Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
Here's a question: do you have a work that you groan a little bit every time you realize you are going to have to cite it - *just* because it has a complicated reference and figuring out how to fit it into a publication's bespoke citation system causes you dread?
Also on this topic: citation systems that include place of publication, but not publisher, are such strange nonsense to me. If I want to locate the exact right book, publisher is *far* more useful than knowing where this book was published.
Especially given that for any particular language, there's usually one or two cities which are the place of publication for the vast majority of scholarly books.
Oh boy. I was relying on a bunch of congressional reports/testimony/weird governmental private/public publications - to me, those are the worst.
One that always gets me for classics-land is, "how does this journal cite the Cambridge Ancient History"? Is it CAH <vol number> 2nd ed? Or do they go with the more common (but totally citation non-standard) CAH^2 with the volume number in the title?
Corpus
Inscriptionum
Comments like this make me grateful for LaTeX all over again.
My favorite case if this: there's a problem in combinatorics where the best known solution to it was made in an anon 4chan post. Works citing it have to cite "anonymous 4chan poster".
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
