{waiting apprehensively for something to explode}

[fox]

Wow, poll creator in Semagic.  Rock the hell on.

So I'm in the shining-things-up-before-printing stage now.  (I do have one more reference to check, but I'll do that this afternoon while my laundry is laundering.)  The pages are, of course, numbered; I also have three appendices, the pages of which are numbered A1, A2, A3, and B1, B2, B3, etc.  Today's poll question pertains to the reference list, appearing between the text and the first appendix.

[Poll #717320]


[eta:  Well, thanks, MHRA, you're a big help.

Unless local regulations specify otherwise, page numbers should begin on the first page of the main text (following the preliminaries) and continue to the end, and should be placed at the top right of each page.

I happen to think page numbers go at the bottom right, but I'm willing to be overruled by local custom on that one.  But, the end of what, please -- of the main text, or of the whole caboodle?  RAR.]

Comments

[cordelia_v]

As I understand how the universe functions, etc., you don't really have a choice here. The bibliography (and the rest of the scholarly apparatus) is part of the text, and is thus numbered sequentially following the "regular" text. Any other way is incorrect. Hell, I'm reasonalby sure that you should be including the appendices in that sequential numbering, too (with a header, if you like, of A, B, etc., but then with sequential page numbering at the bottom). Then, a table of contents is more useful, because it helps you to locate what you're looking for, using those sequential page numbers. But I won't insist.

[darthfox.livejournal.com]

[thinks about this]

I like that solution even better, in fact, because it allows me to number the table of contents with a lowercase roman i. (Would that my ToC were long enough to run to two pages. Alas.)

[thinks some more][consults the style manual]

[thalia]

The MLA Handbook says the bibliography and endnotes are numbered in sequence with the rest of the text, but it doesn't mention appendices. (I was curious.)

[darthfox.livejournal.com]

The MHRA Style Guide (when in Rome, after all ...) says the same thing (only I have footnotes rather than endnotes, which it totally allows, and that's good, because endnotes piss me off). I am looking through to see what it says about appendices.

[sowilo.livejournal.com]

Endnotes totally piss me off, too. if the reference is so important, put it on the damn page so that I can see it!

[datlowen.livejournal.com]

Presumably your Appendices are data in separate sets, in which case I maintain it's perfectly valid (even preferrable) to have them numbered separately. References, etc., as noted above, as considered part of the text.

If your TOC is only one page long, though, you don't get to number it.

[cannons-at-dawn.livejournal.com]

The top right? That's just weird, to me. Ours not to reason why, though, eh.

I will buy you a drink on Friday, by the way.

[cordelia_v]

The end of the whole caboodle, of course. Quit trying to evade the Power of the God of Sequential Numbering! You are not allowed to invent your very own numbering system!

[axiom_of_stripe]

i'm pretty sure you number the references with everything else, but i've been wrong about these things before. (i am at work, and the only book to hand with references puts them after the appendices, which seems even more wrong, but it numbers the whole shebang sequentially -- even the index!)

[orange852.livejournal.com]

My bachelor of arts in international relations (cold war era) senior project was researched the night before it was due and written between 6am and 4pm the day of.

There might have been a bibliography attached, or lack thereof and the "shrill" tone may have contributed to the B+ness of it all.

International Law in Space: We Need Some. Dude, I was effin' brilliant. Either that, or the TA was suffering from a higher degree of caffeine poisoning than I.