Elements Organization

By wayneson on Sat, 12/17/2022 - 09:01

Forums

As I struggle to cope with the inherent inconsistencies of record citations, I am compelled to request an answer to this:

"Do I invariably have the option of organizing any citation elements from 'largest to smallest or smallest to largest'?"

I refer to occasions other than simple, straightforward reference notes.

Wayneson

Submitted bywaynesonon Sat, 12/17/2022 - 09:08

Another way to ask: Is it best to always be consistent in element organization? Or, is it impossible to be consistent?

Submitted byEEon Sat, 12/17/2022 - 13:39

Hello, Wayneson.  Consistency is good. Yet, when we try "to cope with the inherent inconsistencies of record citations," it helps our sanity to bear in mind Ralph Waldo Emerson's advice: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."

The smallest-to-largest vs. largest-to-smallest dicta apply to citations for manuscript records organized into collections within series held by archives in this-or-that locale.  The principle exists so that we follow some logical progression—as opposed to just throwing descriptive phrases onto paper as they come to mind. A logical progression helps our readers understand what each element of a citation represents.

By longstanding custom, citations to material in U.S. archives progress from smallest to largest. By longstanding custom, citations to material in most non-U.S. archives progress from largest to smallest. When our research transcends national bounds, we may decide to "consistently" use the custom for the country in which we predominately work—or we may "inconsistently" use the sequence appropriate for the archive/country where the record is held. No one would fault us for that type of "inconsistency."