Upgrade StorageChicago placing page range before editors for book section
I'm running into what appears to be a minor error in the CSL file that I haven't been able to track down. Using the current versions of either the Chicago Note or Chicago Full Note styles (Chicago Author-Date does not exhibit the problem), Zotero is erroneously placing the page range for a book section before rather than after the editors. So I get this:
Rouse, Richard H., and Mary A. Rouse. “Statim Invenire: Schools, Preachers, and New Attitudes to the Page.” In Renaissance and Renewal in the Twelfth Century, 201–225. edited by Robert Louis Benson, Giles Constable, and Carol Dana Lanham. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982.
When I would expect this:
Rouse, Richard H., and Mary A. Rouse. “Statim Invenire: Schools, Preachers, and New Attitudes to the Page.” In Renaissance and Renewal in the Twelfth Century, edited by Robert Louis Benson, Giles Constable, and Carol Dana Lanham, 201–225. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982.
Would someone mind looking at this?
Rouse, Richard H., and Mary A. Rouse. “Statim Invenire: Schools, Preachers, and New Attitudes to the Page.” In Renaissance and Renewal in the Twelfth Century, 201–225. edited by Robert Louis Benson, Giles Constable, and Carol Dana Lanham. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982.
When I would expect this:
Rouse, Richard H., and Mary A. Rouse. “Statim Invenire: Schools, Preachers, and New Attitudes to the Page.” In Renaissance and Renewal in the Twelfth Century, edited by Robert Louis Benson, Giles Constable, and Carol Dana Lanham, 201–225. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982.
Would someone mind looking at this?
That same citation looks correctly in other styles? And this is in regular Zotero?
Edit: It also still happens after deleting and re-installing the styles. You probably guessed from the style of the citation, but I should also perhaps have specified that this is happening in the bibliography.
How are you generating these? (i.e. Word plugin, right-click, quick copy?)
You've tried different items and they all have the same problem?
Unfortunately that doesn't run on Standalone, so your best bet is likely to wait for the next version i.e. 4.0.7 - shouldn't be terribly long.
For URLs I'd need an example.
It is going to be my judgement call that the number of researchers who pull electronic information for articles but go to the library to consult paper copies of a journal article is very small (I'm not saying they don't exist - just that they are tiny minority) and I would need to see some convincing reason I'm wrong about that before entertaining to change that behavior.
I'd suggest deleting the DOI in your items then, I guess.
I think that you're entirely correct in your assumptions. There are, however, a great number of people using Chicago style whose editors ask them to remove URLs from print sources, and do not distinguish between these and DOIs. Since you have a preference that would appear to cover this situation, why not follow it for all electronic locators?
http://www.zotero.org/support/dev/citation_styles/style_editing_step-by-step
- They are different fields in Zotero
- Technically URLs and DOIs aren't the same (i.e. one is an identifier, the other one a locator)
- In citation styles they're not treated the same - many citation styles, including the APA manual, _require_ DOIs for articles but not URLs, so treating them the same would actually make it impossible to get correct citations in those styles.
While you're obviously not the first person to struggle with DOIs in Chicago style, you are the first person who claims to have been confused by the preference - I don't think equating URLs and DOIs is common.