Upgrade Storagestyle sheet De Buck
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.
1) a book with more then 4 authors: all authors are mentioned in the literature list. It should be the first author and e.a. (nb the note is correct).
2) also in all references with more authors: no comma before 'en' or 'e.a.'.
example:
Spijker, W. van ’t, R. Bisschop, N. Eikelenboom, H. Florijn, W.J. op ’t Hof, T.M. Hofman, e.a., De Synode van Westminster 1643-1649 (Houten 2002).
Soltow, Lee, en J. L. van Zanden, Income and wealth inequality in the Netherlands, 16th-20th century (Amsterdam 1998).
3) ibid. : when author(s) article of part of book is/are the same as the author(s) or editor(s) of the book 'ibid.'should be used. Now the style sheet gives two different ways:
Ankersmit, F. R, ‘Historical representation’, in: History and tropology. The rise and fall of metaphor (Berkeley, Los Angeles, Londen 2001) 97–124.
Calhoun, Craig, ‘Introduction: Habermas and the public sphere’, in: Craig J Calhoun ed., Habermas and the public sphere (Cambridge, Mass. 1992) 1–48.
4) Book with just editors has 'red.' in stead of 'ed.' (as is used everywhere else). In the note, no editors are mentioned. I think this is wrong?
exemple:
Aalbers, Johan, en Craig Calhoun, red., Test: boek 2 editors (Leiden 1999).
in note:
Test: boek 2 editors (Leiden 1999).
==
It would be wonderfull if someone can change this! On the whole it works very well. Thanks to whoever made this style. It has already saved me a lot of time!
I've fixed issue 1 and 4 mentioned by EBoersma above, but couldn't quite follow about 2 and 3 - could you give an example clearly labeling what the style currently does and what it should do? It's possible that 3 isn't currently possible, though.
I also noticed the English language locale ("there", "ed.", etc.) has been completely removed from the file. I myself am using the English version, so does it still need to be excluded to prevent bugs in the csl processor?