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

[quiddity]

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