Could anyone please advise how I should cite (in Harvard Reference style), the following document:

It can also be found here:

It is also referred to as the “2012 Planning Rule” here:

I’ve seen it referenced as 2012 Planning Rule (77 Fed. Reg. 21161) however that’s not Harvard Style. I’d like to know how to reference this within the text (Author, Year) and within a reference list (Author, Year. Title. Publisher. Location).


This question already has an answer here:

What is the British English way of referring to a source in-text.

Is it plural because there are two authors, like this:

X and Y (2011) describe …

Or is it singular because you are referring to a singular source, like this:

X and Y (2011) describes…

So what I am asking is whether you refer to the source or to the authors?

I took a specialization course at Coursera in which I have learned lot of insights that would be essentialy useful while writing my master’s degree dissertation. How can I reference to them?

I’ve already found a paper that do this for another lecture at Coursera but I’m not sure if is that right:

Tieleman, T. and Hinton, G. Lecture 6.5 – RMSProp, COURSERA: Neural Networks for Machine Learning.
Technical report, 2012.

Could I use this same “model”?

I want to cite a paper presented to a conference and published in a periodical (I only have the name and the number though). How do I that?

Is this right (MLA style)?:

LastName, Name. “Title of the paper.” Title of the periodical, no. [number], Name of the University, Year.

It would be easier for me to just include the title and the number of the periodical but is it enough? And if I wanted to cite it as something presented at a conference, how do I do that?

Assuming that the cited work will not be less identifiable:
When including a paper in the body and bibliography of one’s work, is it okay to omit the author’s middle name(s) and just give the first and last name in the bibliography?

The main reason why I consider doing that is as follows:

I often cite different works by the same author, but one work lists the middle name, the other doesn’t.

Usually, when two works of the same author are listed in the bibliography, and the names are consistent, they will appear one below the other, and the second entry will not list the author, but a line of dashes:

Doe, John. Work 1, 1999.  
-----. Work 2, 2003.

But if the author is not exactly the same in the bibliography database (in LaTeX, for instance), it will be listed as such:

Doe, John. Work 1, 1999.
Doe, John Jeremy. Work 2, 2003.

This in itself is just cosmetic: it may be bad style, but the bibliography is still correct.

Now imagine there are three works, and only the one that was published between the two others states the middle name of the author.
It would look like this:

Doe, John. Work 1, 1999.
Doe, John. Work 3, 2007.
Doe, John Jeremy. Work 2, 2003.

This is because the bibliographic system doesn’t recognize them as the same author.
This is a problem because the works don’t appear in order of their publishing date.

Another reason is purely cosmetic:
Some cultures traditionally use shorter names (Chinese, e.g.), some have longer or more names, like the extra patronyms in Russian or the middle or family names in Spanish naming conventions.
I’m not an expert on these cultures, but I’m really not sure if the two lines of middle names really do have to go in the bibliography.