Re: [ACAT] Bibliographical references – include pages?

Posting to Autocat

On 11/11/2011 17:36, Marcia McKenzie wrote:

Is there a standard practice for whether/when to include pages when citing bibliographical references in a 504 note? There does not appear to be any consistency in OCLC records and the various manuals I’ve consulted. Of course, if references are scattered throughout a book it would not be possible to include pages, but even when they are gathered in one section, sometimes pages are noted and other times not. And when they are both scattered throughout the book and there is a “References” section at the end, it can be difficult to tell whether the section at the end includes all the sources mentioned throughout the book.

As others have pointed out, the rule is LCRI 2.7B18 [] but the current rule has been simplified significantly from the earlier practice. This is an example of the “cataloging simplification” that has been going on for a long time and this particular simplification is one that I personally never cared for. The original practice was given in 1982 in CSB no. 17, which allowed for much greater clarity instead of the generic “Includes bibliographical references” with the page numbers. Many catalogers (thankfully!) have continued to follow the old practice, especially if the bibliography had a separate title, e.g. “List of works of William Hull” p. 242, which, even though a single page as in this example, was often extremely useful for me as a researcher. Often I would want something such as “Complete bibliography of [author]” since that was often just what I needed even though the book did not contain all of those materials. In my own view, the practice “Includes bibliographical references” represented a serious downgrade in the usefulness of the record.

Of course, this did represent an improvement over the version of LCRI in CSB 44, where the rule did not allow adding the page numbers. Then, after an outcry, in CSB 47, they said to start adding the page numbers again.

The reason for this change, it seemed to me, was that they wanted the “b” in the fixed field to display automatically from that code and the cataloger wouldn’t enter the information manually. That never happened; catalogers kept adding information manually, so there was no real savings from typing bibliographical references vs. bibliographical footnotes or even bibliographical endnotes.

It is amazing that I can point to these LCRIs all the way from Rome, Italy! I thank the Library of Congress for making these valuable documents available.