TMG-L Archives
Archiver > TMG > 2000-12 > 0975869215
From: John <>
Subject: [TMG] Which source template to use for re-edited book?
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 13:46:55 -0500
Beth,
The three guiding lights of documentation are Honesty, Clarity, and
Consistency. To achieve Clarity we learn the customary usage in our
discipline and apply it to our work. Usually brevity serves clarity; unless
clarity will suffer, be brief.
There is considerably more latitude to composing a citation than is
commonly thought. The Chicago Manual of Style contains many discretionary
rather than mandatory provisions, and it abounds with alternative examples.
What then is required is Consistency. If the words page, editor, and
compiler are spelled out, do so consistently. Likewise other words of
similar import, like volume, part, number, chapter, note, figure, should be
spelled out. Doing this takes you outside customary American usage, but you
are your own editor. It's your call.
My answers to your questions one and two were contained in my first post on
this topic.
Regarding your question four, it would not be incorrect to include the
series subtitle in your citation separating it from the series title with a
colon. Your quotation from Mills is inapt: that language addresses a book
title, not a series subtitle. Book subtitles are customarily included in
citations. Neither CMS nor Mills addresses the matter of series subtitles,
as far as I have found. My opinion was stated in my first post.
Your question three is most interesting because it points out that the
bibliography of Mills' Evidence! lists credentials for some authors. It
omits them for others (Curran, Hatcher, the Millses, to name a few).
Perhaps you will ask Ms. Mills about this. The title for the appendix item
preceding the bibliography, in my opinion, is prone to misinterpretation in
the context of evidence. My opinion on credentials, affiliations, and
degrees in citations, again, was given in my first post.
Put your best cites forward,
John Crawford
This thread: