Talk:Monograph

message: The link to class in this article is ambiguous, however the class (disambiguation) page do not have a suitable substitute.  We will either need to create a new item on the disambiguation page or de-link this page.  --Wolfling 12:08, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I edited around this by replacing 'class of subjects' with 'group of related subjects'.  However, this does not address the problem that for a general class, in the sense of collection, the closest links seem to be class (philosophy) and class (set theory), neither of which is close enough. Michael Slone 03:37, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambiguous Link 

message: How did this term originate, mono means one, and graph could implie a statistical analysis of a certain subject. So mono-graph would seem to become an analysis of a single subject over a period of time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danleech (talk • contribs) 21:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How did this term orginate?

message: Would Annual publication and yearbooks be considered a monograph? John Vandenberg 00:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Annuals 

message: Please note that the barcode on this page is not a valid ISBN-13 barcode. All 13-digit ISBNs current start with 978, although the 979 prefix is likely to be introduced next year. 970 is not a "Bookland" prefix.
Brian Green
International ISBN Agency — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.139.34 (talk) 19:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ISBN

message: If you mention a monograph in writing, should the title be underlined, italicized, or put in quotation marks?  Frenchie16 (talk) 15:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Italics. Use quotation marks for chapter titles within it. Underlining is the obsolete typewriter equivalent of italics, and should not be used here. DGG (talk) 01:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to punctuate titles of monographs 

message: To me it is formal and concise, usually compendial.  See the below....
* http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=compendial+monograph&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=title&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_sdt=1.&as_sdtp=on&as_sdts=5&hl=en
* http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&newwindow=1&q=allintitle%3A+non+compendial+monograph&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=
--222.64.219.102 (talk) 07:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The properties of the monograph..... 

message: Longman Contemporary English-Chinese Dictionary:
An article or short book on one particular subject or branch of a subject (scientific, medical, etc.) that the writer has studied deeply  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.64.219.102 (talk) 08:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The definition of the term from ..... 

message: The Library Of Congress defines "multipart monographs" as something that can consist of CDs or audiocassettes:
"multipart monograph - A type of monographic resource issued in two or more parts (either simultaneously or successively) that is complete or intended to be completed within a finite number of parts (e.g., a dictionary in two volumes or three audiocassettes issued as a set). "
http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/mods-outlineChanges-3-4.html
(PascalC (talk) 14:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are monographs really only writings? 

message: The article says—via a citation to a link I can't access—that a monograph is a comprehensive account of a 'subject'. My reading of the term is that the work is about a subject [genus]. without intending to be comprehensive. A comparison might be a 'Flora', which purports to embrace the entire botanical subject (within regional, systematic, or other constraint). Is this a potential improvement or something I don't know? — cygnis insignis 16:13, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  biological monograph