Knowledge talk:Manual of Style/Lists of works

4433:"A published work proves its own existence." This is generally true, but it should still be cited as the work itself, with sufficient identifying information to find it and verify that it does exist and does say what is claimed. (Or cite a reliable independent source that provides information about the release in question.) Just a bare claim that a book or album by a particular title exists by a particular author/artist is not really sufficient. We need to know at least the year and publisher/label, and preferably also have an identifier like an ISBN, a record catalogue number, etc., if such exists for the item in question. If it's a really old manuscript item (Plutarch, etc.), then cite a modern, published edition; WP does not cite manuscripts, only published works. That may also have implications for modern subjects; e.g. a claim that a band released a demo tape in 1983 in a quantity of 50 is not a claim that can be made without a reliable source, even if you claim to own a copy of the original, since no one can verify it (a virtually extinct legendary demo tape is essentially an unpublished manuscript). Such a claim would have be found published in some work about the band (either an independent one or, per 3172:

personals ad, serving as a memorial, or hosting content unrelated to the encyclopedia. More broadly in that policy section: it is not a dictionary-style definition of something, forum or original-research material by an editor, spam, advocacy/propaganda, scandal-mongering, a mirror of off-site writing, a directory-style entry with no encyclopedic context, attempting to conduct business, serving as a textbook or guide, trying to predict the future, reporting news-style on current events, acting as a "who's who" listing of non-notable people, acting as a summary-only review, being a lyrics republication, presenting unexplained statistics, or publishing a changes log, nor censoring anything.In short, you need to actually read the content of a policy page and be certain of its applicability before thumping its shortcut like a bible verse. And it is entirely wrongheaded to try to pit a guideline against a policy or against another guideline to begin with;

102: 70: 1499:

common in promotional blurbs). Well, Michig wrote a few thousand articles one way, and I wrote a few thousand articles another way, and we're only two people who have probably written .000000001% of all band articles. I have no intention of going through and standardizing my own articles, and I'd consider a fool anyone who did that for either of our articles (it would be an incredible waste of resources on information that, in either case, is already well-organized and presented). So I guess I'm arguing it doesn't matter to me how this page reads, as long as it doesn't result in some puritanical streamlining campaign.

1532:

what styles, genres, and subcultures they are associated with. People seek out music by label, and expect certain sounds or subcultural signifiers, in terms of labels more than they do with books (this may be closer to some boutique publishers like McSweeney's, or even specialized genre publishers in scifi, harlequin romance, theological fiction, and such). Review sites review by label, and associate the music critically, more than with books, at least so far as I am aware (while I read a moderate number of book reviews, I'm not as familiar with them as I am music reviews).

1857:, but a majority have none listed or only a few mentioned in their article. An encyclopedic article on an artist should list his works as thoroughly as it does any director or musician. Many pages include galleries and I understand the fair use limitations for displaying an artist's works, however much as bibliographies and filmographies don't display the works they list, I don't see why an iconography needs to display the art it lists. I think this would be very helpful, especially for historical artists with works that have entered public domain. 2203:, it's possible for almost any scientist to have a huge list of peer reviewed publications, but I'd argue that they probably don't constitute "works" as intended by this guideline. Articles on more prominent scientists don't seem to contain anything similar (usually mostly limiting themselves to actual books), possibly because they are scientific papers rather than artistic works, but it might be good to have some actual guidance to that effect somewhere rather than having to rely on individual page consensus on a case by case basis. -- 4413:, it doesn't appear that any change was made to the discography in the recent edit war -- we still have exactly the same list of works in exactly the same order. All that Vladimir did was add citations which were mostly to the uncertain source of African Music Library. I'm not seeing any value in this and reckon that there are significant risks in adding such URLs to our articles. We should not be required to do this, especially to report the artist's death, which is a different fact not related to their list of works. 2220:: Has this actually been a contentious issue? I've been tweaking scientific biographies (geologists), and I think a lot of the most important work of scientists is in peer-reviewed articles (the books are often summaries of the articles, or books for a popular audience, or textbooks, not the ground-breaking work). I apologize if this is an issue, because I actually just changed this section to explicitly reference articles, just thinking it was something that had been overlooked, not an explicit decision. 140: 81: 2623:(5) The section "Template" says that {{Cite Book}} may be used in lists of works, with the author-mask parameter set if it is a list of works of a single author, like in the Works section of a biography. Should this format be preferred over the Standard Form described above? If {{Cite Book}} is fine, why not also {{Citation}}? One problem with both of these is that author-mask=0 suppresses the author name but not the author link. With many thanks 292: 1480:"), but is often irrelevant. The name of the editor that an author worked with (in a publishing house), or the name of the sound board technicians (that a band worked with in a studio provided by the label) would often be more informative. It all boils down to Completism (include everything) vs Selectivism (only include the highly-pertinent details), and "label" or "publisher" is just the easy/cheap answer. muttermutterrant ;) — 3192:, and many other pages make it abundantly clear that our P&G material should always be interpreted as a working synergistic system, never a legal-system style set of hard rules that can be manipulated to find loopholes and escape clauses to produce results that are contrary to their intent or to the project's interest. (In the rare event of an actual, objectively definable conflict between two P&G pages, a 2867: 39: 3848:

covers the whole list in one shot, great. For books and other material that have codes like ISBN numbers where their creation of the work is clearly part of the database record, that is also self-sufficient as long as the ISBN number is included. But like that article, there's a large number of works without any blue link (non-notable works) so we absolutely need some type of sourcing that is their work. --

230: 212: 174: 3512: 88: 1421:

particularly as it highlights that in many cases an artist satisfies the notability criteria, but I don't see how having the label in brackets before the year is better than having it after the year, which is what we had before. A couple of people discussing this isn't really going to provide sufficient consensus to change a style guideline that has stood for several years. --

2614:(2). The lead is too short. I first thought the page discusses how to write the section called "Works", which is one of the standard sections of an article (MOS:LAYOUT), but then I realised that the subject is wider and tries to give rules for all lists of works whether they be stand-alone pages or embedded in articles, such as the Works section or Bibliography section. 3962:(you see mistakes like this often on Spotify). You also have cases of pen names or where books/albums/singles are published using different titles or formats in different jurisdictions. Then there's the more obscure publications that may be hard to verify. This probably accounts for slightly more than just the edge cases but is it worth covering this in guidelines? 2620:(4) The essential formatting instruction seems to be: "The standard form is: 'Place: Publisher, Year'". This statement is hidden away in a parenthesis in the middle of the section "Books in English". It would merit to be exposed more prominently and to be explained by an example given in full. This Standard Form probably also applies to books in other languages. 3260: 1828: 3654:

each item...When an inline citation is not required by a sourcing policy and editors choose to name more sources than strictly required, then either general references or inline citations may be used. It is generally presumed that obviously appropriate material, such as the inclusion of apple in the list of fruits, does not require an inline citation.

1517:

technical assistance (editors/advisors, studio/producers), distribution, and legal hoopjumping. All of which will vary considerably based on the size of the company, and what the musicians/author can provide for themselves. (Semi-relatedly to film studios which we don't usually mention in filmographies). What aspects am I overlooking/forgetting? —

80: 87: 3156:. (I recently cited a book that only exists in 40 copies. It is a valid citation, as the work be can accessed at various, mostly European, libraries, and once in a blue moon copies become available for sale on eBay or some other site, which is how I got it, for significant cost, but less than the cost of trans-Atlantic plane ticket, heh.) 1188:

information from a discography merely because it states here that it is not required. I think that (in particular) record label information is quite important, especially for musical artists which do not have separate discography pages, and while I think the recommendation here is fine for an article about a group or musician with a

2611:(1) The first thing I learned (top of the talk page) is that I expose myself to discretionary sanctions by writing here. Sanctions might be needed to protect the MOS against wanton edits, but I feel that even novices like me should be allowed to discuss the MOS on the talk page without being threatened with disciplinary action. 2321:'s article here mentions the then-young actor's appearance in an MTV short film (in which he delivers a monologue of pick-up lines all drawn from song lyrics), because RS do not with any frequency mention it much less go into detail about it, no matter how memorable it might be to some TV viewers. By contrast, the 1597:

to finding a different format at every article. My preference would be (for discographies within an artist article at least) to have one recommended plain list format and one recommended table format, but I would agree that there are better ways to use our time than trying to change all of the existing articles. --

1802:, adding an English translation is apparently OK where doing so would be helpful. I can translate the titles of the books, etc. I am interested in using as sources, but that would be my translation. Another Japanese-speaking editor may prefer a different choice of words. Would a personal translation be considered 2673:"Bibliography/Publications"), and then do the change in a week or so. This is *not* an official suggestion, but strikes me as a reasonable approach. Things in Knowledge only get fixed if someone cares about them, and sometimes someone new has a better perspective than someone who's been around for years. 3644:

Content should be sourced where it appears with inline citations if the content contains any of the four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations...Reaching consensus on the talk page before editing the list itself not only saves time in the long run, but also helps make sure that each

2749:

normally document in full: that being mostly journalists (particularly those that specialize in a weekly long-form style article) and academics that may have hundreds of papers to their names. Normally we only include selected articles that have gained attention as a representative bibliography here,

2316:

If you mean, in lists of a notable subject's works (or in-prose coverage of them), should their podcast(s) be included, then the answer is (again) not different for this than for anything else: if reliable sources address the work, then include it, but if we can't find any RS that talk about it, then

1885:

in which someone has added a list of "Selected work" including not just the TV roles that make her notable, but also a documentary she appeared in, articles in edited collections, and even a section "Artwork" to list a film poster she designed. Since she did these things, she's technically an author,

1516:

Re: labels, just out of personal curiosity, could you link me to something, or give a super-condensed explanation (I happily extrapolate bullet points :) for how labels are different from publishers? They both handle PR (sending out review copies, organizing book/band tours), design work (cover art),

1230:

Not particularly concerned or surprised that there were no responses to this; the editor I referred to was blocked for editwarring and sockpuppeteering, and no one rose to defend his more restrictive style of presentation in discussion. In other matters, would there be any objections to my offering a

1211:...For artists without separate discography pages, relevant discographical information, such as record labels, date(s) of release, chart positions, and sales certifications, may be included in the discography section. The use of a table may be advisable to keep the information readable and organized." 758:

All I'm seeing above is "I don't like it." All articles and statistics on sports figures are pure trivia and "cruft" as far as I'm concerned, but I would expect an encyclopedic article on the subjects to include this information-- not that I'm ever going to even look at it, much less read it. Sure, a

4502:

If there was a resource like WorldCat, which is a non-user-generated database of ISBNs that has gained sufficient traction to be reputable, that we could use for other product labeling, that would be something, but as best I know for things like music and other works there is no equivalent that uses

4379:

An editor is unlikely to have an artist like Toumani Diabaté's entire discography at hand, so other sources are used to verify information for the list of works. These sources are then not cited as we only cite the primary work. Thus, we rely on, say, a user-uploaded Discogs photograph to verify the

3653:

Avoid original or arbitrary criteria that would synthesize a list that is not plainly verifiable in reliable sources. In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed, it is especially important that inclusion be based on reliable sources given with inline citations for

2926:

What is our threshold for inclusion of self-released albums? I assumed a discography should not include items that are non-notable self-published releases. Apparently this is incorrect? But are we allowing an independent artist's Spotify release schedule as a reliable source for discography entries?

2672:

I actually haven't looked at the text you're referring to, but if you think the content could be clarified (e.g., your description of the "essential formatting instruction" being hidden), one option is to post your suggested changes here and ask if anyone objects (as I did above a few items above at

1187:

Hi. I'm interested in the Discography section of this guideline. The current wording of the guideline that interest me is "Vital information is the title and year; label and notes are optional." This is fine wording, but I've been hearing from an editor that it's good reason to exclude said optional

709:

composers have complete lists-- presumably because it's a print encyclopedia with limited space. (This may have changed with the move to online access-- I don't know.) With Knowledge being neither paper nor censored, I see no reason to put an arbitrary limitation of six on these filmographies. Also,

375:

or literature, the unpiped links would overwhelm the look of the list, making it more difficult to read (please follow the link and look at it). It seems most useful to readers to allow them to follow the links to the topical year articles where appropriate. So long as the readers are informed (that

4398:

which is not a good sign as Nigeria hosts numerous scammers. They seem to be a small operation and their president also seems to work as a freelance journalist. They don't appear to have a physical library and so it seems likely that the source of their information is the Internet. So, just like

4218:

While I agree that some pages at USERG sites like IMDB and Discogs are fanatically maintained accurately for some artists and actors, it is definitely not true that all such pages have that level if commitment, and knowing when such a page falls into this area is not easily determined. It's part of

3890:

attempts to step away from some works. So we cannot just say that a published work proves existence, because that doesn't immediately affirm the credits exist in the way one expects. This is simple for books (you are either an author or editor, or not) but gets more complex for works that are group

1596:

Consistency is certainly something we should aim for, and the fact that we have not yet achieved it is not, in my view, a reason not to try. From the reader's point of view, moving from one article to another, having discographies in a consistent format is likely to aid their understanding compared

1531:

Well, functionally, in the broadest sense, they do the same things, especially at the major-label level in the past couple of decades (EMI, Sony BMG, and Warner are your Random House/Penguin/what-have-you), but independent labels often carve out niches that are very important culturally in terms of

1498:

differently than book publishers do in terms of distribution and cultural impact, so I'd try and discourage thinking of them in similar terms. Certainly, I'd like to see bands associated more in terms of, say, common producers, but that's a lot rarer in the literature than label association (though

1420:

but we already had a 'standard' format of 'Title (year), label' that many have followed for years - all of the articles that I have created have used this format, basically because I referred to the manual of style to see how they should be formatted. I agree totally that labels should be included,

599:

My feeling is that earliest works first is also appropriate for academics. First, print encyclopedias mostly use this convention, even for academics. Second, I think the latest-first convention for academics has partly arisen from CVs: though these may be an increasingly important genre of academic

376:

can easily be done very briefly at the top of a list), then a piped year-in link shouldn't be confusing to anyone. The idea of not piping year-in/topical year links seems to have been meant for prose passages, not lists, as far as I can tell. I've proposed this kind of exception for year linking at

4181:

is an even more vivid one; we routinely remove links to it as UGC, but it is in practice the most scrupulously correct place to find publication data on records I've ever seen in my life, and it usually includes photographs of published albums, which end any debates over what catalog and personnel

3625:

For the establishment of the general releases in a discography – that a certain release exists, was released in the first place, and is a part of the artist's body of work – general sources, as opposed to in-line citations, are sufficient. For additional non-contentious facts such as release date,

2971:

when there is no physical release to refer to. A physical release is a publication, and does not need its own independent sourcing, any more than a book needs an independent source for its own bibliographic data. If a release is Spotify-only (or Bandcamp-only, etc.), then that is a publication, as

2645:

In much of Knowledge, there is a fair amount of flexibility in how things are done; that is, there is not a single sanctioned format. Looking at various articles that have been given the official classification of "good article" would provide you with a guideline for some acceptable ways to make a

1688:

Absolutely. I gave the page a complete overhaul in late 2006, mostly just making it match our guidance elsewhere (that I could find) and our actual in-use practices (based on FAs/FLs that I looked at). I.e. It follows the old dictum of "Descriptive, not prescriptive". My overhaul was instigated by

1454:

where the label is placed, and nothing in this guideline prevents people from putting it before rather than after; certainly there's no reason to change every page, and given how varied discographies are, I don't really see a need to standardize the format in the first place. This is really just a

3847:

Yes, some type of reference is needed; while major works a creative person has done may be easily sourced, we end up with things like short stories, acting cameos, and similar that don't get sourced and become a problem. Referencing doesn't need to be one ref per work - if you can find an RS that

3681:

For my part, I am kind of agnostic on the direction we should go. I don't think it is a bad thing to source a list of works and certainly wouldn't remove these sources if I saw them in an article. I don't think we need a policy or guideline for every little thing but people often act in this area

3599:

I find our policy/guidelines vs practice around sourcing lists of works confusing and contradictory. I am only referring to lists of work within an article rather than a stand-alone list of works. All I can I can find vaguely related to this topic is the following ragtag assortment of quotations:

3273:

is currently dormant might simply result from the guideline itself being stable enough not to warrant any more discussions amongst the community of editors participating in the project. It therefore seemed strange to me to have removed the advice by which personalised discography articles "should

3171:

is not sustainable, since including a self-released album in a discography (like a self-published book in an author's bibliography) is not social networking, treating WP as a game, hosting a résumé, acting as file storage, self-publishing by an editor of promotional or opinional material, being a

1819:

empty when no official translation exists? In my opinion, an unofficial translation would be helpful for non Japanese-speaking readers, but it might also be mistaken as being "official" when it is nothing of the sort. If anybody is aware of any specific policy, guideline or discussion that covers

1328:

Added a few things. First, changed the formatting but kept the Sloan examples instead of the fake ones proposed above; less of a shock. Also changed the wording a bit to make it clearer that these are suggestions for good practice, rather than requirements. Added some verbiage directly from other

947:

I have hunted around the place and can't see a guideline, but I believe that 'works' refers to whole books, albums, anthologies etc and should not list individual articles, short stories or poems. It would not be possible or desirable to list every article a journalist has written or every poem a

4350:

In that specific album, one of thd first refs is a review by the Guardian, which could have easily been used instead. Assuming the blue linked work is notable alone for the stand alone article there should easily be one source that could be grabbed for that on a bibliography or similar list. The

4128:

We need to consider how knowledge should survive. Like consider musicians and actors and filmmakers from one hundred years ago (1924), do we really want to trust that an unreferenced list for one of them has been fully validated? What if the works were cribbed from IMDb (an unreliable source) or

2646:

list of works. And when editing an existing article, it is probably best to follow the existing format (there's probably a supporting citation for that claim, but I'm not going to look for it). It is also the case that guidelines for something are often spread over multiple sections or documents.

4096:

is based on the standard that all material in the lede otherwise unsourced is in the body of the article. Like the Hemingway one, this would reasonably apply to a bibliography, but it is extremely rare that the body of a creative person is going to extensively list all works they were in within

3867:

There is no need to provide third-party references for catalog data of published works. A published work proves its own existence. This is true of bibliographies, discographies, filmographies, etc., as long as they include catalog/credits data in the published work. (Otherwise, we would have to

3280:

However, as it is quite possible that I might be missing something subtle about the continued validity of guidelines issued by a WikiProject that has become dormant, please kindly let me know, whenever convenient. Otherwise, thank you for reconsidering your edit, on the basis of the guideline's

2234:

I will add that it is true that a *complete* list of articles by a significant scientist would be overwhelming, so perhaps there does need to be some adjustment. My own personal approach (not having read this page in detail before) is to create a "Selected Publications" page for a scientist and

1642:

Every time I look at the page of an actor, director or writer (film or TV), I see a different formatting. Sometimes TV and movies are kept together (like on IMDb), sometimes they are two separate categories. Works can be put into a table format or listed (I've even seen colored tables). Oldest:

624:

The contributors to this talk page seem to have some strong views about bibliographies on wikipedia so I thought I'd ask my questions here. Among the views on this page I find some agreement with my own view that in some cases very long bibliographies should be moved into a separate stand-alone

3666:

In other words, there is not an all encompassing guide on the level of sourcing required. Yet, at ITN and DYK there are routinely calls for articles to provide inline citations for their discography/filmography before it can be posted to the main page - a higher standard than is required for a

1396:

really a standard format (or a desire for one, for that matter, so far as I could tell). I felt mostly forced into these proceedings by a discography troll who ended up being banned for sockpuppetry. The main advantage to this format, I think, is that it makes clear the case for notability per

836:

IMO, episode counts should be completely eliminated from filmographies. We are not IMDb and listing of episode counts is largely trivial except to die hard fans of an actor or show. Furthermore, episode counts of shows in current production require daily/weekly/monthly maintenance. All that

4371:

I don't know much about African Music Library, but it is a staffed organization with a librarian, aiming to catalogue African music and become a reference work. It doesn't seem "spammy" and is not user-generated like Discogs, which you praise above. This is a very weak argument against inline

3299:, that the page no longer reflects current styling consensus, because that page is listed as dormant / inactive. If this isn't the case, please revert my edit. I don't strongly believe it should be removed, it just felt misleading to point to a page that doesn't seem to still be maintained. — 1997:

I appreciate Knowledge's intent observation of copyright aspects very much (though sometimes they cause more work) but please extend the concept of author to include translators as well (who in fact are the authors of the target language text, all the more so in the case of literature) -- and

3128:

An album being self-issued is basically irrelevant, since for many performers, early rare demos are legendary and thus the subject of encyclopedic interest, while in the modern music market, more and more material is entirely self-produced at home studios or rented studio-time with no label

1401:

bullet 5. Lots of articles get A7'ed even though they meet this requirement, simply because it is not made clear in the discography that the artist meets this criterion, and so as a practical matter I always preferred that format. In any case, I support the inclusion of more information in

686:

Personally I think the wikiproject is wrong. If you have a filmography in the first place, then I prefer a full one over a selected one. Also, despite the criteria I just read on the project's page I think it goes against NPOV to say which film should be listed and which film should not.

581:

The MOS says to list earliest works first. This is certainly appropriate for literary authors. It is not for academics, where the almost universal convention, for currently active people, is to list the later works first, as in a a sense superseding the earlier ones. I invite discussion.

1391:

I never really saw that format standardized anywhere except on pages that already had separate discographies, where people seemed to want as little information as possible presented on the artist page and most of it moved to the discography page. Since discographies vary so much, there

759:

lot of people sneer at the subject area of pornography-- and you've done a good job above-- but performer's list of works is an integral part of any biography of them. If we're going to cover the subject area, we should write encyclopedic articles on them. Unless you are proposing that

2967:, the notability status of a release is not the threshold of inclusion in an artist's discography - if the artist is notable, we should provide a full discography (albums, EPs, and singles) as basic encyclopedic content. A Spotify entry is not ideal sourcing, but it is permissible per 4124:

territory. We have to think about figures who are not as famous, including those whose works don't have their own articles and may never have them, and/or those who are not the primary creators of works. Examples may be film editors and cinematographers whose earlier works may be red

740:, etc.). To the average reader, these are simply trivia. It's cruft. Additionally, there's the question of whether we should list only original films or should we list compilations as well that were cheaply put together by the production company without any original material (e.g. 4261:

I don't use IMDB much myself but it has an article on Knowledge and I see from that that it's a subsidiary of Amazon. This gives it good credibility at a technical level as I suppose they ensure that it's not full of malware and scams. I'd rather be using that than a site like

3412:. It would be equally worthwhile to include information about other actors or which studios the actor has collaborated with, but that clutters filmographies in a way that makes them less useful. Director information is available on the film's article page, a mere one click away. 3626:

record label, and catalog number, general sources are also acceptable...Any surprising or contentious notes beyond the aforementioned should be sourced using in-line citations. For data such as peak chart positions, sales, and certifications, in-line citations are preferred.

1998:

therefore please change the instruction to mention "English translation" to say something like "English translation by XY", maybe with an addendum that the former variant is appropriate when no name is given (known). As you may have guessed, I am a literature translator. --

4085:

1) The Hemingway only appleis the FA to the bio, the unsourced bibliography has no quality, so we cannot presume that that article is considered acceptable. And for the selected works, those are all works mentioned in the body with sources, so a source there isn't really

1200:"The discography section of the musician's primary article should also provide a summary of the musician's major works. In most cases this is done using a simple list of their studio albums, leaving a complete listing of releases to the discography article. For example: 4063:" This demonstrates how fact-checking depends upon editor investigation and discrimination rather than the mere presence of citations. Such work requires considerable effort and so should be reserved for such red flag details, not demanded in every case. See the 604:. In an encyclopedic survey of an academic life, an overall survey of activity is wanted rather than presentist demonstration of research activity. (I also think cut-and-paste lists of works by academics often need pruning if they are not to unbalance an article.) 4535:. It is therefore much more reputable and reliable than startups like the African Music Library. The main problem with using it is that we will have too much data for such established artists. Perhaps there's a standard way of citing or linking to this, like 3645:

item on the list is well referenced and that the list as a whole represents a neutral point of view. Content should be sourced where it appears, and provide inline citations if it contains any of the four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations.

1449:

I looked for a consensus, actually, and couldn't really find one, at least not here. It looks like the page was just formulated and this became the format because it was how it was written by the original author. To be honest with you, it doesn't matter to me

3360:, there is agreement to include books in a list of Selected works, but disagreement about whether to include articles, essays, and interviews that have received secondary and scholarly coverage. Additional participation is welcome and appreciated. Thank you, 4288:

In certain cases I would say we would not need citations, such as when the article mentions the work somewhere in the body. In other cases, we should either try to find a self-reference, or some RS. In any case, each work in the list of works needs to have

1880:

So if a baseball player wrote a couple articles for his/her college newspaper, include them? Turn every academic's article into a 10-page CV? This does not jibe with the rest of my experience on Knowledge. I was brought here through a discussion over at

1876:

I'm surprised to find this line here: "Lists of published works should be included for authors, illustrators, photographers and other artists. The individual items in the list do not have to be sufficiently notable to merit their own separate articles."

4059:... remains the 20th-best-selling album in history." That fact had a citation and I checked it out which wasn't easy as I had to listen through an audio file. The claim appears in that source but now another editor has still removed the claim saying " 4052:

because it was nominated as an ITN RD but the editor who added all those tags hasn't added a single citation themself and the tags seem to have been dropped indiscriminately. Now, I did some work on the article and noticed a dubious fact in the lead,

2017:

If a person has published a single book, e.g. their autobiography, does this warrant a section on "Books", or should it be added to "Further reading" or should it just be mentioned in the text with a reference? I can't find any firm guideline. Thanks.

2309:; podcasts are not magically different because they're on the Internet; they have essentially the same the character as a radio show or TV talk show, so they'd be styled the same, in italics, with specific episode or segment titles in quotation marks. 2653:). On the other, clarification of something in the MOS that is unclear (without changing meaning) probably doesn't require that (although, based on personal experience, I'd tread carefully as a newbie, because sometimes long-timers may jump on you). 4028:

is that inline citations are only required for controversial facts which are contested (and quotations). If we insisted on an inline citation for every single separate fact then substantial articles would require thousands of citations contrary to

4036:

Most readers only read the lead of our articles and, by convention, these don't usually have inline citations. Fewer readers read the body and very few click through to the references. We should put most effort into the parts that are most

2312:

If you mean, how should people be listed, credits-wise, with regard to such productions, again they are not strangely apart from the rest of humanity's works, and would be treated exactly as in crediting a TV show, documentary film, or other

3152:'s 1970s albums which was black-holed by the record label and then the masters lost) is like a book or other published work: its own primary source for what it contains. Being hard to find or costly to obtain/access is not an exception, per 3129:

involvement, then self-released exclusively online through venues like Bandcamp and Spotify and YouTube, so again of encyclopedic interest. (The days when it required a commercial record label to become musically notable are long over.) And

2530:? I have seen articles where editors try to compile a list of articles a journalist has written or all articles written by an academic, and to me this wording encourages that behavior even when (as you can guess) the result resembles a CV. 2498:

to "Publications/Bibliographies". "Publications" appears to be a more common use in Biographies, and it would be nice for the information in this section to be more accessible to people researching "Publications" sections. Any objections?

2325:

article has entire sections on various of his early blogging and podcasting projects, since they're socially significant (at least within the context of online media history), deeply entwined with his notability, and frequently covered by

448:

I've been finding the awards boxes very helpful in articles I've been working on & wonder if a 'published works' box exists, as I'm now working on a subject who has published books, DVDs and audio recordings. Thanks in advance for any

1668:

This section seems to be based on literary works or the visual arts, rather than music. In the music world, catalogue and opus numbers are used to order works. (Dating can often be problematic.) Can we amend this section to reflect this?

4158:

IMDB is much the same as Knowledge; it is formally "unreliable" but is extensively used and treated by its readership as if it is fine. I just compared its entries for Polly Morgan and it seems more up-to-date in that it includes

1611:

Well, I kinda feel like I got dragged here in the first place, and the reason I got dragged here is now an SPI case rather than a real editing issue, so I'm happy to bow out and let others take the reins on the final wording here.

2687:

The page started with a simple and logic structure: Discography, Filmography and Bibliography and then developed into something much less coherent and understandable - This seems to become a dialogue and should perhaps stop here.

3765:, the only reason I feel that way is because I've edited hundreds of musical artist pages, and virtually none of them include refs in the discography. I imagine musical releases are relatively easy to look up, which would be why. 1852:

It seems there are style guides for literary, audio, and video works, but none for a large number of media in the visual arts including painting or drawing. Some artists have separate articles for lists of their works such as in

4040:

Citations don't actually verify the facts because there's no mechanical connection. The process of verification always has to be done by the reader by searching and reading the various sources and texts which often vary or are

2037:

I know this is not usual, but I think I've seen articles, where, some of the books/works in the "Bibliography" section were followed by a reference. My question is if such exceptions exist and if they are acceptable. Thanks —

3039:

by a physical copy of the album. (Treat it just as we would a book.) It is also substantiated by a digital download or streaming link. We rarely have to deal with people populating discographies with fictional entries; it's

948:

poet has published. There are certain 19th century poets' articles I have seen that attempt to list their every individual work. I would hope to curtail them to volumes published. Your thoughts and/or MOS links welcome. Ta.

2579:, with quite a few Television movies listed under the latter but not the former. While redundancy is redundant, i feel like listing TV films in both places is the only way not to have at least one of the lists incomplete. 1814:

for citations which says that translations by Wikipedians are acceptable for quotes, but mentions nothing about translations of the titles of cited sources. Is it simply preferable to leave the "trans_title" parameter in

2641:

Although your interpretation makes sense, I would think (and strongly hope) that the "sanctions" clause above refers to editing the MOS itself (an important guideline that shouldn't be trashed), not the talk page. It is

2805:, we usually list only the first edition for books. Other editions are normally listed instead of (not in addition to) the first edition if editors haven't been able to find the information for the first edition yet. 1645:

Oldest, there doesn't seem to be a set standard. While I'm not all about the rules, it's hard to know which entries to tidy up when I'm not sure which format of the various ones I'm seeing is the best or correct one.

1737:

been translated, while the guideline says, "Add an English translation of the title where helpful", but with no example how to format it. It seems to me "English translation:" would imply a translation is available.

1706:

I've added a sentence. Looking at other sections, it seems we could add examples of music list. These are complex pages, typically sortable tables, something that is not mentioned here. I'll try to come back to this.

3806:

is going to be difficult to make with 99% of articles. I often see bandied around the idea that you do not need a ref for blue-linked articles in a list of works but I don't think this is policy-based. Should it be?

1163:

I would like to propose long lists of works be put into collapsible tables, as they in some cases can become so bloated that navigating the articles containing them is daunting. I give the proposal in more detail

1689:

discovering far too many bibliographies/discographies/filmographies that were in reverse-chronological order (usually copied from amazon/allmusic/IMDB, who have an understandable bias towards recent products).

2317:

it's unencyclopedic trivia – just like any bio subject's books, or film appearances, or published editorials and articles and essay, songs and albums released, etc., etc., etc. E.g., you will not find that

2254:

More and more, performers (actors, directors, etc...) are either guest starring, appearing, or actually starring or creating podcasts. Are there any MOS guidelines on how they should be listed?--Esprit15d •

2779:

If there have been several editions with the latest not being as significant as, say, a 30th anniversary edition with another edition coming later, do I only list the original and the anniversary edition?

1215:

The latter sentences were a wording I advocated for, and I think something a bit more robust might be helpful here, as well, in encouraging discographies to be more fleshed out while still well-organized.

632:

strongly the opposite way on this - they feel that stand-alone bibliographies are "unencyclopedic" and should be merged into "Further reading" sections in other articles. My most recent encounter was with

1964:

Individual works by academics are normally not notable by itself, yet their subject matters usually are. Is there any common opinion on if is is a good idea to wikify lists of publications by linking the

3461:

I think we are actually in complete agreement; the sentence reads in shorthand, "In lists of works, yes. In prose, no, but in a filmography, yes." (responding to the question "should they be excluded?")

2877:

has an RFC for a possible alternative format for singles discography tables. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the

1095:

It would appear this is unresolved. Either this article should be amended to make it clear scientists are not excluded, or a separate guidance should be provided. I note the above editor has left WP. --

377: 2404:

Yes, that would clearly be helpful (and would help identify examples that need to be replace eventually, e.g. if the section in broken out into a side article and is no longer where were said it was).

637:

who hacked apart a bibliography I'd been working on and spread the entries across a variety of different articles. To appease them I merged the bibliography into the main article but looking at their "

601: 396: 4324:. This has zero credibility for me and I don't want to be dealing with such sites as they may be spammy or otherwise suspect. I don't think we should be encouraging editors to fill articles with 2649:

I have made some small changes to the MOS (related to the use of external links in "Lists of Works"), but it was either based on guidelines documented elsewhere, or on a solicitation of consensus (

283:

This is part of a standardisation proposal for lists of works. It is open to discussion about its relevance, the ways in which it could be implemented and the layout and format to be chosen.

3678:

before it could be posted as an RD. I added sources to the discography but these were reverted twice by an editor claiming (perhaps not incorrectly) that discographies "do not require refs".

3389:

Should director names be excluded from the filmography? I believe it's worthwhile to include information about which directors the actor has collaborated with. Please share your thoughts. --

1235:

are well and good, but Sloan's discography doesn't look like that anymore, and I rarely see discographies formatted in the latter two ways suggested. Generally, I've been using the format

641:" list it seems they're intent on doing a similar job on a host of other bibliographies. I feel I should warn other people that this might happen and also to ask the following question: 4328:

to such sites just to get an RD listed. I'd much rather we just cited the work itself. I just located the album in my CD rack and Diabaté's name appears on the album cover alongside

1798:

I have a similar question regarding books/sources written in Japanese with no official English titles so I am adding it here instead of creating a new section. As pointed out above by

1574:

could be considered semi-equivalent - it's a form of demographic indicator, so I guess "entry in a particular film festival" might also be equivalent. Anyway, thanks for the reply :) —

2786:

Bottom line concern--if this is standard practice: I'm wanting to keep the list in chronological order by original publication date so people can easily see which works came first. --

313: 308: 1733:

Under "Bibliographies", Could we get an example in "Books in languages other than English" of how an untranslated book should be formatted? The example only gives three books that

326: 2434:

However it's more helpful to put items in reverse chronological order, most recent first. Other things being equal, a user will want most the latest, not the earliest information.

2617:(3) The section called "Basic list style - examples" seems to be a misnomer. There is no corresponding section "Advanced list style" and the section is not mainly about examples. 2134:

If both sections appear in an article, should I use non-breaking spaces for both Filmography and Discography sections to keep them consistent? Or is each intentionally different?

4545:. If there isn't yet then we should create one. In any case, this seems to be a good generic resource for discographies which will eliminate the need for individual citations. 4528: 3072:. Knowledge is not a repository of everything verifiable nor is it one of the social media outlets to include things to the liking of article subject's public relations effort. 976:

A list of articles by a journalist would be a somewhat different matter. It would probably boil down to whether a RS listing could be found. I.E. The works by Edgar Allen Poe

4196:

The thing that makes such sites accurate is not the presence of citations but the meticulous nature of its power users. Fans are quite fussy and so I'd expect articles like

3616:

Complete lists of works, appropriately sourced to reliable scholarship (WP:V), are encouraged, particularly when such lists are not already freely available on the internet.

2927:

Is an album self-released on a digital streaming platform a "publication" proper? It's self-published yes, but are these items worth listing in a discography? An example is

2520:

Complete lists of works, appropriately sourced to reliable scholarship (WP:V), are encouraged, particularly when such lists are not already freely available on the internet.

980:

collated elsewhere previously, but the articles written by small-town-editor/writer-X are only being collated by himself (and his mother). Or something along those lines ;)

2608:

I came to MOS:WORKS to learn how to format a list of works in an article and I still do not know what is right after having read this page. Please allow me some comments.

1330: 1193: 1081:. It's possible that it should be merged here or that it should remain as a daughter guideline. In any case, community discussion is highly sought after and appreciated. 625:

articles. I feel that they are useful sources of information for people looking for thorough, detailed references on a topic that don't clutter up the main article page.

2431:

I'm pleased to see that "Items should normally be listed in chronological order of production, earliest first." Chronologically is much more useful than alphabetically.

813: 193: 894: 884: 3821:

If you have a blue link that is not a redirect, then there should easily be a source to bring over to the biography page. BLP requires this type of level of sourcing.

3946:

Just relying on the primary source seems like a common sense approach in many cases. However, you can easily imagine this introducing errors in the discographies of

4132:

Knowledge is summarizing what is in the real world, and I think it's a proper step to get data points. If a person is notable, then their works have been mentioned

3635:

statements are sourced where they appear, and they provide inline citations if they contain any of the four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations.

1251:(Ginger Records, 1930). This has been a fairly common format for years, and one I've been using for several years myself on thousands of articles. I think this is 837:

maintenance leads to inaccuracies. If the counts are to be included, do we count those episodes where a dead character appears in a flashback using old footage?

3526: 644:

Are there any "official" guidelines about stand-alone bibliographies or is it a case-by-case basis where every stand-alone bibliography has to fight to survive?

3743:

does not think discographies should have references (especially in cases where the song/album does not have a Knowledge article). To me, this seems contrary to

699:

I don't think an encyclopedia would intentionally limit a list of works in an article about a creative artist or a performer, except for space considerations.

1377:(Label, year). We will just get inconsistency between older and newer articles, and there's no real consensus for changing a long-standing style guideline. -- 2783:

What should I do when there's a later edition with the original no longer in print: do I list both ISBNs; do I list publishing information for each edition?

809: 3004:? else we could have strings of fictional releases entered in our discographies, some reliable sourcing concerning the item's existence is surely required? 1192:

discog article, such an interpretation could be restrictive for shorter articles. I'd like to try and bring this guideline into harmony with the wording at

1078: 3908:

I agree with this for these examples (uncredited personnel is a good example), but these are edge cases. They really illustrate the principle, in my view.

3045: 2449:

Well, except in a biography, where it is often more useful to have the publications list mirror the chronological development of the biographical subject.

4004:

which likewise does not have inline citations for most entries. As FA-level work is our highest standard, other main page sections should not try to be "

3310: 2904: 2754:

document in full, the more creative work types, but not these), and I would suggest some type of advice related to these types of bibliographies here. --

2381:." Personally, I don't find the links to the latter articles particularly clear -- would it make sense to link directly to the applicable section, e.g. 495:

Firstly, what is the correct way of formatting a subject's contribution to a multi-author compilation? A couple of alternatives for a fictional example:

3872:) References may be needed for additional information that is not included in the published work, such as day-and-date of publication, sales data, etc. 3196:, this needs to be raised on the talk pages of the P&G in question and resolved as soon as possible).Anyway, what an album's entry in a discography 2339:

of publication/production. If something's included, treat it consistently with other publications regardless of its format or it method of distribution.

3629: 2745:

that really doesn't fit there, but better suited on this page, though this should apply to the types of writers that produce volumes of works that we

1513:

I've replaced the other style, in addition to the your preferred style, so hopefully that covers the meat of the matter, and prevents future quibbles.

1334: 1165: 4021:

is commonly used to provide a general bibliographic reference using the catalogs of major libraries. Additional citations would be duplicate effort.

3320: 3121:. A discography of a particular artist would pretty much never be limited in that way, since the number of possible entries is finite and short and 2880: 2495: 2470: 2128: 2116: 900:

The core issues addressed are font-size (in tables), bulleted list or a table (when to use what), template use (vs. hard-coded styling), and color.

4458:

Special items like demo tapes obviously require special consideration. But what about the main bulk of regular published work? For books we have

3440:

I tend to agree with Chubble's rationale, other than "In lists of works, yes. ... but in a filmography ", since a filmography is a list of works.

701: 4163:

which seems to be her most recent work. So, if you're a professional and want the best info, you'd go to IMDB, right? 13:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

2776:

With a revised edition with or without a new preface or foreword, do I list publication information for the original as well as the new edition?

4403: 4481: 2235:

include their most significant articles (a judgment call, obviously), which I think is a good approach, but is not in line with "complete".

1472:(Personally, I'm irritated by most mentions of "publisher" or "distributor" or "label". It's a useful additional context in some cases (eg. " 1295:

Obviously I can replace these with real album names, but maybe using a dummy album title will avoid pegging the style to a changing article.

75: 3229: 3145:, and now slated for merging) does make it clear that it applies to online self-published source material, not just works on paper or vinyl. 4580: 4575: 3281:

continued usefulness, regardless of the WikiProject's dormant status resulting from the current lack of activity by its editors. Thank you.

3233: 2590: 1169: 671:". Should porn stars be made an exception to this, or is WikiProject Pornography‎ wrong to discourage the inclusion of full filmographies? 2558:

Couldn't find any earlier discussion of this: Should television films be listed in a filmography's section for Television, Film, or both?

1333:, about when to split off a new discography, and what is good to include in a discography not split off. The last bit is paraphrased from 417:, I agree with you that the MoS on this topic does not apply to size-constrained areas such as lists or tables, but is limited to prose.-- 2710:

Hello, if anyone has a few spare moments, I think we are close to concluding on how to handle a television filmography on the article on

1766:

fit what you're looking for? Add freely to this page, it does need love and work (but avoid instruction-creep - simplicity is good). :) –

4585: 4055: 3275: 3200:

doing is presenting a line-item of pertinent encyclopedic information in a list of works that would be incomplete without that citation.

2873: 2855: 1650: 4399:

us, they will be scraping Discogs, Knowledge and anything else they can find. There's no evidence that they add any value to the data.

101: 69: 1913:

for an example. They're numbered, but the spacing doesn't nicely match up with the other numbered list. Thank you for any assistance!

1310:

Updating the examples, to use the layout/format that is currently preferred in Featured Lists/Articles, would be great. Please do! --

794: 793:

Are their any established guides for listing television episodes? (In particular, for a short series of no more than eight episodes.)

3044:

and only needs exceptional/independent sourcing when there is a good-faith question as to existence (a recently resolved example was

4448: 3540: 3487: 3451: 3338: 3214: 2415: 2351: 2167: 664: 187: 182: 4394:

The African Music Library is not notable and so we only seem to know what they choose to tell us. It seems that they are based in

3675: 3638: 1255:

more streamlined and presentable than what's currently given, though I'm not strongly wedded one way or the other. Any thoughts?

985:

The only general MOS-sy recommendation I can think of, is to spin out the list from the main article when it gets too large (per

250: 4314:

which was the OP's original example and is now posted at RD. Looking at the discography in this article, I recognise the album

4204:

to be quite accurate, regardless of citations. I was just looking at those because he's another RD and quite famous in his day.

4219:

why USERG sites are not considered reliable because you can't extend the effort to keep a few pages correct to the entire site.

2263: 523:

Secondly, when the subject was the editor of a work, how should this be listed? Should it even be included in a list of works?

4137: 3306: 2650: 1854: 1119: 925: 921: 17: 2302:

Short version: the medium is irrelevant. However, the question is unclear, so there are multiple possible longer answers.:

1051:

Hi again, Accotink2. I would note that all of these three poets have substantial collections behind them, which are listed.

846: 4001: 3682:

like they are doing so on the basis of a policy or guideline as oppose to just personal preference or being misinformed.

2007: 3113:, depending on the nature of the material). The only exception is when some list that could have very broad scope, like 2542: 1816: 1780:

Thanks for that, but I was looking for something that was not in a table. I'll look around at some FAs. Thanks again!

890:

I would have pinged this page during the now-closed discussion, had I been aware of it. There is ongoing discussion at:

164: 149: 50: 3241: 1909:

How do you recommend handling lists of works that are part of a numbered series where the number is a half number? See

1649:

It's also a problem with some musicians and their discography but it seems to be more of an issue with filmographies.

246: 242: 237: 217: 4524: 558:

This is sorted now - the Cite book template does have the facility. I've added an example to the documentation - see

4539: 4252: 4149: 4015: 2912: 2480: 1100: 1692:

Please do update it, to include missing information, or to correct outdated information. The shorter the better. –

4550: 4493: 4485: 4463: 4420: 4341: 4271: 4209: 4168: 4076: 3300: 3252: 2733:

Including advise related to more verbose writers (journalists/academics) as related to a NOTBIBLOGRAPHIC redirect

2693: 2628: 385: 153: 114: 109: 1144:

In the case of lists of works by instrumentation, are there any rules as to how such lists should be ordered? --

335: 4477: 4468: 4385: 4316: 3967: 3812: 3776: 3729: 3690: 3237: 2594: 2373: 2085:

Hi, So apparently having been on here for 5 years I've only just found out for singles etc Years apparently go

2023: 1882: 1763: 1571: 1173: 1149: 968: 964: 649: 157: 23: 2738: 924:

about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and

2199:

I've been looking around and I can't seem to find any guideline on lists of works for scientists. As seen on

963:

I'm not sure about MOS links, but for poems and books I can provide a few examples from one perspective: See

4373: 4201: 3168: 3069: 2928: 1807: 1654: 540: 4321: 4263: 197:

of Knowledge's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations.

4554: 4517: 4497: 4473: 4453: 4424: 4389: 4365: 4345: 4302: 4298: 4275: 4256: 4233: 4213: 4191: 4172: 4153: 4112: 4080: 3971: 3936: 3917: 3903: 3881: 3860: 3835: 3816: 3797: 3780: 3756: 3733: 3694: 3589: 3545: 3492: 3471: 3456: 3435: 3421: 3398: 3369: 3343: 3314: 3289: 3219: 3153: 3118: 3081: 3057: 3030: 2981: 2957: 2916: 2893: 2848: 2844: 2833: 2814: 2810: 2795: 2766: 2727: 2723: 2697: 2682: 2662: 2632: 2598: 2548: 2508: 2484: 2458: 2443: 2420: 2391: 2356: 2290: 2267: 2244: 2229: 2212: 2186: 2172: 2146: 2105: 2075: 2051: 2027: 1983: 1953: 1922: 1899: 1866: 1841: 1789: 1785: 1775: 1747: 1743: 1720: 1701: 1682: 1658: 1621: 1606: 1583: 1541: 1526: 1508: 1489: 1464: 1444: 1430: 1415: 1386: 1360: 1346: 1319: 1304: 1264: 1225: 1177: 1153: 1134: 1104: 1089: 1082: 1060: 1046: 1016: 998: 957: 937: 910: 869: 825: 802: 798: 776: 753: 719: 694: 680: 653: 613: 593: 570: 552: 534: 481: 458: 435: 408: 389: 4472:, the best identifier seems to be the barcode, which in this case is 769233007223 (and that's formally a 1469:

I'd be fine with reverting to the prior/original version, with our examples placing label after the year.

4445: 4048:. This article has had over a million readers recently because he died recently. The article has been 3785: 3537: 3484: 3448: 3335: 3296: 3270: 3211: 3164: 3114: 3065: 2908: 2829: 2791: 2476: 2412: 2348: 2208: 2164: 1096: 1037:, the only example of the poets work may be the anthology in the local library (or google books online). 454: 117:(MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively. 56: 3922:

Those may be edge cases but they certainly dominate when it comes to RDs of many in acting over at ITN.

967:

for a few bibliographies that include exhaustive listings. I would guess similar lists can be found in

3985:

who correctly explains that published works are usually self-referencing. Additional reasons include:

2061:

The way discography formatting is now, it's "Title (year)" but I always see "Year: title". It looks a

763:

filmographies should be limited to four or five works, you are advocating censorship which is against

4546: 4489: 4416: 4337: 4267: 4205: 4164: 4072: 3955: 3951: 3648: 3585: 3404:

In lists of works, yes. That information is good in prose discussion, but in a filmography it places

3193: 3130: 3098: 2968: 2715: 2689: 2678: 2669: 2658: 2638: 2624: 2504: 2454: 2240: 2225: 1862: 1858: 1034: 381: 380:

and the section below it. No one has objected so far, or responded to the idea. Please take a look.

339: 4434: 4381: 3963: 3808: 3772: 3740: 3725: 3720: 3686: 3181: 3138: 3077: 3041: 3016: 2943: 2257: 2019: 1980: 1892: 1837: 1714: 1676: 1567: 1145: 1043: 933: 865: 772: 715: 645: 562: 544: 526: 4129:

elsewhere? And how should people in 2124 consider unreferenced lists they see about figures today?

2905:

Knowledge talk:WikiProject Classical music#Recordings lists in articles on individual compositions

4325: 4187: 4093: 4030: 3913: 3877: 3467: 3417: 3365: 3357: 3053: 2977: 2889: 2439: 2286: 2089:

Titles - Wouldn't it make sense to change this back so it coincides with the Filmography table ?

1949: 1771: 1697: 1617: 1579: 1537: 1522: 1504: 1485: 1460: 1411: 1356: 1342: 1315: 1300: 1260: 1221: 1056: 1012: 994: 953: 907: 821: 764: 691: 566: 548: 530: 477: 404: 378:

Knowledge talk:Only make links that are relevant to the context#Chronological articles: exception

341: 4410: 4329: 4311: 3671: 113:, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the 3768:

At the same time, I do acknowledge that if these releases are obscure, a ref would be required.

1546:

Ah, ok. That's where I thought you might be headed. Eg. I'm happy to sample most anything from

152:

procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Knowledge

4294: 4121: 4049: 3947: 3803: 3793: 3752: 2840: 2821: 2806: 2719: 2331:

In short, there is no universal "always/never include" rule to found, about this or about any

2092:

It also seems silly to have Title before Year - The year column just looks out of place..... –

1799: 1781: 1739: 986: 676: 418: 4480:(GTIN)). But, now that everything is going online, perhaps we should use something like the 2750:

but this type of advice is not really reflected on this page (it speaks directly to those we

1935:

I don't think there's a technically accurate way to do this (per no pertinent information at

1402:

discographies simply as being user-friendly; that's where I go to find information (I almost

1337:, about the format following from the needs of the article rather than the other way around. 669:

Complete lists of works, appropriately sourced to reliable scholarship (WP:V), are encouraged

4440: 4293:

citation, though whether that be a self-reference or an RS I don't think is that important.

4117: 4064: 3997: 3993: 3716: 3619: 3532: 3479: 3443: 3330: 3206: 3189: 3177: 3173: 2825: 2802: 2787: 2537: 2523: 2407: 2387: 2343: 2217: 2204: 2159: 1918: 1811: 1602: 1440: 1426: 1382: 1030: 844: 751: 450: 337: 291: 139: 2561:

i imagine many actor articles have this problem; the one that inspired me to come here was

4513: 4361: 4229: 4108: 3932: 3899: 3856: 3831: 3581: 3405: 3384:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Minami_Hamabe&curid=54776267&action=history

3324: 2762: 2674: 2654: 2527: 2500: 2471:

Knowledge talk:WikiProject Discographies#When are citations needed within the discography?

2450: 2236: 2221: 2200: 2182: 2142: 2047: 2003: 1887: 1555: 1398: 710:

I agree with Garion96 that NPOV issues are involved. Who says which six are to be listed?

638: 634: 609: 2711: 3527:

Knowledge talk:Naming conventions (television)#Follow-up RfC on TV season article titles

3408:

on the importance of the director, which implicitly creates a bias toward the theory of

1115:

Editors may be interested in this RFC, along with the discussion of its implementation:

705:, for example, includes complete lists of works for even some lower-tier composers. Not 4248: 4145: 3712: 3704: 3431: 3394: 3073: 3005: 2932: 2297: 2093: 1974: 1833: 1709: 1671: 1038: 1022: 929: 861: 768: 711: 364: 853: 4569: 4532: 4183: 3982: 3909: 3873: 3708: 3566: 3554: 3463: 3413: 3361: 3185: 3160: 3110: 3106: 3049: 3001: 2998:"A physical release is a publication, and does not need its own independent sourcing" 2992: 2973: 2964: 2885: 2859: 2742: 2435: 2318: 2282: 1945: 1940: 1910: 1767: 1754: 1693: 1613: 1575: 1547: 1533: 1518: 1500: 1481: 1456: 1407: 1406:

read prose sections of biographies, even though I write them frequently for others).

1352: 1338: 1311: 1296: 1256: 1217: 1052: 1026: 1008: 990: 949: 817: 688: 589: 473: 414: 400: 4044:

To see how fact-checking does not depend on citations, consider the current case of

3278:", since it seems better to keep advising editors to follow that guideline than not. 2119:

recommends a non-breaking space (nbsp) before the hyphen for lines that have notes:

667:

that porn star articles shouldn't include full filmographies, yet MOS:WORKS states "

3959: 3887: 3789: 3762: 3748: 3701:

Pinging those who have engaged in this before above or I referenced in my comment:

3134: 3097:

a broader article like a discography or the discography section of a band article;

2066: 1803: 1232: 672: 469: 465: 194:

guidance on how to contribute to the development and revision of Knowledge policies

2582:

Maybe a dedicated section for TV films, with both of the existing sections saying

880:

Hi. There has been a lengthy RfC concerning the presentation of filmographies at:

2997: 1943:. It isn't ideal, but is hopefully a bit clearer than it was with the <br: --> 1824:, but it discusses something other than translations. Anyway, thanks in advance. 1570:, etc. Film studios aren't quite in the same ballpark, but I guess entities like 1231:

few other style suggestions, or changing the existing ones? The suggestions from

1125:

It's big; and it promises huge improvements. Great if everyone can be involved.

724:

IMO, porn star filmographies shouldn't be listed except for those films that are

4197: 4120:

is not a good example because I think the most famous figures like him get into

4045: 4025: 3744: 3286: 3142: 3036: 2575: 2569: 2563: 2532: 2399: 2368: 1936: 1930: 1914: 1598: 1436: 1422: 1378: 839: 746: 541:

Template_talk:Cite_book#Citing_chapter_written_by_authors_in_a_book_with_editors

3886:

This is not true for all works, when we have uncredited cameos and things like

3685:

Seeking input from others and maybe a proposal to make this guideline clearer.

2907:, which may affect the guidance given here (please discuss there, not here). -- 1729:

An example of untranslated books under "Books in languages other than English"?

173: 4506: 4354: 4222: 4101: 3925: 3892: 3849: 3824: 3323:, since it's an actual guideline not a years-dead proposal with no consensus. 2963:

A discography should include an artist's releases, self-published or not. Per

2755: 2322: 2306: 2178: 2138: 2039: 1999: 1820:

this particular matter, then please let me know. The closest I could find was

1551: 1120:

Should all subsidiary pages of the Manual of Style be made subpages of WP:MOS?

605: 368: 356: 4523:

It took me about a minute to find a good database of ISRC codes. This lists

4527:

and so is obviously quite comprehensive. It is an official resource of the

4244: 4141: 3427: 3409: 3390: 2367:

The guideline says: "Basic lists are used in the majority of articles, e.g.

1373:(year), Label here for years, I don't see the advantage in changing this to 628:

During my time on wikipedia, however, I've come across other users who feel

229: 211: 1753:

The only example I can think of immediately (having written most of it) is

903:

Xenobot will be taking a pass across the pages to deal with a lot of this.

3105:

article. Whether material should be included in an article is governed by

1077:

I have created a proposed guideline specific to scientists and academics,

895:

Knowledge talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Implementation discussion

3657: 3149: 2604:

I have read this text and still do not know how to format a list of works

2153: 584: 1939:). It's probably best to just add ":" before each line. I've done so at 4178: 2382: 2378: 1563: 1559: 1291:(Ginger Records, 1 January 1937) - with Joseph Cotton and Jimmy Stewart 2033:

Referencing the items in the Bibliography and Further reading sections

1194:

Knowledge:WikiProject Musicians/Article guidelines#Discography section

559: 1762:

When in doubt, look at the Featured examples! Would something out of

4406:

but their focus seems to be folk music rather than commercial music.

2931:. If yes, are we not lower the bar here for discography inclusions? 181:

For information on Knowledge's approach to the establishment of new

4089:

3) BLP is stronger than V in terms of the expectation for sourcing.

3992:

Customary practice. For example, see the recent featured article,

1243:

Format (Label, Month/Day Year) if more information is given - e.g.

492:

Forgive me if this info is somewhere, but I can't seem to find it.

4402:

Now there are more notable and respectable operations such as the

4395: 2152:

Yes, but that shouldn't be a hyphen, it should be an en dash, per

1821: 4351:

concern is over the non notable albums which still need sourcing.

512:, ed. John Doe. Publisher, Date, ISBN. Subject wrote the chapter 4459: 3352:

Request for input on a discussion about a list of Selected works

1558:, etc. And yes, similarly, will follow certain publishers, like 885:

Knowledge talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Filmography RFC

3426:

Thank you very much for your kind assistance. I will comply. --

2305:

Do you mean, how should the titles of podcasts be styled? See

2131:

section seems to use regular spaces for lines that have notes.

1351:

Looks good, and the explanation of sources is appreciated. --

732:. So many actors have been in a number of series titles (e.g. 539:

I just found someone else asked basically the same question at

3515: 3117:, has an explicit "notable entries only" scope criterion, per 397:

Knowledge:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Date Linking RFC

342: 285: 32: 4000:

section does not have inline citations. Its main spinoff is

172: 138: 4320:

as I bought it myself. There's a source for this which is

4100:

6) is a behavior problem unrelated to this specific issue.

1886:

illustrator, etc. and this line seems to back this kind of

1474:

oh, this book is from a vanity-press publishing house, sigh

832:

Should episode counts be included in actor's filmographies?

1335:

Knowledge:WikiProject_Discographies/style#Ignore_all_rules

249:, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the 4243:

So you're treating IMDb as a reliable source, basically?

4140:

whose credits get less obvious when we go back in time.

4060: 3383: 3375:

Should director names be excluded from the filmography?

3266: 2496:

Knowledge:Manual_of_Style/Lists_of_works#Bibliographies

1970: 4380:

existence of a work. And perhaps we are ok with this?

3358:

Talk:Divya Dwivedi#Proposal for Selected works section

3321:

Knowledge:Manual of Style/Lists of works#Discographies

943:

Listing of individual articles, short stories or poems

4529:

International Federation of the Phonographic Industry

4488:(GRId). Do we have some specific guidance for this? 4466:(DOI). But what about music? Looking at the CD for 3148:

Yes, an album (that is not totally lost, like one of

2554:

television films listed as Television, Film, or both?

971:, but I'm not particularly familiar with any of them. 3230:

Knowledge:Village pump (policy)#Authors' works lists

2475:

Your contributions would be highly welcome! Cheers!

1890:

detail. Is there a reason this is so unlimited? --—

1329:

pages - the first two bits are lifted verbatim from

3577: 3573: 520:I can see pros and cons for both these approaches. 351:

Useful links to years-in-xxxxx and piping the links

3802:We then get to the question of what is obscure. A 2385:, if that's what the reader is being directed to? 1331:Knowledge:WikiProject Musicians/Article guidelines 852:Full description of a performer's body of work is 4136:that can be referenced. One example I've done is 2714:. If anyone could weigh in with discussion on it 2465:When are citations needed within the discography? 2277:they should be listed, perhaps we should discuss 1269:Leaving aside the format, this would mock up as: 814:Knowledge:WikiProject Television/Episode coverage 3505:Second-round RfC on titles of TV season articles 3232:. Welcome to join if you have something to say. 3225:Discussion on Village pump: Authors' works lists 3000:: OK, but to clarify, it still needs to fulfill 1478:huh, an album distributed by Puffin Books, nifty 1073:Discussion of lists for scientists and academics 1021:i would agree that anthologies for someone like 856:: "comprehending a wide variety of information; 4061:unreliable citation. no other source says this. 3093:"Non-notable" has nothing to do with inclusion 1764:Knowledge:Featured lists#Literature and theatre 1198: 965:Knowledge:Featured lists#Literature and theatre 24:Knowledge talk:Manual of Style (lists of works) 4332:. It doesn't get any more reliable than that. 1757:, but I'm not sure if that's a good example... 1159:Putting bibliographies into collapsible tables 464:Not that I know of. I'd suggest searching the 3891:efforts, like music, movies, and television. 3123:the reader strongly expects it to be complete 3089:To respond to this in series, top to bottom: 3035:"Does this album exist" is substantiated per 2706:Request for comment on television filmography 2469:Greetings! There is an ongoing discussion at 8: 810:Category:Lists of television series episodes 167:carefully and exercise caution when editing. 3595:Are references required for lists of works? 3046:All Lights Fucked on the Hairy Amp Drooling 2065:neater. I wonder if we should change it? -- 600:self-description, it's rather important to 241:, an attempt to structure and organize all 4437:, something like their official website). 3602: 3521:Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere. 2922:Acceptable sources for discography entries 560:http://en.wikipedia.org/Template:Cite_book 206: 64: 3630:Knowledge:WikiProject Discographies/style 1247:EP (Ginger Records, January 1, 1930), or 1111:RFC: restructuring of the Manual of Style 49:does not require a rating on Knowledge's 4097:prose, so referencing is still required. 3868:provide references for the existence of 3676:requesting citations for the discography 3670:A recent instance of this tension is at 245:. If you wish to help, please visit the 107:This page falls within the scope of the 4462:and, for journal articles, there's the 2899:Discographies of classical compositions 2514:Complete list of works vs. NOTDIR/NOTCV 876:filmographies for actors and filmmakers 702:Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians 506:, John Doe (ed). Publisher, Date, ISBN. 371:section? And if we're going to link to 208: 66: 4404:International Library of African Music 3771:Out of curiosity, what is ITN and RD? 3652: 3643: 3634: 3624: 3615: 3295:Hi! I assumed, based on the notice at 2737:There is an active discussion about a 2718:, it would be greatly appreciated. :) 2519: 4482:International Standard Recording Code 3265:I was intrigued by your recent edit, 488:Articles in compilations, editorships 163:Contributors are urged to review the 123:Knowledge:WikiProject Manual of Style 7: 3327:also goes to the guideline section. 3269:, because the fact that WikiProject 3257: 3137:(a copy-paste of the actual policy, 1825: 355:If we're going to tell readers that 160:. Both areas are subjects of debate. 126:Template:WikiProject Manual of Style 38: 36: 4056:The Button-Down Mind of Bob Newhart 2874:Knowledge:WikiProject Discographies 2856:Knowledge:WikiProject Discographies 2177:Aha! Thank you. I will fix both. -- 2123:'']'' (year), role – notes 1810:seems to say no, but says refer to 1755:Italo Calvino#Selected bibliography 602:keep wikibios distinct from résumés 55:It is of interest to the following 3628:from a dormant policy proposal at 3319:I have retargeted the shortcut to 2820:Thank you for that clarification, 2494:I would like to edit the title of 31: 4525:9,155 entries for Toumani Diabate 1285:(Ginger Records, January 1, 1935) 235:This page is within the scope of 3510: 3258: 2865: 2281:they should be listed (or not). 1826: 290: 228: 210: 100: 86: 79: 68: 37: 4182:data are on the record itself. 4024:The long-standing principle of 3274:follow the guidelines given by 2772:Bibliography: multiple editions 2518:This page currently recommends 1991:including the translator's name 1638:Variation in Filmography Styles 1273:'']'' (label, year)nbsp;– notes 1025:would be overkill, however for 444:No book or published works box? 4138:Polly Morgan (cinematographer) 3788:, a section of the main page. 3109:(and sometimes other parts of 2767:17:01, 27 September 2020 (UTC) 2651:Knowledge:Requests_for_comment 2213:20:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC) 2111:When to use non-breaking space 2008:16:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC) 1872:lists of all non-notable works 1622:22:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC) 1607:17:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC) 1584:07:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC) 1542:05:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC) 1527:01:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC) 1509:23:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC) 1490:20:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC) 1465:16:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC) 1445:15:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC) 1431:15:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC) 1416:14:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC) 1387:11:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC) 969:Knowledge:Featured lists#Music 920:There is currently an ongoing 831: 720:17:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC) 695:15:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC) 681:14:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC) 363:in 1922, then why not link to 18:Knowledge talk:Manual of Style 1: 4438: 4002:Ernest Hemingway bibliography 3590:02:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC) 3546:21:54, 27 December 2023 (UTC) 3530: 3477: 3441: 3370:05:45, 20 November 2023 (UTC) 3328: 3315:21:14, 11 November 2022 (UTC) 3290:16:23, 11 November 2022 (UTC) 3220:18:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC) 3204: 3082:01:55, 12 December 2023 (UTC) 2549:04:14, 25 February 2020 (UTC) 2444:14:06, 25 February 2019 (UTC) 2405: 2341: 2157: 2076:11:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC) 2052:14:23, 23 November 2016 (UTC) 1954:02:40, 27 February 2017 (UTC) 1867:23:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC) 1790:06:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC) 1776:05:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC) 1748:21:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC) 1105:16:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC) 1090:05:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC) 870:17:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC) 847:14:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC) 777:16:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC) 754:14:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC) 654:15:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC) 409:01:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC) 390:23:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC) 3493:07:33, 8 December 2023 (UTC) 3472:03:27, 8 December 2023 (UTC) 3457:21:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC) 3436:08:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC) 3422:08:14, 7 December 2023 (UTC) 3399:08:02, 7 December 2023 (UTC) 3344:21:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC) 3163:is somehow in conflict with 2894:01:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC) 2849:21:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC) 2834:20:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC) 2815:21:17, 17 January 2021 (UTC) 2421:20:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC) 2392:14:57, 3 February 2019 (UTC) 2357:20:01, 9 February 2019 (UTC) 2291:17:38, 3 February 2019 (UTC) 1988: 1969:of their titles? As in e.g. 1061:17:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC) 1047:16:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC) 1017:03:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC) 999:18:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC) 958:03:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC) 436:10:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC) 4581:NA-importance List articles 4576:Project-Class List articles 3247:"WP:DISCOGSTYLE is dormant" 3242:16:56, 18 August 2022 (UTC) 2796:04:42, 4 January 2021 (UTC) 2741:redirect that was added to 2522:Doesn't this conflict with 2509:14:17, 16 August 2019 (UTC) 2490:Bibliographies/Publications 2459:14:19, 16 August 2019 (UTC) 2427:Put most recent items first 2268:01:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC) 2245:16:11, 2 October 2019 (UTC) 2230:16:03, 2 October 2019 (UTC) 1905:Numbering in bibliographies 826:18:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC) 803:11:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC) 742:Best of Cum Dumpsters #1-10 665:WP:WikiProject Pornography‎ 259:Knowledge:WikiProject Lists 4602: 4586:WikiProject Lists articles 3508: 3224: 2917:12:45, 25 March 2021 (UTC) 2903:See current discussion at 2028:14:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC) 1941:Carolyn_Crane#Bibliography 1911:Carolyn_Crane#Bibliography 1900:13:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC) 1842:05:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC) 1659:23:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC) 1007:Thanks for your pointers. 938:20:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC) 911:11:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC) 620:Stand-alone bibliographies 571:16:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC) 399:. Very disputed still. -- 262:Template:WikiProject Lists 148:This page falls under the 4555:19:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC) 4518:12:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC) 4498:09:48, 25 July 2024 (UTC) 4486:Global Release Identifier 4464:digital object identifier 4454:23:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC) 4425:09:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC) 4390:23:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC) 4366:16:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC) 4346:15:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC) 4303:14:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC) 4276:16:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC) 4257:14:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC) 4234:15:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC) 4214:15:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC) 4192:14:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC) 4177:Interesting example, and 4173:13:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC) 4154:13:01, 24 July 2024 (UTC) 4113:12:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC) 4081:10:24, 24 July 2024 (UTC) 3972:23:00, 24 July 2024 (UTC) 3937:14:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC) 3918:14:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC) 3904:12:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC) 3882:04:31, 24 July 2024 (UTC) 3861:00:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC) 3836:04:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC) 3817:03:30, 24 July 2024 (UTC) 3798:03:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC) 3781:02:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC) 3757:00:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC) 3734:00:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC) 3695:00:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC) 3639:WP:Featured list criteria 3276:WikiProject Discographies 3101:determines what may have 3058:02:12, 18 July 2022 (UTC) 3031:13:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC) 2982:02:38, 16 July 2022 (UTC) 2958:09:10, 15 July 2022 (UTC) 2728:19:23, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 2599:08:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC) 2485:16:14, 17 June 2019 (UTC) 2187:12:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC) 2173:10:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC) 2147:06:00, 18 June 2018 (UTC) 2106:21:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC) 1984:10:23, 10 June 2015 (UTC) 1721:02:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC) 1702:19:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC) 1683:03:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC) 1494:Well, record labels work 1361:06:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC) 1347:07:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC) 1320:01:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC) 1305:23:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC) 1265:22:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC) 1226:15:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC) 1135:00:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC) 614:10:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC) 594:17:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC) 553:07:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC) 535:07:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC) 510:The Life Of Ronald Reagan 504:The Life Of Ronald Reagan 482:19:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC) 459:03:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC) 223: 180: 146: 110:Knowledge:Manual of Style 95: 63: 4478:Global Trade Item Number 4469:In the Heart of the Moon 4317:In the Heart of the Moon 2698:12:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC) 2683:14:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC) 2663:16:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC) 2633:15:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC) 2374:The Illuminatus! Trilogy 1923:15:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC) 1883:Abby Martin (journalist) 1572:Fox Searchlight Pictures 1178:07:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC) 129:Manual of Style articles 4372:citation and above all 4202:John Mayall discography 3476:Ah, I see. Got it now. 2564:David_Keith#Filmography 2195:Scientific Publications 1989:Citing translations by 1154:06:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC) 659:Porn star filmographies 472:for guidance/ideas. -- 369:T.S. Eliot#Bibliography 243:list pages on Knowledge 183:policies and guidelines 4474:Universal Product Code 4310:I was just looking at 3674:. Editors at ITN were 3159:Graywalls's idea that 2576:David_Keith#Television 2567:, which includes both 2057:Discography formatting 1435:Six years, in fact. -- 1279:(Ginger Records, 1933) 1213: 1123: 789:What about television? 663:There is consensus at 177: 143: 4531:(IFPI) and is run by 4322:African Music Library 4264:African Music Library 3739:I'd like to know why 3572:does not work on the 3115:List of veterinarians 3107:WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE 2824:. I appreciate it. -- 1822:MOS:J#Titles of media 1817:WP:citation templates 1369:Given that we've had 1117: 176: 158:article titles policy 142: 4503:UPCs or other codes. 4161:Legend of the Lizard 4006:holier than the Pope 3302:PerfectSoundWhatever 3253:PerfectSoundWhatever 1035:Nicholas Christopher 514:Reagan and Gorbachev 500:Reagan and Gorbachev 367:on that line of the 3870:our own references! 2383:The KLF#Discography 1644:Newest, Newest: --> 1568:Fantagraphics Books 1455:suggestion, right? 4266:, as noted below. 3283:With kind regards; 3186:WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY 3064:NNC doesn't trump 2363:Examples not clear 2273:Before we discuss 2115:Hello, I see that 2081:Years before title 1960:Wikifying research 1239:(Label, Year), or 178: 165:awareness criteria 150:contentious topics 144: 51:content assessment 4540:authority control 4476:(UPC) which is a 4016:authority control 3736: 3664: 3663: 3576:parameter of the 3111:WP:NOT#EVERYTHING 2739:WP:NOTBIBLOGRAPHY 2390: 2266: 2260: 1132: 1085:Basket of Puppies 348: 347: 319: 318: 281: 280: 277: 276: 273: 272: 238:WikiProject Lists 205: 204: 201: 200: 22:(Redirected from 4593: 4544: 4538: 4520: 4510: 4452: 4368: 4358: 4308:Original example 4236: 4226: 4118:Ernest Hemingway 4105: 4065:Pareto principle 4020: 4014: 3994:Ernest Hemingway 3939: 3929: 3896: 3853: 3838: 3828: 3724: 3700: 3620:MOS:LISTSOFWORKS 3603: 3579: 3575: 3571: 3565: 3559: 3553: 3544: 3522: 3514: 3513: 3491: 3455: 3342: 3303: 3263: 3262: 3261: 3256:Dear colleague, 3218: 3169:WP:NOTEVERYTHING 3070:WP:NOTEVERYTHING 2999: 2996: 2909:Francis Schonken 2869: 2868: 2839:You're welcome. 2759: 2570:David_Keith#Film 2547: 2477:Jayaguru-Shishya 2419: 2403: 2386: 2355: 2301: 2262: 2256: 2201:Helene Langevin 2171: 2103: 2098: 2073: 2069: 2043: 1977: 1934: 1897: 1895: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1808:WP:TRANSCRIPTION 1717: 1712: 1679: 1674: 1196:, which states: 1133: 1130: 1097:Michael Goodyear 1087: 1041: 1031:Larissa Szporluk 916:MoS naming style 842: 749: 433: 430: 427: 424: 421: 343: 305: 304: 294: 286: 267: 266: 263: 260: 257: 232: 225: 224: 214: 207: 191:. Additionally, 131: 130: 127: 124: 121: 104: 97: 96: 91: 90: 89: 84: 83: 82: 72: 65: 42: 41: 40: 33: 27: 4601: 4600: 4596: 4595: 4594: 4592: 4591: 4590: 4566: 4565: 4542: 4536: 4508: 4504: 4411:Toumani Diabaté 4409:In the case of 4356: 4352: 4330:Ali Farka Touré 4312:Toumani Diabaté 4224: 4220: 4103: 4018: 4012: 3927: 3923: 3894: 3851: 3826: 3822: 3702: 3672:Toumani Diabaté 3667:featured list. 3660: 3608: 3597: 3569: 3563: 3561: 3557: 3551: 3523: 3520: 3518: 3511: 3507: 3377: 3354: 3325:MOS:DISCOGSTYLE 3301: 3259: 3249: 3227: 3154:WP:SOURCEACCESS 3119:WP:LISTCRITERIA 2990: 2924: 2901: 2881:discussion page 2870: 2866: 2863: 2774: 2757: 2735: 2708: 2690:Johannes Schade 2670:Johannes Schade 2639:Johannes Schade 2625:Johannes Schade 2606: 2556: 2531: 2516: 2492: 2467: 2429: 2397: 2365: 2295: 2252: 2197: 2113: 2099: 2094: 2083: 2071: 2067: 2059: 2041: 2035: 2015: 1995: 1975: 1962: 1928: 1907: 1893: 1891: 1874: 1850: 1827: 1731: 1715: 1710: 1677: 1672: 1666: 1640: 1556:Matador Records 1289:Fred Astaire UK 1283:Fred Astaire II 1185: 1161: 1142: 1140:Instrumentation 1129: 1126: 1113: 1083: 1075: 1039: 945: 918: 878: 838: 834: 791: 745: 738:Cum Dumpster #4 734:Cum Dumpster #1 661: 635:User:Cybercobra 622: 579: 490: 446: 431: 428: 425: 422: 419: 382:Reconsideration 353: 344: 338: 299: 264: 261: 258: 255: 254: 154:Manual of Style 128: 125: 122: 120:Manual of Style 119: 118: 115:Manual of Style 85: 78: 76:Manual of Style 29: 28: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4599: 4597: 4589: 4588: 4583: 4578: 4568: 4567: 4564: 4563: 4562: 4561: 4560: 4559: 4558: 4557: 4431: 4430: 4429: 4428: 4427: 4414: 4407: 4400: 4382:Vladimir.copic 4377: 4369: 4335: 4334: 4333: 4286: 4285: 4284: 4283: 4282: 4281: 4280: 4279: 4278: 4241: 4240: 4239: 4238: 4237: 4130: 4126: 4115: 4098: 4090: 4087: 4070: 4069: 4068: 4042: 4038: 4034: 4022: 4009: 3998:Selected works 3987: 3986: 3976: 3975: 3974: 3964:Vladimir.copic 3944: 3943: 3942: 3941: 3940: 3864: 3863: 3845: 3844: 3843: 3842: 3841: 3840: 3839: 3809:Vladimir.copic 3800: 3786:WP:In the News 3773:Revirvlkodlaku 3769: 3766: 3741:Revirvlkodlaku 3737: 3726:Vladimir.copic 3721:Revirvlkodlaku 3687:Vladimir.copic 3662: 3661: 3613: 3610: 3609: 3606: 3596: 3593: 3560: 3549: 3509: 3506: 3503: 3502: 3501: 3500: 3499: 3498: 3497: 3496: 3495: 3438: 3387: 3386: 3376: 3373: 3353: 3350: 3349: 3348: 3347: 3346: 3297:WP:DISCOGSTYLE 3284: 3282: 3279: 3271:WP:DISCOGSTYLE 3264: 3255: 3248: 3245: 3234:151.177.58.208 3226: 3223: 3202: 3201: 3199: 3165:WP:NOTAWEBHOST 3157: 3146: 3126: 3124: 3104: 3096: 3087: 3086: 3085: 3084: 3066:WP:NOTAWEBHOST 3062: 3061: 3060: 2985: 2984: 2923: 2920: 2900: 2897: 2864: 2862: 2853: 2852: 2851: 2818: 2817: 2773: 2770: 2734: 2731: 2707: 2704: 2703: 2702: 2701: 2700: 2666: 2665: 2647: 2643: 2605: 2602: 2591:96.244.220.178 2555: 2552: 2515: 2512: 2491: 2488: 2466: 2463: 2462: 2461: 2428: 2425: 2424: 2423: 2364: 2361: 2360: 2359: 2340: 2338: 2334: 2329: 2328: 2327: 2314: 2310: 2293: 2251: 2248: 2196: 2193: 2192: 2191: 2190: 2189: 2125: 2124: 2112: 2109: 2082: 2079: 2058: 2055: 2034: 2031: 2020:Martinevans123 2014: 2011: 1994: 1987: 1961: 1958: 1957: 1956: 1906: 1903: 1894:Rhododendrites 1873: 1870: 1849: 1846: 1845: 1844: 1795: 1794: 1793: 1792: 1759: 1758: 1730: 1727: 1726: 1725: 1724: 1723: 1690: 1665: 1662: 1639: 1636: 1635: 1634: 1633: 1632: 1631: 1630: 1629: 1628: 1627: 1626: 1625: 1624: 1594: 1593: 1592: 1591: 1590: 1589: 1588: 1587: 1586: 1514: 1470: 1433: 1367: 1366: 1365: 1364: 1363: 1323: 1322: 1293: 1292: 1286: 1280: 1274: 1209: 1208: 1184: 1181: 1170:134.71.140.129 1160: 1157: 1146:Toccata quarta 1141: 1138: 1127: 1112: 1109: 1108: 1107: 1074: 1071: 1070: 1069: 1068: 1067: 1066: 1065: 1064: 1063: 1023:E. E. Cummings 1002: 1001: 982: 981: 973: 972: 944: 941: 917: 914: 898: 897: 888: 887: 877: 874: 873: 872: 833: 830: 829: 828: 790: 787: 786: 785: 784: 783: 782: 781: 780: 779: 660: 657: 646:StevenJohnston 621: 618: 617: 616: 578: 577:order of works 575: 574: 573: 518: 517: 507: 489: 486: 485: 484: 445: 442: 441: 440: 439: 438: 373:1922 in poetry 365:1922 in poetry 361:The Waste Land 352: 349: 346: 345: 340: 336: 334: 331: 330: 321: 320: 317: 316: 311: 301: 300: 295: 289: 279: 278: 275: 274: 271: 270: 268: 233: 221: 220: 215: 203: 202: 199: 198: 179: 169: 168: 162: 145: 135: 134: 132: 105: 93: 92: 73: 61: 60: 54: 43: 30: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4598: 4587: 4584: 4582: 4579: 4577: 4574: 4573: 4571: 4556: 4552: 4548: 4541: 4534: 4533:SoundExchange 4530: 4526: 4522: 4521: 4519: 4515: 4511: 4501: 4500: 4499: 4495: 4491: 4487: 4483: 4479: 4475: 4471: 4470: 4465: 4461: 4457: 4456: 4455: 4450: 4447: 4444: 4443: 4436: 4432: 4426: 4422: 4418: 4415: 4412: 4408: 4405: 4401: 4397: 4393: 4392: 4391: 4387: 4383: 4378: 4375: 4370: 4367: 4363: 4359: 4349: 4348: 4347: 4343: 4339: 4336: 4331: 4327: 4323: 4319: 4318: 4313: 4309: 4306: 4305: 4304: 4300: 4296: 4292: 4287: 4277: 4273: 4269: 4265: 4260: 4259: 4258: 4254: 4250: 4246: 4242: 4235: 4231: 4227: 4217: 4216: 4215: 4211: 4207: 4203: 4199: 4195: 4194: 4193: 4189: 4185: 4180: 4176: 4175: 4174: 4170: 4166: 4162: 4157: 4156: 4155: 4151: 4147: 4143: 4139: 4135: 4131: 4127: 4123: 4119: 4116: 4114: 4110: 4106: 4099: 4095: 4091: 4088: 4084: 4083: 4082: 4078: 4074: 4071: 4066: 4062: 4058: 4057: 4051: 4047: 4043: 4039: 4035: 4032: 4027: 4023: 4017: 4011:The template 4010: 4007: 4003: 3999: 3995: 3991: 3990: 3989: 3988: 3984: 3980: 3977: 3973: 3969: 3965: 3961: 3957: 3953: 3949: 3945: 3938: 3934: 3930: 3921: 3920: 3919: 3915: 3911: 3907: 3906: 3905: 3901: 3897: 3889: 3885: 3884: 3883: 3879: 3875: 3871: 3866: 3865: 3862: 3858: 3854: 3846: 3837: 3833: 3829: 3820: 3819: 3818: 3814: 3810: 3805: 3801: 3799: 3795: 3791: 3787: 3784: 3783: 3782: 3778: 3774: 3770: 3767: 3764: 3760: 3759: 3758: 3754: 3750: 3746: 3745:verifiability 3742: 3738: 3735: 3731: 3727: 3722: 3718: 3714: 3710: 3706: 3699: 3698: 3697: 3696: 3692: 3688: 3683: 3679: 3677: 3673: 3668: 3659: 3655: 3651: 3650: 3649:WP:SOURCELIST 3646: 3641: 3640: 3636: 3632: 3631: 3627: 3622: 3621: 3617: 3612: 3611: 3605: 3604: 3601: 3594: 3592: 3591: 3587: 3583: 3568: 3556: 3550: 3548: 3547: 3542: 3539: 3536: 3535: 3528: 3517: 3504: 3494: 3489: 3486: 3483: 3482: 3475: 3474: 3473: 3469: 3465: 3460: 3459: 3458: 3453: 3450: 3447: 3446: 3439: 3437: 3433: 3429: 3425: 3424: 3423: 3419: 3415: 3411: 3407: 3403: 3402: 3401: 3400: 3396: 3392: 3385: 3382: 3381: 3380: 3374: 3372: 3371: 3367: 3363: 3359: 3351: 3345: 3340: 3337: 3334: 3333: 3326: 3322: 3318: 3317: 3316: 3312: 3308: 3304: 3298: 3294: 3293: 3292: 3291: 3288: 3277: 3272: 3268: 3254: 3246: 3244: 3243: 3239: 3235: 3231: 3222: 3221: 3216: 3213: 3210: 3209: 3197: 3195: 3194:WP:POLICYFORK 3191: 3187: 3183: 3179: 3175: 3170: 3166: 3162: 3158: 3155: 3151: 3147: 3144: 3140: 3136: 3132: 3131:WP:SELFSOURCE 3127: 3122: 3120: 3116: 3112: 3108: 3102: 3100: 3099:WP:Notability 3094: 3092: 3091: 3090: 3083: 3079: 3075: 3071: 3067: 3063: 3059: 3055: 3051: 3047: 3043: 3038: 3034: 3033: 3032: 3029: 3028: 3025: 3022: 3019: 3015: 3014: 3011: 3008: 3003: 2994: 2989: 2988: 2987: 2986: 2983: 2979: 2975: 2970: 2969:WP:SELFSOURCE 2966: 2962: 2961: 2960: 2959: 2956: 2955: 2952: 2949: 2946: 2942: 2941: 2938: 2935: 2930: 2921: 2919: 2918: 2914: 2910: 2906: 2898: 2896: 2895: 2891: 2887: 2884:. Thank you. 2883: 2882: 2876: 2875: 2861: 2857: 2854: 2850: 2846: 2842: 2838: 2837: 2836: 2835: 2831: 2827: 2823: 2816: 2812: 2808: 2804: 2800: 2799: 2798: 2797: 2793: 2789: 2784: 2781: 2777: 2771: 2769: 2768: 2764: 2760: 2753: 2748: 2744: 2740: 2732: 2730: 2729: 2725: 2721: 2717: 2713: 2705: 2699: 2695: 2691: 2686: 2685: 2684: 2680: 2676: 2671: 2668: 2667: 2664: 2660: 2656: 2652: 2648: 2644: 2640: 2637: 2636: 2635: 2634: 2630: 2626: 2621: 2618: 2615: 2612: 2609: 2603: 2601: 2600: 2596: 2592: 2587: 2585: 2584:"See also: ]" 2580: 2578: 2577: 2572: 2571: 2566: 2565: 2559: 2553: 2551: 2550: 2546: 2545: 2541: 2540: 2536: 2535: 2529: 2525: 2521: 2513: 2511: 2510: 2506: 2502: 2497: 2489: 2487: 2486: 2482: 2478: 2473: 2472: 2464: 2460: 2456: 2452: 2448: 2447: 2446: 2445: 2441: 2437: 2432: 2426: 2422: 2417: 2414: 2411: 2410: 2401: 2396: 2395: 2394: 2393: 2389: 2384: 2380: 2376: 2375: 2370: 2362: 2358: 2353: 2350: 2347: 2346: 2336: 2332: 2330: 2324: 2320: 2319:Steve Buscemi 2315: 2311: 2308: 2304: 2303: 2299: 2294: 2292: 2288: 2284: 2280: 2276: 2272: 2271: 2270: 2269: 2265: 2259: 2249: 2247: 2246: 2242: 2238: 2232: 2231: 2227: 2223: 2219: 2215: 2214: 2210: 2206: 2202: 2194: 2188: 2184: 2180: 2176: 2175: 2174: 2169: 2166: 2163: 2162: 2155: 2151: 2150: 2149: 2148: 2144: 2140: 2135: 2132: 2130: 2129:Discographies 2122: 2121: 2120: 2118: 2117:Filmographies 2110: 2108: 2107: 2104: 2102: 2097: 2090: 2088: 2080: 2078: 2077: 2070: 2064: 2056: 2054: 2053: 2049: 2045: 2044: 2032: 2030: 2029: 2025: 2021: 2012: 2010: 2009: 2005: 2001: 1992: 1986: 1985: 1982: 1978: 1972: 1968: 1959: 1955: 1951: 1947: 1942: 1938: 1932: 1927: 1926: 1925: 1924: 1920: 1916: 1912: 1904: 1902: 1901: 1896: 1889: 1884: 1878: 1871: 1869: 1868: 1864: 1860: 1856: 1847: 1843: 1839: 1835: 1823: 1818: 1813: 1809: 1805: 1801: 1797: 1796: 1791: 1787: 1783: 1779: 1778: 1777: 1773: 1769: 1765: 1761: 1760: 1756: 1752: 1751: 1750: 1749: 1745: 1741: 1736: 1728: 1722: 1719: 1718: 1713: 1705: 1704: 1703: 1699: 1695: 1691: 1687: 1686: 1685: 1684: 1681: 1680: 1675: 1663: 1661: 1660: 1656: 1652: 1651:69.125.134.86 1647: 1637: 1623: 1619: 1615: 1610: 1609: 1608: 1604: 1600: 1595: 1585: 1581: 1577: 1573: 1569: 1565: 1561: 1557: 1553: 1549: 1548:Thrill Jockey 1545: 1544: 1543: 1539: 1535: 1530: 1529: 1528: 1524: 1520: 1515: 1512: 1511: 1510: 1506: 1502: 1497: 1493: 1492: 1491: 1487: 1483: 1479: 1475: 1471: 1468: 1467: 1466: 1462: 1458: 1453: 1448: 1447: 1446: 1442: 1438: 1434: 1432: 1428: 1424: 1419: 1418: 1417: 1413: 1409: 1405: 1400: 1395: 1390: 1389: 1388: 1384: 1380: 1376: 1372: 1368: 1362: 1358: 1354: 1350: 1349: 1348: 1344: 1340: 1336: 1332: 1327: 1326: 1325: 1324: 1321: 1317: 1313: 1309: 1308: 1307: 1306: 1302: 1298: 1290: 1287: 1284: 1281: 1278: 1275: 1272: 1271: 1270: 1267: 1266: 1262: 1258: 1254: 1250: 1246: 1242: 1238: 1234: 1228: 1227: 1223: 1219: 1212: 1206: 1203: 1202: 1201: 1197: 1195: 1191: 1183:Discographies 1182: 1180: 1179: 1175: 1171: 1167: 1158: 1156: 1155: 1151: 1147: 1139: 1137: 1136: 1122: 1121: 1116: 1110: 1106: 1102: 1098: 1094: 1093: 1092: 1091: 1088: 1086: 1080: 1072: 1062: 1058: 1054: 1050: 1049: 1048: 1045: 1042: 1036: 1032: 1028: 1027:Major Jackson 1024: 1020: 1019: 1018: 1014: 1010: 1006: 1005: 1004: 1003: 1000: 996: 992: 988: 984: 983: 979: 975: 974: 970: 966: 962: 961: 960: 959: 955: 951: 942: 940: 939: 935: 931: 927: 923: 915: 913: 912: 909: 908:Jack Merridew 904: 901: 896: 893: 892: 891: 886: 883: 882: 881: 875: 871: 867: 863: 859: 858:comprehensive 855: 851: 850: 849: 848: 845: 841: 827: 823: 819: 815: 811: 807: 806: 805: 804: 800: 796: 788: 778: 774: 770: 766: 762: 757: 756: 755: 752: 748: 743: 739: 735: 731: 727: 723: 722: 721: 717: 713: 708: 704: 703: 698: 697: 696: 693: 690: 685: 684: 683: 682: 678: 674: 670: 666: 658: 656: 655: 651: 647: 642: 640: 636: 631: 626: 619: 615: 611: 607: 603: 598: 597: 596: 595: 591: 587: 586: 576: 572: 568: 564: 561: 557: 556: 555: 554: 550: 546: 542: 537: 536: 532: 528: 524: 521: 515: 511: 508: 505: 502:, chapter in 501: 498: 497: 496: 493: 487: 483: 479: 475: 471: 467: 463: 462: 461: 460: 456: 452: 443: 437: 434: 416: 412: 411: 410: 406: 402: 398: 394: 393: 392: 391: 387: 383: 379: 374: 370: 366: 362: 358: 350: 333: 332: 329: 328: 323: 322: 315: 312: 310: 307: 306: 303: 302: 298: 293: 288: 287: 284: 269: 265:List articles 252: 248: 244: 240: 239: 234: 231: 227: 226: 222: 219: 216: 213: 209: 196: 195: 190: 189: 184: 175: 171: 170: 166: 161: 159: 155: 151: 141: 137: 136: 133: 116: 112: 111: 106: 103: 99: 98: 94: 77: 74: 71: 67: 62: 58: 52: 48: 44: 35: 34: 25: 19: 4467: 4441: 4435:WP:ABOUTSELF 4315: 4307: 4290: 4160: 4133: 4054: 4005: 3979:Not required 3978: 3888:Alan Smithee 3869: 3684: 3680: 3669: 3665: 3642: 3633: 3623: 3614: 3598: 3562: 3533: 3524: 3480: 3444: 3406:undue weight 3388: 3379:An edit war 3378: 3355: 3331: 3250: 3228: 3207: 3203: 3182:WP:CONSENSUS 3139:WP:ABOUTSELF 3088: 3042:WP:SKYISBLUE 3026: 3023: 3020: 3017: 3012: 3009: 3006: 2953: 2950: 2947: 2944: 2939: 2936: 2933: 2929:Andrew Huang 2925: 2902: 2879: 2872: 2871: 2841:WhatamIdoing 2822:WhatamIdoing 2819: 2807:WhatamIdoing 2785: 2782: 2778: 2775: 2751: 2746: 2736: 2720:Andrzejbanas 2712:Ishirō Honda 2709: 2622: 2619: 2616: 2613: 2610: 2607: 2588: 2583: 2581: 2574: 2568: 2562: 2560: 2557: 2543: 2538: 2533: 2517: 2493: 2474: 2468: 2433: 2430: 2408: 2372: 2366: 2344: 2278: 2274: 2253: 2233: 2216: 2198: 2160: 2136: 2133: 2126: 2114: 2100: 2095: 2091: 2086: 2084: 2062: 2060: 2040: 2036: 2016: 1996: 1990: 1966: 1963: 1908: 1879: 1875: 1851: 1800:Curly Turkey 1782:Curly Turkey 1740:Curly Turkey 1734: 1732: 1708: 1670: 1667: 1648: 1641: 1495: 1477: 1473: 1451: 1403: 1393: 1374: 1370: 1294: 1288: 1282: 1277:Fred Astaire 1276: 1268: 1252: 1249:Fred Astaire 1248: 1245:Fred Astaire 1244: 1240: 1236: 1233:Sloan (band) 1229: 1214: 1210: 1205:Mariah Carey 1204: 1199: 1189: 1186: 1162: 1143: 1124: 1118: 1114: 1084: 1076: 977: 946: 928:if you wish 919: 905: 902: 899: 889: 879: 857: 854:encyclopedic 835: 795:82.15.17.129 792: 760: 741: 737: 733: 729: 725: 706: 700: 668: 662: 643: 629: 627: 623: 583: 580: 538: 525: 522: 519: 513: 509: 503: 499: 494: 491: 447: 372: 360: 354: 324: 296: 282: 247:project page 236: 192: 186: 147: 108: 57:WikiProjects 47:project page 46: 4442:SMcCandlish 4198:John Mayall 4094:WP:LEDECITE 4046:Bob Newhart 4041:inaccurate. 4031:WP:OVERCITE 3717:SMcCandlish 3534:SMcCandlish 3525:Please see 3481:SMcCandlish 3445:SMcCandlish 3332:SMcCandlish 3285:Patrick. ツ 3208:SMcCandlish 2826:PaulThePony 2803:PaulThePony 2788:PaulThePony 2409:SMcCandlish 2369:Henry James 2345:SMcCandlish 2313:production. 2218:tronvillain 2205:tronvillain 2161:SMcCandlish 2013:Single book 1937:MOS:NUMLIST 1855:these pages 1848:Iconography 989:). HTH. -- 726:significant 451:Tyranny Sue 188:WP:PROPOSAL 185:, refer to 4570:Categories 4484:(ISRC) or 4122:WP:BLUESKY 4086:necessary. 4050:tag bombed 3804:WP:BLUESKY 3607:Quotations 3582:RodRabelo7 3580:template. 3174:WP:P&G 2675:Finney1234 2655:Finney1234 2642:ambiguous. 2501:Finney1234 2451:Finney1234 2323:Dave Winer 2307:MOS:TITLES 2237:Finney1234 2222:Finney1234 2137:Thanks! -- 1859:JonRudnick 1552:Ninja Tune 1241:Album Name 1237:Album Name 987:WP:SUMMARY 922:discussion 816:. HTH. -- 359:published 357:T.S. Eliot 251:discussion 156:, and the 4295:Gödel2200 4134:somewhere 3713:Graywalls 3705:Acousmana 3578:Cite book 3410:auteurism 3190:WP:GAMING 3178:WP:LAWYER 3074:Graywalls 2524:WP:NOTDIR 2298:Esprit15d 1976:Trɔpʏliʊm 1971:this diff 1834:Marchjuly 1812:WP:NONENG 1040:Accotink2 978:have been 930:GnevinAWB 862:Dekkappai 769:Dekkappai 712:Dekkappai 314:Archive 2 309:Archive 1 4184:Chubbles 3996:, whose 3983:Chubbles 3910:Chubbles 3874:Chubbles 3709:Chubbles 3658:MOS:LIST 3464:Chubbles 3414:Chubbles 3362:Beccaynr 3150:Tim Rose 3050:Chubbles 2993:Chubbles 2974:Chubbles 2886:Heartfox 2528:WP:NOTCV 2436:deisenbe 2283:Blueboar 2264:contribs 2250:Podcasts 2154:MOS:DASH 1993:, please 1967:keywords 1946:Quiddity 1888:WP:UNDUE 1768:Quiddity 1694:Quiddity 1664:Ordering 1614:Chubbles 1576:Quiddity 1534:Chubbles 1519:Quiddity 1501:Chubbles 1482:Quiddity 1457:Chubbles 1408:Chubbles 1399:WP:MUSIC 1353:Quiddity 1339:Chubbles 1312:Quiddity 1297:Chubbles 1257:Chubbles 1253:slightly 1218:Chubbles 1190:separate 991:Quiddity 906:Cheers, 818:Quiddity 689:Garion96 563:Sidefall 545:Sidefall 527:Sidefall 474:Quiddity 401:Quiddity 327:Examples 297:Archives 4253:contrib 4179:Discogs 4150:contrib 3790:Curbon7 3763:Curbon7 3749:Curbon7 3719:, and 3574:Chapter 3287:Pdebee. 3103:its own 2858:has an 2379:The KLF 2279:whether 2068:Jennica 1564:Taschen 1560:Phaidon 1476:", or " 730:notable 673:Epbr123 449:help.-- 4547:Andrew 4490:Andrew 4417:Andrew 4374:biased 4338:Andrew 4268:Andrew 4206:Andrew 4165:Andrew 4125:links. 4073:Andrew 3161:WP:NCC 3095:inside 3002:WP:VER 2972:well. 2965:WP:NNC 2743:WP:NOT 2400:NE Ent 2388:NE Ent 2337:medium 2063:little 2042:Ark25 1931:Plange 1915:plange 1786:gobble 1744:gobble 1599:Michig 1452:at all 1437:Michig 1423:Michig 1394:wasn't 1379:Michig 1207:(1990) 1131:oetica 840:Dismas 765:policy 747:Dismas 692:(talk) 470:WP:FLs 466:WP:FAs 415:WP:EGG 325:Also: 53:scale. 4396:Lagos 4326:links 4037:read. 3656:from 3647:from 3637:from 3618:from 3135:WP:RS 2747:don't 2179:Culix 2139:Culix 2096:Davey 2087:after 2000:WernR 1804:WP:OR 1711:Klein 1673:Klein 1404:never 1375:Title 1371:Title 1033:, or 1029:, or 639:To do 606:Dsp13 256:Lists 218:Lists 45:This 16:< 4551:talk 4509:asem 4494:talk 4460:ISBN 4421:talk 4386:talk 4357:asem 4342:talk 4299:talk 4291:some 4272:talk 4249:talk 4245:Erik 4225:asem 4210:talk 4200:and 4188:talk 4169:talk 4146:talk 4142:Erik 4104:asem 4077:talk 4026:WP:V 3981:per 3968:talk 3958:and 3928:asem 3914:talk 3895:asem 3878:talk 3852:asem 3827:asem 3813:talk 3794:talk 3777:talk 3753:talk 3730:talk 3691:talk 3586:talk 3567:Lang 3555:Lang 3468:talk 3432:talk 3428:55go 3418:talk 3395:talk 3391:55go 3366:talk 3267:here 3251:To: 3238:talk 3167:and 3143:WP:V 3078:talk 3068:and 3054:talk 3037:WP:V 2978:talk 2913:talk 2890:talk 2845:talk 2830:talk 2811:talk 2792:talk 2758:asem 2724:talk 2716:here 2694:talk 2679:talk 2659:talk 2629:talk 2595:talk 2573:and 2539:uidh 2505:talk 2481:talk 2455:talk 2440:talk 2333:type 2287:talk 2258:talk 2241:talk 2226:talk 2209:talk 2183:talk 2143:talk 2127:The 2101:2010 2048:talk 2024:talk 2004:talk 1981:blah 1973:. -- 1950:talk 1919:talk 1863:talk 1838:talk 1772:talk 1735:have 1716:zach 1698:talk 1678:zach 1655:talk 1618:talk 1603:talk 1580:talk 1538:talk 1523:talk 1505:talk 1496:much 1486:talk 1461:talk 1441:talk 1427:talk 1412:talk 1383:talk 1357:talk 1343:talk 1316:talk 1301:talk 1261:talk 1222:talk 1174:talk 1166:here 1150:talk 1101:talk 1079:here 1057:talk 1053:Span 1044:talk 1013:talk 1009:Span 995:talk 954:talk 950:Span 934:talk 926:vote 866:talk 822:talk 812:and 808:See 799:talk 773:talk 744:). 716:talk 677:talk 650:talk 630:very 610:talk 590:talk 567:talk 549:talk 531:talk 478:talk 468:and 455:talk 413:Per 405:talk 395:See 386:talk 4549:🐉( 4492:🐉( 4451:😼 4419:🐉( 4340:🐉( 4270:🐉( 4255:) 4208:🐉( 4167:🐉( 4152:) 4092:4) 4075:🐉( 4067:... 3960:Air 3956:Air 3952:Air 3948:Air 3543:😼 3516:FYI 3490:😼 3454:😼 3356:At 3341:😼 3217:😼 3141:in 3133:in 3048:). 2860:RFC 2418:😼 2377:or 2371:or 2354:😼 2335:or 2326:RS. 2275:how 2170:😼 2074:/ 1944:s. 1898:| 1643:--> 761:all 728:or 707:all 585:DGG 432:ian 429:ymp 4572:: 4553:) 4543:}} 4537:{{ 4516:) 4505:— 4496:) 4439:— 4423:) 4388:) 4364:) 4353:— 4344:) 4301:) 4274:) 4251:| 4232:) 4221:— 4212:) 4190:) 4171:) 4148:| 4111:) 4079:) 4019:}} 4013:{{ 4008:". 3970:) 3954:, 3950:, 3935:) 3924:— 3916:) 3902:) 3880:) 3859:) 3834:) 3823:— 3815:) 3796:) 3779:) 3755:) 3747:. 3732:) 3715:, 3711:, 3707:, 3693:) 3588:) 3570:}} 3564:{{ 3558:}} 3552:{{ 3531:— 3529:. 3519:– 3478:— 3470:) 3442:— 3434:) 3420:) 3397:) 3368:) 3329:— 3313:) 3309:; 3240:) 3205:— 3198:is 3188:, 3184:, 3180:, 3176:, 3080:) 3056:) 3010:ou 3007:Ac 2980:) 2937:ou 2934:Ac 2915:) 2892:) 2847:) 2832:) 2813:) 2794:) 2765:) 2752:do 2726:) 2696:) 2681:) 2661:) 2631:) 2597:) 2589:-- 2586:? 2507:) 2483:) 2457:) 2442:) 2406:— 2342:— 2289:) 2261:• 2243:) 2228:) 2211:) 2185:) 2158:— 2156:. 2145:) 2050:) 2026:) 2006:) 1979:• 1952:) 1921:) 1865:) 1840:) 1832:- 1806:? 1788:) 1774:) 1746:) 1707:-- 1700:) 1657:) 1620:) 1605:) 1582:) 1566:, 1562:, 1554:, 1550:, 1540:) 1525:) 1507:) 1488:) 1463:) 1443:) 1429:) 1414:) 1385:) 1359:) 1345:) 1318:) 1303:) 1263:) 1224:) 1176:) 1168:. 1152:) 1103:) 1059:) 1015:) 997:) 956:) 936:) 868:) 860:" 824:) 801:) 775:) 767:. 736:, 718:) 679:) 652:) 612:) 592:) 569:) 551:) 533:) 480:) 457:) 426:Ol 423:08 420:20 407:) 388:) 4514:t 4512:( 4507:M 4449:¢ 4446:☏ 4384:( 4376:. 4362:t 4360:( 4355:M 4297:( 4247:( 4230:t 4228:( 4223:M 4186:( 4144:( 4109:t 4107:( 4102:M 4053:" 4033:. 3966:( 3933:t 3931:( 3926:M 3912:( 3900:t 3898:( 3893:M 3876:( 3857:t 3855:( 3850:M 3832:t 3830:( 3825:M 3811:( 3792:( 3775:( 3761:@ 3751:( 3728:( 3723:: 3703:@ 3689:( 3584:( 3541:¢ 3538:☏ 3488:¢ 3485:☏ 3466:( 3452:¢ 3449:☏ 3430:( 3416:( 3393:( 3364:( 3339:¢ 3336:☏ 3311:c 3307:t 3305:( 3236:( 3215:¢ 3212:☏ 3125:. 3076:( 3052:( 3027:a 3024:n 3021:a 3018:m 3013:s 2995:: 2991:@ 2976:( 2954:a 2951:n 2948:a 2945:m 2940:s 2911:( 2888:( 2843:( 2828:( 2809:( 2801:@ 2790:( 2763:t 2761:( 2756:M 2722:( 2692:( 2677:( 2657:( 2627:( 2593:( 2544:e 2534:b 2526:/ 2503:( 2479:( 2453:( 2438:( 2416:¢ 2413:☏ 2402:: 2398:@ 2352:¢ 2349:☏ 2300:: 2296:@ 2285:( 2239:( 2224:( 2207:( 2181:( 2168:¢ 2165:☏ 2141:( 2072:✿ 2046:( 2022:( 2002:( 1948:( 1933:: 1929:@ 1917:( 1861:( 1836:( 1784:( 1770:( 1742:( 1696:( 1653:( 1616:( 1601:( 1578:( 1536:( 1521:( 1503:( 1484:( 1459:( 1439:( 1425:( 1410:( 1381:( 1355:( 1341:( 1314:( 1299:( 1259:( 1220:( 1172:( 1148:( 1128:N 1099:( 1055:( 1011:( 993:( 952:( 932:( 864:( 843:| 820:( 797:( 771:( 750:| 714:( 675:( 648:( 608:( 588:( 565:( 547:( 543:. 529:( 516:. 476:( 453:( 403:( 384:( 253:. 59:: 26:)

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

talk:Manual of Style/Lists of works - Knowledge

Index