Talk:William Crooke bibliography

Anthropology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Bibliographies Low‑importance

	Books portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bibliographies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bibliographies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibliographiesWikipedia:WikiProject BibliographiesTemplate:WikiProject BibliographiesBibliographies articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Mythology Low‑importance

	Mythology portal This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Requested move

FYI

– User:JCScaliger has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Pmanderson (blocked for another year for abusive sockpuppetry).

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. I believe the local consensus on Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies is to name the list of works by an author as John Doe bibliography. However, 70.24.248.23 has suggested a wider request for comment be held on the issue, which couldn't hurt to make sure the wider community consensus agrees with the local consensus. Aervanath (talk) 03:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of works of William Crooke → William Crooke bibliography – This article is an author bibliography, in other words, it is a list of published works by a particular author. In the Category:Bibliographies by author, there are 244 entries. ~97% of those articles are entitled Author bibliography. Per WP:PRINCIPALNAMINGCRITERIA of which Consistency – Does the proposed title follow the same pattern as those of similar articles? Many of these patterns are documented in the naming guidelines listed in the Specific-topic naming conventions box above, and ideally indicate titles that are in accordance with the principles behind the above questions. is policy and the advice given in WikiProject Bibliographies, the proposed title is better from a consistency standpoint. Mike Cline (talk) 16:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support- I am the major contributor (all but 3 edits) to the article in question. It makes sense to bring the title into line with the suggested, most widely used format for stand-alone bibliography articles. - Sitush (talk) 22:55, 20 November 2011 (UTC) Striking for now: JCScaliger makes an interesting point, and I need to have another think. There are > 80,000 "List of works of" articles, albeit some of redirects and some do not relate to authors. Although unlikely to be the case, there is even the possibility of some sort of deliberate process to "pick off" targets such that the 97% figure quoted by the proposer can be maintained & therefore be self-perpetuated. (No offence intended: I'm just working through the options here). Given that a redirect would still exist from current title to proposed revision, I need to figure out just how significant are arguments regarding semantics. Is there some sort of meta-discussion available regarding this general issue for bibliographies? - Sitush (talk) 05:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support in the format outlined by RockMagnetist below. I have cogitated, done some reading around etc & have in particular taken note of the discussion here. Bottom line: there is a method for avoiding the confusion that JCScaliger pointed out, and the bib word is more in keeping with the encyclopedic ethos of this project. - Sitush (talk) 21:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The present article is what I would expect to find at this title. The proposed title indicates a list of works about him. Unless the scholarship about Crooke is derisory - and I see no reason to believe that of so prolific a scholar - we should leave the proposed title for that article. JCScaliger (talk) 02:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~97% of the 246 articles in Category:Bibliographies by author are entited Author bibliography. A bibliography About someone is properly entitled Bibliography of author, the author being to topic of the bibliography, not the author of the works listed. Bibliography of Abraham Lincoln is a good example of this. --Mike Cline (talk) 02:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The distinction pointed out by Mike Cline is as clear as mud. Wikipedia should not be promoting ambiguously named articles for the sake of substandard current practices that make articles unclear in subject. The current title clearly delineates that this is for works by someone, not works about someone. The suggested title does not. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 07:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support If we follow the new recommendations that we arrived at in this discussion, there will be no confusion:

Books by an author: John Doe bibliography
Books about an author: Bibliography of works on John Doe

However, I think that the wishes of Sitush (talk) should weigh more heavily than those of us who have contributed nothing to the article. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- That only clears up the second case, the naming of the first case still leaves an ambiguous title. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 10:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support per WP:PRINCIPALNAMINGCRITERIA, both conciseness and consistency. Claims of ambiguity are unnecessarily pedantic in my view. --MegaSloth (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Tawney

The "Katha Sagara Kosa as translated by Tawney", can refer to either the Katha Sarit Sagara or the Katha Kosa (both translated by Charles Henry Tawney). I am not sure which one the article refers to, the romanization problem makes it hard to guess. Solomon 7968 09:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]