On Thu, 3 May 2012, Deborah J. Leslie wrote:

> I have long preferred "outside back cover" to indicate this location.

  Hopefully without sounding egoistical, since I've never seen that 
terminology in use, I'd recommend against cluttering the database with too 
much creativity, even if we are only talking about authority records.

> It does not need to be explained

  Does "back cover" need to be explained? Personally, I would have preferred 
"back of cover" (considering the "cover", front and back, to be one 
physical entity), but I'll go with uniformity of practice.

> while "p. 4 of cover" does.

  How come? The cover can only have 4 "pages" (+ the spine), or is the word 
"page" the problem? I agree on that, so how come all those erudite 
rule-writing catalogers (?) never suggested suggested a different word? 
Wait, don't answer that. It's politics again.

> "Page <whatever> of cover" is unnecessary

  True for hardbacks (when "pages" 2 and 3 or "inside" back and front 
cover) can usually be called "lining papers"), but not for pbks. (and they 
are physically kind of "pagey"). I'd stick with the "pages" terminology 
for pbks. and the "lining paper" and "front" and "back" for hbks.

  Here's a plan: involve patrons in decision-making by surveying them. Or 
would the particular question at hand make us look even more trifling?

Cheers!

jgm

  John G. Marr
  Cataloger
  CDS, UL
  Univ. of New Mexico
  Albuquerque, NM 87131
  [log in to unmask]
  [log in to unmask]


     **There are only 2 kinds of thinking: "out of the box" and "outside
the box."

Opinions belong exclusively to the individuals expressing them, but
sharing is permitted.