<HTML><BODY style="word-wrap: break-word; -khtml-nbsp-mode: space; -khtml-line-break: after-white-space; ">Noble Cousin!<DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>Greetings from Solveig!</DIV><DIV><BR><DIV><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">And we should note that there's going to be a 120 word max now</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">on bibliographies. This has to be added to the bibliography format page.</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV>This is scandalous! If you are to limit bibliographies to 120 words total, then you </DIV><DIV>might as well dispense with them altogether. TI tends to be one of the more </DIV><DIV>worthless publications of the Society anyway.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">"The bibliography/sources/endnotes is/are limited to 120 words. In order to allow interested members to get the complete information, authors are asked to supply the additional information to the Corporate offices to keep on file for requests and (if available) list their e-mail address as a contact."</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV>This is extremely inefficient, burdens the corporate office, and is a major obstacle to obtaining bibliographic information. Further, it impedes proper attestation of sources in TI articles.</DIV><DIV><BR><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">I personally think this means that sources should be divided into major sources and then further reading sources that are available through the publications office or from the author via e-mail?</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV>Highly unreliable. Authors die.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">What do you think?</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV>BARF!</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">By the way MS Word counts a website as one word no matter how long or how many words it contains.</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV>In general, DOUBLE BARF! Most web pages are unstable. Many stable web pages are unreliable.</DIV><DIV>In general, WEB pages should be avoided in documentation. There are some notable exceptions</DIV><DIV>such as the Japanese Text Initiative, Project Guttenberg, &c.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">If anyone is willing to review it, here are my notes: It is close to MLA with the exception of underlining being converted to italics, and other typographical preferences. I did delete one item on the web-page listing (date reviewed) because TI has such a long life span (and articles can be in the files for years before being published) that the point is moot. The creation date should be enough. Also, if the abbreviations section needs to be amplified, please let me know.</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV>MLA is overrated. Each field tends to have fairly specific expectations. For example, Speculum has its own guide</DIV><DIV>as does Monumenta Nipponica. Other quirks of Japanese scholarship are: there are standard multi-volume </DIV><DIV>collections of medieval and ancient works. These are usually cited by abbreviation such as ZGR 19.2. Also, Tokyo</DIV><DIV>never appears as the publication city.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>There is a flaw in the citation style as the same author may have multiple works citied. </DIV><DIV>Very few scholarly publications will go with author name alone. Rather, they will go with either</DIV><DIV>citation number or author-date at the beginning of the citation.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>MAGAZINE ARTICLES?? BLEH! --- THINK JOURNAL ARTICLES !!!</DIV><DIV>The citation standards are completely different. They should include volume and issue numbers</DIV><DIV>and in some cases series identifier as well.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>Another thing which is absent from the proposed standards is the series in </DIV><DIV>book citations. For example, GTM (Graduate Texts in Mathematics) 39.</DIV><BR></DIV>I really doubt that its necessary to put quotes around article names if you are italicizing publication names.<DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>Finally, if you really want to help people find books, include the ISBN. The ISBN is the easiest method for</DIV><DIV>looking up books on WorldCat and other computerized card catalogues. Which is most card catalogues </DIV><DIV>these days. Further, the ISBN identifies specific editions of the same title. The ISSN can help people find</DIV><DIV>periodicals, but it is less used.<BR><BR><DIV> <SPAN class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; border-spacing: 0px 0px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: auto; -khtml-text-decorations-in-effect: none; text-indent: 0px; -apple-text-size-adjust: auto; text-transform: none; orphans: 2; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; "><DIV>Your Humble Servant</DIV><DIV>Solveig Throndardottir</DIV><DIV>Amateur Scholar</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><BR class="Apple-interchange-newline"></SPAN> </DIV><BR></DIV></BODY></HTML>