Upgrade StorageHow to create bibliography without numbers?
This may have been asked before, but I did a few searches w/relevant terms and couldn't find an answer, so if I missed it, please feel free to just provide a link to the right thread.
I use WordPerfect--still superior to MS Word, and its clones like OpenOffice, because of Reveal Codes (not at all the same thing as Word's pale imitation). Thank heavens academic institutions, unlike corporations, don't force everyone into the same software straitjacket. Anyhow, my choice means that I have a specific need to which Zotero apparently does not cater, viz. I need to be able to Create Bibliography From Item _without_ a number attached to it. Is there a way to do this that I'm missing?
As most people will not perhaps immediately understand what I'm talking about, here's the longer explanation:
When I'm writing a conference paper or journal article, I use Chicago style full footnotes and no bibliography. So when I need to cite something, I Create Bibliography From Item, chose Note, and OK out, then paste the result into my paper. The problem is that Zotero "helpfully" always attaches a "1. " to the beginning of the citation, which, of course, I always have to delete because WP furnishes its own footnote numbers. So the Zotero number is useless even for my very first footnote, and of course after that my numbers go up while Zotero's remains at the eternally youthful "1. " Would that the principle would translate into human temporality, but ah well.
Anyway, is there some way to get Zotero to stop accompanying my citations with note numbers?
I use WordPerfect--still superior to MS Word, and its clones like OpenOffice, because of Reveal Codes (not at all the same thing as Word's pale imitation). Thank heavens academic institutions, unlike corporations, don't force everyone into the same software straitjacket. Anyhow, my choice means that I have a specific need to which Zotero apparently does not cater, viz. I need to be able to Create Bibliography From Item _without_ a number attached to it. Is there a way to do this that I'm missing?
As most people will not perhaps immediately understand what I'm talking about, here's the longer explanation:
When I'm writing a conference paper or journal article, I use Chicago style full footnotes and no bibliography. So when I need to cite something, I Create Bibliography From Item, chose Note, and OK out, then paste the result into my paper. The problem is that Zotero "helpfully" always attaches a "1. " to the beginning of the citation, which, of course, I always have to delete because WP furnishes its own footnote numbers. So the Zotero number is useless even for my very first footnote, and of course after that my numbers go up while Zotero's remains at the eternally youthful "1. " Would that the principle would translate into human temporality, but ah well.
Anyway, is there some way to get Zotero to stop accompanying my citations with note numbers?
Note that one disadvantage of WordPerfect in this case is that you can't use Zotero's features to automatically keep the references and bibliography up to date if you move citations around, edit them in Zotero, or need to switch to a new format. Can WordPerfect export to .odf (Open Doccument format)? If so, you could also use the Zotero ODF Scan plugin. With that, you can insert placeholders for your citations in your text. Then, after you have the document completely done, you export it from Word Perfect to .odf, run the ODF Scan plugin, and open the document in LibreOffice to let Zotero do the final reference formatting.
The "Note" type citation created from Zotero directly should equally just be the content of the note and not contain a (faux) anchor.
Edit: I'm pretty sure this didn't use to be the case, but I'm not sure how long back one would have to go. @dstillman do you happen to know if this is a Zotero or a citeproc setting?
(I do get a "[1]" prefix for a single IEEE reference, which makes sense but I suppose we could consider changing.)
Will test on 5.0 when I get a chance.
> Ctrl+Shift+C should also save you a lot of time
Neither of these are helpful.
Chicago Author date for note gives me the useless parenthetical author last name + year, while bibliography of course gives me the bib format (author last name first, etc) rather than note format. Ctrl+Shift+C suffers from the latter problem as well, yielding the bib format no matter what preferences you've set in the dialog box (i.e. I have the "note" radio button checked but the shortcut still does bib).
Other recommendations re importing/exporting back and forth too likely to lead to document corruption, especially w/long docs like book chapters with tables and graphs.
> testing this is Zotero 5.0
Still in beta. No good.
> But stepping back -- why _are_ we adding that 1?
> I don't think there's any scenario where that is
> conceivably useful.
Hear, hear. Maybe this could be added to the proposed changes for Zotero 5.1?
Mike300
So can I get a second witness, pretty please? Many thanks.
Anyone? Maybe nobody besides dstillman has 5.0 installed?
That doesn't mean only Dan is running 5.0. I and many others have been running 5.0-beta exclusively for many months. For me, 5.0 betas have been better than the 4.x version for quite a while. I find it is considerably faster and more stable. If you absolutely depend upon several plug-ins you may have a reason to stick with 4.x. I can only speak to the 5.0beta on Mac but I have encountered no problems since late 2016 and then the issue was esoteric. In my opinion 5.0-beta is considerably more stable and mature than many final versions of other software when upgraded.
I use Zotero in an active production environment with daily and weekly publication deadlines. I absolutely require Zotero to work as expected. I depend on Zotero for my work. I didn't just take a blind leap to 5.0, I carefully tested and retested.
The current work on 5.0 seems to primarily be efforts to further improve the browser connectors. Literally every day I half-expect to find that 5.0 has come out of beta. For my (considerable) needs 5.0 does everything that 4.x does plus it has several additional features that work flawlessly.
edit: all that I said notwithstanding, I didn't encounter your "1" problem with Chicago on 4.x and I don't have the problem now. I cannot attest that your specific issue will be resolved with an upgrade.