Chicago 17 not displaying short title for all item types

sicahjes

I am using Chicago 17, and have found that for 'statute' and 'bill' item types it will not display the short title in footnotes (it will for 'case').

I've reviewed the style guide and section 14.29 encourages the use of short titles and section 14.275 outlines the parameters for using short titles for legal-style citations (implying they are permitted). Is there a rule I am missing or is this an error with the style in the repository?

If it is not an error, dare I ask for help again to modify the style so as to make the short title display?

Thanks guys!

sicahjes

Bumping in the hope this will appear closer to the top of the discussion list.

adamsmith

(I've seen this, Chicago changes just always take some time & consideration)

sicahjes

Thanks @adamsmith :-)

Do you know if there is a way that I can tweak the style guide code so as to always show the short title, regardless of item type (preserving ibid rules)? I'm working from a modified version anyway (but only adjusted to show year in footnotes).

adamsmith

It's this line:
<else-if type="legal_case bill legislation" match="any">
<text variable="title"/>
</else-if>

you just need to add form="short" to the middle one

adamsmith

I've now looked at the language in the CMoS and I think you're misreading this:

Short forms include case names reduced to the name of only one party (usually the plaintiff or the nongovernmental party); statutes and legislative documents identified only by name or document and section numbers; treaties identified only by name (or sometimes a short form thereof); and the use of id. (in italics).

Note that this specifically mentions short forms of titles/name of cases and treaties but not for statutes and legislation. It just says you can leave other elements out, which the current style does, so we're going to leave the styles on the repository as they are.

sicahjes

Thanks Adam, as always I really appreciate you taking the time to look into this for me.

Thank you so much for the code, does this mean if I add form="short" to every item type in the location you suggest that it will use the short title in the first instance/use, but preserve ibid rules?

I am moving a little beyond Chicago, though, as I prefer a short title for everything (if it is available). I have the flexibility to use whatever referencing system I like, so long as it is flexible. This is why I have been using Chicago as a baseline, and adjusting where possible.

I have to use statute, as there isn't an item type for treaty (I don't think I mentioned that in this thread). Although someone mentioned in another thread that a treaty item type is coming, and explained how to use the 'Extra' field.

****************

Interpretation of Bluebook:

I do believe we are reading this section differently. I only mention this for others, because as I noted above, I have plans to modify this style for my use. Perhaps this doesn't matter for the style with ibid, but it may for the others as I just read 17 favours the use of short titles over ibid.

When I read the paragraph in the context of statues, excluding the other clauses (the semicolon is used to list) it reads:

"The Bluebook allows certain short forms for subsequent citations to the same source. Short forms includes... statutes and legislative documents identified only by name or document and section numbers"

My take on this is that the short form accepted for statues and legislative documents is name, or document and section number. It does specifically mention statutes. That's my take, I'll leave it up to you guys to decide :-)

adamsmith

Thank you so much for the code, does this mean if I add form="short" to every item type in the location you suggest that it will use the short title in the first instance/use, but preserve ibid rules?

yes.

My take on this is that the short form accepted for statues and legislative documents is name, or document and section number.

I agree with that reading, but that's a short form, not a short title -- and it's also an "allows" and not a "requires" specification, so yes, obviously happy for you to adjust this for you as you prefer, but we'll keep it as is in standard Chicago style.