View source for Wiki143 talk:Naming conventions (lists)

{{Shortcut|WT:NCLL}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|
{{WikiProject Lists}}
}}
{{Copied|from=Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists|from_oldid=990735203|to=Wikipedia:Naming conventions (lists)|to_diff=992779302}}

==List of foo: A==

This seems to be the most commonly used format:
*[[List of people by name: A]]
*[[List of places by name: A]]
*[[List of acronyms and initialisms: A]]
*[[List of songs by name: A]]
*[[List of drugs: A]]
*[[List of books by title: A]]
*[[List of airports: A]]
-- Reinyday, 03:09, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

:I prefer List of foo: A as well.  I doubt that this will need to come down to a poll, but with little discussion as of yet one can't tell.  -[[User:Gtrmp|Sean Curtin]] 21:22, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
::If this is the most popular, then I'd say the consensus has already formed on this convention. [[User:Hiding|Hiding]]  [[User talk:Hiding|talk]] 08:08, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

==Spanning Lists==
While we're at it, we may as well discuss how to do it if the list spans categories:
::*List of foo: A-B
::*List of foo: A - B
::*List of foo: A to B
:I would vote for the first. [[User:Chuckstar|Chuck]] 15:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
:I will be using the first option on [[New Hampshire Historical Markers]] [[User:Jokermage|Jokermage]] <sup>"[[User_talk:Jokermage|Timor Mentum Occidit]]"</sup> 07:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
::Support the first. ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich ]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough| Farmbrough]]'' 20:55 [[25  February]] [[2006]] (UTC).
:Support first --[[User:Donarreiskoffer|Donar Reiskoffer]] 08:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

:Conflicts sharply with [[WP:MOS]]: en-dashes, not hyphens, are used to indicate ranges. Adjusted the text to account for this. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">[[User:SMcCandlish|SMcCandlish]]</span></b> &#91;[[User talk:SMcCandlish|talk]]&#93; &#91;[[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|cont]]&#93;  <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 00:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I was also thinking about a navigational template that would group like the buttons of a telephone:
*List of foo: A-B-C
*...
*List of foo: W-X-Y-Z
would work much better than the other proposed choices. So count me in for the first. --[[User:Francis Schonken|Francis Schonken]] 08:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

:{{tl|CompactTOC8}} has long since surpassed this; virtually everything about it is customizable. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">[[User:SMcCandlish|SMcCandlish]]</span></b> &#91;[[User talk:SMcCandlish|talk]]&#93; &#91;[[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|cont]]&#93;  <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 00:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

==Discussion over "List of mammals in (or of) ''Foo''" articles==
{{Resolved|1=Moot.}}
A discussion has started at [[Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)#List naming dispute: "in" vs. "of"]] about whether "List of mammals of ''Foo''" or "List of mammals '''in''' ''Foo''" is more appropriate. The discussion brings up broader points about how Wikipedia editors should name lists. Interested editors, please comment there. [[User:Noroton|Noroton]] ([[User talk:Noroton|talk]]) 21:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
:Actually, [[WP:CFD]] and various other fora have long settled this issue; it's "of", not "in", since "in-ness" can be temporary.  For example, if I bring a [[Chinese giant salamander]] to Texas for a week of exhibition, it is an amphibian ''in'' Texas, but certainly not ''of'' that area.  Anyway, this is why we have [[:Category:Politics of Germany]], not [[:Category:Politics in Germany]], and many, many other such categories and articles. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">[[User:SMcCandlish|SMcCandlish]]</span></b> &#91;[[User talk:SMcCandlish|talk]]&#93; &#91;[[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|cont]]&#93;  <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 00:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

== Substantive update ==

This was a good start, but it's just been sitting here not being improved and not keeping up with what's actually happening, and even in places conflicting with other guidelines.  I've overhauled it for all of the following:
*Typos and grammar fixed
*Unclear wording rewritten
*Ranting, excessively longwinded near-attack on a Bach article trimmed and toned down
*Missing basic advice added
*How NCLL relates to other guidelines explained
*Compressed redundant material into a simple-to-absorb preferred style
*Documented how exceptions have worked, and why
*Consistent style used in the guideline prose
*Removed self-contradiction
*Updated for more capable templates
*Fixed abuse of tables and other markup
*Toned down the constant use of bold and italics
*Many usability points added
*Reduced off-topic chatter
*Linking and crossreferences added
*Better sectionalization performed
*Improved logic flow
*More of an intro written
*Directly deprecated ambiguous and otherwise user-hateful naming style
*Lots more.

If there are any substantive objections to anything, please discuss it here rather that going on some blanket revert. This was a lot of work, and I think every aspect of it can stand (or be challenged) on its own merits. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">[[User:SMcCandlish|SMcCandlish]]</span></b> &#91;[[User talk:SMcCandlish|talk]]&#93; &#91;[[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|cont]]&#93;  <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 00:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

:[[WP:Article series]] was a closely-related guideline, then was demoted and marked as disputed in May, then was recently re-promoted, and I reverted back down to essay.  Folks agree it's not ready for primetime, and there's overlap with this page.  This is material I'm not familiar with, but I thought I'd pass this along in case you want to grab any material from there.  One editor indicated he may work on that page and try to re-promote. - Dan [[User:Dank55|Dank55]] ([[User talk:Dank55|send/receive]]) 01:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
::Probably worth working on. I don't see much that is useful to port into here, since this is an NC page, not a style or content guide. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">[[User:SMcCandlish|SMcCandlish]]</span></b> &#91;[[User talk:SMcCandlish|talk]]&#93; &#91;[[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|cont]]&#93;  <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 10:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

::I see Francis substituted the current version of the example article for McCandlish's specific version; Francis makes a good point that the issues seem integral to the article as it currently stands, but even if it's okay here, I think it sets a bad example to use a moving target as an example for a naming convention.  Thoughts? - Dan [[User:Dank55|Dank55]] ([[User talk:Dank55|send/receive]]) 13:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Agreed.  Two problems with doing this (one of which I tried to address by linking to a specific version of the article, and the other by toning down the assault a bit) is that the example will be invalid eventually, as the article is improved, and also that the editors of the article are likely to feel that their work is being attacked and made an example of. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">[[User:SMcCandlish|SMcCandlish]]</span></b> &#91;[[User talk:SMcCandlish|talk]]&#93; &#91;[[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|cont]]&#93;  <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 10:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

== Naming conventions for lists ==

A discussion has been opened at [[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions#Naming conventions for lists]] regarding the titles of lists. It is there so there isn't two threads here and at [[Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists]]. [[User:Matthewedwards|Matthewedwards]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Matthewedwards|talk]] <small>•</small> [[Special:Contributions/Matthewedwards|contribs]]&nbsp;<small>•</small> [[Special:Emailuser/Matthewedwards|email]]) 21:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

== Proposed move and merge ==
{{Discussion top|result=The result of this discussion was '''articles merged'''. [[User:WhirlWithoutEnd|WhirlWithoutEnd]] ([[User talk:WhirlWithoutEnd|talk]]) 00:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)}}
I propose moving this to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (lists), WP:NCLIST, and merging in the naming-related material from [[WP:SAL]], since that is a style guideline. There is already a section here on lists in general, so that is where this material would go.  WP:NCLL and its longer name would redirect to the new name. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">[[User:SMcCandlish|SMcCandlish]]</span></b> &#91;[[User talk:SMcCandlish|talk]]&#93; &#91;[[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|cont]]&#93;  <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 22:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
:Sounds good. - Dan [[User:Dank55|Dank55]] ([[User talk:Dank55|send/receive]]) 23:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
::I'd support that. It's ridiculous that there is more than one page dealing with this and that have different guidelines. Do you propose adding something along the lines of what was said at [[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions#Naming conventions for lists]]? I'd support that, too. [[User:Matthewedwards|Matthewedwards]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Matthewedwards|talk]] <small>•</small> [[Special:Contributions/Matthewedwards|contribs]]&nbsp;<small>•</small> [[Special:Emailuser/Matthewedwards|email]]) 05:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Yes, go for it. Plus, I think that this page needs some improvements. [[User:Eklipse|Eklipse]] ([[User talk:Eklipse|talk]]) 12:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
:This got forgotten about; someone just re-tagged the section [[MOS:SAL#Naming conventions]] for merge here. I don't see any objections in over 3 years, so I suggest we proceed before we forget again!  :-)  I volunteer to sandbox a merged page. — <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;">'''[[User:SMcCandlish|SMcCandlish]]'''  &nbsp; <span style="white-space:nowrap;">[[User talk:SMcCandlish|Talk⇒]]〈°⌊°〉</span> <small>[[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|Contribs]].</small></span> 04:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
::I would not merge it into to WP:NCLL... as that is explicitly for ''long'' lists.  I would create a new guideline [[WP:Title conventions (lists and indexes)]] (I suggest "Title conventions" to bring it into line with the policy, [[WP:Article titles]]... we really should get rid of the term "''naming'' conventions" completely, but one step at a time.) [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 15:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
{{Discussion bottom}}

== Splitting up a long list into sub-lists - comments welcome ==

Comments are invited on whether the very long [[List of alumni of Jesus College, Oxford]] should have sub-lists created, and if so, how.  The discussion is at [[Talk:List of alumni of Jesus College, Oxford#Time to split into sub-lists?]]. [[User:Bencherlite|Bencherlite]][[User talk:Bencherlite|<i><sup>Talk</sup></i>]] 07:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

== "List of foos: People" or "List of foos: people"?==
At [[WP:FLC]], some discussions have recently taken place on whether a sub-list should use a capital letter after the colon or inside the bracket (e.g. whether it should be a capital "p" in "List of foos (People)" or "List of foos: People").  The examples given on the convention page here would seem to suggest that the capital letter is to be used even when the sublist does not start with a proper noun e.g. "List of foos: Physics and chemistry".  The discussions arise, in part, from my previous (unanswered) post on this page, directly above, but have arisen in other list discussions too.  Are people happy that the convention is accurate, or should only proper nouns take a capital letter, for grammatical accuracy? [[User:Bencherlite|Bencherlite]][[User talk:Bencherlite|<i><sup>Talk</sup></i>]] 00:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
:I believe the statements made at [[Colon_(punctuation)#Use_of_capitals]] are correct regarding sentence case after colons, and I've also checked in reference books I have that are not used to reference the article, which back up those statements. Page titles should absolutely follow the correct grammar of the English language. They are the first thing people read; if we can't even get that right, what the hell is wrong with us? <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">[[User:Matthewedwards|<b>Matthewedwards</b>]] : [[User_talk:Matthewedwards|<span style="color:#accC10; background:#0000fa;">&nbsp;Chat&nbsp;</span>]] </span></small> 05:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

::Real example=[[List of United States Military Academy alumni (Superintendents)]]. Should S be upper or lower? I say upper as Superintendent of the Academy is an official position. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — [[User:Rlevse|<b style="color:#060;"><i>R</i>levse</b>]] • [[User_talk:Rlevse|<span style="color:#990;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 09:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
:::I would agree with that. [[User:Bencherlite|Bencherlite]][[User talk:Bencherlite|<i><sup>Talk</sup></i>]] 19:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

== Name suggestions requested ==

[[List of World War I flying aces]] is being cut up into more manageable sublists, but so far the sublists don't have what I consider to be the best names ([[World War I aces credited with 5 victories: Names beginning with G - Q]] for example). Are there any suggestions for more proper titles? - [[User:Trevor MacInnis|Trevor]] [[User talk:Trevor MacInnis|MacInnis]] <small>([[Special:Contributions/Trevor MacInnis|Contribs]])</small> 05:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

== Arbitration request ==
Please could we have a third party rule on which of the following is preferred:
* [[Table of muscles of the human body: Torso]] 
* [[Table of muscles of the human body: torso]]
See [[User talk:Skittleys#Spurious caps]]. &mdash; [[:User:RHaworth|RHaworth]]&nbsp;{{toolbar|separator=dot|[[:User talk:RHaworth|talk]] | [[:Special:Contributions/RHaworth|contribs]] }} 18:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

== Football player lists when split ==

An RfC has begun on the [[WT:FOOTY#Name of football player lists]] page regarding proper naming. [[User:Sandman888|Sandman888]] ([[User talk:Sandman888|talk]]) 19:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
== [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion|Nomination for deletion]] of [[Template:List of Arcade Video Games Navbox]] ==
[[File:Ambox warning pn.svg|30px|link=]][[Template:List of Arcade Video Games Navbox]] has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:List of Arcade Video Games Navbox|the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page]].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> [[User:Frietjes|Frietjes]] ([[User talk:Frietjes|talk]]) 17:38, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

== List of symphonies by number example (Special cases section) ==

See [[Template talk:Symphonies by number and name#Disambiguation pages?]]. --[[User:Francis Schonken|Francis Schonken]] ([[User talk:Francis Schonken|talk]]) 14:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

== Missing advice: Don't create a "master" page for a split list without significant content ==

Some narrow advice on this been in [[MOS:GLOSSARIES]] for years, but is missing here at the more general guideline. This proposed text is for the "Long (split) list naming recommendations" section, and should go immediately above "Models (see examples below)".

{{block indent|1=
Wikipedia should usually not have an article at "List of {{var|foos}}" and also have "List of {{var|foos}}: A-C", "List of {{var|foos}}: D-F", etc.
* If the page centralizes significant and lengthy introductory information that is not practical to include in all the sub-articles, it is permissible to have a "List of {{var|foos}}" index article for the list series; otherwise this title should redirect to the first article in the series (e.g. "List of {{var|foos}}: A-C" in this example).
* If the page [[Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Lists of lists|indexes a complex series of list articles]] arranged sectionally or with names that do not form a single series, it should be at "Lists of {{var|foos}}" or a similar title {{crossref|(see [[:Category:Lists of lists]])}}.
* If the page provides significant background, historical, or other non-list (and not just list-introductory) material, then it should be merged into the main article for the topic (or become that main article in absence of one), at "{{var|Foo}}", or at "{{var|Foo}} ({{var|disambiguating term}})" if necessary.

Main articles on topics should prominently link to the related list series. How to do so depends on context; examples include a [[Wikipedia:Summary style|summary-style]] section and {{tlx|main list}} template; in a [[Wikipedia:Infobox|infobox]] parameter for certain types of lists (episode lists, discographies, etc.); in the [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#"See also" section|"See also" section]]; in a [[Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Navigation templates|Navbox]]; by working a [[Wikipedia:Piped link|piped link]] to the list into the regular article prose; or a combination of any of these.
}}
[End of proposed addition.]

This represents actual practice, so it should be in the guideline (some additional copyediting notwithstanding). <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] &gt;<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>&lt; </span> 14:56, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
:{{re|SMcCandlish}} I was just wondering about this, and this post is the most relevant discussion I could find. When split lists use a parenthetical qualifier, or even the preferred colon format, it suggests ''something'' should be at the base name. Normally this would be a dab page, but the base term isn't ambiguous per se, it's just been split into different locations. For instance, I see for the New Hampshire historical markers example, there is nothing at [[List of New Hampshire historical markers]]. This page should either contain or be a redirect to a place where the various sub-lists are listed. In this case, it should obviously be a redirect to [[New Hampshire historical markers#List of markers]] (I will create this shortly). If no such target exists, perhaps a "Lists of Foo" should be created with the list of sub lists, and then the "List of Foo" base term redirected there. I can see how redirecting to the first list could be a reasonable alternative, but then there is not easy navigation to the other lists (at best, there is a link to the next list in the order, or you must scroll down to a template at the bottom of the page). Anyway, just interested in your thoughts, as it does seem like there should be some guidance on this to ensure something exists at the base list name that offers navigation to the sublists. [[User:Mdewman6|Mdewman6]] ([[User talk:Mdewman6|talk]]) 02:28, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
::Sure, that sounds reasonable, and could be worked into the proposed advice. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 18:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

== Renaming pages that start as "List of Vietnamese people" or "list of people from Wyoming" ==

My pinch of salt would be that these articles titles are funny... like "look guys we have the complete list of people from Wyoming" and so I wanted to ask if anyone was planning to change the titles to "List of notable people from [location]" or is it an unspoken tradition on Wikipedia to name it like the way it is.

The above proposal was copied from the [[Wikipedia:Teahouse]] where i was advised to suggest it here if I wanted to.
[[User:LostCitrationHunter|LostCitrationHunter]] ([[User talk:LostCitrationHunter|talk]]) 18:22, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

== Collection, bundles and lists ==

Hi fellow Wikipedians, I find the page [[List of lists of lists]] rather confusing to read and navigate. What if we were to stop calling articles <code>List of...</code> or <code>Lists of...</code> and started naming these articles containing one and multiple lists <code>List:Any title</code> and <code>Bundle:Any title</code> respectively, and, what if we were to rename <code>List of lists of lists</code> to <code>Collection:Wikipedia articles</code>?

Then the [[hierarchy]] between these concepts would be the following: ''multiple lists make a bundle'' and ''multiple bundles make a collection''. In other words, <code>Collection:Wikipedia articles</code> would then contain a multitude of <code>Bundle:Any title</code>s. A <code>Bundle:Any title</code> page would contain a bunch of <code>List:Any title</code>s, and lastly, a <code>List:Any title</code> page would consist of traditional [[prose]] articles (without the <code>:</code>-notifier).

It will of course take quite some time and effort to rename all these pages, but it may result in less [[ambiguity]] and more clarity, at least that's what I expect. To anyone reading this, what is your opinion on this matter? [[User:Infogiraffic|Infogiraffic]] ([[User talk:Infogiraffic|talk]]) 16:01, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

== Second-round RfC on titles of TV season articles ==

{{FYI|pointer=y}}
Please see [[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Follow-up RfC on TV season article titles]]. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 21:54, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

== Fixing disambiguation confusion ==

'''Proposal:''' Move the "Foo (bar)" format to the list of deprecated formats for the naming of split-up long lists, so we have an approved list of "Foo: bar", "Foo, bar", and "Foo – bar". Using the exact same "Foo (bar)" format as parenthetical disambiguation is confusing and weird, and we have literally no need of any kind to do that (plus the affirmative reason to not do it that some things actually need both parenthetical disambiguation and a split-long-list designation).

So we should just deprecate it, and then move any oddball split-list articles using that format to one of the other formats (presumably "Foo: bar" since it's listed as preferred). 

PS: The use of this kind of "pseudo-disambiguation" for split-long lists has already been deprecated at [[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)]], where it was historically used for split-by-season episode lists (though which of the other format to switch to is still under discussion in a followup RfC). <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 22:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

:So far, the TV RfC is supporting "Foo bar" without punctuation, rather than any of the options listed here. [[User:Certes|Certes]] ([[User talk:Certes|talk]]) 11:24, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
:Can you give some examples? —[[User:Swpb|<u>swpb</u>]]<sup>[[User talk:Swpb|T]]&#8201;•&#8201;[[WP:BEYOND|beyond]]&#8201;•&#8201;[[WP:MUTUAL|mutual]]</sup> 15:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
::Of what? Nothing in this is dependent on any examples of anything. It's simply not useful for us to use "{{var|Foo}} ({{var|bar}})" format to mean both "{{var|Foo}}, disambiguated as a sort of {{var|bar}}" and "{{var|Foo}}, a list, split up in this case into a section called {{var|bar}}". There's just nothing helpful to anyone about doing that, and we already have multiple permissible other formats for list splitting. If you need some kind of examples, see the TV discussion already referred to, in which various people spent weeks in confused argument about whether split lists of episodes were in fact a form of disambiguation rather than split lists. If the confuses even "expert" editors, it is obviously going to confuse casual readers. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 07:10, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

== Credit lists ==
After having a look at the different naming conventions used throughout [[:Category:Filmographies by country]], it appears there are various way that people are choosing to title such lists. The predominant usages are "''Name of actor'' filmography", "List of ''Name of actor'' performances" and "''Name of actor'' on screen and stage". Is there any kind of consensus on a preferred name? I ask as right now it is confusing me on what you should call such a list. There's no consistency or pattern that I can see, it just feels random. If there is no consensus that anyone is aware of, can we reach one? – [[User:Meena|Meena]] • 17:49, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
:Not to say there are "outliers", such as [[List of roles and awards of Marcia Cross]].  --[[user:Altenmann|Altenmann]] [[user talk:Altenmann|>talk]] 18:13, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
::You should reword this in the form of "Do you support (1) ''Name'' Filmography, (2) List of ''Name'' performances, (3) ''Name'' on screen and stage, or (4) none of the above.  Then people can vote, and add a discussion section below for more discussion. -- [[User:Ssilvers|Ssilvers]] ([[User talk:Ssilvers|talk]]) 03:37, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
:::They actually did this better. First, start a discussion so people can actually {{em|talk}}, then if the discussion reaches some kind of conclusion that can be used in the RfC. [[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 09:25, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
::::Thank you {{U|Gonnym}}. I wanted to know if there was a reason for naming differences prior to starting a rename discussion. {{smiley}} I obviously have my preferred option but didn't want to put that forward just yet. We've not had much traction on this discussion thus far but I can't seem to find any logic behind the different naming conventions. – [[User:Meena|Meena]] • 10:40, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
*Generally, if the actor has only done film roles prominently: filmography; if they appear on TV/stage: screen and stage; if they play characters in other avenues (such as VA): performances; and if their filmography and awards are in that zone of "too small to be standalone articles but crowd the main article": roles and awards. I do not see a need to enforce uniformity here. We can decide on a case-by-case basis. [[Special:Contributions/2001:8F8:172B:44C4:24F9:A4BE:B0DC:915C|2001:8F8:172B:44C4:24F9:A4BE:B0DC:915C]] ([[User talk:2001:8F8:172B:44C4:24F9:A4BE:B0DC:915C|talk]]) 19:10, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
*:I do feel there should be a level of uniformity though. My proposal was going to be the lesser seen "''Name of actor'' credits" ([[Kristin Chenoweth credits]] as an example), since all forms of entertainment, whether it be TV, film, stage, radio, etc lands in a credit. I also don't wholeheartedly agree with the merger of awards and credits into one list, but that's a discussion for another day. – [[User:Meena|Meena]] • 20:49, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
*::I don't think uniformity is important here, but among the three you suggest, for an actor who does films and/or TV as well as theatre, I prefer ''Name'' on stage and screen. -- [[User:Ssilvers|Ssilvers]] ([[User talk:Ssilvers|talk]]) 05:22, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
*:::I suggested "List of -- credits" as "on stage and screen" does not account for radio/video game roles, whereas credits includes anything that could be listed. – [[User:Meena|Meena]] • 11:19, 12 February 2025 (UTC)