archive sometimes appears in footnotes, sometimes not

zachbe

Is the archive field supposed to show up in a footnote in Chicago full-note-with-bib? Is there another field I should be putting the archival info into so that it shows up in footnotes?

I'm entering letters. Each letter should list an author, recipient, date, and archive volume. I enter them as letters and don't use the title field. I enter the archive info in the archive field.

Here's the strange part: sometimes it shows up, sometimes it doesn't, even after refresh.

What can I do to make sure the archive info always appears in footnotes?

thanks.

Also, where would someone suggest I put name of translator and date of translation in a letter entry?

adamsmith

that seems odd -
First, as I'm sure you aware, CMoS uses abbreviated forms for items that have been previously cited - could that be what's going on here?
If not, check the bibliography (even if you don't want one in the end, create it for troubleshooting). Is the archive info there?

If a letter is translated, I assume it's published somewhere - I wonder if it's not better to cite it as something else (like a book section) in that case. If I'm misunderstanding the issue here, please provide an example of a citation as you'd like to see it.

bobanello

I understand that some "Item Type" (e.g., Presentation, Book) first reference footnotes in Chicago full-note-with-bib style currently do not present the "Archive" or "Loc. in Archive" fields; some "Item Type" do not even have the capability to enter the latter fields. I have a "get around" for this using the "URL" field. It should be known that almost any "Item Type" may be found in an archive, and it would be helpful to have those fields available for entry and to allow them to print for all "Item Type." Thank you.

adamsmith

First, if you re-read the original post, that's not the issue - the OP is using one specific item type - letter. Generally it's a good idea to start a new thread for different issues.

If you start that thread, give specific examples of where you're missing the archive fields and how the respective items should be cited. In this case, there is actually a thread specifically dedicated to such changes at the top of the forum, so best to post there - read some of the discussions to familiarize yourself with the types of concerns and questions that will come up in these discussions.
Generally speaking, though, adding existing fields to existing item types is the least costly type of change to the data model, so it's not unlikely to happen.

Using the URL field is a risky work around, of course - this will screw things up in many other styles.

erazlogo

Archival info for book and article item type have been excluded from citations when repository and archive were the same field in Zotero so not to include library catalog info for books. This has been fixed for a while, so we should go ahead and include all archive/archive location for all item types for Chicago.