Chicago placing page range before editors for book section

I'm running into what appears to be a minor error in the CSL file that I haven't been able to track down. Using the current versions of either the Chicago Note or Chicago Full Note styles (Chicago Author-Date does not exhibit the problem), Zotero is erroneously placing the page range for a book section before rather than after the editors. So I get this:

Rouse, Richard H., and Mary A. Rouse. “Statim Invenire: Schools, Preachers, and New Attitudes to the Page.” In Renaissance and Renewal in the Twelfth Century, 201–225. edited by Robert Louis Benson, Giles Constable, and Carol Dana Lanham. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982.

When I would expect this:

Rouse, Richard H., and Mary A. Rouse. “Statim Invenire: Schools, Preachers, and New Attitudes to the Page.” In Renaissance and Renewal in the Twelfth Century, edited by Robert Louis Benson, Giles Constable, and Carol Dana Lanham, 201–225. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982.

Would someone mind looking at this?
  • I can't replicate that - nor see how that could possibly be the case with the versions on the repository.
    That same citation looks correctly in other styles? And this is in regular Zotero?
  • edited April 23, 2013
    Yes, that was exactly my thought. Works fine with anything else, running Zotero standalone 4.0.6.

    Edit: It also still happens after deleting and re-installing the styles. You probably guessed from the style of the citation, but I should also perhaps have specified that this is happening in the bibliography.
  • Still can't replicate it, also tried in Standalone 4.0.6
    How are you generating these? (i.e. Word plugin, right-click, quick copy?)
    You've tried different items and they all have the same problem?
  • Very strange. It really does happen everywhere: Word plug-in, quick copy, generate bibliography, you name it.
  • edited April 23, 2013
    actually strike that. I can replicate this now. This looks like an intermittent processor bug. It wasn't in the 4.0.5 version that I had for standalone, and it's not in the latest version of Zotero 4.0.6 using the updated translator via fbennett's plugin.
    Unfortunately that doesn't run on Standalone, so your best bet is likely to wait for the next version i.e. 4.0.7 - shouldn't be terribly long.
  • Glad that I'm not completely crazy, at least! Many thanks for your help!
  • do let us know if this is working correctly once 4.0.7 is out, though I'm pretty sure it will.
  • One other thing I've noticed in 4.0.6, by the way: it's now putting in URLs and DOIs along with references, even with "Include URLs of paper articles" unchecked. There seem to be many threads about this already, all of which seem to indicate that Zotero follows this setting. Was this an intentional change, or is this (as I hope) a bug?
  • DOIs are intentional and that's a change I made a long time ago - they are strongly recommended in CMoS.
    For URLs I'd need an example.
  • Strange; it definitely wasn't doing this until recently. I don't want to rehash the arguments from the previous threads, since they're a few years old in many cases: but I really think that Zotero should be following that preference, since it's there. It states in the Chicago guide (14.184) that "authors need only include an article’s DOI to indicate that an electronic version was cited". Most of my articles only have a DOI in Zotero because I pulled the citation from a subscription database, but I don't actually have access to the online version. It really makes sense, I think, to take the "Include URLs" preference in Zotero as the method of indicating to the program that we're using the online version.
  • no, that preference won't do. In most cases you would _not_ want to cite the URL of an article, even if you accessed it electronically. Moreover, the preference affects the entire bibliography.

    It is going to be my judgement call that the number of researchers who pull electronic information for articles but go to the library to consult paper copies of a journal article is very small (I'm not saying they don't exist - just that they are tiny minority) and I would need to see some convincing reason I'm wrong about that before entertaining to change that behavior.
    I'd suggest deleting the DOI in your items then, I guess.
  • I'm terribly sorry to extend this thread on an unrelated topic; I did think that it was just another weird issue in 4.0.6. It looks as if most of these issues last covered in this thread, but it doesn't look as if they were ever addressed. I can go back and reopen that discussion, if you prefer.

    I think that you're entirely correct in your assumptions. There are, however, a great number of people using Chicago style whose editors ask them to remove URLs from print sources, and do not distinguish between these and DOIs. Since you have a preference that would appear to cover this situation, why not follow it for all electronic locators?
  • yeah, same point as in that thread. If you need Chicago variant without DOIs it's easy to do. If you can point to specific requirement for a specific publisher we can put that up on the repository for you. Otherwise you can customize the style yourself it's really not that hard as long as all you want to do is to remove the DOI.
  • I certainly understand. The point is that you have a preference that appears to do something that it does not. I would really encourage you either have it apply to both URLs and DOIs (which would make everyone's lives easier) or remove it entirely; at the moment, it's very misleading.
  • I really don't think URLs and DOIs are the same:
    - They are different fields in Zotero
    - Technically URLs and DOIs aren't the same (i.e. one is an identifier, the other one a locator)
    - In citation styles they're not treated the same - many citation styles, including the APA manual, _require_ DOIs for articles but not URLs, so treating them the same would actually make it impossible to get correct citations in those styles.

    While you're obviously not the first person to struggle with DOIs in Chicago style, you are the first person who claims to have been confused by the preference - I don't think equating URLs and DOIs is common.
  • Well, fair enough; I feel that this is splitting hairs and ignoring actual usage at present in the humanities (and one that is still technically allowed by the manual itself), but I'm obviously not going to convince you. Thank you for taking the time to respond; I really appreciate your work.
  • The issue of the page numbers coming before the editors seems to be fixed in 4.0.8. Thanks!
Sign In or Register to comment.