Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The Naming section of this page specifically mentions article titles of the form Works of Author. I'm a little confused, though – is this title format meant for articles that discuss an author's works in detail (as in, say, Works of Demosthenes or Works of Rabindranath Tagore), or is it meant for articles that are simply a listing of an author's works (as in, say, Works of Henry Rollins or Works of Padmarajan)? Personally, I would argue that the former makes much more sense – if an article is a list rather than prose-heavy, then surely its title should be of the format List of works by Author? For one thing, the MoS describes beginning list titles with "List of" as "standard practice". I welcome any thoughts on the matter. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

No thoughts? Well, I'm just going to be bold and rename the more "list"-y articles. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 00:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree on this (sorry for the late comment, but only just came across this). I am not a fan of the "List of" title, and I would certainly knock back the now out-of-date statement in the MoS that such a format if "Standard practice": it is becoming less so, I think (No statistical examination on that, just my impression of the pages at FLC and TFL, where a good proportion of such page are not titled "List of..." ATD, I am massively unimpressed that you have decied on no other basis but your own opinion to rename a couple of hundred articles without proper discssin. I apprciate that no-one commented here, but that in no way constitutes a consensus for such a mass change. - SchroCat (talk) 13:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to tell you. I certainly disagree that we're seeing fewer "List of" titles at FLC or that the MoS is out-of-date. Here's my statistical examination: of the most recent 125 lists nominated at FLC (see here, here, here and here), 79 of them have titles that begin with "List of" (63%). Compare that with the situation this time three years ago: of the most recent 130 lists nominated at FLC (see here, here, here and here), 78 of them have titles that begin with "List of" (60%). And I haven't moved a couple of hundred articles; the number's closer to sixty. My bases for the moves were as follows:

1. They're lists. My understanding of the MoS is that we encourage list article titles to begin with "List of" (where appropriate) to differentiate them from articles that are not lists. Hence why we have articles named "List of sports" and "List of films", rather than "Sports" and "Films". I only moved the pages that were quite obviously lists (e.g. Works of Henry Rollins and Works of Padmarajan); pages that seemed be more of a general discussion of the works of a particular author (e.g. Works by Francis Bacon and Works of Jayadeva) I left alone. I noticed that many of the Works of Author articles had been created by one editor in particular. I contacted them and explained why I wanted to move the articles, and, from what I could tell, they very graciously gave me their blessing.
2. There is significant precedent for titles of this format. Of the 2,770 featured lists that we have, I count 1,834 of them that have titles beginning with "List of" (66%). And I couldn't tell you how many non-featured lists we have like this.
3. I couldn't see any reason/need for them to stay where they were. Unless I'm missing something, I certainly don't see how the titles that I moved these articles to are any worse than where they were before. The only reason I can see as to why we might want to keep them at their original titles is that that's where they've always been, but that completely flies in the face of Wikipedia policy. Surely we can agree that "The works of Veronica Whall" is an inappropriate article title?

Anyway, chalk the whole thing up to being bold if you want. If there are any articles in particular that you think do not benefit from having titles in the format "List of", feel free to revert my edits. I'm not going to start an edit war. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, can someone from this project just check the notability of this article and respond? Is the naming convention correct? —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Are books in bibliographies supposed to be reliable sources? Or does anything go provided it fits the criteria of the list and it has a WP article about it? I work on a lot of Jesus pages, and you can be sure that there are long lists of books related to this topic, many of which are really out there. This page makes it seem as though any book with a WP to confirm that it's on-topic is a go. I would like to think that bibliographies would be limited to notable, reliable sources. What are the criteria for inclusion? Consider, for example, the List of books about Jesus. Is any book about Jesus with a WP article automatically good enough to include? Or only books that are reliable sources, or that some reliable source says is relevant? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 01:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Topical bibliographies are almost always a disaster that aren't worth the time to try to fix (or delete). If the topic can be narrowed to a few thousand books, if there are existing bibliographies on the narrowed topic that you can use to demonstrate notability, and if you're willing to put in the time to do some sort of annotation, then yes, that's a useful article. The topic of the article you mention is far too broad to allow for a useful article, but unless you're going to take responsibility for narrowing the topic and rewriting the article, just leave it be. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 20:13, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Reliability of sources WP:RS and inclusion of any given book, journal, etc. in a bibliography are unconnected. Nor does a bibliographic entry have to be notable in its own right WP:NOT. Assuming the topic of the bibliography is notable and works related to the topic have appeared in published bibliographies (standalone or integral to other works), then inclusion of any given work in the WP bibliography is governed primarily by the inclusion criteria established in the lead. Ideally, works included in a bibliography are listed in other published bibliographies related to the subject, but that is not a firm requirement. The reliability of or notability of the individual bibliographic entry is irrelevant. --Mike Cline (talk) 22:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, when dealing with a topic that has potentially hundreds of citations, editors should use some criteria for selecting the titles most useful to our readership. Have experts attested to the value of the book by including it in bibliographies, or citing it in footnotes? Is the item reasonably accessible through libraries and interlibrary loans? (many rare or very old books are simply not accessible-- you have to go to a rare book Library to find and use them, and if that is the case, I think The citation will not be very valuable to Wikipedia readers.) Is the item on line in whole or part? that is a big advantage, and I recommend linkages to Amazon or Google or wherever the reader can find it. If the title is not self-explanatory, the editors should annotate it to tell the reader what it coveds. Are reviews available through Amazon or JSTOR Or Google scholar? that is a big advantage when a reader has to decide to order title through interlibrary loan. If a book does not have any reviews, that is a signal that journal editors to not think highly of it.) Rjensen (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Wow, thank you everybody for giving my question so much thought and such good responses. If I want to create a new book that's "Notable modern books about Jesus," I might. But I guess I'm not going to "fix" the current page. So now I have a follow up question. What books go in a bibliography in a regular topic article? The Jesus page has a bibliography as well as references. Many of the biblio items are cited as references, and the references link to the biblio entries. I have the feeling that not all the biblio items are used as references this way. I couldn't find any support for having a biblio section if you're also citing individual references. Any guidance on what the biblio section on the Jesus page out to include? We certainly can't fill it up with all the book that are in the List of books about Jesus. Should the biblio on that topic page be strictly for referenced works, or what? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The books included in a bibliography section of a non-bibliography article are a reflection of the consensus of the editors. For most articles I work on, only work that is cited directly would be included. However, I've seen mathematics articles with no direct cites and a list of relevant work in the bibliography; that's fine too. I've also seen articles with "Further reading" sections in addition to the list of cited works. Raise the issue on the specific article's talk page if you want to get an understanding of the local consensus. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 17:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. "Consensus" is the last thing I want decisions to be based on because POV editors love to withhold consent in order to prevent better balance in an article. "Only work that is directly cited" seems fine because then there's no separate decision of whether a title deserves listing in the bibliography. Thanks for help with these particular little questions. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 13:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello resource documenters! At The Wikipedia Library, we are actively looking for more volunteers to help with Partner donation distribution, communications towards the Wikimedia community and outreach with publishers! If you would be interested in helping us get other users access to quality sources, complete an on-wiki application, or let our lead volunteer coordinator, User:Nikkimaria know. Thanks much! Sadads (talk) 02:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd be grateful if folks from this project would please review Climate fiction#history, and then offer opinions if the section is discussing the history of climate fiction or provides an annotated bibliography? The thread for that discussion is Talk:Climate fiction#History or annotated bibliography?. Thanks for your opinions. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

For those interested in commenting, there is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Woody Allen bibliography which would affect a number of bibliographies for filmmakers. The article name "Woody Allen bibliography" would be changed to "Bibliography of Woody Allen". I was alerted to the discussion because of my work of Orson Welles bibliography, another of the articles that would be moved.

I've created bibliographies for Rex Stout and Erle Stanley Gardner, and contributed to the Welles bibliography. All of these, and the Woody Allen bibliography, include works by the subject and about the subject. I was unaware of the WP:NCBOOKS#Bibliographies guideline regarding the naming of bibliography articles. Does this require that works by and works about be split into separate articles? I frankly feel that one all-inclusive bibliography is more useful, one that is named for the subject. — WFinch (talk) 14:54, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• I have just noticed that this guideline recommends Topical bibliographies where the topic is a person should be named: Bibliography of works on John Doe. This eliminates confusion with John Doe bibliography which lists works by John Doe (an author bibliography). --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

An update on this: there was a consensus against the move, so names like Orson Welles bibliography remain as they are. After a discussion titled Changing "Bibliographies" section, the content in WP:NCBOOKS#Bibliographies was replaced by a link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies#Naming.

The issue is, to me, an exhausting WP:CIR issue concerning a bibliography, exacerbated by a months-old grudge. I'm hoping the simple input of a third party on basic style matters will prevent headaches. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I am proposing some changes to {{Infobox bibliography}}. See the discussion at Template talk:Infobox bibliography. RockMagnetist(talk) 00:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The Joan Acocella bibliography created by me under this Project's guidelines is being proposed for deletion. See discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joan Acocella bibliography. Sunwin1960 (talk) 07:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

There are up to 30 free one-year Alexander Street Press (ASP) accounts available to experienced Wikipedians through this partnership. To apply for free access, please go to WP:ASP.

Alexander Street Press is an electronic academic database publisher. Its "Academic Video Online: Premium collection" includes videos in a range of subject areas, including news programs (like 60 Minutes) and newsreels, music and theatre, speeches and lectures and demonstrations, and documentaries. This video collection would be useful for researching topics related to science, engineering, history, music and dance, anthropology, business, counseling and therapy, news, nursing, drama, and more.

Please add this latest database for The Wikipedia Library. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 18:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I hope you folks here can help with a question about identifying a book's publisher. The specific question is how to treat a book that was published by an institution, but printed by a company that is identified on the title page (and not in a colophon elsewhere in the book). I have two examples, both from the United States in the 1800s: and . In the first case, the publisher appears to be Yale College; in the second case, the state of Massachusetts. And yet, library catalog records do seem to identify the printers as the "publishers" of these books. Is that how we should be treating them on Wikipedia?

If I am asking this question in the wrong place, I'll be happy to be directed to a better forum. Thank you for any help that you can provide. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:26, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

See

• Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Access locks: Visual Design RFC
• Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Access Locks: Citation Template Behaviour RFC

Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

General question – I thought it was standard practice to include an item in the references or the bibliography but not both. However, I didn't see any discussion of this practice. Did I miss it?

Specific question – the author of a book notes that the book is mentioned as a reference but is not in the bibliography so depending on the answer to the up general question I'd like to provide some advice to that author. The booking question is Oxford: Son of Queen Elizabeth I., included as a reference in Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship, but not listed in the bibliography.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:18, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I have nominated List of works by Sax Rohmer for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. - The Bounder (talk) 11:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

RfC about inclusion of films in Bibliography of Donald Trump:

Discussion at Talk:Bibliography_of_Donald_Trump#RfC_about_inclusion_of_films_in_Bibliography_of_Donald_Trump.

Sagecandor (talk) 17:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

A page move discussion is taking place which might be of interest to editors on WikiProject Bibliographies. Please see Talk:Good Behaviour (Keane novel)#Requested move 20 March 2018. -- Netoholic @ 12:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

If anyone wants to check out the article and the nomination. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 14:32, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I came across Ryan Lizza bibliography on WP:NPP. This doesn't seem to be a reasonable stand-alone topic; we can't (and probably shouldn't) list every magazine article any person has listed, and the 10 or so New Yorker articles listed certainly don't justify a spin-off article even if listing them is reasonable.

However, @Sunwin1960: created the article and claims that the WikiProject guidelines (which are not official policy) suggest that this is a reasonable creation. Is that a correct interpretation, or should Ryan Lizza bibliography be merged back to Ryan Lizza (and Sunwin1960 encouraged to be less enthusiastic about creating spin-off bios). power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree that this project's guidelines are not official policy; also, they don't say that if an author bio lists more than 10 entries then it needs to be split off. That said, I don't see any policy reasons not to have this bibliography. I added a source that lists all his contributions to the New York (I estimate there are over 300 entries), and that is enough to satisfy notability for a stand-alone list. But there is still the question whether it's really worth doing this unless Sunwin1960 intends to expand it. Generally, I would say it's better to create a short list of more notable publications and keep it in the bibliography. If you feel that way, you could nominate it for a merge back into Ryan Lizza. RockMagnetist(talk) 05:16, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I was hoping to get some feedback on possibly improving the article Bibliography of Los Angeles. I have added some entries, removed some dead links, did a little ce. Looking at the structure of the article, I see some duplication and was wondering if it would be appropriate to try and improve it. Here are my thoughts:

• There is a "Race relations" section and an "Ethnicity, race and religion" section. Could these be combined into one section?
• There are sections for "Architecture and urban theory", "Environment", "Guides, architecture, geography", "Planning, environment and autos" There is a great deal of overlap. Could these be restructured into: "Architecture, Urban Planning and Space", "Environmental Issues", "Geography and Guides"?

If this current structure is appropriate and I just don't understand why it is that way, please do let me know.

I also had a question about where it's most appropriate to place an item. For example, in Miscellaneous, there is an entry "Race, Place, and Reform in Mexican Los Angeles: A Transnational Perspective, 1890-1940". This could go under "History" or under "Race" (or both race and history).

(The Miscellaneous section as a whole contains just titles, they need to be filled out with information).

Thank you for your feedback.   // Timothy :: talk  10:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello! I am new to Wikipedia as of November. I have been working on a draft bibliography article here: Draft:Bibliography of works on Charles Taze Russell. There is still a lot of work ahead of me as there is a tremendous amount of content about him, but I would love to get some feedback on how it looks so far. Constructive criticism is welcome. Thanks! MomLife (talk) 17:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I have nominated Astrophysics Data System for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

She announced today that she is releasing a the book State of Terror on October 12. Elijahandskip (talk) 14:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Added to Bibliography of Hillary Clinton § By Clinton.  Done czar 03:50, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

anyone know what's going on here?--Moxy- 00:51, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Reywas92 does not appear to be a fan of country-specific bibliographies. These appear to come after a couple AfDs did not head in the direction of deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bibliography of Greece and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bibliography of Gibraltar. Should probably just be rolled back. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:08, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Fixing ping: Reywas92 — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:09, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I am not a fan of WP:Further reading sections pretending to be articles. There are all short and better presented within the main articles rather than cut off as separate pages. Content is WP:PRESERVED in the main article for greater viewership. Further reading sections are valid and useful components of articles, and there is no indication what these pages offer beyond such a section of the topic. These merges did not include longer bibliographies that would be too long for a further reading section. If further reading sections within articles seem like "spam", how is that any different from longer indiscriminate lists like the Greece page? Reywas92^Talk 01:13, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Compiling bibliographies is a major activity of historians and scholars here on Wikipedia. Simply not a fan of cutting and pasting of content before its evaluated in any way. Does this benefit the reader, is the content best we have info on, does it duplicate whats there already, is the format working properly..etc. Will take the time and review all the edits and fix all the problems.--Moxy- 02:12, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

These pages were mostly created by now-banned User:John Carter and basically ignored thereafter, so I don't see either contributions by historians or a benefit to the reader in them. He created them in bulk usually linking to Ebsco novelist plus, so I would love to know why he chose these books and what makes these pages a better resource for anyone than a simple search in Google Books or your library! Nor it is clear why scholars or readers would have issue with the same content in further reading sections. There's no evidence these were ever evaluated in the first place, that these are in fact a quality selection of books, etc – so if they're removed from the main articles if these are not in fact useful content that's fine! But forking a separate page is no better. Reywas92^Talk 03:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Best not to dump what you think is junk into other articles with zero evaluations to the merits of the inclusion. Don't fix one problem by dumping the problem somewhere else.--Moxy- 03:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

So is it junk or is it not? If it's junk, let's remove it altogether. If it's not, further reading sections are the optimal location for it. I merged under the assumption that it was not and would be preserved. I don't think it's a problem to provide curated names of outside resources in a relevant further reading section, but it is a problem to have an article that's nothing but that and isn't selective. Happy to work with you on this – what criteria do you use in determining whether a book that is not used as a citation should still be mentioned as further reading? Reywas92^Talk 07:07, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

What makes a bibliography notable enough to have a stand-alone article? I've read most of the documentation that I can find on it, but I'm suprised by some of the articles mentioned on this project's page. For instance, on the main page Bibliography of classical guitar and Bibliography of Jimmy Carter are mentioned, but the guitar article only cites a single source and the Jimmy Carter one doesn't have a single source that mentions bibliographies and only cites a few sources that mention Jimmy Carter wrote a few books himself. So my primary question is whether I only need sources that mention books have been written on the topic rather than a source that is a bibliography or a secondary source that mentions a bibliography. I read this, "For a bibliography on a topic to be notable, the members of that bibliography should be discussed as a group in reliable sources. This discussion may take the form of a published standalone bibliography on the topic, a bibliography in a published reliable source on the topic or recommendations for further reading on the topic published in a reliable source on the topic." but does that mean the authors most relevant to the subject or the books in the bibliography and does it explicitly have to mention the book titles or simply that the person is an author of books on the subject? Also, what if I have a book that cites a bunch of the other books in the bibliography? Does it count as a source if it includes it in a references section somewhere or does it have to be in the prose of the source itself? Can I use that as a source and as an entry in the bibliography or should I only use it as a source? For instance, A Korean minjung theology by Cyris H. S. Moon uses endnotes throughout the text with a section at the end of the book dedicated to notes. Can I reference this notes section as an independent and reliable secondary source? In the case of having prose that mentions books, Reading Minjung Theology in the Twenty-First Century by Yung Suk Kim and Jin-Ho Kim discusses at length the different texts relevant to Minjung theology in what Google books calls section 3"; can I use this as a member of the bibliography as well as an independent and reliable secondary source? TipsyElephant (talk) 19:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Also, if I'm writing a bibliography on a topic (i.e. Draft:Bibliography of minjung theology) what sources should be included? Does it have to mention the topic in the title or subtitle? If Google books says the subject of the text is Minjung theology can I include it? What if half the book is dedicated to the subject, or a few chapters, or a single chapter, what about a page, etc? TipsyElephant (talk) 19:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I am also unfamiliar with journal sources. If I search Minjung theology on JSTOR can I add most of those or does that subtitle under the author have to be specifically dedicated to the subject (i.e. the first journal article that comes up called "The Theology of Liberation" is apparently from the "Caribbean Quarterly"). TipsyElephant (talk) 19:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm posting here because I have nominated for featured list status a bibliography of articles by John Neal and this nomination is in need of reviewers. Otherwise, it may be archived due to inactivity. John Neal (1793–1876) is an amazing American writer who authored the first written history of American literature, the first notable critiques of American art, and some of the earliest feminist feminist essays by a male author, among other things. That nomination is here: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Articles by John Neal/archive1. If you're unfamiliar with reviewing featured list candidates, see WP:FLC before you read through the bibliography or make any comments on the nomination. Thank you in advance for your willingness to review the bibliography and comment on the nomination! I hope somebody from this WikiProject can help. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I've been working on List of bibliographies of works on Catullus, and I'm getting to be pretty happy with it. I know this is perhaps a bit unorthodox for Wikipedia; I don't quite think I've seen other metabibliographies as articles (please let me know if you know of others!), but topic bibliographies are welcome on Wikipedia, and I certainly think this article has well-defined inclusion criteria and is well-sourced. I know the logical step would have just been to write Bibliography of works on Catullus but I found this task to be much less overwhelming, however I still think the list of bibliographies is useful for Wikipedia and falls under its purview.

I've limited annotations only to what I could find in secondary sources just to be safe, curious if anyone has an example of an exemplary annotated topic bibliography I could compare this with, or any comments in general. I'm thinking about perhaps submitting it to Wikipedia:Featured lists at some point in the future, would definitely appreciate any feedback! I know there isn't much precedent for lists of bibliographies, but I definitely think that there are certainly multiple topics whose metabibliographies would be well-sourced and I think would benefit Wikipedia as a whole. Umimmak (talk) 18:55, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I’ve gone ahead an nominated it, would definitely appreciate feedback/reviews! Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of bibliographies of works on Catullus/archive1 Umimmak (talk) 03:31, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I recently published the article Bill Curtsinger. I had a bibliography section at the end of the article, but it was deleted because the editor thought it had resume qualities. The section that was deleted was a table that referenced journals and magazine articles that Curtsinger had contributed photographs to.

My question is, could I list these as a separate bibliography page like this? Bill Curtsinger bibliography or this? Annie Leibovitz. Or would I run into the same problem, that it's to much of a resume. And if so, I would be curious as to why photographs in the National Geographic or respected journals couldn't be included in a bibliography page. Do the photos themselves have to be notable on their own?

Any help would be greatly appreciated. Jake-jakubowski (talk) 07:21, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Usually dedicated bibliography on Wikipedia catalog major work, so I can see why a list of appearances of his work (i.e., contributions) in authored books, journals, film, might come across as résumé-like. If that stuff is pared out of your draft bibliography, the bulk of the content is the National Geographic appearances, so the question is would this list be notable as a List of Bill Curtsinger photographs in National Geographic? And that would depend on whether sources have discussed, specifically, the importance of Curtsinger's work within National Geographic, such that we would normally want to have such a list in the article itself, if not for its length. czar 15:56, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your response. I will take it under advisement. Jake-jakubowski (talk) 08:22, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

List of important publications in geology has been nominated for deletion. I'm hoping that editors at this WikiProject can help bring the article to an acceptable standard. — hike395 (talk) 14:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

There's a discussion going on at Template:Did you know nominations/Bernie Wrightson about what level of referencing is appropriate for a bibliography. I'm not an expert at that, and I don't think any of the people involved in the discussion are either, so if somebody who actually is an expert could stop by and lend some wisdom, that would be great. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:02, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Quality assessments are used by Wikipedia editors to rate the quality of articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:30, 9 April 2023 (UTC)