The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Result: No consensus.
The discussion has not reached a consensus, although there is a strong argument that the naming practices outlined by the OP are not satisfactory. "[Name], roles and awards" has unsatisfactory syntax because it has the appearance of a list. The same goes for "[Name] roles and awards", because it suggest types of roles and awards (the example used by editors of John Gielgud illustrates the problem well, because there actually are awards named after him but not won by him). "[Name]: roles and awards" and "[Name] on stage and screen" are syntactically fine, but neither seems supported by a clear consensus. I would say that, just IMO, neither of these sit quite right.
It was requested that, in the event of no consensus, the closer might suggest a way forward. I think a good way forward, which doesn't appear to have yet been explored, would be to look externally at whether there are established ways of saying the same thing as "filmography" when we are dealing with media other than film. A quick Google suggests to me that using the word "credits" is fairly standardised and is used, for example, in actors' CVs. So, we could have titles such as "[Name] filmography and stage credits", "[Name] radio credits" and so on. You could also have "[Name] filmography, stage credits and awards", although it should also be possible to include awards in the article without adding "awards" to the title, as many such articles do.
As seen in the Filmographies category, articles about a given actor's roles are generally given in the following formats:
[Name] filmography (the most common)
[Name] on stage and screen
[Name] on stage, radio, screen and record
[Name] on screen, stage, radio, record and in print
[Name] performances
List of [Name] performances
List of works of [Name]
List of creative works by [Name]
List of [Name] anime
As seen in the Lists of awards by actor category, articles about awards received by a given actor are generally given in the following formats:
List of awards and nominations received by [Name] (the most common)
List of awards and honours won by [Name] players while representing their national teams
An issue has arisen about the appropriate title for articles that cover both an actor's filmography and the awards won by that actor. Proposed formats include:
[Name], roles and awards
[Name] roles and awards
[Name]'s roles and awards
[Name] on stage, radio and screen
Performances of [Name]
Roles and awards of [Name]
List of roles and awards of [Name]
A series of titles using option #1 were recently created for John Gielgud, Ralph Richardson, Ian McKellen and Kangana Ranaut. This led to heated debate with many arguing that the comma is inappropriate. Various alternatives were put forth, as listed in #2 to #7 above, with varying levels of disagreement. Option #2 was regarded by some as an improvement but not ideal. Option #7 had the widest support of the alternatives, although the chief counter-arguments were that: (a) the name of the actor should come first (despite "List of..." formats being widely used and endorsed by WP:NCLIST); and (b) the construction "awards of" is inappropriate for awards won by (rather than awarded by) the actor. The margin of a !poll on option #7 was close and the discussion was closed as not having formed a consensus, preserving the status quo. Nonetheless, many editors will be left dissatisfied with the result. The closer suggested a centralised discussion, which is the purpose of this RfC.
As further alternatives based on the existing formats, I might suggest:
List of [Name] performances and awards
List of [Name] performances, awards and nominations
What is the most appropriate format for articles about an actor's filmography and the awards won by that actor? —sroc💬14:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC) [edited 14:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)]Reply
A separate question is raised when, such as in the case of John Gielgud, roles and awards (and this in the format [Name] on stage, radio, screen and record), we are not just dealing with a filmography, but an a career history, where only one aspect is the film roles protrayed by an individual. It may be sensible to also flag this discussion up with other projects - theatre television and radio. - SchroCat (talk) 14:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Personally , I think the format "List of [Name] performances and awards" or "List of [Name] awards and nominations" is best, if the article is more than just a filmography, otherwise "[Name] filmography" is preferred. I understand that the "List of..." format may not be agreeable to some, but it would be the most consistent. And I think that any use of punctuation is inappropriate, if the name of the actor is ambiguous, we already have a system in place for disambiguation (e.g. "List of [Name] (actor) performances and awards". Fortdj33 (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Fortdj33, you know there is an open discussion on this subject, so why on earth have you spent time moving a whole stack of pages before any consensus has been reached? It's very poor practice to take such steps before the discussion has had a chance to examine all the options. - SchroCat (talk) 12:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
For example, "[Name], roles and awards" may be interpreted as a list of three subjects covered in the article: (1) the actor by that name; (2) roles; (3) awards. "[Name] roles and awards" cannot convey this interpretation and is consistent with the established formats (e.g., "List of [Name] awards and nominations"). —sroc💬15:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Looking at the parameters set down in WP:NCLIST, which I think takes priority over the other interested parties in this discussion (such as film and bio), I think Fortdj33 and JHunterJ make the most persuasive arguments. I think the addition of "nominations" adds nothing to the title, since in the article it would hopefully differentiate between awards won versus nominations.Onel5969 (talk) 16:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Unfortunately this won't cover a number of the 'career history' style lists we have, which include things that are not performances, including interviews, personal appearances, etc. The format of "[Name] on stage and screen" was an attempt to get round this, although it is a format that is also criticised - as the move logs can demonstrate. Unfortunately some of the moves were undertaken by Fortdj33 after he commented here, but before any consensus was reached. - SchroCat (talk) 09:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Do not create subsidiary articles: Do not use titles suggesting that one article forms part of another: even if an article is considered subsidiary to another (as where summary style is used), it should be named independently. For example, an article on transport in Azerbaijan should not be given a name like "Azerbaijan/Transport" or "Azerbaijan (transport)" – use Transport in Azerbaijan.
Just to expand on the colon being used independently, there are a series of 'career history' books in the format "[Name]: A Bio-Bibliography" (around 200 of them), which are standalone works, having no "parent" work about the individual, or "sister" works of "[Name]: Private Life", or similar. Each book contains a potted bio of the individual in question, followed by a listing of that individual's career, much as our Gielgud, Sellers, Richardson, Lee, Le Mesurier and Jacques lists also do. - SchroCat (talk) 10:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
So what? Those are external books where titles with sub-titles may be employed for any number of reasons (e.g., to be creative, to create a more unique title to distinguish from other books, etc.). Wikipedia doesn't do titles like that. Per WP:CONCISE, we use succinct titles such as Agnes Moorehead, not Agnes Moorehead: A Bio-Bibliography.
I think you're missing my point here. I meant by "one interpretation of the use", that the inclusion of the colon does not turn the title into a de facto subsidiary article: there are other uses of the colon in titles aside from that. As evidence I showed you the two hundred or so in the "[Name]: A Bio-Bibliography" series. I'm not altogether sure I would identify the title element "A Bio-Bibliography" as a sub-title in this instance. If it had been just one work, then yes, almost certainly. But 200? That takes it from more than a sub-title to a substantial part of the main title. Your example above is a little misleading in that light (and absolutely nothing to do with WP:CONCISE). If I can change the names to clarify my point: Bernard Lee is our biographical article about the individual. Bernard Lee on stage and screen is the list of their professional output. These are different articles (I'm not sure why you brought up the Moorhead titles as an example, to be honest!) - SchroCat (talk) 09:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
I used Moorehead as an example because it was one of the first examples in the link you provided. The fact is that other publishers use their own titles to sell books. Publishers of biographies tend to put some effort into creative titles rather than just publishing them under the person's name. They might choose Agnes Moorehead: A Bio-Bibliography because it sounds more poetic than simply Agnes Moorehead; or to help set themselves apart from other titles such as The Films of Agnes Moorehead, I Love the Illusion: The Life and Career of Agnes Moorehead, (My Travels With) Agnes Moorehead – The Lavender Lady: (More Bewitching Than Endora); or for any number of other reasons. Their reasons are irrelevant to us at Wikipedia. We do not sell books and our articles are not in competition with others. Our guidelines clearly say to keep articles titles clear and concise, so our article on the actor is titled Agnes Moorehead; if we need a separate article for her filmography, we could use Agnes Moorehead filmography or Agnes Moorehead on stage and screen, but not Agnes Moorehead: filmography (nor Agnes Moorehead: private life) because the colon in these cases indicates that it is subsidiary to the main article (it logically serves no other purpose) and that contradicts WP:TITLEFORMAT. We might use Agnes Moorehead: A Bio-Bibliography for an article about the book with the same title (if the book itself were notable), but it is unsuitable as a title for the subject (the actor). —sroc💬15:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
"the colon in these cases indicates that it is subsidiary to the main article": could you provide something from the MoS that categorically states that this is the case? I disagree fundamentally that the presence colon automatically indicates a subsidiary article, and you've not shown anything from any Wiki policy or guideline to make me change my mind and nothing that shows in any way that it breaches TITLEFORMAT. Just for the record, I am not suggesting we use "A Bio-Bibliography" as a title format, I use it only to show that the colon can be used in a main (book) title, and not to signify a subsidiary. - SchroCat (talk) 15:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
By the way, you should note that the colon does not actually form part of the title in those books you referred to. If you look at the covers, the actor's name is the title (in large capital letters) and "A Bio-Bibliography" is the sub-title (in smaller letters). The cover does not include a colon. By convention, title and subtitle are represented as Title: Sub-Title (as shown at Subtitle (titling)). —sroc💬00:39, 19 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
"So what?", as you put it earlier: I'm struggling to see what the CSI or Star Trek have to do with a title of a Wikipedia page (except those pages themselves). I'd also not really rely on a Start class article (colon), or a stub (Subtitle (titling)) for any basis of argument here! Fowler's A Dictionary of Modern English Usage explains clearly enough "Delivering the goods that have been invoiced in the preceding words" show this is acceptable use. If you wish to argue that there's a different reading of that phrase, then Gower's The Complete Plain Words puts it thus: "To precede an explanation or particularisation ... For [this] purpose the dash is the colon's weaker relative." I'd go along with that, I think. - SchroCat (talk) 06:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
TITLEFORMAT instructs to "not use titles suggesting that one article forms part of another" - that sroc interprets the format to indicate the roles/awards page is a part of the main bio is prima facie evidence that said format "suggests" (at least to some) that it's part of the main bio. Parsecboy (talk) 12:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
I agree that this section of the MoS is fairly piss-poorly worded, certainly if it means one editor can block something, even when it is based on well-established and widely-used English style guides. - SchroCat (talk) 12:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
I'd hesitate to characterize it as "one editor" blocking something - presumably there are others who don't even know this discussion is going on who would interpret the title the same way. That's the problem, not necessarily sroc's objection. This isn't exactly the most widely publicized discussion, after all - I only arrived here after nominating an article at FLC and happened to notice the Richardson list there. Parsecboy (talk) 13:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Between us, sroc and I have advertised it at nine separate locations, as well as the main RfC page generating a link, so it's fairly widely flagged up. - SchroCat (talk) 13:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Right, and how much attention does the typical RfC attract? But I'm talking more about readers (whose opinions we will likely never know) than about editors. Parsecboy (talk) 13:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure how I'm "missing the point" (per your edit summary) - you talk about it not being widely publicised: it is, with it being lined into from over nine relevant locations (and only one of which is the RfC page). This is the first mention of readers, as opposed to editors, that you've come up with, so I presume you can see where there may be some confusion with what you're actually trying to say here! - SchroCat (talk) 13:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
The reference to readers rather than editors was implied in my statement about those who don't even know the discussion is going on - I should have been clearer. In any event, RfCs don't typically draw much attention unless they're highly controversial (and this one isn't) and/or if they have a watchlist banner (which this one doesn't), or at least that's been my experience. Parsecboy (talk) 14:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Right, it's not one editor. I'm in agreement with sroc that the comma there is ungrammatical except as a marker of article hierarchy, which is to be avoided. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
@SchroCat: You wrote: 'Fowler's A Dictionary of Modern English Usage explains clearly enough "Delivering the goods that have been invoiced in the preceding words" show this is acceptable use.' You have quoted this out of context by omitting the first eight lines of the sentence, disguising your quote as the start by the use of the capital "D" and obscuring the meaning of the phrase "preceding words", then claiming that this somehow supports your position "clearly enough" when it does not. The full text of the "Colon" section of Fowler's reads:
As long as the Prayer-Book version of the Psalms continues to be read, the colon is not likely to pass quite out of use as a stop, chiefly as one preferred by individuals, or in impressive contexts, to the semicolon; but the time when it was second member of the hierarchy, full stop, colon, semicolon, comma, is past; in general usage, it is not now a stop of a certain power available in any situation demanding such a power, but has acquired a special function, that of delivering the goods that have been invoiced in the preceding words; it is a substitute for such verbal harbingers as viz, scil., that is to say, i.e., &c.
The highlighted section proves my point: the colon reflects that the words following it explain or provide an example of the words preceding it. Thus, John Guilgud: roles and awards implies that "roles" and "awards" are examples of "John Guilguds".
Here's an explanation on the use of the colon lifted from The Australian Pocket Oxford Dictionary (the nearest resource to hand), which I quote in its entirety (omitting a reference to a section on the use of commas before quotations):
3 Colon (:)
This is used:
3.1 To separate main clauses when there is a step forward from the first to the second, as from introduction to main theme, from cause to effect, or from premise to conclusion e.g., Country life is the natural life: it is there that you will find real friendship.
3.2 To introduce a list of items (a dash should not be added), and after expressions such as namely, for example, to resume, to sum up, the following.
3.3 Before a quotation, especially when the break before the quotation requires emphasis..., e.g. Then he wrote these words: 'I have named none to their disadvantage.'
John Guilgud: roles and awards fits none of these uses.
Finally, you have not addressed the point I raised above that some websites do use the colon to separate the name of the website or sections of a website from their sub-ordinate pages in exactly the way that is contemplated (and rejected) by WP:TITLEFORMAT. It beggars belief why you would continue to push for such a format when:
the validity of this use of the colon in English (other than in Title: Sub-title format) is disputed;
the use of the colon suggests a sub-ordinate page (at least to my mind, and no doubt others, as is used on other websites) which contradicts WP:TITLEFORMAT;
it goes against the precedents for similarly themed articles (as set out at the beginning of this discussion);
Our efforts would be much better spent working towards a format we could agree on rather than endlessly reiterating our points of disagreement. —sroc💬13:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
By the way, in case you thought my example of Tumblr using colons to separate subordinate pages was obscure, I found another website that uses the same device: Wikipedia.
I'm afraid I can't see "Film: Revision history" anywhere on the page, even using a text search: perhaps I'm missing where it appears in your example... - SchroCat (talk) 14:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
It's the title of the page in large letters at the top of the screen and in the title bar of your browser. You know, where titles go? —sroc💬14:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
There's no need to be fucking snarky - that's hardly helpful. It also depends on your system, because it doesn't appear in my title bar, where the words "Revision history of "Film" – Wikipedia" appear. Happy to do a screen grab to show you that being a smart arse isn't always the best course... - SchroCat (talk) 14:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
The "Film: Revision history" page Sorry. That was uncalled for. I'm genuinely surprised it appears differently for different users. I took the screenshot at right while logged out, so I assume this is the default appearance. Do you possibly have some script changing the appearance on your screen? How does the "difference between revisions" page look to you? —sroc💬15:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Screenshot of the Difference between revisions page Thank you. This is how I see the differences page: the history page is in the same format in Explorer and Safari. I don't have any special script running that should change it (as far as I know) and it may be either a system thing, or a registered user thing - I haven't logged out to check. - SchroCat (talk) 15:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
How odd. The title is different, your colours are different and you have added features that I don't (e.g., "A C-class article... A delisted good article"; "[restore this version]" link), so I suspect there is something in your settings that's triggering all this. If you open the page in a "private" or "incognito" window, it should show you what it looks like when logged out. In any case, you can see my point that the colon is used to mark subsidiary pages on Wikipedia, even if it is not visible to all users (but it does seem to appear that way by default). —sroc💬16:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
You might also notice the use of the colon in the above comment: "I found another website that uses the same device: Wikipedia." Note that the text after the colon ("Wikipedia") accurately describes what came before it ("another website that uses the same device"). This might also be written "another website that uses the same device, i.e., Wikipedia" (as indicated by Fowlers, where the colon may take the place of i.e.). Put another way:
John Guilgud: a great actor is grammatical because "a great actor" describes John Guilgud (but this would not make a good Wikipedia article title per WP:CONCISE);
John Guilgud: roles is ungrammatical because "roles" does not describe John Guilgud (rather, the colon indicates a sub-ordinate page which goes against WP:TITLEFORMAT).
Another one, from Philip Howard, The State of the Language, Penguin, 1986, isbn 0140080864: "The colon marks a step forward: from introduction to main theme; from cause to effect; from premiss to conclusion; etc." Your "definition" of the colon isn't as cast-iron as you are trying to make it. As with mucg of the English language, there is flexibility in abundance, and trying to limit a piece of punctuation so much is not helpful. Either way, the colon is still not as appropriate in this context as a comma. - SchroCat (talk) 09:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Then we agree that the colon is not appropriate in this context. As I (and others) have said ad nauseum, the comma is not appropriate in this context, either. So why don't we invest our efforts working towards an agreeable format? What's wrong with "List of [Name] performances and awards", which is supported by Fortdj33, JHunterJ, Onel5969 and myself? Or, if an article needs to include interviews, personal appearances, etc., how about "List of [Name] appearances and awards" instead? I'm trying to avoid the awkward constructions combining "roles played by" and "awards won by" whilst preferring familiar formats consistent with existing titles (such as "List of..."). —sroc💬15:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
"Then we agree that the colon is not appropriate in this context." That is NOT what I have said, so please do not try and misrepresent my words - that's a shoddy trick. - SchroCat (talk) 17:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
(btw, repeating something ad nauseum doesn't make it right - neither does the weight of four people saying it: consensus wasn't reached that it wasn't appropriate, if you remember. - SchroCat (talk) 18:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
I've read all the posts in this thread, and when coming to a consensus, I find that the simpler construction is usually the best. I saw no compelling arguments to go with anything other than the most simple "List of [Name] performances and awards", so if I get a vote, I'm still voting for that.Onel5969 (talk) 16:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Except that for a number of the lists we are discussing "performances and awards" is misleading, as it doesn't take into account those productions where the subject has also directed, produced, written, etc, and may not have acted at all. - SchroCat (talk) 17:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Rather than saying "no, that won't work," could you suggest alternative wording along the same lines? If not "performances" or "appearances", then... "works"? (By the way, the current "roles" doesn't reflect interviews, personal appearances, direction, production, writing, etc., either.) —sroc💬18:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Well done on avoiding making an apology, or saying you won't misrepresent people again, but I have little expectation of such a step. As to an alternative, you still just don't get it. We are dealing with a number of slightly differing lists here, depending on the varying careers of those involved. There may be interviews, there may be directorial duties, there may or may not be lots of things, but the quest to crowbar these lists into anything more than a very, very loose generic title (along the lines of the "Bio-bibliography" book series) is going to end badly. My original attempt to overcome the problems on these was the Hattie Jacques on stage, radio, screen and record format, with the "stage, radio, screen and record" element being changeable and flexible, depending on circumstances. There has been, as I've said before, some opposition to this, so I'll put it to you: come up with some suggestions, and I'll tell you when you come up with something that isn't awkward and have something wrong with it. (And "Works" suggests that the individual has written them, rather than anything else). Before I get wrongly accused of something again, I'm not being obstructive: I actually create lots of content in this area, so if a landing can be made on a sensible, non-contentious format, than I'm all for it. - SchroCat (talk) 18:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
How about "List of [Name] productions and awards", that would cover ANY production the performer was associated with, be it as an actor, writer, producer, director, etc.Onel5969 (talk) 18:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
As per my answer above, it's not right: interviews etc wouldn't be covered by this. I'd also add that as a BrEng speaker, this is a cumbersome piece of English for me to face. I see it constantly on Wiki, and tut, thinking how American it looks. It's certainly not right for British performers to be saddled with such alien (for them) language structure. - SchroCat (talk) 18:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Well, you say "I'm not being obstructive", but you block every suggestion by shifting the goalposts and saying, in effect, oh, but you didn't think of this possible use that isn't neatly covered by your title, so no despite the current "roles and awards" wording not covering these examples either. When those around you are criticising the current title and agreeing on an alternative, your attitude of "come up with some suggestions, and I'll tell you when you come up with something" seems like claiming ownership of the articles. —sroc💬22:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
FFS, did you bother to actually read my reasoning above? Obviously not, and you've reverted to the twattish insult of ownership in an idiotic knee-jerk manner. As I've said above - just to clarify so that even you can understand it - I have had to deal with issues around these titles and have faced and can understand many of the issues you have not faced. That is not ownership, despite your very lazy way of thinking. Again, if you throw out suggestions, I'll explain to you - in simple words of one syllable - where there may be issues with those suggestions. It's not being obstructive, or claiming ownership, it's pointing out to you the simple bloody points that trying to force a one-size-fits-all format onto something that isn't "one-size" isn't as simple as you think it is. Now, come up with some constructive suggestions and stop being so bloody insulting and petulant. - SchroCat (talk) 22:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Wikipedia:No personal attacks? Stop being such a bloody hypocrite: if you insult me with such petty and stupid accusations of ownership - which is a personal attack in itself - then be prepared for people to react. I strongly suggest that you stop throwing unwarranted accusations at others simply because you don't understand some of the issues involved. I'll repeat what I posted earlier: come up with some constructive suggestions that are free from criticism and we'll all be happy, but you need to take on board that trying to force the one-size-fits-all format onto something that isn't "one-size" isn't as simple as you think it is. You really do need to try and look at some of the lists in question to think about how to describe them: consider what the content is, rather than trying to force an overly-simplistic title format onto something you don't understand. - SchroCat (talk) 23:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
I tell you what, as you were the one to instigate this RfC, and rather than just looking at a few of articles in isolation, why don't you go off and look at a large number of the articles under the range of titles you listed at the top of the discussion. Look at how the content differs from one to the other, what is and isn't included, what jobs are taken (actor, director, producer, writer, interviewee etc) across the whole range of titles, and in what media those various tasks were undertaken. Then come back and give us your opinion of what title or title format you think may or may not work. I think the extra legwork of you actually considering the articles in question may prove more constructive to you trying to crowbar various articles into a pre-conceived title. – SchroCat (talk) 00:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Accusations of ownership violations are not personal attacks; they are accusations about Wikipedia edits. SchroCat, please stop your incivility and personal attacks. (And no, accusations of incivility are also not personal attacks). -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Nonsense, but don't worry about picking up on sroc's incivility above, or commenting on your own mistaken interaction above: such a blinkered and one-sided attack from an involved administrator is always questionable and speaks volumes. - SchroCat (talk) 12:25, 29 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Punctuation helps resolve ambiguity so it's a little out there to say it's inappropriate without a complete explanation; what is "inappropriate" about making it immediately clear? There are many names that are adjectives, which is the reason to divide the name from the specification of what follows. ('Tricky roles and awards' scans poorly.) I guess I would say it's inappropriate to leave out a comma that is useful. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Cases where an actor's name is also an adjective need to be treated with added care and may need to be treated as an exception in the rare case where this arises. It is already a rare situation, AFAIK, where an an article covers a list of roles and a list of awards (otherwise we could use Tricky filmography or List of awards and nominations received by Tricky—as it happens, these are handled by Tricky (musician) so it is a moot point). The arbitrary insertion of punctuation does not serve to "resolve ambiguity" and can introduce new ambiguity. Punctuation is uses for specific purposes and we should be following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines in the format we use for titles. It is also unhelpful to insert punctuation where it doesn't belong to resolve some theoretical ambiguity that might arise in some other case (e.g., "We have to use 'John Gielgud, roles and awards' not 'John Gielgud roles and awards' because 'Tricky roles and awards' would be confusing"). —sroc💬01:30, 17 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
[Name], list of roles and awards; [Name], filmography
We already have well-established formats for "[Name] filmography", "List of [Name] performances", "List of [Name] awards", etc. Why then do we need to fabricate formats such as "[Name], filmography", "[Name], list of roles and awards", "[Name]: roles and awards", etc., which introduce punctuation where it is not needed. This goes against one of the principles in WP:NC: "The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles." Let's be as consistent as possible with the existing formats, not invent unfamiliar ones. —sroc💬16:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Whatever we do, can we avoid mixing "roles" and "awards" except where one or the other would not be long in and of itself? It hurts to see such dissimilar things lumped together (especially in cases where a single role receives 10 or 15 awards...). Personally I use the "List of [x]" format (though I usually focus on literature when doing this), but I believe we don't have to force everything to fit the same template. Rather, we should look on a case-by-case basis, as an individual's career may include aspects (say, audio recordings) that are not numerous enough to create a new list for, but significant enough to include in a list of their works. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Quite right. Perhaps there is some neutral terminology that we could adopt that encompasses roles and awards without having to explicitly specify both, such as "Career of [Name]" or simply "[Name] performances" (as we already have) rather than awkwardly jamming "roles" and "awards" into the title, these being quite different things. —sroc💬16:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
"Career of [Name]" suggests a biographical article to me, rather than a list. "[Name] performances" just feels wrong without some possessive involved. - SchroCat (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Separating a list into two separate lists seems like the right way to deal with this (avoiding cases #1–#3 and #6–#12a). Roles and awards are very different things. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Separating out into two pages strikes me as utterly counter-intuitive. Why would we separate the awards for roles from the roles themselves into separate pages? We just end up with a massive fork problem. And to do it just because there isn't a clear-cut title? That is no reason at all. – SchroCat (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
My concern is that there may be individuals such as Lupita Nyong'o, where one or more role has garnered so many awards that it would look absolutely terrible to have them all in one table, with the list of roles. Nyong'o's performance in 12 Years a Slave received something like 30 awards and nominations... can you imagine the table size required to list all of them? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
That's a judgement call for individual cases. I concur with SchroCat that splitting an article just because we can't agree on the perfect title is not a good reason to split the article. There might be other reasons to split such articles, but that's not the issue here. —sroc💬02:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Trying to bring this mini-thread back on track, these suggestions using "career" and "performances" were only examples to avoid trying to shoehorn "roles" (something done by the actor) and "awards" (something awarded to the actor) into the title. Any other suggestions? —sroc💬00:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Also whatever we do, we need to avoid using commas in titles except for things that are comma-separated. City, State, or John Doe, Nth Earl of Sandwich or Wile E. Coyote, Super Genius, but not John Gielgud, roles and awards or John Gielgud, list of roles and awards. The desire to have the search-box-predictive dropdown yield all of these articles is not paramount; that approach does turn them into subarticles, and is contrary to WP:TITLEFORMAT (and is ungrammatical, unless "roles and awards" or "list of roles and awards" describes John Gielgud as an appositive phrase). -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
The problem with that approach is that comma use differs between British and American use (let alone the other varieties), so try to force a rule around the comma may possibly run the risk of being grammatically incorrect in some form. John Gielgud, list of roles and awards is a case in point, of being grammatically correct in BrEng, but seemingly not so in AmEng. - SchroCat (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Can you describe the BrEng grammar that calls that correct, please? Is List of John Gielgud's roles and awards grammatically correct in BrEng? And so we have an option that works across English varieties? -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
"Is List of John Gielgud's roles and awards grammatically correct in BrEng?": yes, of course it is - I didn't think anyone had questioned otherwise? As to the other form, I've already shown the correct use in the previous thread, so there's no point going back over the same ground again. This thread isn't as much about that title as possible other ones. - SchroCat (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
To be fair, as much as you have repeatedly said that John Gielgud, list of roles and awards is grammatical in BrEng, I have not seen you (or anyone) demonstrate this to be the case (e.g., by referring to a style guide, grammar text, etc.). The distinction between BrEng and AmEng also ignores all the other varieties of English, by the way. Let's not get caught up in that again though, and instead look for a solution that we can agree upon. There are plenty to work with. —sroc💬18:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
When the John Gielgud list is inevitably featured on the main page (as indeed it should be, it's a good piece of work), what will the opening sentence of the blurb say? Obviously it's not going to repeat the title verbatim; will it say "The roles and award of John Gielgud..."? Will it be some other construction? Will it not mention the awards at all (which, given the list's title, I don't think would be the way to go)? Whatever the blurb says, why couldn't the article title just reflect that? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 09:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
We pipe many (possibly most, but I have not bothered to check) titles, both for front page mentions of FAs and FLs: this has never created a problem in the past, and I doubt it will do in the future. (And repeating "not grammatical" does not make it so: quote me a British English style guide that forbids the use and I will obviously concede the argument, but until you can do that, then please stop distorting your conception of BrEng usage). - SchroCat (talk) 13:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
I also doubt that this will be listed on theFP: the rather negative and misleading thoughts of some regarding this has blacked the talk page to such an extent that I, with a clear conscience, don't think that this should be flagged up on our main page for public viewing. Others may disagree, no think it should be, but the tactics used by some hardly deserve their moment of closer scrutiny. - SchroCat (talk) 13:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
It would be a shame not to feature this list simply because of disagreements on its talk page. As I've said, it's good piece of work, comprehensive, well-written, well-referenced, and well-illustrated. The one sticking point that people (including myself) have is the merely the format of its title. Literally my first thought when I saw it was that it violated Wikipedia's policies regarding article titles, specifically that we should not use titles suggesting that one article forms part of another (e.g. "Transport in Azerbaijan" rather than "Azerbaijan/Transport" or "Azerbaijan (transport)"). And although the policy makes no explicit reference to the use of commas, colons and pipes, the spirit of what it's saying suggests to me that "Azerbaijan, transport", "Azerbaijan: transport" and "Azerbaijan | transport" should all be avoided as well.
I'm certainly not denying that the link in the TFL blurb would be piped; my question is what the specific text of the opening sentence would actually be. As I understand it, article titles need to be usable in prose, and "John Gielgud, roles and awards" is not (at least, not without some rather clunky construction). Personally, my preference would be for "Roles and awards of John Gielgud" or "List of roles and awards of John Gielgud". OR just have "John Gielgud on stage, screen and radio", and not make reference to the awards in the title at all. It worked fine for Peter Sellers, after all... A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 15:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, ATD, I'm not sure of your point here: could you please clarify?The Sellers's main page appearance was indeed piped ('''[[Peter Sellers on stage, radio, screen and record|Peter Sellers's career on radio, film, television and record]]'''), and '''[[John Gielgud, roles and awards|John Gielgud's career on stage, radio, film, television and record]]'''... works just as well. As I've demonstrated elsewhere, this is usable in prose. - SchroCat (talk) 15:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure that it would work just as well, as, unlike the Peter Sellers list, the John Gielgud article includes "awards" in its title – it would probably be necessary to include that somewhere within the opening sentence, just so that our readers know exactly what article they're clicking on to. But that brings me on to my next point: does the article title really need to mention awards at all? The Peter Sellers one didn't, neither did the David Niven one, and nobody seemed to mind. I'm really not sure why "John Gielgud on stage, screen and radio" isn't on the table... We wouldn't have the ambiguous "awards of" phrasing, nor would it violate Wikipedia's policies regarding article titles. Would that not be a suitable compromise for everyone? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 07:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
Niven didn't because there was no table of awards (his awards were very few, despite his abilities); Sellers did win a lot, and there is a corresponding table of them. You are entirely correct in saying that the "XXX on stage and screen" format disposes of those particular problems, and to some extent that was the aim of introducing that format some time ago. It has been criticised frequently and well-meaning editors have tried to change the titles of almost all those articles at some stage - (normally to an inappropriate and misleading format, which has necessitated a reversion). I would be happy to see that format be accepted by all, but it is under frequent criticism and is often moved, which is pain to have to deal with. In terms of an FL blurb, I'm not sure it's a problem: a combination of good piping and a well-written summary can get round the issue. - SchroCat (talk) 09:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
(ec) Since the question as to how this is grammatical in UK English has never been answered (quote me a British English style guide that covers that use and I will obviously concede the argument, but until you can do that, then please stop distorting your conception of English usage), continuing to note that it is ungrammatical is not bully-boy tactics. There have indeed been too many negative and misleading thoughts of some regarding this. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:11, 13 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
Yep: thought not. The ball is in your court: time to put your money where your mouth is. Do you have something that backs up your claims, or can you only parrot and mimic the words of others? - SchroCat (talk) 15:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
Do you have anything to contribute here besides cliches and assumptions of bad faith? The parroting is just shorthand to reveal the problems in your "arguments". I earlier pointed out the grammatical uses of the comma (apposition, serial separation) that don't apply here. Now, kindly describe in grammatical terms the use of the comma in "John Gielgud, roles and awards". Or don't you have anything that backs up your claims? -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
Considering that over the course of two discussions you have lied, misrepresented and invented policies, are you, in any way, surprised that my well of good faith has run dry? Now that you are moving into parroting and generally obstructive behaviour, that isn't going to change too quickly, is it? I am currently travelling and will return to the UK in a few days, at which point I will consult my sources. Until then, I see you have still not shown anything that backs up your claim that this is not grammatical. - SchroCat (talk) 20:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
I have not lied, misrepresented or invented policies. Do you have something that backs up those personal attacks? Your well did not "run dry". -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
"Accusations of ownership violations are not personal attacks": yes they are, and it was something you failed to withdraw, comment on appropriately or apologise for when it was pointed out to you. That will suffice. And yes, the well has run dry, despite your continuing snidely (and very unnecessary) asides. Perhaps if you could drop those, for a start, this thread may become a little less heated. I will strike - and apologise for - the accusation of "misleading": that was a third party and not you. - SchroCat (talk) 02:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
"may appear" and "could be perceived as" is not the same as "are".[1]. Now, did you find this alleged grammatical description that applies to this comma usage or not? -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
If you consider your approach in that regard to be acceptable, then I think it best to just say we have differing views on how an admin should interact with others. As to the comma, I have already told you that I am travelling. As there will be a gap of a couple of days before I am able to post anything, perhaps in the meantime you could post some evidence to back up your oft-repeated personal opinion that it is "ungrammatical"? - SchroCat (talk) 12:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
Again? No, it's the first time you've actually provided a link to a guide. Unfortunately it's an Amercian one and there are entries in there that make me wince to read. I also note that despite some ocassions when it says the comma can be used, it's neither definitive, nor does it give any opinion relating to the use of the comma in this sense. I shall revert in good time. - SchroCat (talk) 12:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
Correct, it's an American one, and some evidence that the structure is ungrammatical, which is more than the evidence of your oft-repeated personal opinion (without any evidence) that it is "grammatical". -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
Being American it does not deal with British comma usage, which differs. As per the above, there is nothing in the link that you have provided that shows the comma use in question to be ungrammatical in any form, let alone in British English. - SchroCat (talk) 13:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
As per the above, please provide the corresponding UK English description of this use once your current travels permit. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
I've already said twice in the last two days that I will do so: there is no need to keep badgering me on the point. I will just reiterate that you have again failed to show any British English style guide that legislates against the use of the comma in this manner. - SchroCat (talk) 16:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
I've checked in all three editions of Fowler and all four editions of Gowers, as well as Partridge, Vallins and the Guardian and Economist style guides, and I can't find anything either pro or con this use in headings, which suggests that it is not an issue either way. Certainly Dickens used the construction – see Ch 11 of Pickwick Papers – and what is good enough for Dickens is good enough for me. Tim riley talk12:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
What's the Dickens quotation in question? Nothing pro or con means that the grammars that are describing how commas are used are unaware of this usage (i.e., that it's not how it's used) and also that this particular misusage isn't common enough to list in the cons. It, would, be, like, trying, to, cover, this, particular, misusage, of, commas; I, presume, the, grammar, also, does,n't, say, not, to, separate, each, word, in, a, sentence, with, commas, and, certainly, not, separate, the, parts, of, a, contraction, with, them. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:00, 16 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
Is there any chance that you can stop being so childishly pointy with your comments? To address the comment that really should not have been made, yes, it is covered, by the Economist style guide, who state that "Use commas as an aid to understanding. Too many in one sentence can be confusing." (Can I ask, what are "the grammars"? This may be an Americanism, as I've not come across this term before) - SchroCat (talk) 14:02, 16 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
Argument by reduction to absurdity is not childishly pointy. Is there any chance you can be civil and assume good faith? "Use commas as an aid to understanding" does not apply here, since it doesn't aid understanding (instead, it makes it less clear, since it makes it appear as if "roles and awards" is an appositive phrase describing John Gielgud). In "the grammars", it's "the grammar textbooks" (definition 3a from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/grammar). -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
If you stop with a rather bizzare and obdurate approach then I'll treat you how you should be treated: parroting comments and your multiple comma exercises above do fall into the "childishly pointy" category. As to the Economist "aid to understanding", that was not about Gielgud, as should be apparent from the context: it was in response to your question: "I, presume, the, grammar, also, does,n't, say, not, to, separate, each, word, in, a, sentence, with, commas": a sensible reading by anyone with a modicum of common sense would see that the multiple commas are covered by this. (as to "the grammars": thank you for your explanation, but urgh - what a horrific way to describe them. Is adding the word "book" or "text" after it so difficult to do?) - SchroCat (talk) 06:01, 17 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
Have you actually read Fowler, JHunterJ? A descriptive grammarian he is not. And of course, the Dickens that first leapt to mind is the famous inscription on the stone: "Bill Stumps, his mark", but it's a traditional English formation – see titles such as My Lord Chamberlain, His Galliard with similar examples down to Peter Maxwell Davies in the 1990s. – Tim riley talk15:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
As the expert on BrEng that you are, you may like to note the general view among your fellow scholars that the apostrophe first appeared in the sixteenth century to indicate missing letters in a word or words: o'er, 'twill, t' illume. This spread to possessives by way of an obsolescent Old English possessive singular es ending, which by the end of the seventeenth century was being written as man's rather than mannes (still simply a contraction) but gradually the apostrophe crept into all other possessives. Earlier they managed very well without: the title page of the Authorised Version of the Bible refers to the Kings Most Excellent Majestie, and see also the First Folio of Mr William Shakespeares Comedies, Histories, & Tragedies. So the attempt to equate his with apostrophe s is misplaced. – Tim riley talk16:14, 16 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
Indeed, I have been representing myself as a nonexpert on BrEng, which is why I need things spelled out instead of alluded to. I agree that the attempt to equate "his" with "apostrophe-s" is misplaced, but that leads to the conclusion that "Bill Stumps, his mark" is also out of step with current general view. Regardless, neither view supports "John Gielgud, roles and awards", which lacks both the apostrophe-s and the possessive. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
The point is the role of the comma, is it not? There is a transatlantic gap. We in England simply use the comma in some contexts more than you do in America. Most English writers would introduce direct speech with a comma, thus: He said, "Who are you?", whereas the American editors with whom I most closely collaborate tend to gravitate to He said: "Who are you?". Similarly an English reader is accustomed to seeing commas in the telephone directory serving the same sort of function as in the title of the article: Topic (name), sub-topic (activity or description).Tim riley talk16:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
Your understanding (or your American editors' understanding) of AmEng is a little off. He said, "Who are you?" is the AmEng construction as well (except in plays, screenplays, court transcripts, etc., where the "said" is dropped: He: Who are you?) . And yes, we have already noted that the comma might be being used to indicate a hierarchy like Topic (name), sub-topic (activity or description), which, if that's the argument here, would also be contrary to the Wikipedia guidelines of illustrating hierarchies in titles WP:TITLEFORMAT#Article title format, entry Do not create subsidiary articles. And would become Roles and awards of John Gielgud or List of roles and awards of John Gielgud. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:02, 16 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
I've just checked that bit of the MoS and (not for the first time) am a bit fogged. Putting the main focus first is basic indexing and layout technique (I speak as a retired librarian), and your two suggestions would drive a coach and four through that. I can't suppose that the guideline intends us to do such a thing, or all the "Aida discography" articles and so on would be taboo. Assuming it as common ground that the name needs to come first, the question is how best to separate it from the rest of the title. I have explained that the comma looks natural to an English eye; the absence of punctuation of some sort would look very peculiar. The question is, is it not, what should that punctuation be? Tim riley talk17:15, 16 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
Well, here's the rub. There are a handful of ways to write this kind of title; all of the ways that are consistent with any of the list title guidelines, the title format guidelines, the discography/filmography guidelines, and both American and British English have been opposed by SchroCat during the requested move. Instead, here we are, awaiting the reveal of the hidden knowledge of how this particular construct is possibly grammatical in British English, even though if and when that is revealed, the title still won't be consistent with any of the list title guidelines, title format guidelines, discography/filmography guidelines, or American English. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:10, 16 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
As I say, the construction is perfectly familiar to a speaker of the Queen's English, and I see no cause to alter it. In truth, I haven't properly read all the earlier, voluminous exchanges, but, as far as I can judge from a skim through, it seems a matter of one person's opinion against another's. In this particular case I'm afraid I can't share yours, but de gustibus, naturally. Tim riley talk19:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
It's two editors' preference against the other editors and the guidelines. WP:ENGVAR covers using constructions that are perfectly familiar across varieties, where such are possible (as here), so there's another cause to alter it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:14, 16 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
Two? The RfC on this garnered many more than that, which is why the attempt to change that page failed. As this RfC is about naming the "career history" pages in general, perhaps we could re-focus on that as actually being what this is all about? - SchroCat (talk) 05:01, 17 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
Well, as I say, I can't in conscience claim to have studied the full exchanges above with the thoroughness I'm sure they deserve, but I can spot only you and one other voice against the comma. I may be wrong on this point, but I certainly don't detect a consensus for change. As to alternative punctuation, and sorry if I'm asking you to repeat yourself, what would you recommend instead? Tim riley talk20:34, 16 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
While I agree that the discussion is long enough to break into sections, I'm not sure that the divisions that have been made adequately reflect the thread of the conversations that have taken place: the breaks are not in the right place and the bits of conversation are all over the place, way away from the titles that have been put in place where they weren't originally intended... - SchroCat (talk) 22:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
