Forums
I'm sure this is a question with an obvious answer, but maybe I'm more than a little foggy today.
I want to cite a publication that has a proper title, but I also want to include the informal title that almost everyone today knows it by -- primarily because that's what I was searching for when I managed to locate the source, and would very likely be what other researchers would be expecting.
How would I specify both titles?
Tony
Tony, the answer to your
Tony, the answer to your question is It depends. Basically, it depends upon the specific details of the publication and how different the official title is from the "commonly called" name. EE 12.85 demonstrates a situation in which the publication is commonly called by the series name + volume number, rather than the individual volume title. Published court reporters are another genre in which the name commonly used in legal citations differs widely from the full title that appears on the title page. You'll find an example of that at the QuickCheck Model on p. 728 (3d ed.). If these example don't fit your situation, the simplest way to handle it would be to cite it fully by what is on the title page, using basic book form, add a semicolon, then say "commonly known as Whatever."
Thanks. I think the semicolon
Thanks. I think the semicolon sounds the most appropriate in this case. The reference-note citation I was going to use would have been:
Horace Mann for Great Britain Census Office, Census of Great Britain, 1851: Religious Worship in England and Wales (London: Routledge & Co., 1854); commonly known as 1851 Religious Census.
But I'm just comparing this with the guidance in sec. 13.24. ...
Tony
Tony, your handling of the
Tony, your handling of the author vs. agency issue is a good compromise. Sometimes, when a volume is prepared by a named person on behalf of the agency that employs the person, the agency will be cited as the publisher and need not be named again in the author field; but that clearly is not the case at hand.