The "forthcoming" cite forms are a placeholder, because the style code for those bibliography entries are not in place yet for cases from the UK. When I get to this work, I'll also sort out the issues with that statutory references. It's just not using the correct style code. Bear with me for a couple of weeks.
I am not sure if I should dig out this old thread, but I seem to have the same problem.
I am also getting the "[forthcoming: to use oscola-bib-case macro]" placeholder in my bibliography for all cases in the document I am working on.
The jurisdictions for the cases are UN/ICJ, Arbitration/PCA, and WTO/AB.
Is there anything I can do short off switching back to the non-MLZ Oscola? I would loath to do that after investing so much time in filling all new fields in MLZ :/
Another workaround I just thought of: I could use MLZ Oscola in the document, but then not add an automatical bibliography in the end. Instead I could export one from MLZ using the document tag and the normal Oscola style. Would that work or would it cause major inconsistencies?
I should perhaps also add that I only just started using MLZ, and normally don't use Oscola.
Help is on its way. I've just completed work on an editor for style modules. The new system will allow us to cast separate styles for each jurisdiction, in "portable" code that can be used by all of the MLZ styles. For style authors, this will make things easier to maintain. For users, it will mean better citation support and a more responsive and (I hope) larger circle of style contributors.
I have students locally who need support for the categories of resource that you mention, so modules to support them will be coming soon. We should at least have something to run by mid-May.
In the meanwhile, perhaps it would be a good idea to point out on the MLZ download page what jurisdictions currently don't work with MLZ?
Coming from Zotero, I was prepared for bugs as MLZ is still in development. However, the possibility that a citation style might simply not output a group of items at all did not occur to me. Instead I would have expected that item types that are not fully developed yet simply use a kind of fall back format rule, as in Zotero.
That's not meant as critique - I know how much time it takes to develop good software, and only start to realize how complicated legal citation styles are. Just thought it might be good to know for new users coming from Zotero :)
Thanks - and noted. I'll be putting up a transitional note soon, and an alert popup in the next release of MLZ, to give existing users a heads-up about the upcoming site consolidation.
The style end of things could improve rapidly. The distribution plugin for modular style support is now functioning, and when that goes up, there will be no more dummy placeholders. I think you are the first person to have noticed that fault. I had assumed that the system just hadn't attracted significant attention in the legal field.
The quality of legal styles could improve rapidly - it really depends on whether law-side users take it in hand to contribute code for areas that need attention.
I do not know whether this question deserves a new thread. Considering MLZ and MLZ OSCOLA style. Assume I have an item with title in French and a variant in English, for instance case-law (at least the connector versus/against varies in languages). The output is a citation with both languages, but the text is in English and I'd like to have just the English language tagged field in the citation. How can this be done?
To answer, though, MLZ will definitely do that. Check in Preferences -> Languages that: (a) English is set as a "translate" variant; and (b) "translate" is set for titles under the "primary" settings; and (c) "orig", "translit" and "translat" or all unset under the "secondary" settings.
If that doesn't work, start a new thread and we'll sort through it.
Upgrade Storage
York v Jones Fed Suppl 421 (us US District Court 1989)
Happy New Year to you both and your families!!
I am not sure if I should dig out this old thread, but I seem to have the same problem.
I am also getting the "[forthcoming: to use oscola-bib-case macro]" placeholder in my bibliography for all cases in the document I am working on.
The jurisdictions for the cases are UN/ICJ, Arbitration/PCA, and WTO/AB.
Is there anything I can do short off switching back to the non-MLZ Oscola? I would loath to do that after investing so much time in filling all new fields in MLZ :/
Another workaround I just thought of: I could use MLZ Oscola in the document, but then not add an automatical bibliography in the end. Instead I could export one from MLZ using the document tag and the normal Oscola style. Would that work or would it cause major inconsistencies?
I should perhaps also add that I only just started using MLZ, and normally don't use Oscola.
Thanks for your work on MLZ!
I have students locally who need support for the categories of resource that you mention, so modules to support them will be coming soon. We should at least have something to run by mid-May.
Meanwhile, here's the style editor (for show-and-tell): https://juris-m.github.io
In the meanwhile, perhaps it would be a good idea to point out on the MLZ download page what jurisdictions currently don't work with MLZ?
Coming from Zotero, I was prepared for bugs as MLZ is still in development. However, the possibility that a citation style might simply not output a group of items at all did not occur to me. Instead I would have expected that item types that are not fully developed yet simply use a kind of fall back format rule, as in Zotero.
That's not meant as critique - I know how much time it takes to develop good software, and only start to realize how complicated legal citation styles are. Just thought it might be good to know for new users coming from Zotero :)
The style end of things could improve rapidly. The distribution plugin for modular style support is now functioning, and when that goes up, there will be no more dummy placeholders. I think you are the first person to have noticed that fault. I had assumed that the system just hadn't attracted significant attention in the legal field.
The quality of legal styles could improve rapidly - it really depends on whether law-side users take it in hand to contribute code for areas that need attention.
Considering MLZ and MLZ OSCOLA style.
Assume I have an item with title in French and a variant in English, for instance case-law (at least the connector versus/against varies in languages). The output is a citation with both languages, but the text is in English and I'd like to have just the English language tagged field in the citation. How can this be done?
To answer, though, MLZ will definitely do that. Check in Preferences -> Languages that: (a) English is set as a "translate" variant; and (b) "translate" is set for titles under the "primary" settings; and (c) "orig", "translit" and "translat" or all unset under the "secondary" settings.
If that doesn't work, start a new thread and we'll sort through it.