Talk:Karina Fabian

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


The Bibliography section is tagged as better expressed as prose rather than a list. A Bibliography is inherently a list. Unless I get an explanation, I am going to remove that tag. --DThomsen8 (talk) 16:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is an example of a bibliography presented in prose. It gives context behind periods of time and literary styles. It might be passable, but it looks bad considering the preceding Awards section is also a list and should be prose. tedder (talk) 16:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps what you are suggesting is an annotated bibliography? It seems to me that plenty of author biographies have just lists, and often without ISBNs or other information even though that information may be readily available. --DThomsen8 (talk) 17:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I have to agree with DThomsen8 on this...I'm not clear on what the benefit of having this be prose would be, and, in my mind, there would be some significant downsides. More important, however, is what Wikipedia uses as a normal standard. In picking two 'a' lastnamed F/SF authors from my head (Isaac Asimov and Piers Anthony) I note that the bibliography pages for both of them are in list form, rather than prose. I don't know where a hard and fast rule is written down on this, but it makes sense to me. --Beska (talk) 21:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
There certainly is no hard and fast rule, but my issue with it is more the undue weight. In a longer article a list or two looks acceptable; on a stub it looks very much like a resume/CV. tedder (talk) 21:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)