Citing Sources Style-Sheet

There are several reasons to give citation information.

First and foremost, citations and bibliographies help your readers to follow up on what you have said. If someone’s interest is sparked by your article, he or she should be able to continue your research. The simpler and clearer you can make this process, the better you have contributed to the discourse. This is why bibliographic suggestions in endnotes can be desirable, but they should be reserved primarily for subjects about which you suspect most of your readers know little or nothing (e.g. Derrida and deconstruction, but not RPGs as such).

Second, citations give credit where credit is due. As you know, people put a lot of time and effort into writing games, and you should give them credit for this.

Third, citations help prevent charges of plagiarism. Bear in mind that this is your responsibility, not the editor’s. But citations are only incidentally for this purpose; their real point is simply to assist your reader.

Please note that in what follows, all example references marked with an asterisk (*) are invented and may bear no relation to the actual texts (if any) mentioned.

In-Text Citations

In-text citations appear in parentheses before the final punctuation of the sentence (see exceptions below).

When citing a text primarily known by its author, such as a book, article, play, novel, etc., the citation uses the author's last name followed by a comma and the page or pages cited. For example:

As he puts it, "différance is not a concept" (Derrida, 37). *

Note that the final punctuation of the sentence comes after the close parentheses.

When you follow a quote with more text in the same sentence, you may put the citation after the quote or at the end of the sentence. Put it at the end of the sentence if it is entirely clear, otherwise after the quote. For example:

He remarks that “différance is not a concept,” but this is perhaps not clear (Derrida, 37).

But

He remarks that “différance is not a concept” (Derrida, 37), by which he means that philosophical conceptualization, in the sense of reification through the use of language, is precisely not applicable to deconstruction, a point he argues at considerable length in various other works.


When citing a text primarily known by its title, such as a game, film, etc., the citation uses the title in italics instead of the author's name. For example:

The authors remark that "The story is your own" (Vampire, 26). *

A long title may be abbreviated so long as it is clear and consistent; for example, you do not need to give Vampire: The Masquerade unless you are distinguishing it from another Vampire book cited in the same article.

Do not use abbreviations or acronyms unless it is very obviously useful to do so, and in that case the first reference to the text should normally explain the abbreviation or acronym parenthetically. For example:

In Vampire: The Masquerade (hereafter VtM) we find a shift from... (VtM, 42).

In this example, the assumption is that you will refer to several different Vampire books and thus need to distinguish VtM from other texts, such that without the acronym your references would have to read (Vampire: The Masquerade, 42) every time. Some titles, such as Sorcerer: An Intense Role-Playing Game do not need this abbreviation; just call it Sorcerer and mention the full title in the bibliography.

The only occasion on which final punctuation should precede an in-text citation is when an exclamation point or question mark appears within the quotation, which then obviates the need for further punctuation. Note that this punctuation comes within the quote, from the original author. For example:

The author asks, "Is it necessary to follow all the rules?" (Nephilim, 4) *

Note the lack of final punctuation after the parentheses. Compare to:

We may ask, is it necessary to state that "you must follow all the rules" (Dungeons and Dragons, 3rd ed., 23)? *

When referring to multiple works by a single author, give author, comma, a brief version of the title, comma, page-number. Thus (Derrida, Grammatology, 59).

When referring to multiple editions of a single work, the in-text citations should include this, abbreviated “4th ed.” and separated by commas.

(Ars Magica, 2nd ed., 15)
(Ars Magica, 4th ed., 25)


If only dealing with one edition, it is not usually necessary to give a number in the citation, as the fuller information will appear in the bibliography. If you feel strongly that it does matter, and will matter to your readers, you may include it but you must be consistent. In this case, it is probably best instead to mention the edition number in the actual text, and leave it out of the citation:

With the radical revisions of Ars Magica that constitute the fourth edition, we find a shift in emphasis... (Ars Magica, 35).


Quotations

Block Quotes

Quotes that take three or more lines of ordinary text should be made block-quotes. Separate such a quote as its own paragraph, skip a line before and after it, and indent the left side about one tab-stop so it is obvious. Final formatting will be done by the editor, but it must be obvious what is and is not a block quote.

Block quotes do not require quotation marks before and after.

The citation for a block quote should come at the very end, after the final punctuation.

Do not indent the first line of a block quote like a paragraph unless it begins a paragraph in the original text.

For example

And this is the fundamental point: nature has a history only in so far as it is susceptible of continuity. It is because it takes on all possible characters in turn (each value of all the variables) that it is presented in the form of a succession. (Foucault, 154)

And

--> The same can be said for the inverse system of the prototype and the terminal species. In this case it is necessary to suppose, with J-B. Robinet, that continuity is assured, not by memory, but by a project.... (Foucault, 154)

(The --> here indicates an indent)

Quotation Marks

The order of quotation marks in American prose is double-quotes ( " ) followed by single ( ' ), in all cases. For example

He writes, "George said, 'What do you want?' and looked up" (Davis, 49). *

When referring to a technical term the first time, it should again appear in double-quotes; thereafter it may be used without quotation marks at all

Derrida refers to "deconstruction" as a method for both interpreting and challenging texts. Deconstruction is....


Punctuating Around Quotes

When quoting briefly, i.e. not as a block quote, one of only three punctuation marks should normally precede the quote. The best is no punctuation at all, in which one runs the quote "directly into the text" (Fred*, 15), as here. Second-best is a comma, which follows a verb indicating speech or expression. He writes, "one should always run quotes directly into the text" (Fred, 15). Third-best is a colon: "one should always run quotes directly into the text" (Fred, 15).

Avoid the "drop quote," preceded by a period. "One should always run quotes directly into the text" (Fred, 15). For example.

Punctuating Titles

Titles do not normally need punctuation before and after; treat a title as a noun. For example:

Michel Foucault’s The Order of Things argues that....

In his The Order of Things, Michel Foucault argues that....

Not

Michel Foucault’s, The Order of Things, argues that....

All “major works” in terms of length and a kind of what we might call solidity should have their titles italicized; titles of brief works and articles should appear in quotation marks. Thus My Life with Master, and The Order of Things, but “Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences.” All game titles should be italicized, no matter how short the game. For example, The Pool.

Sic

“Sic” is a Latin term meaning “thus,” used to indicate that an apparent error or editorial remark in transcription is actually from the original text. This should appear in brackets.

This editorial addition is only necessary when there is a typographical error that is worth repeating. If it is obviously a typographical error, simply fix it silently. If it is clear that the text is very corrupt, for example an online rant, simply reproduce it as is and do not punctuate with constant “sic” references. There are very few occasions on which “sic” is useful. See below.

Ellipses

When you cut from a quotation, you must insert ellipses (...) so that the reader knows that there has been an editorial cut. If you cut one or more pieces of final punctuation (period, exclamation point, question mark), use four periods, otherwise use three. Never use two. Five is right out.

If ellipses appear in the original text, you should follow them with [sic] or [original]. Be consistent in your usage; that is, do not use [sic] in one place and [original] in another.

For example:

Quoting van Gulik, Clunas writes, “Copious material relating to Chinese connoisseurship... [sic] can be extracted from books of a special genre...” (Clunas, 9).

Here we can tell that the first ellipsis is Clunas’s and the second is mine.

Insertions

When you must add a word or words for clarification, you must insert it within square brackets. For example,

Clunas writes that “while engaged in [curatorial work, he] could equally be accused of...” (Clunas, 9).

Again, if such brackets are used in the original, for whatever purpose, you should follow them with [sic] or [original].

Emphasis

If you insert italics for emphasis within a quote, follow them with [emphasis added]. If the emphasis is in the original, put this after the page number in the citation: (Foucault, 14, emphasis original).

Typeface and Symbols

Reproduce everything in a text using a standard ASCII keyboard. Do not use wingdings or iconic symbols. If such symbols are important to the text, use curly-braces {} around the symbol and a description of it, and alert the editor. Use curly-braces so that the editor can simply search for the symbol and deal with it. For example:

Because this is {♧ card-suit clubs symbol}, this is a combat action.

Try to avoid this as much as possible, but do not distort a text on this basis. For example, you could write:

Because this is [clubs], this is a combat action.

Do not change font or size to reproduce the original layout unless that is the point of the argument and you have conferred with the editor about it in advance.

Ibid., op. cit., and the like

Please do not use these.

Endnotes

When you have an important note that cannot fit into the text but should not be omitted, format it as an endnote. Please restrict endnotes to matters of a relatively technical nature, of interest to a small group of readers but very valuable to them. For example, if you want to remark that some argument you have made has significant implications for the Ron Edwards Big Model, but that model is not at all the focus of your article, this belongs in an endnote. Do not put all your citations into endnotes; focus on technical clarifications.

Another use for an endnote is a preliminary bibliographical statement about a subject your readers may wish to follow up. For example, having discussed the use of deconstructive theory, with references, in your article, an endnote might read

3. Deconstruction and the philosophy of Jacques Derrida is an infamously difficult subject. Those wishing to learn more might read Jim Powell’s Derrida for Beginners (London: Writers and Readers, 1997), then move on to Christopher Norris’s Derrida (Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1987). Finally, read Derrida’s own work, beginning with Of Grammatology and moving on to Writing and Difference and Dissemination.

Here, note that the three Derrida works appear in the bibliography, and thus do not get full references, while the other two get full references because they do not appear in the bibliography.

Please try to keep endnotes to a minimum. If they seem unnecessary and unhelpful, or are simply parenthetical notes poorly integrated into the text, the editor may ask you to cut them or insert them into the article; the editor also reserves the right to cut unnecessary endnotes.

Endnotes should follow the article and precede the bibliography. They should begin with the heading, “Notes.”

Please do not use special formatting for endnotes; leave this to the editor.

Bibliography: General

Articles should conclude with a bibliography in standard MLA or Chicago Manual of Style (humanities) format, which are essentially identical. The bibliography should be alphabetized, then put in chronological order if there are multiple entries for the same author. Please do not use a 6-n dash in place of a repeated author’s name; leave such formatting to the editor.

Bibliography: Games

Punctuate bibliographic entries for games as follows:

Title of Game. Edition. Author(s). Place: Publisher, year.


Title of Game

Please give the complete title, punctuated exactly as it appears in the text. Do not follow capitalization if unusual unless it genuinely seems important; for example, kill puppies for satan should appear thus.

Odd typographical conventions should be respected only insofar as they can be reproduced on a standard keyboard, using no wingdings or other iconic fonts. Note that an acronym like GURPS should remain all-caps.

Editions

Only give the number of the edition if there are multiple different editions. Distinguish between a new edition and a printing number; the latter need not be mentioned. If there are national editions, mention this:

2nd American ed.

Numbers may be abbreviated as usual in American standard: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. Do not superscript these.

“Edition” may be abbreviated “ed.” but this is not required. Be consistent, whichever convention you follow.

Note that putting edition before authors is a change from standard CMS format, but it is appropriate to RPGs because games are referred to by title and edition rather than by author.

Authors

First name before last name.

Give authors in the order they appear on the title-page. Do not distinguish between primary and secondary authors; simply follow the title-page convention.

Punctuate between multiple authors with commas, no matter how many are listed.

If an author uses an odd typographical convention, such as Mark Rein*Hagen, you may ignore it (Rein-Hagen or Rein Hagen) or use a standard keyboard character to replace it; please do not use wingdings and other irregular characters. If this seems important and difficult to reproduce, please let the editor know and let him handle it.

If there are a huge number of authors listed, give the first two followed by “et al.”

Translations

If there is a translator, give his or her name after the edition, unless the translation also has multiple editions. Follow the first-last convention for spelling the name.

If possible, give the date of the original publication, as a year, by itself before the translator’s name. You do not need place or press.

Place

Should always be a city, not a country or state. If there is a possibility of confusion, as with American cities named for European counterparts, the younger city gets a state or country name abbreviated after a comma. Thus

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1975.

You only need to give the home-base of the press, although there are common exceptions. Thus Oxford University press is in Oxford, not Oxford, London, New York, and so on, but Brill is Leiden and Boston. If in doubt, give all locations and let the editor handle it.

Press

Co., inc., ltd., and so on are not necessary. “University Press” may be abbreviated “UP” so long as you are consistent. Note that University of Chicago Press, for example, may not be abbreviated U of Chicago P or similar.

Date

Give only the year. Be sure it is the year of the edition cited.

Supplements

Supplements should appear directly after the original game in the bibliography. After the title and before the edition number or author, put “Supplement to Title.” This should be in regular font, separated from the rest by periods. The title should be abbreviated, so long as it is clear.

Alphabetization

Ignore “the,” “a,” an,” and so forth. Apostrophes are invisible, thus Sorcerer and Sword precedes The Sorcerer’s Soul.

Annotations

Do not annotate bibliographies, i.e. provide commentary on texts and editions. This sort of thing should be reserved for endnotes, if really necessary, or for articles whose primary purpose is such bibliographic discussion, such as an article on “Making Sense of GURPS Supplements.” See below.

Examples

Ars Magica. 4th ed. Jonathan Tweet, Mark Rein*Hagen, et al. Roseville, MN: Atlas Games, 1996.

Note that in this case, we might have chosen other authors, since there are several lengthy lists. This is why the references should be by title, not author.

Sorcerer: An Intense Role-Playing Game. Ron Edwards. Chicago: Adept Press, 2001.
The Sorcerer’s Soul. Supplement to Sorcerer. Ron Edwards. Chicago: Adept Press, 2001.

Note that the full title of Sorcerer is Sorcerer: An Intense Role-Playing Game, according to the publication itself. For in-text citations, of course, Sorcerer is sufficient; this is a matter of common sense rather than rules as such. Note that the supplement The Sorcerer’s Soul is the second such supplement, but this is not necessary to mention.

Web Discussions

Follow this convention:

“Thread Title.” Initiator of Thread [real name if given]. Website Title. Forum [if any]. Full Date. Webaddress.

Thus:

“Thinking about editing – for the rest of us.” clehrich [Christopher I. Lehrich]. The Forge. Push Editorial Board. Oct. 4, 2004. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=12955.

You will need to be precise in your verbiage to deal with responses to such discussions. Post numbers and such are not necessarily helpful, but they can be if they can also be searched.

When citing such a thread in-text, give an abbreviated form of the title, and make clear in your prose who is speaking in any given quotation. Give a page-number based on how the forum works, if such pagination is used. For example:

Ben Lehman remarked that “My other big RPG theory thing is GMless play, but I see myself as more of a researcher than a critic. I've written 4-5 game engines which support various types of GMless play” (“Thinking about editing,” 1).


Bibliography Articles

An article whose primary purpose is bibliographic, or that reviews multiple works in one article, should depart from these conventions in several respects.

Every entry in the bibliography should be alphabetized, regardless of what is a supplement. Thus an article on “Making Sense of GURPS Supplements” should list the supplements strictly by title.

If dealing with many such works, the bibliography should begin with a section, “Works Reviewed,” including only those works analyzed within the article and not additional information. Thus the GURPS supplements article would have a “Works Reviewed” that lists the supplements in question, then the regular bibliography would probably include GURPS itself as well as any other games and books discussed.

If reviewing four or fewer texts, the article should begin with the works reviewed, giving complete information, with no special heading. The bibliography should not include those works. For example:

Ars Magica Third and Fourth Editions: A Review Essay

Ars Magica. 3d ed. Jonathan Tweet, Mark Rein*Hagen. (Etc – I don’t have it handy)
Ars Magica. 4th ed. Jonathan Tweet, Mark Rein*Hagen, et al. Roseville, MN: Atlas Games, 1996.

The differences between these two editions are worth close analysis....

The bibliography of this article would not include these two works, nor a “Works Reviewed” section.

Reviews

A review of a single work begins with full bibliographic information on the text.

Give ISBN and price information after the year, when available.

Unlike other articles, a review should conclude with your name. This helps to distinguish the author of the review from the author of the text reviewed.

The Sorcerer’s Soul. Supplement to Sorcerer. Ron Edwards. Chicago: Adept Press, 2001. ISBN 0-9709176-2-7. $17.50.

In this second supplement to Sorcerer, Ron Edwards continues his work....
....
Thus I recommend the volume.

Christopher I. Lehrich



----

Corrections and amendments will be posted to this thread.

Foreign Title Weirdness

Kätyrin osa. Eero Tuovinen. Translation of My Life With Master, by Paul Czege. 2003. Helsinki: Eero's Press, 2004.

Just as an example of something I didn't think of, which is a bibliographic reference to a translation from English to another language.

For Eero, and probably nobody else, this example is a little odd in structure but presents the information clearly and accurately. You could instead move the 2003 to parentheses after 2004, as in Eero's Press, 2004 (2003). This tells us that MLwM appeared in 2003 but Kätyrin osa appeared in 2004. The 2003 isn't necessary, but it's nice.

Suppose it were the other way around, though:

My Life With Master. Eero Tuovinen. 2003. Trans. Paul Czege. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004.

The second example is I think going to be more common. What's said here is that the original text, title not given in original language, appeared in 2003 and was written by Eero. Paul then translated it in 2004. I'm laying that out because obviously it's not true; it's a hypothetical example.

If you want to be really scrupulous, which Eero might want to be:

My Life With Master (Kätyrin osa). Eero Tuovinen. 2003. Trans. Paul Czege. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004.

Note that the original title is given not in italics, but before the period.

To take a more normal example, pretending this is a game and not a novel:

I Am a Cat (Wagahai wa neko de aru). Natsume Soseki. 1905-06. Trans. Aiko Ito and Graeme Wilson. 3 vols. Rutland, VT and Tokyo: Tuttle, 1972.

For the same text, you could simply give:

I Am a Cat. Natsume Soseki. Trans. Aiko Ito and Graeme Wilson. 3 vols. Rutland, VT and Tokyo: Tuttle, 1972.

Of course, since it's a novel and not a game, it should properly be:

Soseki Natsume. I Am a Cat (Wagahai wa neko de aru). 1905-06. Trans. Aiko Ito and Graeme Wilson. 3 vols. Rutland, VT and Tokyo: Tuttle, 1972.


Whew!

Multiple Volume Works

As in the I Am a Cat example, give the number of volumes at the end of the proper section of the reference, normally right before the publication information (place and whatnot).

Jonathan Walton wrote:
The best is no punctuation at all, in which one runs the quote "directly into the text" (Fred*, 15), as here.

If you cut one or more pieces of final punctuation (period, exclamation point, question mark), use four periods, otherwise use three. Never use two. Five is right out

Ben Lehman wrote:

Jonathan Walton didn't but Chris Lehrich wrote: The best is no punctuation at all, in which one runs the quote "directly into the text" (Fred*, 15), as here.

This is super pedantic, but... shouldn't this reference be at the end of the sentence? This was confusing to me for a bit...

If you cut one or more pieces of final punctuation (period, exclamation point, question mark), use four periods, otherwise use three. Never use two. Five is right out

What is the editorial policy of Monty Python references?

Also, what is the preference when discussing the authors of texts that come out of big "RPG production" houses such as White Wolf or TSR? Do we err in favor of the author of the majority of the prose? The person whose name is on the cover? Does the line editor or "created by" attribution deserve a mention?

Chris,

Thanks for taking this on. I don't actually have anything to add at this point, other than a note of appreciation for the work you've done.

Rich

This looks good, and it's how I'd go.

Except one thing... in your examples, you generally have games referred by their title in italics rather than by author. i.e. (MLWM, 24) rather than (Czege, 24). I'd like to question this. Truth be told, I'm inspired by Greg Costikyan, who wrote on his blog about Origins 2004 Awards, saying:

Greg Costikyan wrote: Mike Stackpole is MC, and he moves things swiftly along. It's not a bad ceremony--

Except for the fact that at no time is the name of a game designer, miniatures sculptor, graphic artist, illustrator--or, god help me, author--ever mentioned. Everything is ascribed to the publisher.

I'm sure this is extremely just. Gone With the Wind , product of MGM, right? (Selznick who?) Viking Publising, Grapes of Wrath, what a great novel. (Steinbeck? Who dat?) Dungeons & Dragons by--Hasbro, yes, that's the ticket.

Nothing has changed. Nothing has changed. I stay away for nearly twenty years, and nothing changes. Fucking Christ almighty, give me strength. Even when they come to the crap-licensed game "novel" (and I suppose no one else will give this dire less-than-genre anything like an award, so Origins ought to), they announce the name of the publisher--but not the person who actually did the work. Haven't we ascribed novels to writers for three hundred years and more? Where's Al Qaeda when you need them? The Columbus Convention Center, let me tell you, it needs a coupla hundred pounds of gelignite just about now, praise Allah.

I'm in favor of referring to games like John suggests:

John Writer, Funky-Ass Game (New Jacksonville, FL: Screwball Press, 2015).

For bibliographies:

Writer, John. Funky-Ass Game. New Jacksonville, FL: Screwball Press, 2015.

The only problem is that a lot of recent games seem to be constructed such that there are some zillions of authors mentioned, and besides, the alphabetization of bibliographies gets screwed up if everyone is looking for titles and we're listing by authors.

So long as we have a consistent standard, though, I'm easy. What do others think?

I think we're in an odd position. Because it certainly sounds good to give Paul Czege credit for MLwM, though it makes less sense to give Justin Achilli all the credit for Vampire. And since White Wolf (and Wizards too, I imagine) lists their writers in alphabetical order, you can't assume that the first few are the important ones and then drop the rest.

This makes it especially awkward when you're quoting passages from something and it's not clear who wrote it. If I quote from Vampire 2.0, do I list it as (Achilli & Etc., 2004)? That seems just as problematic since Achilli's probably not the person who wrote those words.

At no point, John, did we ever consider giving the publisher any special recognition. Personally, I think that Chris' original suggestion of listing works by title is going to be, generally, more helpful and useful, even though it doesn't make as strong of a political statement for author recognition or whatever. That's my $0.02. Not an editorial commandment, just my opinion.

Jonathan Walton wrote: This makes it especially awkward when you're quoting passages from something and it's not clear who wrote it. If I quote from Vampire 2.0, do I list it as (Achilli & Etc., 2004)? That seems just as problematic since Achilli's probably not the person who wrote those words.

At no point, John, did we ever consider giving the publisher any special recognition. Personally, I think that Chris' original suggestion of listing works by title is going to be, generally, more helpful and useful, even though it doesn't make as strong of a political statement for author recognition or whatever. That's my $0.02. Not an editorial commandment, just my opinion.

clehrich wrote: Something I notice here, as also in John's draft article. When did we suddenly switch over to scientific annotations? That entails quite different bibliographic forms.

What I had suggested was (Vampire, 15), meaning page 15 of that book; if I refer to multiple editions, it's (Vampire 2.0, 15).

If we switch to authors, it's (Achilli, 15).

John Kim wrote: Er, sorry. You're reading more into what I wrote than I intended. I just put the year in the reference out of habit. I wasn't deliberately trying to go with scientific style over MLA or Chicago.

I still feel we should refer to game books by author, the same as any other book -- but that's just my opinion and I respect the decision of the editors. The majority of RPGs, even popular ones, have only 1 or 2 authors. Later White Wolf books are an outlying exception. As far as I've seen, Wizards of the Coast still has clear primary author per book. i.e. Jonathan Tweet is credited as primary author of Everway and the Players Handbook. Monte Cook is author of the DMG. Skip Williams is author of the Monster Manual.

One and the same for me, really. If it were my journal I'd make it a matter of cultural commentary: refer to games with definite creators by the creator, and to sweatshop works with the game name/publisher only. The only basis for this judgement would be how the creator is displayed in the game: if it's civilized-like on the cover, spine or at least back-cover, then use the creator, but if it's hidden somewhere inside among the editors and the publisher's girlfriends, then why bother? Clearly the creator doesn't want his role to be emphasized.

This isn't a too complex matter: it's base courtesy to refer to artists by the trade names they choose. If I were to write a game and publish it under "Bear Studio studygroup", I'd expect you to refer to the studygroup as the creator. Likewise if I'm leading design project group "Monarchis" and give that as the creator. Or if I'm "Eero Tuovinen", then that's the creator. Or if I'm "Wizards of the Coast", then the game's authored by the company without naming names. Or if I don't list a creator at all, then why should you try to divine my identity?

If it's not clear, I don't consider listing the project group without a common referent as a "creator". It's just a list of workers from the company. In that manner I think that those WoD games are effectively published without naming the creator. If they'd put in text like "Game authored by the Vampire design group, including..." and then listed the names, that'd be another thing: that text says clear as day that the work is a cooperative effort between these individuals. This is not true of some random list that refuses to apportion credit.

But if that kind of judgement is too troublesome, either way is just fine. Nobody cares, really.

So I've got a couple questions for people who really dig citations. They have to do with movies and classical Chinese texts, which I'm quoting a bunch. The easy one first:

So, if Hanfei Zi or Sima Qian says something, I go last name and then page number, as long as the source is clear. Well, it just so happens that both of them have really uncommon two-syllable last names, so no problem there. Except that there isn't really a page numbering system for these texts. They have rolls and then chapters. But the chapter number keeps going between rolls, so I can't just do Biblical notation, like (Sima 12:34), because it's roll 12, but chapter 34 overall, not chapter 34 in roll 12. So you'd think I could just list the chapter, since they're short, but then they look exactly like page numbers. Some versions of the text (like this one) have paragraph numbers within the chapters, but I don't know if those are consistent. I suspect they're not, really.

Now the harder one, Chinese movies. So I want to talk about what's in Zhang Yimou's House of Flying Daggers and you don't want to know the page number, you want to know that it was released in (2004), and I just told you the director, so you don't need (Zhang, 2004), especially when there are a bunch of people named Zhang in the article, like Zhang Ziyi. It's like the third most common Chinese last name. So I've been totally breaking all style guidelines and just citing movies by the year, after it, and then sometimes including the director's full name if it's not obvious from the text, like I don't tell you at first who directed Musa (Kim Sungsu, 2001), I could tell you about it afterwards. And if we're going for creator's rights with games, should we do it for movies too, joining the cult of the director and assuming that they had everything to do with making it good? Seems problematic.

How's my bibliography style?

Zhang Yimou. House of Flying Daggers [Shi Mian Mai Fu]. Takeshi Kaneshiro, Andy Lau, Zhang Ziyi, Song Dandan. 2004.

Or maybe with the title first?

House of Flying Daggers [Shi Mian Mai Fu]. Zhang Yimou (dir.), Takeshi Kaneshiro, Andy Lau, Zhang Ziyi, Song Dandan. 2004.

Seems to be a similar problem as with the Vampire business, so maybe we can come up with style guidelines that work for both. We should treat directors and lead editors/line developers the same, which either makes them the mastermind of what is essentially a group project, or we make the project the most important part and then name the authors.

I think, now, that when we have one or a few authors for a work that the authors should definitely come first. Artists still get totally shafted, but we've been ignoring their contributions to the medium for decades now, and I don't anyone would argue that they deserve as much credit as the authors anyway.

I'm going to suggest that we list games by their authors unless they are a big house book, in which case we do title. I suggest listing movies by their directors, just because that's good old American tradition, even if I disagree with it. The latter means that you have to make the director obvious in the text (at least the first time) or put it in parens as in (Zhang Yimou, 2004). I'm going to put the full name for Chinese and Korean directors because otherwise it can get ridiculous. Too many Zhangs, Hans, Lis, Lius, Wangs, and Kims running about the place.

Anyway, now that that's out of my system...

Wait, I just realize that what I posted was contradictory. If we go with the cult of the director, then Vampire should be:

Achilli, Justin. Vampire: The Requiem. All the other bloody authors. White Wolf, 2004.

Right? Right?! Damn, consistency doesn't make much sense sometimes, especially when the mediums have such different standards and you want to recognize different people in each one.