Orientalia. (OCLC #2670229)
What’s going on with (our gift copy of?) this journal?
Many issues have in their table of contents a bibliography with separate pagination (decorated by *) but we don’t have those pages. They are available from JSTOR though, so I know they exist.
Were these published in a separate volume, that the previous owner just chose not to bind in there?
The essential cult TV reader / edited by David Lavery. (OCLC #897377307)
As this title includes a filmography separate from the rest of the bibliographical references, I included an additional note (as 504 is repeatable):
504 __ ǂa Includes bibliographical references and index. 504 __ ǂa Includes filmography.
There is also a value for this (q) in the fixed field Cont:
Cont: bq
The code ‘q’ is far down in the alphabet, and there are only four spaces in the Cont fixed field, so this code may not be always be recorded if the title has a lot of other specific contents. For example, the item was a thesis (m) which also included abstracts/summaries (a), a bibliography (b), a discography (k), and a filmography (q), the fixed field would be:
Cont: abkm
Cap-Martin : architecture beside the sea / Nerte Fustier-Dautier ; illustrations by Andre-Yves Dautier ; translated from the French by Julian Hale. (OCLC #875284539)
This book’s pages are numbered up through page 51 (which ends a chapter), and then there are five unnumbered pages which still have some content (notes, bibliography, series information).
RDA 3.4.5.2 says to record the last numbered page, leaf, or column in each sequence, and RDA 3.4.5.3.1 says that when there are both numbered and unnumbered sequences, disregard the unnumbered sequences unless they are referred to in a note. As the unnumbered pages would be referred to by the bibliography note, I recorded the pagination as:
51 pages, 5 unnumbered pages
The bibliography spans the first two unnumbered pages, so how does that go in the 504? Like one of these?
504 __ ǂa Includes bibliographical references (First and second
unnumbered pages).
504 __ ǂa Includes bibliographical references (Pages 1 and 2 of
unnumbered sequence).
Gross! (AACR2 was tidier for this case.) I checked the table of contents and found that it numbered pages up through 55, so I chose to view these pages as “numbered”, just without page numbers printed on them. I recorded the pagination as:
56 pages
did the bibiliography note as:
504 __ ǂa Includes bibliographical references (pages 52-53).
and included an explanatory note about the pagination.
In a bibliographical references note in an RDA record, page numbers should never be surrounded by square brackets, even when the pages mentioned do not actually have numbers printed on them. For example:
504 __ ǂa Includes bibliographical references (pages 204-208) and index.
(even if the logical page 204 doesn’t actually have that number printed on it)
More generally, the LC-PCC PS for RDA 1.7.1 regarding punctuation in notes says not to use square brackets in any notes except quoted notes. That is, only when you are quoting something that actually has brackets on it, should you include them. For example:
500 __ ǂa "The best book about punctuation, including [, ], <, and >"--Page 4 of cover.