Citation style with et al. for 2 authors or more

jlcaviglia-harris
Is there a citation style that is like Chicago that includes citation within the text for more than 2 authors (not 3)? This is difficult to determine using the repository since the example given includes 4 authors - should be et al. for both the styles above. I found one (American Journal of Physical Anthropology) - but the reference list is numbered instead of being listed in alphabetical order by author as in Chicago.

If not, does anyone know of any easy way to copy the Chicago style so that I can edit appropriately? Thanks.
  • adamsmith
    look here:
    http://forums.zotero.org/discussion/3879/stupid-new-user-multiple-author-style-question/
  • jlcaviglia-harris
    Thanks. I have been able to make several changes to the code, but am having trouble saving as a cls file. I have been working in notepad - save the file and then change the extension to cls - by renaming with .csl - but this just changes the name - the .txt extension remains (ex: filename.csl.txt). I have followed the processes outlined in the forums and to date have not noted anyone with this problem. The renaming seems to do the trick in these cases.

    I have found a solution - but it's pretty round about. I save the file in word pad as a txt file - open in firefox and then download the file - reopen it in notepad and then save a type "File" and Encoding "ANSI" Is there a better way? This seems to work - but when I edit again have to go through the same process. Thanks! -Jill
  • adamsmith
    edited February 18, 2009
    you need to tell Windows to show the extensions, then you can just rename as .csl
    http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/word/HP051955241033.aspx
    tells you where.

    Edit: Here are better instructions (including an appropriate rant against MS stupidity ;-)
    http://www.pptfaq.com/FAQ00781.htm

This is an old discussion that has not been active in a long time. Instead of commenting here, you should start a new discussion. If you think the content of this discussion is still relevant, you can link to it from your new discussion.