Upgrade StorageEbd., Ebda. and Zotero update 3.0.1
Hi everybody,
I've been using a slightly modified version of the harvard 7 de citation-style. Everything was working well before Zotero updated to Version 3.0.1 this morning. Now the Ibid. and the Ibid+Locator citations don't work anymore. They look the same as the first (full) citation: (author, date: page). Does anyone have an Idea? I tried other citation-styles, but the same problem occured.
And another question: I tried several Times to change the Ibid (without locator) citation to "(Ebda.)". If i cite the same book but a diffrent page the citation looks like that: (Ebd.:S. 8). Thats exactly what i want it to look like. But if i cite the same book and the same page the citation now looks like (Ebd.). BUT i want it to look like (Ebda.).
I tried it several times but without success.
I'd be very happy about any suggestions. I'm just about to write my final thesis.
Thanks alot :-)
I've been using a slightly modified version of the harvard 7 de citation-style. Everything was working well before Zotero updated to Version 3.0.1 this morning. Now the Ibid. and the Ibid+Locator citations don't work anymore. They look the same as the first (full) citation: (author, date: page). Does anyone have an Idea? I tried other citation-styles, but the same problem occured.
And another question: I tried several Times to change the Ibid (without locator) citation to "(Ebda.)". If i cite the same book but a diffrent page the citation looks like that: (Ebd.:S. 8). Thats exactly what i want it to look like. But if i cite the same book and the same page the citation now looks like (Ebd.). BUT i want it to look like (Ebda.).
I tried it several times but without success.
I'd be very happy about any suggestions. I'm just about to write my final thesis.
Thanks alot :-)
Different ibid strings for ibid with locator and without cannot be included in Zotero. One could likely hack this, though:
Use strip-periods="true" on the ibid term. Then, for ibid-with locator use suffix="." of "ibid" use suffix="a."
What do you exactly mean by "use strip-periods="true""?
I now inserted that exact line on the ibid term, which looks like that:
<locale xml:lang="de">
<terms>
<term name="ibid">ebda.</term>
<use strip-periods="true"/>
</terms>
</locale>
and under citation i did as follows:
<choose>
<if position="ibid-with-locator">
<text term="ibid" suffix=".: S. "/>
<text variable="locator"/>
</if>
<else-if position="ibid">
<text term="ibid" suffix="a."/>
</else-if>
<else>
<group delimiter=" ">
<text macro="author-short"/>
<text macro="year-date"/>
</group>
<group>
<text variable="locator" prefix=": S. "/>
</group>
</else>
</choose>
Well, this doesn't work. Please don't laugh, i'm a complete new bee when it comes to programming xml.
<text term="ibid" strip-periods="true" suffix=".: S. "/>
and
<text term="ibid" suffix="a." strip-periods="true"/>
Now just waiting for the update so it works in-text too :-)
thanks a lot!
Thanks for bringing up this topic - I was about to go mad as I thought I magically changed my otherwise well-working sytle..
So I'll wait for the update ;-)
However, I have another question.
I use the harvard style, as SevenEleven, and changed it slightly. It works fine.
Now I'd love to change all (ebd.: 87) to (date: 87).
For example:
blablabla (Meier 1987: 3).
tatatatata (1987: 5). --> (would be Meier, too)
lalalalla (Peters 2001: 76)
and so on.
I tried to edit the style myself, however I had no luck. I suppose it does not work yet because of the general issue with ebd. and zotero 3.0.1., right?
Or could someone provide an alternative script for that section?
Thank you!
hendrik
edit: sorry about that - see below.
3.0.2 won't be out for another day or two.
Edit 1: Has anyone else had success with ibid in 3.0.2? I am running Zotero Standalone on Linux Mint with LibreOffice 3.4.4.
Edit 2: It may be my particular document because it works in other documents. I will have to look into this one further.
In the meantime,is there a repository of previous Zotero builds? I would like to revert to 3.0 so I can work on my dissertation.
is the 3.0 download - all old xpis follow the same patter, i.e. 2.1.10 is
http://download.zotero.org/extension/zotero-2.1.10.xpi
etc. Remember, though, all of these have other bugs, including in the citation processor, and you'll get zero support for any issues you have.
As for the longer document, try running through these:
http://www.zotero.org/support/word_processor_plugin_troubleshooting#debugging_broken_documents
it's highly unlikely that Zotero has a general bug wrt longer documents. It's likely that there is something specific breaking the processor's ibid.
If you're pressed for time and just want to roll back to 3.0b2, it's here.
To solve the problem I deleted everything before it, made a completely new item in Zotero (not using duplication) and created a new citation. Any subsequent citations that should form as ibid refresh as a full subsequent citation.
To add to the mystery, I copied everything from this apparent problem citation to a citation that should form as ibid, and it formed properly.
Finally, remembering some of the debugging tips that I tried (that also failed), I decided to delete the table of contents, list of tables, and bibliography. This did not solve the problem.
It is a mystery to me. The only difference I can see between the document that refreshes properly and the original document is size (20 pages vs. 386 pages).
If I then take that document and add just that one citation, the document does not format correctly.
@adamsmith: If I delete only that citation and any others connected to that same item ibid citations still do NOT format properly. Perhaps there are other problem citations as well? I am not sure. I am just working with what I know causes a problem.
If you are using an unmodified copy of the repository style (its full filename is now "wheaton-college-phd-in-biblical-and-theological-studies.csl") then the style is valid. On a copy of your document, reinstall the style from the repository, and to be sure the installed copy is taking effect in the document, switch away to another style and then reselect it, if you haven't already gone through those steps.
Once we're sure we're all using the same kit, let's examine the context of the very first ibid that fails. Check the following things:
- Are the should-be-ibid item (SBII) and its predecessor in a footnote automatically created by Zotero, or in a footnote created manually, with the citations inserted into the existing footnote (it shouldn't make any difference, but let's check this for completeness)
- Are there other references in the document with the same short form (Galling, “Der Beichtspiegel”) that refer to a different resource? (again, this should make no difference, but just for thoroughness in grasping the context)
- Is a pinpoint page number set on the SBII?
- Is a pinpoint page number set on its predecessor?
- Is the predecessor of the SBII in the same footnote, or the sole item in a preceding citation?
- Do you see a pattern in the failing ibids with respect to items 3-5 above?
Sorry for all the questions, but we need to get a feel for context, and any patterns you can identify will be helpful.I deleted my old csl file and installed again from the repository and then refreshed the document.
I went through the whole document and found 98 SBII's (<10% of the citations). Looking at the very first:
1. The footnote is created manually with citations inserted (this is true everywhere).
2. I do not believe so. There are three citations of the source (and, as it turns out, author) that is the first SBII. Only one of those is an initial citation, so it is safe to assume this relates only to one Zotero item.
3. Yes.
4. Yes.
5. The sole item in a preceding citation (though the other case happens elsewhere).
6. After the first SBII there are no automatically generated ibids. I rarely cite without a pinpoint page number except early on (when the problem had not come up yet), and looking at the 98 I can't remember any that did not have one. There was no consistent pattern with respect to #5: they could have been in the same footnote, separate footnotes, with intervening content footnotes without Zotero citations, etc.