Bluebook backreference mystery
I can no longer get Bluebook style to show backreferences, even though it was working previously. I am revising a paper and all footnotes now show supra note _____. where previously the footnotes correctly stated supra note 2.
I have read other discussions of this problem and reference is made to Bluebook 19th style, a style that no longer appears in the repository. No matter which Bluebook style I use, I cannot reformat the manuscript in such a manner to get the backreferences correct. This is true even when I reformat into another style altogether (Chicago Full Note) and then try to move it back to bluebook. I am mystified since it was working and the underscore is supposed to no longer be scripted.
I am using Word 2011, OS X 10.8.2, Firefox latest, Zotero 3.08, plugin for Word 3.5.5 and I have tried both non-inline bluebook styles. I have also tried two computers, the one that originally produced the good manuscript, and the one I am now using that will not. Neither computer can properly format the revised text.
I have screenshots from older (correct) manuscript and newer (problematic) manuscript.
Thank you very much in advance for any help.
JON
I have read other discussions of this problem and reference is made to Bluebook 19th style, a style that no longer appears in the repository. No matter which Bluebook style I use, I cannot reformat the manuscript in such a manner to get the backreferences correct. This is true even when I reformat into another style altogether (Chicago Full Note) and then try to move it back to bluebook. I am mystified since it was working and the underscore is supposed to no longer be scripted.
I am using Word 2011, OS X 10.8.2, Firefox latest, Zotero 3.08, plugin for Word 3.5.5 and I have tried both non-inline bluebook styles. I have also tried two computers, the one that originally produced the good manuscript, and the one I am now using that will not. Neither computer can properly format the revised text.
I have screenshots from older (correct) manuscript and newer (problematic) manuscript.
Thank you very much in advance for any help.
JON
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.
http://citationstylist.org/tools/
Thanks for the help.
JON
Another compatibility item will be jurisdictions. The MLZ styles expect a jurisdiction hint in the Extra field for the legal types -- without it you may get some weird formatting like "Smith V. Brown". There is a right-click menu in MLZ for adding the hint, but you can also add it by hand. The format for Supreme Court decisions and national laws is "{:jurisdiction:us}". (If you are citing district court or state decisions the hint code is more complicated, and the right-click menu would come in handy.)