ibid./ebd. with in-text vs note styles (de/en)

Hi,
first of all my thanks to all those discussions on similar issues in this forum (going back to 2010 but still instructive), they already helped me out a lot. But now I've run into some problems I couldn't find solutions for yet, so I'm asking for your help.
With what I could find, I managed to get ibid and ibid-with-locator into my style. The remaining problem is the following:
Within the text of a single footnote,
Ex. 1:
"Vgl. Beck 1996,123. Vgl. ebenso Beck 1996, 456"
is successfully changed to
"Vgl. Beck 1996, 123. Vgl. ebd., 456".
However, when used in subsequent footnotes, ibid is not applied:
Ex. 2:
"Fn 1: Vgl. Beck 1996, 123. Vgl. ebd., 456.
Fn 2: Vgl. Beck 1996, 789."
where I would like to have the "ebd." also used in the second footnote.

Now, my best guess so far is that the issue derives from me using an in-text style to set references within footnotes. Since footnotes in my document sometimes get long and more complex (yes, philosophy/theology in Germany still tend to do this), using a note-style to let Zotero handle the footnotes completely didn't seem to be a good idea. So in the Ex. 2 above, my fear is that my in-text reference in the Fn 2 does not recognize the references in Fn 1 because footnotes are handled as some kind of separated text units.
If this is correct, than there would be no other option to get the "ebd" in Fn. 2 than to completely switch styles and use one with class="note". Since this would mean I had to rework quite a lot of my document, it appears to be a rather unattractive one.

I hope I made my problem clear and apologize for the length of this. Please let me know if there is anything to clarify. If I am wrong concerning the principal issue with in-text vs. note, then I will happily go into the details of my citation section. I noticed that CMoS 17 (note) uses macros like "case-locator-subsequent" and "point-locators-subsequent", which I don't really get yet, and all in all has a more sophisticated citation section than my own. So maybe these point into the right direction and I am just unable to follow them so far.
Also, as you have probably noticed, i am working in German. So if it is any help with the issues above, I'll be happy to restate them in German.

Thank you for following me up to this point!
  • You also need to add a position="subsequent" section to your citation formatting
  • Thanks a lot for the quick answer! It seems to have set me on the right track and after some additional reading (found the CSL 1.0.1 specification...) it appears to be all fine now. Interestingly, I am not exactly sure, why this is the case.
    I added the following: (left out the "<"s because I couldn't find a forum nettiquette on how to post code)
    else-if position="subsequent ibid" match="all">
    text term="ibid"/>
    /else-if>"
    and it did the trick. What surprises me, is that it even handles cases where the subsequent citation is an ibid-with-locator and prints the wanted page number. What I had expected is a necessary "text macro="locator-citation" " to achieve this.
    Do you happen to know what it is with the position="subsequent" that I do not understand yet?
  • I’m surprised that "subsequent ibid" would work. I wouldn’t rely on that. Instead do, ibid and subsequent separately.

    I’m not following your question. ibid-with-locator is used when a citation is in the ibid position and also has a locator. The position test is still ibid, so ibid formatting will apply if there is no overriding ibid-with-locator formatting
  • Thanks for the reply. I probably should have added that I had ibid and ibid-with-locator already in there and just added what I mentioned above. So my whole layout section (again without the "<"s) reads

    "choose>
    if position="ibid-with-locator">
    group delimiter=", ">
    text term="ibid"/>
    text macro="locator-citation"/>
    /group>
    /if>
    else-if position="ibid">
    text term="ibid"/>
    /else-if>
    else-if position="subsequent ibid" match="all">
    text term="ibid"/>
    /else-if>
    group delimiter="">
    text macro="author-short" suffix=" "/>
    text macro="year-date"/>
    text macro="locator-citation" prefix=", "/>
    /group>
    /else>
    /choose>
    "
    Again, I am sorry for not being able to format it in an easier to read way. Does that help to clarify my question?
  • To include XML code in posts, wrap it in <code> </code> tags
  • This won’t work: position="subsequent ibid" match="all"

    A citation cannot be both subsequent and ibid.

    Also you are missing an opening ‘else’ tag there, and you want to avoid using affixes for delimiters.

    So what you would want is:


    <choose>
    <if position="ibid-with-locator">
    <group delimiter=", ">
    <text term="ibid"/>
    <text macro="locator-citation"/>
    </group>
    </if>
    <else-if position="ibid">
    <text term="ibid"/>
    </else-if>
    <else-if position="subsequent">
    <text term="ibid"/>
    </else-if>
    <else>
    <group delimiter=", ">
    <group delimiter=" ">
    <text macro="author-short"/>
    <text macro="year-date"/>
    </group>
    <text macro="locator-citation"/>
    </group>
    </else>
    </choose>


    But I’m not sure why you would want “ibid” for subsequent citations? That would be very confusing. Wouldn’t you want something that has at least the author?
  • edited 14 days ago
    Thank you once more for your replies. I changed my usage of groups and delimiters to avoid the affixes.
    However, if I follow your suggestions for the positions, it indeed gets very confusing.
    What I want is that a directly repeated citation is replaced by "ibid" - even if it is not in the same footnote as the first one.
    My idea behind using both subsequent and ibid was exactly this: That a repetition is replaced by "ibid" even if it is in the next footnote(s), but not in cases where there are other citations between the two. The goal of course being that it is always unambiguous, which title is referenced.
    So:
    [Fn1] Vgl. Beck 1996.
    [Fn2] Vgl. ebd.
    But not:
    [Fn1] Vgl. Beck 1996; vgl. Beck 2007.
    [Fn2] Vgl. ebd. [if referencing still Beck 1996]
    And instead:
    [Fn1] Vgl. Beck 1996; vgl. Beck 2007.
    [Fn2] Vgl. Beck 1996.

    What subsequent alone seems to be doing now is replace every repetition within the range of several footnotes with "ibid", no matter how many others are inbetween.

    Would you still hold that a citation cannot be both subsequent and ibid? I'm asking this because it does sound plausible to me, but my version above seemed to successfully prevent the ambiguous cases of mixed "ibid"-citations.

    EDIT: I tried my version again without the whole position="subsequent" section and it seems to do, what I described above, i.e. not stop with "ibid" when the citations go across different footnotes, which was my issue in the first place. So being still a bit confused myself, I might have to apologize for causing confusing about something it seems I already had...
Sign In or Register to comment.