To all registered users:
What would you like to see here? How would you like this forum to operate? Please log in and go to Special Messages (members only) - Feedback... - to let us all know what you think and what you might be able to contribute. People are still joining and showing interest.
Nellie

You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?

December 2, 2016 8:39 am  #1


Sources

Information yet to come. A few trial refs follow.

[Roberts p 196].    Any later work by Roberts could be [Roberts 2 p12]
[ILN 24 Jun 1911]
[Field 1997 p22]
[RC 2 Dec 2016]  for a link to the Royal Collection that was accessed on 2 December 2016
[Twining ER p85].  For Twining's European Regalia
[Munn 2002 p87]
[Bury vol I p95]
[TCJ vol II p230]  for  the two-volume work The Crown Jewels 1998



 

 

December 2, 2016 10:04 am  #2


Re: Sources

If there are future editions of Roberts, in my opinion it would be best to have the year of the edition. Roberts, 2020, p5  or if there are multiple works by Bury, you need the title keyword and the volume number.

Last edited by LauraM (December 2, 2016 10:05 am)

 

December 2, 2016 10:36 am  #3


Re: Sources

Thanks Laura. You and I do think alike over imbedding refs in future, for easy reading, in preference to footnotes.
We will of course have a listing here that deciphers every code.
I confess that I am trying to keep the imbedded refs as brief as possible for the sake of the reader.

First for Roberts, my "later work" was ambiguous.  Sorry.
I felt that if there were a reprint of TQD (The Queen's Diamonds) or a revised edition of it, then a later ref would be [Roberts 2018 p111].  So I have suggested a unique identifier for his next new work.  That's why I used 2, for his next book, whatever that might be.  
The original ref implies 1, also 2012.  

For Bury, I was going to treat her two-volume Jewellery as her principal work for our purposes, and the 1 is implied.  However I must check on print dates.  If another Bury work arises then it would be [Bury 2 p44].

Similarly for Munn, I was referring to the mega Munn. I don't think any reprints ever included any revision.  I could be wrong.

Edit: I have been inconsistent over Twining.  The ER is not right.  One work will be chosen as principal for our purposes, and the other would be 2.




 

Last edited by Nellie (December 2, 2016 10:39 am)

 

Board footera