Website citations

[euryalus]

I am not entirely sure if this is the correct place to ask this question, but as abbreviations are involved there may be some relevance. Briefly, when citing websites as footnote sources, such as:

"(http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/biographies/1t43/1)"

Do these count as "books" or "articles". In other words, should subsequent citations be "op.cit" or "loc.cit"?

The site in question, as a matter of interest, is the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography online, which I have found very useful - having just discovered that two pioneering NZ educationalists, Thomas and Anne Maria Chapman, had originated in Oxfordshire.

[Peter Goodey]

In other words, should subsequent citations be "op.cit" or "loc.cit"?

ibid?

[Kerrywood]

These days very few publishers use op. cit. and loc. cit. As Peter says, ibid. ( = ibidem, in the same place) is more common, and it's widely accepted for website references.

However, website references are regarded as moving targets. For that reason it's advisable always to include (as part of the first citation) the date that you accessed the site, e.g.

http://www.british-genealogy.com (accessed 12 March 2012)

[euryalus]

But ibidem would surely be used when one or more citations follow the initial reference? - Otherwise the author should be given plus op.cit or loc.cit for books or articles as the case may be (?)

[Kerrywood]

For non-consecutive references to websites I personally would repeat the complete URL rather than use op. cit. or loc. cit.

It doesn't matter much what system you use, provided the one you choose is clear, unambiguous and consistent throughout the publication.

[Peter Goodey]

FWIW Kings College London's advice is...

1. Hamnett CR. Unequal city: London in the global arena. Routledge, London 2003, p. 109.
2. Ibid. p.142.
3. Ibid. p.156.
4. Handy C. (1993) Understanding organizations. 4th ed. London, Penguin.
5. Hamnett CR. op.cit. p227

Personally, when ibid isn't appropriate, I just do the same as Kerrywood and repeat the reference.