This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology 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.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Caves, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of caving and cave articles 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.CavesWikipedia:WikiProject CavesTemplate:WikiProject CavesCaves
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Croatia 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.CroatiaWikipedia:WikiProject CroatiaTemplate:WikiProject CroatiaCroatia
Can't quite tell why this wouldn't be possible to implement as part of a Bibliography section at the topic article itself...? Joy (talk) 08:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Thank you for asking. In my opinion it would be fine in the Further reading section as the policies allow it, but unfortunately the majority opinion would be that it is too long as the guidelines don't. "Bibliography" is synonymous with Further reading unless the citation style is that used as substitute for inline citations, but to avoid any ambiguity I will use "Further reading" instead. Here is my reasoning:
1. Further reading problems. Although MOS:FURTHER says nothing about length, "long" Further reading sections are routinely tagged with {{Bookfarm}}, whose guidelines state "Most editors object to more than about half a dozen publications, but the best number for a given article depends on the specific circumstances, and may range from zero to more than a dozen." I have broken this guideline multiple times (most recently with Grmoščica which I will probably need to split off), but since in this case I am moving to mainspace an article draftified by a novice reviewer for notability while I was unavailable, I have chosen to adhere more strictly to guidelines.
2. Selected works problems. The Veternica (cave) article has a Selected works section, which can exist parallel to a Further reading section. Per WP:MOS-BIBLIO, "Complete lists of works, appropriately sourced to reliable scholarship (WP:V), are encouraged, particularly when such lists are not already freely available on the internet. If the list has a separate article, a simplified version should also be provided in the main article." One would think this would allow for a more comprehensive bibliographies in the main article. In practice this is sadly not the case. If no "selection" was involved, a comprehensive bibliography (such as this one) is unlikely to be left alone without lossy "pruning".
The solution is therefore a standalone bibliography in the style recommended by WikiProject Bibliographies, leaving the most comprehensive literary treatments of the cave in the "Selected works" section. The Single article bibliographies guideline there states, "If there are fewer than 10 possible entries in the bibliography, then those entries should be included in a Further reading section in the topic article." That has been followed in Veternica (cave), but since there are many more works on the of the cave, mostly devoted to a particular aspect, an additional standalone bibliography is merited. It has been organised topically, with the result that some of its 62 entries appear more than once. Since the "lead of a topical bibliography should establish the notability of the bibliography by citing at least two sources that demonstrate that relevant books, journals and other references on a specific topic have been discussed as a group," the lead of Veternica bibliography begins accordingly.
Support the idea of a merge, and a merge to Further Reading is entirely reasonable. Merging everything might well make the article too long, in which case the merge should be selective. My view is that the topic might meet the notability criteria for bibliographies in hr.wikipedia, but doesn't meet it in en.wikipedia because there are not notable English language bibliographies, so the reasons for merging include context and independent notability. Klbrain (talk) 17:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG states, "Sources do not have to be available online or written in English." Additionally, "Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language." The contents of Veternica (cave)#Selected works and Veternica bibliography are not identical. The former is a selection of the most comprehensive works on the cave, whereas the latter is a topically arranged complete bibliography. As pointed out above, "Complete lists of works … are encouraged … If the list has a separate article, a simplified version should also be provided in the main article." Ivan (talk) 18:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
