![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
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)
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?
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 namefollowed 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)
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)
Anyway WP:CONCISE appears to be the applicable policy principle here. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 10:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
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:
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)
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)
Question, when there is a novel which needs disambiguating by a surname that has multiple novelists
Is there an actual problem? Hypothetical questions not needing an actual solution can be interesting to throw your time at — but to what end?
add the author's surname in parentheses: "(Orwell novel)", "(Asimov short story)",
add the author's surname in parentheses: "(Smith novel)", "(Jones short story)",
add the author's surname only in parentheses: "(
WilburSmith novel)", "(ZadieSmith short story)", do not include given names
In recent months, the following was added and then removed, without discussion in either case as far as I can tell:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)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)
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.
"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)
"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)
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)
Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#Subtitles_proposal
czar
09:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
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)
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?
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 namefollowed 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)
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)
Anyway WP:CONCISE appears to be the applicable policy principle here. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 10:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
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:
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)
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)
Question, when there is a novel which needs disambiguating by a surname that has multiple novelists
Is there an actual problem? Hypothetical questions not needing an actual solution can be interesting to throw your time at — but to what end?
add the author's surname in parentheses: "(Orwell novel)", "(Asimov short story)",
add the author's surname in parentheses: "(Smith novel)", "(Jones short story)",
add the author's surname only in parentheses: "(
WilburSmith novel)", "(ZadieSmith short story)", do not include given names
In recent months, the following was added and then removed, without discussion in either case as far as I can tell:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)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)
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.
"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)
"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)
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)
Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#Subtitles_proposal
czar
09:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)