Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2023 October 18

= October 18 =

Italic title?
In the context of Tanya (Judaism), a religious book, should "Tanya" be italicised? The article's body has fifteen appearances with italics and eighteen without, plus occasional appearances in quotation marks. In general, titles of religious scriptures are written with normal text, like the Bible and the Talmud, while titles of ordinary religious texts (including the subject of this article) are italicised like those of other books. However, unlike most ordinary religious texts, this is always called "the Tanya" (not merely "Tanya"), like "the Bible" and "the Talmud", so maybe it doesn't need italics. Nyttend (talk) 01:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I think the presence of a definite article is mostly irrelevant, if this were always so (keeping in mind the differences between Hebrew and Chinese), the Analects or the Tao Te Ching would never be italicized! Remsense  聊  01:43, 18 October 2023 (UTC)


 * The rules are set out in Manual of Style/Titles of works. Alansplodge (talk) 10:57, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * But is this a "certain revered religious text"? Nyttend (talk) 02:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems to be a whitelist, not a blacklist sort of deal. If it looks really odd italicized, then maybe. If not, then it's not on the list. Remsense  聊  02:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Catalogue raisonné
Can I apply the term catalogue raisonné to a bibliography? Or is intended only for the visual arts? If so is there an equivalent term for an officially recognized list of books? Shantavira|feed me 09:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The term "catalogue raisonné" is used solely for visual artists (painter, sculptors, engravers, etc.) A list of books is a bibliography; it can contain (or be limited to) both books and articles by the subject, or about the subject. Xuxl (talk) 13:21, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * For a specific author, you could speak of his complete works. Pallida  Mors  21:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * A catalogue raisonné is a catalogue of physical objects, whereas a bibliography lists books in a more abstract sense — each of the entries in a bibliography might exist in the form of many physical copies. It seems to me that a catalogue of all physical copies of an edition of a book (such as a catalogue of all extant copies of the Gutenberg bible or Owen Gingerich's census of first and second editions of De revolutionibus orbium coelestium) might fulfil the criteria of a catalogue raisonné. Any objections? --Wrongfilter (talk) 21:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oeuvre. 41.23.55.195 (talk) 06:16, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * For music: Catalogues of classical compositions -- Verbarson talkedits 15:44, 19 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I have a different opinion: I don't see the terms bibliography and catalogue raisonné as remotely similar or comparable. On the one hand, many artists do not have a catalogue raisonné, as it is somewhat exclusive to the artists who sell the most expensive paintings in the art world, as it takes a great deal of time and money to authenticate, number, describe, and annotate a catalogue because many of the works may be found all over the world in different collections and in private hands.  And while it is true that such a catalogue raisonné is useful to academics and historians, it is mostly intended (or at least its original purpose was) to track, authenticate, and sell art.  On the other hand, all published authors have a bibliography, and anyone can put one together based on the widely available publishing information unique to each work.  Yes, some bibliographies go a step beyond and include unpublished work, so it can get complex, but bibliographies aren't used to sell books like a catalogue raisonné is used to sell art. Viriditas (talk) 17:36, 25 October 2023 (UTC)