footnotes

hey ilx, i need your help doing footnotes + bibliography

i have to do a whole mess of footnotes

key requirement: they have to use as few words as possible

im working with a format of 'author, year, page number'

so you can go to the bibliography for the full thing

it sucks but that's wordcounts

and bc people write more than one thing a year you end up with abominations like '1937c'

anyway, i need help

what is the best footnote format, given my requirement of the lowest possible wordcount?

and what is the best bibliography format to go with it?

working on something appalling like 'surname, forename, (year) title (place: publisher, year)

i think i've seen this done only without the second year, but i hate the absence of the second year

bump

i would have thought 'name, title (place: publisher, year), page#'

but i'd be willing to jettison place: publisher in the interests of brevity

first name only on first mention? abbreviate title on repeated mentions?

ty

sry: yeah to clarify, there is no wordcount limit on the bibliography

so the thing is to have the smallest footnotes possible, but make them easy to cross-reference with the bibliography

this is the reason for 'surname, forename, (year), title...'

it's weird i guess but having the year on the left as you read down (bc after the first time you write the name you have '––––, (year) title...') makes it easier

so although its ugly, footnote format will be 'name, year, page#', i think. qn is really about the bibliography.

bump

this to me looks horrible, im not even sure it's 'allowed', yet this is what the workprint looks like:

Rotha, Paul, (1929) ‘British Directors’ “1914” Technique’, Film Weekly, 28 January 1929
—— (1930a) ‘A Museum for the Kinema and the Collecting of Films’, Connoisseur, July 1930
—— (1930b) The Film Till Now: A Survey of the Cinema (London: Jonathan Cape, 1930)

if you are interested in space saving just use first intials i.e. rotha, p.

also why put the date twice?

yeah no -- no space restriction on the bibliography, so long as i like

but you have identified the key thing: the date

i just hate the idea of putting

Rotha, Paul, (1929) ‘British Directors’ “1914” Technique’, Film Weekly, 28 January

im i crazy? like i say, there is no wordcount limit so i put the date twice as it were

in an ideal world it'd just have the second date, but the need to do '1931a', '1931b', which in turn stems from having to do the shortest possible footnotes, conflicts with that.

i would use the second date and a one-word version of the title, or an acronym, for same year footnotes.

ty yeah that is possible

this is not something i shd be getting neurotic abt but