Expand prefix/suffix fields for easier editing?

rjm95

I tend to write long, involved (Chicago) footnotes, with plenty of my own text mixed in with citations. If I want these notes to update dynamically (i.e., change to reflect any database changes to the items cited), I have to put all my non-citation text in the prefix and suffix fields. Currently these fields only show one line, which makes it unwieldy to compose and edit paragraph-long notes. Is there any way to expand these fields? Something like the edit field in the Classic View would be great, but retaining the dynamic capability of the prefix/suffix fields.

Related, it would be great to have this enlarged edit field include formatting so I wouldn't have to use html code for every style change.

Does the answer to my problem already exist?

adamsmith

While using prefix/suffix is recommended, it is not, in fact, required to use those to maintain live citations that will update with Zotero. You just have to make sure to not edit the actual citations in the foornote, but place regular text between them, which should be recognizable if you have field shadings turned on.

aurimas

Gracile has asked me to look into this and I have a half-baked solution that auto-expands the field as needed, but it needs some more work. I'm not sure how soon I'll be able to finish it

Gracile

Indeed (thanks Aurimas !). Original thread here.

rjm95

Thanks for these replies. AdamSmith, I was not aware that I could edit text in the footnote itself, as long as I do not mess with the Zotero citation. To me, this is preferable to an expanded prefix/suffix field, especially since it will allow me to use MSWord formatting without html markup.

Since this is not recommended, what are the dangers of this practice? I'd adopt the practice as the ideal solution if I didn't have to risk screwing up the notes in a heavily annotated document. Are there best-practices guidelines I should follow if I use this method?

adamsmith

To clarify: what you want to be doing is to use Word/LO, not Zotero, to insert the footnote and then insert the citations individually, interspersed with the text.

There are two main issues with this, which is why it's not recommended in general, though it's not something I'd say we strongly discourage--many historians or others writing lengthy footnotes do this:

1. Zotero's CMoS citations end in a period. So if you want to so something like "Smith, <i>Wealth of Nations</i>, is the definite work on this." The only way to do this without modifying the citation would be to include ", is the definite work on this" in the suffix field. So, basically--pay attention to that. That's why I strongly recommend having Word (or LibreOffice) field shading set to always show (i.e. always highlight Word Field/LibreOffic Reference Marks). If you're touching anything that's highlighted in gray, that citation will stop updating.

2. This is probably no concern for you, but: obviously you won't be able to convert citations you insert directly into a footnote to in-text citations using an author-date style. This only works where you have

With that in mind, you shouldn't have any problems and I don't think there's any risk of screwing things up.