[WikiEN-l] A much neglected aspect of quality - Bibliographies

[Mak]

My point is not so much that we have no guidelines about bibliographies (or
whatever term you choose to append to a list of the best works on a
subject), but that many of our articles lack comprehensive and well-put
together bibliographies, and that this is something which could be fairly
easily done which would improve Wikipedia's usefulness by leaps and bounds.
It's an important aspect of encyclopedic quality which I think has been
neglected.

On 6/30/07, quiddity <blanketfort at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 6/30/07, Gwern Branwen <gwern0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > What bothers me is the unclearness of the idea of a 'bibliography'. ...
> >
>
> And to the whole thread. See/fix:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#Standard_appendices_and_descriptions
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28lists_of_works%29
>
> My recommendation (made somewhere, a while ago), is that
> "Bibliography" be recommended (as part of the MoS) only as a term for
> a subject's personal/collaborative works, along the lines of
> "Filmography" and "Discography".
>
> Everything else either is, or should be, explained at those 2 links.
>
> "Further reading" is indeed where the list of subject-primer-material
> should go, per [[WP:GTL#Further reading]].
>
>
> Note: [[WP:LOW]] was greatly expanded 3months ago. It used to be very
> (too) simple, but was easier to grok at a glance:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28lists_of_works%29&oldid=127215329
>
> Quiddity
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>