographies, the class could range across the entire quality scale and would not be classed as List. Yet when I added anything but stub as a class value, nothing happens. See this example: [[1]]. The article is rated as C-class in the project template, yet it doesn't display. Any thoughts on what needs fixing? --Mike Cline (talk) 11:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

When I created the assessment template for this wikiproject, I assumed that all the articles were going to be lists, so I adopted the mask that WikiProject Lists uses. This converts all ratings of Start, C, B, etc., to List. It appears that we also have some non-list articles in the project. Shall I remove the mask? RockMagnetist (talk) 16:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the answer is obvious. I have modified the mask and I'm working on the categories. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

FYI - Curb Chain has ignored the result of RM on Bibliography of biology

I have taken this to ANI [2] here. Let's not get in an unproductive edit war over this. --Mike Cline (talk) 12:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

New option in project template

I have enabled |attention=yes in {{WikiProject Bibliographies}}. This puts the article in Category:Bibliographies articles needing attention. I have used it to flag some lists for which selection criteria are controversial. RockMagnetist (talk) 19:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Another source of bibliographies

Lists of books has a lot of links to pages we haven't tagged yet. I have done the first two sections but there are a lot left. RockMagnetist (talk) 23:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Bibliography stub template

It appears that my creation of the {{Bibliography-stub}} template may have been misguided. The guidelines for new stub categories say that a minimum of 60 articles should populate the category. Right now we have just eight stubs, and there is no way we will come anywhere near 60. Any objections to my deleting this template and category? RockMagnetist (talk) 18:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Not on my part. --Mike Cline (talk) 21:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I was also not aware of that threshold. I support the deletion of both {{Bibliography-stub}} and the linked [[:Category:Bibliography stubs]]. -- SchreyP ^(messages) 22:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I have requested speedy deletion for the template. SchreyP, you created the category, so you could request speedy deletion for it. RockMagnetist (talk) 23:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

As suggested, I have requested speedy deletion for the category. -- SchreyP ^(messages) 23:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)