<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2963" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Just wondering what other people think about this
one</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Using the Felstead peals database and some other
sources - including Mike Chester's "chimes" list - I find that the <EM>Ringing
World</EM> is often cited by issue number. Am I alone in not finding this very
helpful? It doesn't give you an indication of the date - nor (without lifting
several volumes off the shelf) does it make it at all easy to find the
reference. And without page numbers, citation by issue still necessitates a fair
amount of hunting even when you've found the right one. Generally, it's good
practice to make references as "self-standing" and readily meaningful as
possible. I'm afraid issue no 1562 just doesn't do it for me!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>My personal preference is for citing RW references
by date, e.g. 20 March 1956, and with page numbers (or first relevant
page). Abbreviating to year and page number - e.g. 1956 p.562 is also okay.
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>The <EM>Bell News</EM> is more complicated, because
a) the page numbering sequences doesn't coincide with the start of the calendar
year (e.g. Jan to March will be pages 752-983, with page 1 in April) and b) the
date isn't printed on each page and (where the advertising pages have been
removed for binding) the date of each issue is not readily obvious. I still
prefer 20 March 1885 p.763 (or 1885 p.763) as the ideal form of
citation.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Northing WRONG with citing volume and issue numbers
- it's probably good bibliographical practice. But it's more for "belt and
braces" / perfection than for accessibility and ease of use.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>No criticism intended of any of the sources. Just a
plea for a meaningful citation. If others share my view - or disagree strongly -
there might be a case for moving towards agreed standard practice in citation.
Does this bother anyone else?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Chris Pickford<BR>#C 25 Geddes Street, Victoria
Park, WA 6100<BR>Tel: 9355 2818 or (mobile) 0427 878 745<BR>E-mail: <A
href="mailto:c.j.pickford@1lTBCcLZ1OefiRdClqlVE3wXNXugdDGzzyHSkfkQtpjXYnquL4kR92z4JZ0qozduXDHKjj6WhVycB-0kkiQ.yahoo.invalid">c.j.pickford@1lTBCcLZ1OefiRdClqlVE3wXNXugdDGzzyHSkfkQtpjXYnquL4kR92z4JZ0qozduXDHKjj6WhVycB-0kkiQ.yahoo.invalid</A>
<BR></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>