As a full-time cataloguer I see a lot of copy. Lately I’ve noticed that many libraries are beginning to use the formatted contents note. However, I have noticed some inconsistencies and you can imagine how much that bugs me…
Some put initial articles in a subfield g and some do not.
Examples: ‡tThe maiden’s promise vs. ‡gThe‡tmaiden’s promise.
I have searched high and low for a definitive answer and came up with the following from OCLC.
Do not use subfield ‡g to separate initial articles from titles in field 505. Initial articles in titles should be included in subfield ‡t when inputting an enhanced contents note. The correct transcription of formal contents notes is governed by:
- AACR2 rule 2.7B18 and its Library of Congress Rule Interpretation
- The corresponding contents note rules (and Library of Congress Rule Interpretations) in subsequent AACR2 chapters
If anyone can come up with a good argument (with documentation) to refute OCLC’s statements, then I would be very interested in hearing them. I wonder if the rules are influenced by different software programs. Perhaps the index needs the initial articles outside of the subfield t ?