Upgrade StorageFilms/videos in bibliography (MHRA author-date)
Hi,
On p.62 of the MHRA style guide 2nd ed., section 11.2.11 Recordings, films, and digital media, it says:
'For films, the reference should include, as a minimum, title, director, distributor, date, e.g.: The Grapes of Wrath, dir. by John Ford (20th Century Fox, 1940).'
Now, of course, for the MHRA author-date system, the year would not be last, so I imagine it should look like this:
Jouvet, Émilie (dir.). 2006. One Night Stand (Hystérie prod)
= a bit like for edited books which look like this:
Stüttgen, Tim (ed.). 2009. Post / Porn / Politics (Berlin: b_books)
1. Is it possible for someone to tweak the style so that '(dir.)' comes up, a bit like '(ed.)' for edited books, in the bibliography? This would mean that it could then be easier to visually identify it as a film quickly.
2. When a *video* has no studio because it's not commercialised or something, should [n.s.] be put in its place? (there is no info on this in the style guide.) Otherwise it ends up looking like this (for the first two examples the place it was recorded was given so it is included):
Post-op. 2006. IntroAkto (Hangar, Centro de Producción Multimedia de Barcelona)
Segundo, Iris. 2008. Pelea de Perras (Hangar, Centro de Producción Multimedia de Barcelona)
Sprinkle, Annie. 1990. The Public Cervix Announcement
Thanks in advance,
On p.62 of the MHRA style guide 2nd ed., section 11.2.11 Recordings, films, and digital media, it says:
'For films, the reference should include, as a minimum, title, director, distributor, date, e.g.: The Grapes of Wrath, dir. by John Ford (20th Century Fox, 1940).'
Now, of course, for the MHRA author-date system, the year would not be last, so I imagine it should look like this:
Jouvet, Émilie (dir.). 2006. One Night Stand (Hystérie prod)
= a bit like for edited books which look like this:
Stüttgen, Tim (ed.). 2009. Post / Porn / Politics (Berlin: b_books)
1. Is it possible for someone to tweak the style so that '(dir.)' comes up, a bit like '(ed.)' for edited books, in the bibliography? This would mean that it could then be easier to visually identify it as a film quickly.
2. When a *video* has no studio because it's not commercialised or something, should [n.s.] be put in its place? (there is no info on this in the style guide.) Otherwise it ends up looking like this (for the first two examples the place it was recorded was given so it is included):
Post-op. 2006. IntroAkto (Hangar, Centro de Producción Multimedia de Barcelona)
Segundo, Iris. 2008. Pelea de Perras (Hangar, Centro de Producción Multimedia de Barcelona)
Sprinkle, Annie. 1990. The Public Cervix Announcement
Thanks in advance,
- '[n.d.]' (which looks like it's indicating 'no date')
- or '[n.dis]'
- or something else altogether?
There is no info on this in the style guide.
Any suggestions? Thanks!