Style error: chicago-author-date.csl: Order of edition, volume, pages
Spotted an issue with the order of edition, volume, and pages:
I get “123–234. 7th ed.” instead of “7th ed., 123–234.” and “4:123–234. 7th ed.” instead of “7th ed., 4:123–234.”
(See CMoS 16e 14.118, “Any volume number mentioned follows the edition number.”)
The order of “7th ed. Vol. 4.” looks ok.
In the case of book sections, all elements following after the book title, i.e., editor, edition, volume, pages should be separated by commas, not by full stops (with the exception of volume:pages).
I get “123–234. 7th ed.” instead of “7th ed., 123–234.” and “4:123–234. 7th ed.” instead of “7th ed., 4:123–234.”
(See CMoS 16e 14.118, “Any volume number mentioned follows the edition number.”)
The order of “7th ed. Vol. 4.” looks ok.
In the case of book sections, all elements following after the book title, i.e., editor, edition, volume, pages should be separated by commas, not by full stops (with the exception of volume:pages).
chicago-author-date.csl (2012-12-06) wrongly puts the edition *after* editor, volume, and pages.
Example:
Chapterauthor, Chas. 2012. “Title of the Book Section.” In Title of the Book, edited by Bo Bookeditor, 4:123–223. 7th ed. Place: Publisher.
“... edited by Bob Bookeditor, Ben Bookauthor ...”
Should be
“... by Ben Bookauthor, edited by Bob Bookeditor ...”
For access dates, see 14.7: ". Chicago does not therefore require access dates in its published citations of electronic sources unless no date of publication or revision can be determined from the source (see 14.8)." I believe we do substitute in the access date where there is no publication date.
The updated version will appear on the repository within 30mins (check the timestamp). Update your copy of the style by re-installing it from the repository. (See here if you need instructions for installing styles in standalone.)
Any further problems please let us know.
Thanks for reporting
Two remaining issues, however:
The updated chicago-author-year.csl puts the "Report Number" between "Report Type" and "Series Title". This seems at least odd, and just wrong when "Report Type" is empty. (Also, in the latter case there's no space between "Report Number" and the preceding "Title".)
BTW, I take it that "Report" is to be understood as "Working paper" (14.228), not as "Pamphlet" (14.249). The latter "are treated essentially as books." (14.249)
In the following CMoS example, 14.228, "Working papers and other unpublished works", which includes what CMoS calls a "formal series title", the "Series Title" has to appear before the "Report Number". The examples from CMoS 14.228 do not include one with both "Report Type" and "Series Title" and seem to imply that there is either a generic report type such as "working paper" (lower case) or a "formal series title" (capitalized).
Still, if both "Report Type" and "Series Title" are non-empty, why not output "Report Type" (comma) "Series Title" (no punctuation) "Report Number"?
Second issue: CMoS treats reports / working papers as unpublished material and encloses titles in quotation marks instead of italicizing them.
I don't think there is a right or wrong here - you could argue that it's part of the "CAHRS Working Paper Series" or that it's type is a "CAHRS Working Paper" - but given the order in the interface (and the fact that we're somewhat locked into this by now) I'm not going to change that. I think it's at least conceivable that a series like - "CAHRS Studies on Enterprise and Labor" (making that up) could be cited for a report in addition to the working paper.
(Also, there is in CSL, if not in Zotero for reports currently, a separate variable for series number and other software may implement this differently).
On the quotation marks issue, yes, I'm aware of this - I was wondering if and to what degree that gets us into trouble with other things that would commonly be reports, like government reports (think e.g. the IPCC report on Climate Change) etc. - I didn't find the manual to be super helpful in that respect.
The updated version will appear on the repository within 30mins (check the timestamp). Update your copy of the style by re-installing it from the repository. (See here if you need instructions for installing styles in standalone.)
Any further problems please let us know.
CMoS ¶14.118 is a bit weird. It states, 'When an edition other than the first is used or cited, the number or description of the edition follows the title in the listing.' Their third example seems to be the only basis for putting the edition information after the editor, though properly speaking that's a series rather than an edition. I cannot, however, find any indication as to whether the page numbers should go before or after the edition information. It seems rather odd to have the page range showing up in two different places.
Edition after the page number definitely looks wrong, but should it be before or after the editor(s)? nickbart above quotes the CMoS editors as saying "immediately after the book title" so that'd suggest both of our styles are currently doing this wrong?
To review the evidence, the manual states, 'When an edition other than the first is used or cited, the number or description of the edition follows the title in the listing.' I'm guessing that this is probably what is intended:
Dirckx, J.H. “Anatomical Nomenclature: History.” In Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd ed., edited by Keith Brown, 244–52. Oxford: Elsevier, 2006. doi:10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/04268-1.
Haskins, Charles Homer. “A List of Text-Books from the Close of the Twelfth Century.” In Studies in the History of Mediaeval Science, 2nd ed., 356–76. Harvard Historical Studies 27. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1927.
But this is also possible:
Dirckx, J.H. “Anatomical Nomenclature: History.” In Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, edited by Keith Brown, 2nd ed., 244–52. Oxford: Elsevier, 2006. doi:10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/04268-1.
The problem is the third example of ¶14.118 in the 16th edition, which seems to suggest that the edition should follow an editor. The issue is that the particular example given provides a series name rather than an edition, so I'm not sure if that's really what they were trying to illustrate with this. The one possible reason I can think for doing this is that a note citing a book with both an editor and an edition looks a touch weird with the edition first; say, if there were a hypothetical second edition of their example:
Elizabeth Barrett Browning, Aurora Leigh: Authoritative Text, Backgrounds and Contexts, Criticism, 2nd ed., ed. Margaret Reynolds, Norton Critical Editions (New York: Norton, 2014).
Dirckx, J.H. ‘Anatomical Nomenclature: History’. In Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics, edited by Keith Brown, 2nd ed., 244–52. Oxford: Elsevier, 2006. doi:10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/04268-1.
I personally like it better and if we have to guess, that's what their example (even though a bit unclear) suggests. If you ever hear back and it turns out they want something different, I'll change it back again.