Multiple page & column numbers

By Hendrickson on Wed, 07/22/2020 - 16:02

Forums

I'm discovering that in most British directories a person can be found multiple times within different sections of the same directory, which leads to citing multiple pages and column numbers. I don't know about you but I find the page and column numbers separated by only commas hard to read in the citation I created. Is there a better way that I can group each page/column number together so that it reads easier? Somehow I don't think using a semicolon is the right thing to do. I pulled out CMOS before asking here, but that didn't get me anywhere.

Kelly’s Directory of Cumberland. With New Map [1894] (London: Kelly’s Directories Ltd.), p. 104, col. 2, p. 245, col. 1, p. 342, col.1, entries for Mrs. Martha Nixon; imaged as "UK, City and County Directories, 1766 - 1946," Ancestry (https://www.ancestry.com : accessed 17 July 2020) > England > Cumberland > 1894 Kelly's Directory > images 123, 264, 361.

Submitted byEEon Wed, 07/22/2020 - 18:08

Hendrickson, that's a situation we often encounter in citations. An analogy would be citing, say, multiple deed books and pages in the same citation  (EE 10.12).

The basic issue here is punctuation. As you say, if commas are the only punctuation mark used, then the citation is confusing. Standard punctuation rules in the English language have a "fix" for that. The rule might be expressed as this: Commas separate items in a series; but when items in a series have internal commas, then the items in that series are separated by semicolons. Following this rule, the basic fix would be this:

Kelly’s Directory of Cumberland. With New Map [1894] (London: Kelly’s Directories Ltd.), p. 104, col. 2; p. 245, col. 1; p. 342, col.1, entries for Mrs. Martha Nixon.

In this case, the rule collides with another problem. Because you have a layered citation, you are already using semicolons to separate a larger set of items in the series: the layers.  Therefore, you will need to use a different type of punctuation to separate the multi-level items in a series within each already existing semicolon.  EE might handle it this way:

Kelly’s Directory of Cumberland. With New Map [1894] (London: Kelly’s Directories Ltd.), p. 104/col. 2, p. 245/col. 1, p. 342/col.1, entries for Mrs. Martha Nixon; imaged as "UK, City and County Directories, 1766–1946," Ancestry (https://www.ancestry.com : accessed 17 July 2020) > England > Cumberland > 1894 Kelly's Directory > images 123, 264, 361.

Situations of this type are one reason why EE uses parentheses around certain pieces of data in a complex citation. In this case, EE would not recommend that—say p. 104 (col.2), p. 245 (col. 1), p. 342 (col. 1)—because your citation already uses parentheses for another purpose: to corral publication details in each layer.

The overriding need is for clarity. Whatever modifications we need to make for clarity, in complex situations, we should feel free to make.

Now, one question. In the parentheses within layer 1, you cite place: publisher, but the expected date of publication is missing. Outside the parentheses, you put a date in brackets after the title. Are you telling us that 1894 is the year of that directory, a date that is not in the directory itself but one you've added on the basis of information from elsewhere? If so, EE would move the bracketed date into the standard place within the parentheses.

 

Submitted byHendricksonon Wed, 07/22/2020 - 19:46
Ah, yes. I didn't think to use a slash. To answer your question - the date came from Ancestry's database since the actual publication doesn't exactly specify. Surprisingly most of the directories I have been looking at lack a date on the title page and sometimes it's written in pencil. There is a date April 1894 in the preface at the very end, but it doesn't say its the date of publication. I have looked for the directory elsewhere and most libraries name it as Kelly's Directory for Cumberland, 1894. I put it there to clarify the title, but I can certainly put it with the publisher details if it makes more sense to do so.

Submitted byEEon Thu, 07/23/2020 - 09:09

Yes, Hendrickson, even when we don't have back-of-title-page data to give us a publication year, and we have to get it from elsewhere, it's still common to put the year in the parentheses that carry the rest of the publication data. We also use there the square editorial brackets that you rightly used, to indicate that we are adding information from "our own knowledge" that we obtained elsewhere. If our outside source for that year leaves us with a doubt as to whether the year is correct, then we would add a question mark after the year, inside the brackets, which are inside the parentheses.  

Submitted byniteowl1851on Thu, 07/23/2020 - 10:09

apologies if this comes through twice...I thought I replied already, but am not seeing it? in any case, I saw this posted from the EE facebook page and came over.

 

I like the use of slashes, but wondered if using the word "also" or "and also" could be an appropriate option? Example (bolded just for emphasis in this post):

 

Kelly’s Directory of Cumberland. With New Map [1894] (London: Kelly’s Directories Ltd.), p. 104, col. 2 also p. 245, col. 1 also p. 342, col.1, entries for Mrs. Martha Nixon; imaged as "UK, City and County Directories, 1766–1946," Ancestry (https://www.ancestry.com : accessed 17 July 2020) > England > Cumberland > 1894 Kelly's Directory > images 123, 264, 361.

Submitted byEEon Fri, 07/24/2020 - 09:56

Yes, niteowl1851, you could use also. But, to follow standard punctuation rules in English, that section of the citation needs added commas between the items in the series.

p. 104, col. 2, also p. 245, col. 1, also p. 342, col. 1, entries for ...

There is also another approach. In fact, after thinking about this overnight, it seems to me that this modifaction would be the cleanest and clearest approach:

p. 104 col. 2, p. 245 col. 1, p. 342 col. 1, entries for ...

 

 

Submitted byHendricksonon Fri, 07/24/2020 - 10:03
Interesting that you mention this as being the cleanest... p. 104 col. 2, p. 245 col. 1, p. 342 col. 1, I originally had that, but later put commas in between the page and columns because I figured it was probably wrong not to have separation between them. Once I put the commas in though, it make it hard to read, which lead me here. Guess I'm going full circle. LOL. Thanks for your help.