Upgrade StorageReordering in Chicago
I'm currently using Chicago fullnote-bibliography style, and almost everything is working fine, but I've run into two issues:
* Along with Turabian, I want to _not_ use ibids and op.cits but rather use Author_Lastname, Short_title, page. for subsequent citations. Is there a version of a CMS style that does that, or do I get to learn CSL?
* Sometimes I actually go back and revise in ways that re-order citations. This is creating the interesting sequence of:
(1) ibid, 2.
(2) Joe Blow, "Wrote this" .... , 134.
Refresh will fix elements of a citation (change "Wrote this" to "Writing this", for example), but how do I make it get short and long forms in the correct order:
(1) Joe Blow, "Wrote this" ... , 2.
(2) ibid, 134.
Thanks in advance.
* Along with Turabian, I want to _not_ use ibids and op.cits but rather use Author_Lastname, Short_title, page. for subsequent citations. Is there a version of a CMS style that does that, or do I get to learn CSL?
* Sometimes I actually go back and revise in ways that re-order citations. This is creating the interesting sequence of:
(1) ibid, 2.
(2) Joe Blow, "Wrote this" .... , 134.
Refresh will fix elements of a citation (change "Wrote this" to "Writing this", for example), but how do I make it get short and long forms in the correct order:
(1) Joe Blow, "Wrote this" ... , 2.
(2) ibid, 134.
Thanks in advance.
It looks like that the version you want doesn't exist yet. There was some talk of implementing a Zotero preference to turn Ibid on and off, eliminating the duplication of styles. (Note that discussion on that last link also says that Turabian-7 falls short of condemning Ibid entirely. ("Some writers still use 'ibid.' to shorten a citation to a work whose bibliographical data appear in the immediately previous note.") At this point they're descriptive not prescriptive. But your point is well taken. Ibid may not be on death's door, but in N. America it at least has a bad flu.
2) The 'Zotero Refresh' button on the Zotero Word toolbar is meant to solve your ibid problem, but I'm not sure if it quite does (try it).
I tested your problem out on the CMS-note+biblio derivative I use (Society of Biblical Literature) and got an even more mixed up result. For me it uses Ibid when I first make subsequent citations, but when I reorder them, it uses a full citation for the first note, a citation with a short title for the second note, and a an ibid for the third note. (In SBL, Short titles are used rather than Ibid. [Ref: p. 40, sect. 7.0 of the SBL Style Guide]. Refreshing after re-ordering consistently gives this result.
When the SBL style gets fixed, you might try it for a short title version of the one you are using. (I haven't found any other differences between it and Chicago just yet.)
Ibid is much less evil, but I do think CSL implementations should add a user option to turn off ibid handling. That avoids having to do the only other solution I have for this case, which is to create a new style, and change this:
<choose><if position="ibid-with-locator">
<group delimiter=", ">
<text term="ibid" text-case="capitalize-first" suffix="."/>
<text macro="point-locators-subsequent"/>
</group>
</if>
<else-if position="ibid">
<text term="ibid" text-case="capitalize-first" suffix="."/>
</else-if>
<else-if position="subsequent">
<group delimiter=", ">
<text macro="contributors-short"/>
<text macro="title-short"/>
<text macro="point-locators-subsequent"/>
</group>
</else-if>
... to:
<choose><if position="subsequent">
<group delimiter=", ">
<text macro="contributors-short"/>
<text macro="title-short"/>
<text macro="point-locators-subsequent"/>
</group>
</if>
So what I've done is simply to remove the ibid-related conditions.
As I said, though, I don't consider creating forked styles a very good long-term solution. There is, though, a third option that might be worth considering: removing ibid support from the default Chicago styles. Not sure if that's a good idea; I leave that to others with more involvement in the styles' development to work out.
Zotero refresh doesn't seem to do the reordering; it's as if I set the order in the database and since I moved the reference as an included cut and paste the order isn't reset. Is there a public bug tracker that I can get to?
I'd go for a switch on repetition behavior, as recoding to support user preferences is anathema to me. But I've got some journals that demand ibids while most have come to their senses. So I may just locally fork a style.
Thanks all.
Thank you
Regardless of what happens with user-configurable switches in the Zotero CSL processor, you would still need to create a separate style to replace ibid with the specific combination of last name+short title with particular formatting choices.
Bruce is a purist so he doesn't like that option all that much (the problem there is "forked styles" and I agree that's a bit of a mess), but if you generally hate ibid it will do just fine.
I sympathize with the desire to keep things "neat," but really, some degree of messiness can't be avoided with styles. Zotero will simply have to accommodate the infinite possibilities out there if it's to truly catch on. We don't always get a choice in how we format things for submission.
I think it would be great if people like Bruce could more easily share these discoveries with others, so novices and technophobes (I'm the former) can get to work more easily and quickly. Perhaps one solution would be a better way of organizing the style library webpage? It's difficult to know what you're getting, as it is. There are no comments or explanations, other than a single pop-up example (which is limited in scope). Perhaps some sub-folders, as a start? That might allow for greater diversity within forks without much added confusion.
you don't even have to know where the file is -
here are instructions for simple modifications in csls
http://forums.zotero.org/discussion/5104/modifying-word-plugin-using-journal-abbreviation-instead-of-publication-name/#Item_2
you will have to install the file on both your computers, but you can use the same file (e.g. transport it to computer B on a flash drive or e-mail and just drag it to FF there).
So installing twice, editing once.
Obviously some messiness is unavoidable. The concern in forking is not quantity of styles, but the question of how to maintain these styles: Who is going to maintain 30 different Chicago styles if the CMS changes? So the ideal would be to have as little forking as possible and a toggle switch for ibid would be one rather efficient way to achieve this. Given that that switch doesn't exist yet, we'll all have to do with messy ;-)
Better organizing the style repository is a recurring request and I believe a good, very feasible improvments that would help people find styles or at least styles similar to their needs.
Ibid is much less evil, but I do think CSL implementations should add a user option to turn off ibid handling. That avoids having to do the only other solution I have for this case, which is to create a new style, and change this:
<choose><if position="ibid-with-locator">
<group delimiter=", ">
<text term="ibid" text-case="capitalize-first" suffix="."/>
<text macro="point-locators-subsequent"/>
</group>
</if>
<else-if position="ibid">
<text term="ibid" text-case="capitalize-first" suffix="."/>
</else-if>
<else-if position="subsequent">
<group delimiter=", ">
<text macro="contributors-short"/>
<text macro="title-short"/>
<text macro="point-locators-subsequent"/>
</group>
</else-if>
... to:
<choose><if position="subsequent">
<group delimiter=", ">
<text macro="contributors-short"/>
<text macro="title-short"/>
<text macro="point-locators-subsequent"/>
</group>
</if>
So what I've done is simply to remove the ibid-related conditions.
Actually, that's not quite accurate and does not work for me. This is what I had to do:
Replace,
<choose><if position="ibid-with-locator">
<group delimiter=", ">
<text term="ibid" text-case="capitalize-first" suffix="."/>
<text macro="point-locators-subsequent"/>
</group>
</if>
<else-if position="ibid">
<text term="ibid" text-case="capitalize-first" suffix="."/>
</else-if>
<else>
<group delimiter=", ">
<text macro="contributors-short"/>
<text macro="title-short"/>
<text macro="point-locators-subsequent"/>
</group>
</else>
with:
<choose><if position="subsequent">
<group delimiter=", ">
<text macro="contributors-short"/>
<text macro="title-short"/>
<text macro="point-locators-subsequent"/>
</group>
</if>
<else>
<group delimiter=", ">
<text macro="contributors-short"/>
<text macro="title-short"/>
<text macro="point-locators-subsequent"/>
</group>
</else>
The last else-if was actually an else which means if you replace it with just an exclusive if you don't get anything at all then the position is not "subsequent". Sadly I don't know what any of that means, but my fix seems to work.
I tested it on several items and it seems to work fairly well.
However, there is a point I would like to understand in the citation section:
about the way ibid and ibid-with-locator function.
1/ how Zotero decides whether the position is "ibid" ? What criteria does it use, and where are they defined ?
2/ same question for "ibid-with-locator" ?
3/ what does that means from the final user approach (when adding a citation-note in the text (Word) ?
I already have written a similar post in french on the French Citation Style forum :
http://forums.zotero.org/discussion/4738/?Focus=20368#Comment_20368
but up to now I haven't got any answer.
I feel very upset not to undestand these important functions.
Thanks a lot for teaching me about it
I hope that's pretty clear, but if not I'm happy to clarify - in that case please be specific in what you don't understand.
http://citationstyles.org/downloads/specification.html#choose
I used Chicago full note to make a try, but without any success.
In the bibliography, books have the number-of-pages information, while chapters have a range of pages.
In the citation, these informations don't have to appear, but we have to give the exact pages where the information comes from.
When I write a text with Word, I insert a first citation in a footnote, using the Zotero insert citation button. At the end of the complete footnote-cite, I add the precise page-number, for instance" p. 32". Later on, I insert a new citation concerning the same source. Instead of the full note, I get Ibid. I then add, either the same page number as above, either another one. If I again add "p. 32", nothing happens. For a moment I thought that would change when using the "refresh" button, but it doesn't have any effect.
Maybe, it's not the way I am supposed to act
Please excuse me for being so stupid, but I really want to understand.
Thanks for your help.
This is correct behavior in the Chicago style (and every other style that uses ibid-style backreferencing, as far as I know).
If you cite one source in one footnote, and the same source as the leading reference in the immediately following footnote, and
- The first reference has a pinpoint page number; and
- The second reference has the same pinpoint page number;
then all you get is "Ibid.", with the meaning "same as before" (i.e. same source, same page number). Zotero does this correctly. If the page number differs, then the page number will appear, as "Ibid. p. 33".
Note that a logical consequence of this is that if:
- The first reference has a pinpoint page number; and
- The second reference has no pinpoint;
then you need to use the short form of the citation, not "Ibid.". Zotero does this correctly as well.
As I said, I know the purpose of all of it. When we insert a first citation, we give all the information (except number of pages), and we ADD the precise pages (I suppose it’s what you call a pin-point). If we insert as a following citation to the same text, same page, the page number should not appear on the footnote, while a citation to another page should show the page number. That is what we want.
But precisely it is the way Zotero can do it, that I don’t understand.
When we insert a citation, we choose the item to refer in the Zotero collection. Zotero is then able to determine if this item has already been cited, and if the new citation refer to the same collection item that the precedent one. Up to this point it’s all very clear.
At this stage, Zotero cannot guess whether I will enter the same page number or another one.
When using Chicago full note, I entered several times the same collection item, sometimes adding the same page number, sometimes with a different one or without any. I always get “Ibid.” There is no difference if the page number is the same or not. If I entered a page number, it appears as I entered it, no matter whether it is the same as the precedent or not. If I didn’t enter any, there is none. (see example below)
Seeing no difference in the result, I tried to understand how Zotero COULD do it.
Unless, while inserting a citation using the insert citation button, in the same operation through which we select the collection item, Zotero would ask us about the page number to refer, I don’t see how Zotero could do it.
Examples with Chicago full note:
1 Marc ARABYAN, “La lettre de roman : fragment ou simple segment ?,” Modèles linguistiques tome XXII-2, vol. 44 (2001): 23-30., p. 32
2 Ibid., p. 32
3 Ibid., p. 32
4 ARISTOTE, Organon, 5 vol., Trad. nouv. et notes par Jules Tricot., Bibliothèque des textes philosophiques (Paris: Vrin, 1983).
5 ARABYAN, “La lettre de roman : fragment ou simple segment ?.”, p. 32
6 Ibid.
Where are the mistakes ?
There are two potential problems:
One problem seems to be that you enter "p. 32" instead of just "32" -
Zotero checks for a number, if you enter a string it might not be able to compare.
The second problem might be indicated by this: but that's exactly what Zotero does, though: In the field on the bottom right of the Word/Ooo plugin you enter the page number. That's how Zotero can use ibid correctly - it checks if this page number is the same as the one used in the previous citation.
If you enter the page number afterwards in Word (which isn't recommended for other reasons, either), obviously this won't work.
I hope that helps. If not, lets try a couple of things: First, answer in French - I know how hard it is to describe exactly what one wants to say in a foreign language - I won't be able to reply in French, but read it quite well (and I think Frank understands some, too). Second, try to describe _precisely_ what you are doing - i.e. when are you entering the page number, what _exactly_ are you entering, _where_ are you entering it etc.
Even if everything is not completely settled, I must thank you for having found the right words to make me understand the crucial points.
Même si tout n'est pas réglé, je dois vous remercier d'avoir trouvé les mots justes qui m'ont permis de comprendre le coeur du problème
1/ Although I had imagined the way Zotero could find the right information, I must confess I had not seen that the panel where we choose the collection-item had a blank part, where to enter the "locator"! I had noticed the different choices for the locator-type but not the blank part. So I entered the page number on the footnote itself in Word. So as you said, it just couldn't work!
Bien que j'aie imaginé la façon dont Zotero pouvait récupérer l'information, je dois avouer que je n'avais tout simplement pas vu, sur la boite de dialogue de choix de la source à citer, l'emplacement où saisir le(s) numéro(s) de page. J'avais vu la liste des champs possibles, mais ne m'y étais pas attardée. C'est pourquoi je saisissais le(s) numéros de page sur la note de bas de page de Word, ce qui, comme vous le disiez, ne pouvait pas fonctionner.
2/ As soon I had your response, I made new attempts. I could test the function by entering numbers and can testify it works !
But as you might have guessed, we have to write "p. 32" or "p. 32-33", not only the number(s).
Dès que j'ai eu votre réponse très rapide, j'ai fait des essais en saisissant des numéros de page, et pu constater que cela fonctionnait.
Mais, comme vous l'avez sans doute deviné, nous devons afficher "p.32" ou "p.32-33"et non "32" ou "32-33" seulement.
I didn't see any possibility of prefixing this number. The prefix and suffix on the "insert citation panel" concern the whole citation, but not the "locator". Isn't a possibility to have a correspondance table giving for each locator-type a prefix (or suffix) to add to the number ? Can it be that I missed that too ?
Je n'ai pas vu de possibilité de préfixer ce nombre. Les prefixes et suffixes de la boite de dialogue où l'on indique la source à citer concernent la totalité de la note et non les numéros saisis. N'y a-t-il pas quelque part ou ne peut-on définir une table de correspondance qui associe une rubrique et son libellé (préfixe et/ou suffixe)?
L'aurais-je également ratée ?
En l'absence d'un tel libellé, quelque soit le choix du type de locator, l'apparence est la même, ce qui est assez troublant.
3/ I now will have to go through the construction of the citation part with the corresponding macros. I hope I'll be able to manage it without asking for some more help.
Je vais maintenant pouvoir me pencher sur la partie citation. J'espère pouvoir le faire sans avoir à demander à l'aide.
I am very happy to have (at last) understood the way it worked. I thank you very much for your patience and your complete answers.
Quoiqu'il en soit, je suis très contente d'avoir enfin pu comprendre comment tout cela fonctionnait. Je vous remercie beaucoup pour votre patience et vos réponses très complètes.
2/3 - the prefixing is determined in the csl of the style, specifically in the macros
point-locators and point-locators-subsequent
(for Chicago Full note w Bibliography)
Those are a bit complicated, but really not _that_ bad, so probably you'll be able to do this yourself. If not, let us know.
Helpfully, in Chicago style other locators (such as paragraph, section etc.) _are_ prefixed, so you can see how that works in general - the macro actually has a special loop (i.e. <if> </if> to exclude pages from that.
I will try ...