FootnotesNow most of this makes perfect sense, "Print all page numbers up to and including 99 in full, e.g. 16–18, 94–99" gotcha "for 100 and upwards use the least number of figures, e.g. 322–30, 522–3;" gotcha, "but write 116–18, not 116–8; 210–11, not 210–1 (where confusion might otherwise arise)" UH? What confusion might arise if I wrote 116-8? because from their own previous example if it was 116-128 I would have written 116-28.
Print all page numbers up to and including 99 in full, e.g. 16–18, 94–99; for 100 and upwards use the least number of figures, e.g. 322–30, 522–3; but write 116–18, not 116–8; 210–11, not 210–1 (where confusion might otherwise arise).
Now I admit the bright student and I are mathematically or scientifically minded, not really arty types, but where pray NZJH is your confusion?
If you are an arty type and can explain the cases to us so we can understand we'd be delighted :)
[Incidentally anyone who thinks footnotes and bibliography are not really fun should watch this short video ;) ]
Labels: publication, study-skills
¶ 4:46 PM
[to Del.icio.us]
My guess is that they're referring to confusion (or at least a jarring effect) that might result if you read those examples out loud; "five-hundred and twenty-two to three" sounds less odd than "one hundred and sixteen to eight" or "two-hundred and ten to one", so they suggest that you adjust what you write in those cases so that reading aloud gives "one hundred and sixteen to eighteen" and "two-hundred and ten to eleven". In my opinion, "five-hundred and twenty-two to twenty-three" would also be an improvement. And is space really so limited that they can't just let you write the whole number every time? Writing 522-523 instead of 522-3 uses just two more bytes, and very little extra ink and paper, which aren't that expensive.
<><
By 
, at
October 9, 2008 7:18 PM
I suspect it's only confusing if you're easily confused, or they didn't want to say "we want you to do it this way because it looks awkward". If your article goes from p 116 to p 128, or p 138, then you have to say 116-28 or 116-38, so 116-8 is inconsistent with all your other three digit references. I actually find 210-1 visually far less pleasing than 210-11, but not actually confusing.
By 
Judy Redman, at
October 10, 2008 12:53 AM
You both give explanations I can understand. Though yours Judy, which is what I had suspected (being high on the N of the Myers-Briggs scale - N = iNtuitive as opposed to T = thinking, rational), is not the sort of rule Ts could cope with, so though I like it I suspect it is not what the author intended ;)
TJM your explanation makes perfect sense, heard rather than seen even I can see there is a problem with the "teens" - but why could they not SAY that. It was the word "confusion" which confused us ;)
This is a rather nice example of the way minds that work differently are needed to produce clear communication. An "auditory" processor writing to a "visual" processor confuses ;0
By Tim, at
October 10, 2008 5:58 AM
