OOo plugin generates inconsistent footnotes

Hi, I just come across the most frustrating thing in my 11-month experience with Zotero.

The OOo plugin generates footnotes that are inconsistent:

1. Does not suppress author in SOME multiple entries footnotes - eg. I have 2 similar footnotes in a row (call them 24 & 25), both are multiple entries of books by same author. Strangely I can suppress author in 25 but not in 24. When I put my cursor on the footnotes, both shows that they have [suppressed author], but in fact note 24 just shows the author's name repeated for 5 times.

2. Full citation, brief citation, and ibid - I quote from the same work in several consecutive footnotes. In the first note, it gives me a full citation (which is correct); in the 2nd not, ibid, also good; 3rd note, author surname and short title (fine but weird, as ibid has already appeared); 4th note, ibid; 5th note, full citation (author full name, full title, publisher, date). Uh oh!
(I must emphasise that they are consecutive footnotes in a row, all on the same page.)

These I can only call them inconsistencies. Please tell me if there is a way to solve or go around these problems, cos they are very annoying.
Or is that a bug that awaits to be fixed?
Manually editing them won't work, cos when I refresh the document, they would all go back to the condition as generated by the plugin.

Thank you all.
  • PS: I am using Chicago (note with bibliography), OpenOffice 2.3.1, Windows XP (sp2), Zotero + plugin all update.
  • are you using Chicago Note with Bibliography (which would not have a full citation) or Chicago Full Note with Bibliography?
  • erazlogo:

    Yes, as I said in the PS right above your message, I AM using the Chicago note with biblio.
    I don't know how you (or they, whoever) define full citation. I just mean this format:
    "author full name, book title (place: publisher, year)."
    I do get this.

    BUT: my problem is the inconsistency -- it gives me different things at different times, even when they are consecutive footnotes on the same book!
  • edited January 16, 2008
    Is there any way you can post your example document somewhere, or a screenshot of the relevant section? It's hard to visualize the problem from your description.
  • Is it possible that you have duplicate entries in your Zotero library for the same book?
  • Sean:
    No, not possible at all.

    I do not have to way to do that, but I can demonstrate it below - just imagine you are reading my footnotes

    1. Clive Marsh, Theology Goes to the Movies: An Introduction to Critical Christian Thinking (Oxford and New York: Routledge, 2007), 22-24.

    2. Ibid., 27.

    3. Marsh, Theology Goes to the Movies, 65.

    4. Clive Marsh, Theology Goes to the Movies: An Introduction to Critical Christian Thinking (Oxford and New York: Routledge, 2007), 27.

    5. Ibid., 65-66.
  • Are you using reference marks or bookmarks? I can't reproduce this error with reference marks.
  • erazlogo, I don't understand your question :p
  • Click on "set document preferences" in the Zotero toolbar. The last option in Document Preferences is "Format Using: a. Reference marks; b. Bookmarks".

    While you're at it, look at your chosen style--from the example you cite above it must be Chicago FULL note with bibliography, not Chicago note with bibilography (as I explain above, the latter does not include full footnote citations).

    I assume you have Reference marks checked since that's the default. If that's the case, the problem must be with the OOo plugin for Windows, because Mac plugin works fine.
  • erazlogo:

    Yes, you're right. Chicago full note with biblio, and Reference marks. (Now I remember I have consciously chose this, cos it said Book mark might be accidentally modified.)

    So, what can we do about it?
  • Yam
    edited January 16, 2008
    Hi, thanks to erazlogo and others, now I have a clearer grasp of the situation after testing things out again.

    In subsequent footnotes on the same book, if I cite a specific page number, it would come out as (for example): Ibid., 27; Ibid., 204; etc.
    But if I don't specify the number, it will generate the author's surname with the short book title.

    Ultimately I am not certain if that is the Chicago Manual requirement or a bug. Can anyone enlighten me on that?
  • It's probably a bug, but honestly, ibid is a PITA. According to Chicago, for example, the term stands in for the work information, and page number ought not to impact that condition. However, it's not that simple. If you have:

    1. ibid. 23
    2. ibid.
    ... then note 2 in fact is short for "ibid. 23". But I'm not sure what the processor is supposed to do if you add a third note that simply refers to the same work as a whole without a page number. It seems to me that could lead to ambiguity.
  • I just come across a situation which can make the OOo plugin unusable.
    It listed my first citation on a certain books as ibid., then give the full details! How about that! (same style: Chicago full note)

    1. Ibid.
    2. Clive Marsh, Theology Goes to the Movies (blablabla...).

    What can I or anyone do about this?
  • Thanks, Sean.
Sign In or Register to comment.