Talk:Monograph

Ambiguous Link

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)

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)

How did this term orginate?

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?

• Graph means "writing". Monograph thus means "writing" about "one" thing. -- Worrydream 20:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Annuals

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

No. Must be on a single subject, often a person, and also normally by a single author. Johnbod 21:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

ISBN

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

How to punctuate titles of monographs

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)

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)

The properties of the monograph.....

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)

The definition of the term from .....

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)

Are monographs really only writings?

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))

From online dictionaries

• http://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/monograph
• http://www.collinslanguage.com/results.aspx

--222.64.219.102 (talk) 08:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/monograph

--222.64.219.102 (talk) 08:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=51681&dict=CALD&topic=papers-and-compositions

--222.64.219.102 (talk) 08:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Article Fails to Clearly Define the Term

It's a very muddled and vague description. The quality of the explanation needs work.

24.9.117.18 (talk) 01:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, how does a monograph differ from a "book"? Intuitively, I have found this definition useful in describing books of a shorter length or pamphlets dealing with a subject matter in a more cursory or skeletal fashion than a larger volume on the same subject, biographies for example. Less ornate syntax and the absence of corollary facts and "color" than what might be found in a more developed treatment of the same subject is what I have also noticed.

Self published works on geneology and local history or brief treatises on technical subjects fall into this category. To say, however, that monograph is a simply a work on a single subject begs the point as by that token most books, particularly biographies, would fall into that category. Thus I think it is more of a qualitative distinction. For example, the short biography of Joseph Kennedy by David Koskoff written as his master thesis at Yale could be characterized as a monograph, but the term would be inappropriate for a more ornate and scholarly work like one of the biographies of Ron Chernow (or Koskoff's later works); or to take an extreme example, Sandburg's magnum opus on Lincoln. In short, monograph suggests a work of lesser stature than a book on the same topic. Tom Cod (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, the opening paragraph is extremely confusing. There are clearly subtleties and variations in usage, but at the moment the way these are added to the initial description leaves the reader lost. (Later: OK, that opening annoyed me enough that I have now written new opening paragraphs and ditched the confusing stuff about the relationship between monographs and textbooks.)

biological monograph

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)