Upgrade StorageStyle Request: Oscola
This is an old discussion that has not been active in a long time. Before commenting here, you should strongly consider starting a new discussion instead. If you think the content of this discussion is still relevant, you can link to it from your new discussion.
Styles also update automatically within 24hs for Zotero 4.0+
In an existing document, you may have to switch to a different style and back for the changes to take effect once the style is updated.
Just tested it, and it looks perfect now. Here is the exact output before/after the update:
Before: After:
This is what the OSCOLA manual (4th edn) says about such papers: And this is the example given in the manual (substituting [ and ] for the greater than/lesser than symbols): At present, the OSCOLA style comes very close to giving the right output with the item type set as either "Conference paper" or "Manuscript". For "Conference paper", I put the additional info (series/number) in the "proceedings title" field, while for "Manuscript" I put the additional info in the "type" field.
This gives the following output for "Conference paper": And the following for "Manuscript": I submit that "Manuscript" is the most appropriate item type for such working papers. "Conference proceedings" is its own nice, with distinct citation requirements.
To bring the citation of the "Manuscript" item type in OSCOLA up to par with the style manual, only two small edits are necessary. First, the title must not be in italic, but instead enclosed in single quotation marks. Second, the comma after the year/date must be removed. Third, a comma must be added following the information in the "type" field (in the example above, following the text 1/2007), so that this information is distinguished from the pinpoint cite. Finally, the URI must be added at the end, before accessed date.
(I would love to fix this myself and submit a pull request, but the OSCOLA style has become a bit too advanced for me, and I am in the last few weeks of my PhD.)
Manuscript, on the other hand, connotes written scientific or artistic work that has yet to be properly published. This is exactly what working papers and other unfinished article manuscripts are. They are unfinished papers, subject to change before final publication.
After publication, the paper becomes a "Journal Article". And if an unfinished paper has been presented at a conference it becomes either "Presentation" (if not published in a conference proceeding) or "Conference paper" (if published in a conference proceeding).
Although it is often necessary to use workarounds in OSCOLA to get legal citation to work, the workarounds should not compromise the distinctions between item types that is in place already. It makes no sense to use the same item type on what is in reality two things - reports and working papers - when there are two distinct item types available. Using the manuscripts item type is also very useful due to the visual distinction they gain in Zotero collections due to their unique icon.
Consequently, I suggest that the output of manuscript is amended as I wrote above. Indeed, doing so would not do any damage; those who wish to file working papers as "reports" may well continue doing so.
(PS: I am fully aware that Zotero is not a democracy, and that we users cannot boss developers around. All I'm trying to do is to create the best rational argument, in the hope that it will prevail.)
To reproduce: cite a book in Libreoffice, choosing "chapter" from the drop-down menu and entering the chapter number ("3"), the first citation is generated correctly: However, subsequent citations using the same approach omit the crucial "ch" text: (It thus looks like I am citing page 3 rather than chapter 3.)
Workaround for the moment:
Just type "ch 2" in the "suffix" field instead.
Be aware, though, that this can create issues if you want to cite the same book again immediately as "ibid".
On the report, first, when we say that "Zotero is not a democracy" we mean that ten users writing +1 doesn't have much of an impact on development decisions. But both Dan on the Zotero side and Rintze, me (and for more controversial issues Franke, Bruce, et al.) on the CSL side listen very closely to arguments/user feedback and have been convinced many to change or implement features.
I don't think we'll change this though. There are two reasons:
1) Status quo bias: we've been using report for working papers for years. It's what's implemented in the major citation styles and it's what's imported from major working paper repositories/series like NBER and SSRN. Changing this would disrupt existing users citations.
2) Systematic: In my view, a report is best described as a paper or manuscript published on its own and less formally than a book, often by an organization and often in a series of similar reports. I think that description fits working paper quite well. Manuscripts, on the other hand, I would use for items that are actually unpublished (e.g. sent to me by the author or just from their website).
On "manuscipt", I see your points, but I still think the suggested change is compatible with both of them:
1) There would be no status quo change. There is no need to touch the output of "Report" in OSCOLA. Users are then free to choose which item type they want to use.
2) To cite unpublished manuscripts "just sent to the author" properly, it is still necessary with the suggested changes. See the OSCOLA general principles for secondary sources (p. 39 in 4th ed), which apply since no particular referencing rules are written for this specific instance:
PS: I didn't want to sound snarky with my "Zotero is not a democracy" comment, I just wanted to show deference and not sound entitled :-)
(And I didn't take your comment as snark but rather as undue deference ;) -- point is that we want to hear people's opinion.)
(PS: I guess polite argument on the internet is difficult, it's so easy to be misread. Good to hear I was not this time ;-) )
(Asking because my thesis will be submitted in a couple of weeks, and I am therefore charting out the things I need to double-check and manually fix.)
I've currently handled the manuscript like you initially requested, but I don't think that's quite right. Currently it puts the type after the parentheses with the year (as it does for report). But it seems to me it would be correct to put it in the parenthesis as it does for thesis.
(If there's anyone who used the previous workaround with manuscript standing in as treaty, you can get back the previous behavior by adding
itemType: treatyinto the extra field.On the manuscript formatting, I think what you have now is actually perfect. That is because the manuscript type may sometimes contain a year (e.g. University of Somewhere Working paper 1/2013) or a number that may be confused with a year. It therefore seems best to have the "type" field after the paranthesis.
But, one thing needs fixing, and that is a comma separator after type, before pinpoint. The current output with pinpoint set to page 20 is as follows: With the added comma (in bold for better visibility):
author, | ‘title’ | (additional information, | publisher | year)
I'll add the comma before the pinpoint.
(I submit my thesis Wednesday, and if it is not added, I have to make a note to manually put it in at the very end.)
Thanks again!
I'm so grateful for the OSCOLA style with zotero - it's amazing!
It might be that I'm doing something wrong but I'm having difficulty with citing sections of statutes. The first time the act is cited it works perfectly (I insert the statute and then use the drop down menu to add the section number which displays correctly). However, if I cite another section of the same act immediately underneath the first one it shows up as 'ibid 25' instead of 'ibid s25'. Then if the act is cited later on in the work, even if I use the drop down menu to add a section number it does not display in the reference. So it currently looks like this:
1 EU Referendum Act 2015, s3.
2 ibid 4.
3 [other citation].
4 EU Referendum Act 2015 (n1).
when I think it should be:
1 EU Referendum Act 2015, s3.
2 ibid s4.
3 [other citation].
4 EU Referendum Act 2015, s5.
(as OSCOLA says not to cross reference subsequent citations of legislation)
I don't imagine there is a way to prevent the system from cross referencing statutes but would it be possible for the section numbers to appear in the reference?
eg
4 EU Referendum Act 2015 (n1), s5.
The cross reference would be pretty easy to take out at the end but keeping track of section numbers to add in manually at the end doesn't seem ideal.
NB If I add the section to the record in my library (eg making a new entry for every section of an act) it doesn't show in the reference either.
Thanks so much.
I'll look at the rest, thanks.
It's pg 6 of the guide at the top of the page. https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxlaw/oscola_4th_edn_hart_2012.pdf
'EXAMPLE of subsequent citation of legislation
This example shows legislation for which a short form could be used in a subsequent
citation. The short form is indicated in brackets at the end of the full citation. In
such cases, the short form can be used without a cross-citation to the full citation
where the proximity of the full citation enables this to be done without confusing the
reader. Where that is not the case, a further full citation should be provided, with the
result that cross-citation is never necessary.
32 Council Directive (EC) 93/104 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of
working time [1993] OJ L307/18 (Working Time Directive).
…
40 Working Time Directive, art 2.'