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 |
Is this project really attempting to distinguish author bibliographies from bibliographies about an author by using the titles X bibliography and Bibliography of X?
Are readers likely to percieve the difference? What do we do with the quite sensible article (especially for authors who write on themselves) which has both types?
If we are going to have a standard form (and considering the number of bibliographies which are sections in the parent article, the use of a form seems limited), can we at least have a distinction that is intelligible without clicking through to the articles themselves?
I would suggest List of works by X for author bibliographies and Bibliography on X for subject bibliographies, but there are certainly other possibilities. JCScaliger ( talk) 03:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
-- Mike Cline ( talk) 19:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Do you mind if I open this up as an RfC? I think the naming issue is important to more than just one WikiProject, from the discussions of various biblios recently and conflicts with various other wikiprojects. 70.24.248.23 ( talk) 05:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Would this be an RfC for the guideline, or for actually renaming the articles? If the latter, would you be notifying editors of the articles on their talk pages? RockMagnetist ( talk) 19:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I have been editing Wikipedia:WikiProject Science pearls/Bibliography of sociology, and I am confident that it is ready for mainspace. However, the history of this article is so irregular that I would like to reintroduce it to mainspace in as non-controversial a manner as possible. Doing this from project space instead of user space or the incubator is a bit irregular, I suspect. Suggestions would be welcome, as well as any comments or improvements to the page. RockMagnetist ( talk) 06:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
What should we do with Wikipedia:WikiProject Science pearls/List of important publications in law? This was created as a stub by Curb Chain and then disowned by him and dumped in the Science pearls project space. The original, List of publications in law, was deleted; it probably had a lot more content than Curb Chain's version. RockMagnetist ( talk) 07:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
With all these names being renamed... some sort of disambiguation system should be built for those subjects with multiple biblios... like X biblio is a disambiguation page, with two targets, one for Biblio of works on X and the other Biblio of works by X. And the List of works by X and List of works on X should be created for all biblio articles to point to the appropriate article. Biblio of X would then point to the disambiguation page X biblio. And if a subject has only one biblio, instead of two, the generic titles "X biblio" and "Biblio of X" would point to the same article, as redirects (either "works of" or "works by"). List of works of X would point to the "by" article.
70.24.248.23 ( talk) 11:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi guys I was invited to join this project by User:Mike Cline. I am glad to join!! As all can see I addd some stats that are self updating to the project page. I have also added Google book tool Coverts bare url into {{ cite book}} format - This tool is great in converting to short urls from overly long google book search I have created a few bibs ( Bibliography of Canada - Bibliography of Canadian history - Bibliography of Canadian military history) my self and hope to make more. I am an old editor here and very well versed In all our policies - so if anyone has questions pls ask me. urls. Moxy ( talk) 16:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Hope you dont mind me jumping in here ...I have added some policy and a technical related addition to the project page. I hope all are ok with them.
Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies#Book links - Google Book should only be added if the book is available for preview; etc...
Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies#Using citation templates - The use of citation templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged. Citation templates are used to bring consistent formatting.....
Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies#Infobox-The
use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for...(
see also)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies#Template limits - The
MediaWiki software that powers Wikipedia has several parameters that limit the complexity of a page, thus limiting the amount of templates that can be included.
...
Moxy (
talk) 04:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
While it's not exactly within the scope of this project, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of collections from Easton Press may be of interest to project members. Ladyof Shalott 06:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Bibliographies within the scope of this project may be improved by:
Having worked sporadically and randomly on a number of Bibliographies by Subject lately, I’ve compiled the above checklist of potential improvements that any editor can make. After some discussion here, we can add to the main project page. -- Mike Cline ( talk) 18:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
WikiProject Science pearls covers far too few articles to qualify as a wikiproject and is already part way to being a task force in this project. To complete the transition, a number of steps are needed, including moving it to a subpage of WikiProject Bibliographies, renaming it to Science Task Force, and removing it from the registry of wikiprojects. Any objections to my doing these things? RockMagnetist ( talk) 01:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide/WikiProject#Developing_recommendations. Good work, Mike! RockMagnetist ( talk) 22:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello lovers of knowledge! OCLC, the non-profit behind WorldCat and other library services, is recruiting for a paid Wikipedian in Residence position based in the San Francisco Bay Area. This summer, 3 months. Your knowledge and passion for the 'pedia is desired! Here's a link to my blog post about it -- linking there because it also covers a similar (but not library-focused) opportunity at Consumer Reports in New York. Please apply! - Pete ( talk) 23:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi! At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of writers in Who's Who in Contemporary Women's Writing a copyright question has been aired - don't know if people here know anything relevant. Dsp13 ( talk) 10:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I have created a more comprehensive watchlist for recent changes using Special:RecentChangesLinked and a page that I created that holds a list of all the articles currently managed by the project ( Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies/List of articles). Of course, this watchlist is only good if the list is kept up to date. The link for this watchlist is in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Bibliographies#Recent_...
Hello, I just noticed what struck me as a significant issue at the article on Brian Stableford - the bibliography was horrifically long, to the point of being intimidating. I felt overexerted simply scrolling to the bottom of the page.
As there is no assertion that Stableford is notable beyond the said titanic bibliography, I elected (rather than creating a new article) to simply put the entire mess into collapsible tables. You may view my solution here in case anyone has undone it in the intervening time.
I feel that collapsible tables are an extremely elegant solution to this rather daunting problem. I wanted to ask whether this is already considered a suitable method, and propose it become so if it is not already. 134.71.140.129 ( talk) 07:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
The recent development of the OCLC Facebook app brought to my attention that the short list of bibliographical references on topical pages is sometimes approaching random. As more apps pick up these bibliographies from the topic pages it becomes more important that the items listed there be a "good start" for readers. It would also be ideal (although possibly not achievable) that there be some coherence between the bibliography on the topic page and the bibliography page where one exists. This is less vital for author bibliographies, which must be complete to be of interest, than for topical bibliographies, which are more appropriately a selected bibliography. Is this something this group could be involved in? LaMona ( talk) 15:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
This page 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. |
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 |
Is this project really attempting to distinguish author bibliographies from bibliographies about an author by using the titles X bibliography and Bibliography of X?
Are readers likely to percieve the difference? What do we do with the quite sensible article (especially for authors who write on themselves) which has both types?
If we are going to have a standard form (and considering the number of bibliographies which are sections in the parent article, the use of a form seems limited), can we at least have a distinction that is intelligible without clicking through to the articles themselves?
I would suggest List of works by X for author bibliographies and Bibliography on X for subject bibliographies, but there are certainly other possibilities. JCScaliger ( talk) 03:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
-- Mike Cline ( talk) 19:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Do you mind if I open this up as an RfC? I think the naming issue is important to more than just one WikiProject, from the discussions of various biblios recently and conflicts with various other wikiprojects. 70.24.248.23 ( talk) 05:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Would this be an RfC for the guideline, or for actually renaming the articles? If the latter, would you be notifying editors of the articles on their talk pages? RockMagnetist ( talk) 19:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I have been editing Wikipedia:WikiProject Science pearls/Bibliography of sociology, and I am confident that it is ready for mainspace. However, the history of this article is so irregular that I would like to reintroduce it to mainspace in as non-controversial a manner as possible. Doing this from project space instead of user space or the incubator is a bit irregular, I suspect. Suggestions would be welcome, as well as any comments or improvements to the page. RockMagnetist ( talk) 06:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
What should we do with Wikipedia:WikiProject Science pearls/List of important publications in law? This was created as a stub by Curb Chain and then disowned by him and dumped in the Science pearls project space. The original, List of publications in law, was deleted; it probably had a lot more content than Curb Chain's version. RockMagnetist ( talk) 07:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
With all these names being renamed... some sort of disambiguation system should be built for those subjects with multiple biblios... like X biblio is a disambiguation page, with two targets, one for Biblio of works on X and the other Biblio of works by X. And the List of works by X and List of works on X should be created for all biblio articles to point to the appropriate article. Biblio of X would then point to the disambiguation page X biblio. And if a subject has only one biblio, instead of two, the generic titles "X biblio" and "Biblio of X" would point to the same article, as redirects (either "works of" or "works by"). List of works of X would point to the "by" article.
70.24.248.23 ( talk) 11:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi guys I was invited to join this project by User:Mike Cline. I am glad to join!! As all can see I addd some stats that are self updating to the project page. I have also added Google book tool Coverts bare url into {{ cite book}} format - This tool is great in converting to short urls from overly long google book search I have created a few bibs ( Bibliography of Canada - Bibliography of Canadian history - Bibliography of Canadian military history) my self and hope to make more. I am an old editor here and very well versed In all our policies - so if anyone has questions pls ask me. urls. Moxy ( talk) 16:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Hope you dont mind me jumping in here ...I have added some policy and a technical related addition to the project page. I hope all are ok with them.
Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies#Book links - Google Book should only be added if the book is available for preview; etc...
Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies#Using citation templates - The use of citation templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged. Citation templates are used to bring consistent formatting.....
Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies#Infobox-The
use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for...(
see also)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies#Template limits - The
MediaWiki software that powers Wikipedia has several parameters that limit the complexity of a page, thus limiting the amount of templates that can be included.
...
Moxy (
talk) 04:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
While it's not exactly within the scope of this project, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of collections from Easton Press may be of interest to project members. Ladyof Shalott 06:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Bibliographies within the scope of this project may be improved by:
Having worked sporadically and randomly on a number of Bibliographies by Subject lately, I’ve compiled the above checklist of potential improvements that any editor can make. After some discussion here, we can add to the main project page. -- Mike Cline ( talk) 18:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
WikiProject Science pearls covers far too few articles to qualify as a wikiproject and is already part way to being a task force in this project. To complete the transition, a number of steps are needed, including moving it to a subpage of WikiProject Bibliographies, renaming it to Science Task Force, and removing it from the registry of wikiprojects. Any objections to my doing these things? RockMagnetist ( talk) 01:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide/WikiProject#Developing_recommendations. Good work, Mike! RockMagnetist ( talk) 22:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello lovers of knowledge! OCLC, the non-profit behind WorldCat and other library services, is recruiting for a paid Wikipedian in Residence position based in the San Francisco Bay Area. This summer, 3 months. Your knowledge and passion for the 'pedia is desired! Here's a link to my blog post about it -- linking there because it also covers a similar (but not library-focused) opportunity at Consumer Reports in New York. Please apply! - Pete ( talk) 23:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi! At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of writers in Who's Who in Contemporary Women's Writing a copyright question has been aired - don't know if people here know anything relevant. Dsp13 ( talk) 10:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I have created a more comprehensive watchlist for recent changes using Special:RecentChangesLinked and a page that I created that holds a list of all the articles currently managed by the project ( Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies/List of articles). Of course, this watchlist is only good if the list is kept up to date. The link for this watchlist is in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Bibliographies#Recent_...
Hello, I just noticed what struck me as a significant issue at the article on Brian Stableford - the bibliography was horrifically long, to the point of being intimidating. I felt overexerted simply scrolling to the bottom of the page.
As there is no assertion that Stableford is notable beyond the said titanic bibliography, I elected (rather than creating a new article) to simply put the entire mess into collapsible tables. You may view my solution here in case anyone has undone it in the intervening time.
I feel that collapsible tables are an extremely elegant solution to this rather daunting problem. I wanted to ask whether this is already considered a suitable method, and propose it become so if it is not already. 134.71.140.129 ( talk) 07:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
The recent development of the OCLC Facebook app brought to my attention that the short list of bibliographical references on topical pages is sometimes approaching random. As more apps pick up these bibliographies from the topic pages it becomes more important that the items listed there be a "good start" for readers. It would also be ideal (although possibly not achievable) that there be some coherence between the bibliography on the topic page and the bibliography page where one exists. This is less vital for author bibliographies, which must be complete to be of interest, than for topical bibliographies, which are more appropriately a selected bibliography. Is this something this group could be involved in? LaMona ( talk) 15:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
This page 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. |