MNRAS used to allow references to Starlink documents.  The paranoid 
might see this change as a further attempt to discredit UK astronomical 
software.  My guess is that MNRAS just wants the complete reference 
format in the house style.

They were published by the Starlink Project, Rutherford Appleton 
Laboratory in both paper and later html formats.  These days it's only 
the latter.  There are precedents for using this form, i.e. naming 
Starlink Project, and we think this was a later recommendation than in 
the Starlink User Guide (probably on the old Starlink website).

> http://star-www.rl.ac.uk/docs/sug.htx/node14.html
> Author, A.N., 1997, Starlink User Note 123, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory.

Note that this was written before the hardware side of Starlink was no 
longer funded let alone the demise of the software side.  Now that the 
software is co-ordinated and stored from the Joint Astronomy Centre, you 
could argue that documents created after 2005 June the publisher is
JAC.

Please do not use this long deprecated URL (star-www.rl.ac.uk) in 
references.  It should be www.starlink.ac.uk.  While we have redirected 
the old address, it may not always work if an old machine dies at RAL. 
Also the Starlink software is no longer attached to "rl" and attribution 
is clearer with "starlink" over "star".  We filtered the document 
hyperlinks to use the modern address.  I'd like Google to present links 
to the current address not one from a decade ago.

It's a good idea to give the document title in case it was one of the 
recycled numbers.  It also helps the reader judge whether they want to 
consult the cited manual.  Most of re-used SUN numbers were for 
ephemeral items.  After he left the Project our former software 
librarian admitted that the reuse of SUN numbers was an error.  I never 
understood why it was ever needed.  My recollection from the time was of 
a Year-2000-type issue in index formatting, but we were no where near 
reaching SUN/1000.  Without the recycling we would now be around 
SUN/300.

>> I'd use something similar to a book. There is of course a publisher.
>>
>>  Draper P.W., Taylor M., Allan A., 2006, CCDPACK - CCD data reduction
>>    package - version 4.0, Starlink User Note 139, Particle Physics &
>>    Astronomy Research Council, Didcot

The funding Council changed too many times, so you would have to know 
the Council by date, whereas "Starlink Project" was constant.  Hence my 
suggestion above.  What about post 2005 publications?  The spirit of
Starlink lives on and the code is still being used and developed so I 
still use Starlink Project as publisher.

If you can find a published paper to a Starlink package, such as from 
the ADASS Conference Proceedings, please cite that.  That will provide 
further crosslinking, including to the SUNs.

>> Pretending Starlink User Note is a journal known the world over
>> is indeed not very helpful for astronomers that don't know what
>> Starlink was.

If we had Starlink documents in ADS that would address most of these 
isues, and online cross-referencing would be possible.  ADS also 
provides document curation and permanent Digital Object Identifiers.
What is the MNRAS policy regarding URL and DOI links to documents?

We ought to have a section on the Starlink wiki on how to cite and 
acknowledge the software, if only for the main packages.  We should also 
document how to cite a given package in its SUN (best done after Tim 
sorts out the ADS submission).

Malcolm

----
Starlink User Support list
For list configuration, including subscribing to and unsubscribing from the list, see
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=STARLINK