[Bell Historians] Citations for Ringing World references

aaj buswell aaj.buswell at mQqsyY5Sw8Ys_Xb7TGcsaYipPSS4BM0lJz8fiSpYglUroSP-t2qE5i7gvgwA9H-hWLCZ88zROX5ZM_ado4ibByg.yahoo.invalid
Mon Nov 6 11:06:31 GMT 2006

The recording of thousands of quarter peals on a record card is by 'YY PPP' eg '06 158' or '951025'.
YY is the year and PPP is the page number within the year that the quarter appears. One can sort into a numerical order this way. Although there may be pitfalls no one has yet complained. 
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Chris Pickford 
  To: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 1:26 AM
  Subject: [Bell Historians] Citations for Ringing World references

  Just wondering what other people think about this one

  Using the Felstead peals database and some other sources - including Mike Chester's "chimes" list - I find that the Ringing World 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!

  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. 

  The Bell News 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.

  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.

  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?

  Chris Pickford
  #C 25 Geddes Street, Victoria Park, WA 6100
  Tel: 9355 2818 or (mobile) 0427 878 745
  E-mail: c.j.pickford at AHEA98sQourH019-jD5oxuHI3_OTFqj7aT7YKkB7NpjejE6NR-DN44vRETD3SZwBX7NsPdIaw-ifT0YM0A.yahoo.invalid 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/pipermail/bell-historians/attachments/20061106/a6bc5454/attachment.html>

More information about the Bell-historians mailing list