Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#23
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
How can I make a custom bibliography style?
We could discuss the theory of bibliographic style if you'd like, but
this probably isn't the right place ... I live in both worlds. Linguistics these days rigorously uses author-date, but philology still uses author-short title (in footnotes), and each has its merits. (Linguistics, until recently, was a very small field, and everyone had read everything, so author-date references were instantly recognizable; and that could well be valid for workers in any very small field.) And when I'm earning my living by copyediting, I have to do whatever the respective publisher requires, even APA style, which (having grown up on Chicago style) I find pretty silly in several places. On Oct 23, 12:41*pm, p0 wrote: It depends on the style. A lot of legal styles want both, full in-text citation (through footnotes) and a bibliographic list. I guess it makes it easier for people wanting to look stuff up. You are right on it being redundant. But you have to admit that most bibliographic styles are not really an example of smart thinking or the result of bright minds at work. Compared to author-date styles, this "William Giles Campbell" style is more redundant but also more intelligent. It is not uncommon for someone to write multiple articles (conferences, journals, book sections) a year. The described system makes it easy for the reader to know what is being cited. In an ordinary author-date system, is not only the formatting harder (you need to display more or less authors, add a suffix to the year, ...), its result is also meaningless for most people reading the work. They have no idea who "Doe" is, and even if they do, how should they know what "Doe" wrote sometime during 2008. A reference number pointing to the bibliography at the end would be just as clear and a lot less redundant. It also wouldn't require some complex formatting scheme. If you really wanted a scheme similar to author-date which would be useful for ordinary people, then at least the title should be somehow included as it tells more about the work being cited than the name of the author does. Yves On 23 okt, 16:18, grammatim wrote: Footnotes like that, with full bibliographical information, are normally only done when nobibliography(reference list) is provided at all. Otherwise, the redundancy is immense. On Oct 23, 9:17*am, p0 wrote: MLAin-text citations consist out of authors only (e.g.: (Doe and Doe) and (Beethoven)). So what he asks for is not just switching from italics to underline, but rather a rewrite of the entire in-text/ footnotecitation(notbibliography) formatting routine. Although this is possible, it requires a lot of work. So much work in fact that I doubt anyone will be able to help him. Yves --http://www.codeplex.com/bibliography On 23 okt, 13:57, grammatim wrote: Usually a typed underline is a makeshift replacement for italics: can you check with whoever is requiring this style whether you can substitute italics? On Oct 23, 3:40*am, Jan wrote: Hey guys, i need a special type ofbibliographystyle, called "William Giles Campbell's: Form and Style: Thesis, Reports, Term Papers". I found that the built inMLAStyle fits in thebibliography, but for the footnote citations i need the following format: Jacob Brownowski, The Ascent of Man -underlined, (Boston: Little, Brown, 1973). If someone can help me it would be great! Thanks!- |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
customize bibliography style? | Microsoft Word Help | |||
Word 2007: Create custom bibliography type | Microsoft Word Help | |||
Custom Bibliography/Citation Styles in Word 2007 | Microsoft Word Help | |||
Can I have citations and bibliography in Harvard style? | Microsoft Word Help | |||
how to make the Word write bibliography in harvard style? | Microsoft Word Help |