Chicago Author Date bibliography not right

GillMM
I'm working in a Google doc and have selected Chicago Manual of Style (author-date). The in text citations are fine but some of the bibliography is wrong. Mainly with journals - inverted commas and issue number
It's producing this:
Pain, Rachel. 1991. ‘Space, Sexual Violence and Social Control: Integrating Geographical and Feminist Analyses of Women’s Fear of Crime’. Progress in Human Geography 15 (4): 415–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/030913259101500403.
And it should be:
Pain, Rachel. 1991. "Space, Sexual Violence and Social Control: Integrating Geographical and Feminist Analyses of Women’s Fear of Crime." Progress in Human Geography 15, no. 4: 415–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/030913259101500403.
Any thoughts?
  • poettli
    I guess this is related to the language you choose to create the bibliography: https://www.zotero.org/support/supported_languages#citations_and_bibliographies
  • GillMM
    I'm only ever working in English so I don't think this answer
  • poettli
    English (UK) or English (US)? Quotation marks will be different
  • GillMM
    Ok so I selected English (US) and that fixed the inverted commas problem (I had no idea that there was an English UK and English US difference in Chicago) but the issue number is still appearing in parentheses and not as no.:
    Pain, Rachel. 1991. “Space, Sexual Violence and Social Control: Integrating Geographical and Feminist Analyses of Women’s Fear of Crime.” Progress in Human Geography 15 (4): 415–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/030913259101500403.
  • adamsmith
    We do that on purpose, following Chicago 15.47:
    sometimes only a volume and issue number will be available (and in some cases, it may be a publisher’s preferred style not to record a month or season). When that is the case, the issue number is placed in parentheses.
    In other words,
    Progress in Human Geography 15, no. 4: 415–31. is incorrect. It'd have to be Progress in Human Geography 15, no. 4 (Winter): 415–31. (or whenever that was published) or 15 (4) as generated by Zotero. Since we have no reliable way of denoting the season or month of an issue, we go with the parenthetical issue throughout.
  • GillMM
    Ah. Got it now.
    Thanks for your help.
  • paulzot2
    15.47, though, makes it clear that the preference is to use the "15, no. 4 (Winter)" style when a month or season is known:

    "Though authors are encouraged to record all available data for their manuscripts (see 15.9, under "Journal Article"), sometimes only a volume and issue number will be available").

    Both examples given under 15.9 uses the "15, no. 4 (Winter)" formatting.

    The parens approach is only for cases where that information is not available (or not wanted by a particular publisher). Maybe there is no reliable way to make this happen with automated citation. It seems that when there is a month or season in the Date field the citation could be rendered in the preferred way, but maybe the Date field info is not consistent enough to reliably do this? I guess that is what adamsmith is saying. Still, even if using the non-preferred approach in one's paper may not be 'wrong', it really does seem to be non-preferred. But maybe real life editors don't care and accept the parens approach. After all, the issue number without month/season seems adequate for all the meaningful goals of citation.
  • adamsmith
    I agree it's non-preferred by the Manual. If you look at it's actual use, though, 1 (3) is the standard way it's implemented. That's e.g. what Taylor and Francis's Chicago author-date style uses this https://files.taylorandfrancis.com/tf_ChicagoAD.pdf as does the Style Manual of the American Political Science Association, which follows Chicago closely otherwise.

    So, yes, if we could do this well, I'd go with the odd volume, no. format, but since we wouldn't be able to, I don't have any qualms about using the alternate format.
  • chrisumphres
    This seems like an issue that would be common to all Chicago styles and not just author-date but the note and full note styles follow the no. issue (mo year). Why are they handled differently?
  • adamsmith
    Because the cited 15.47 is specifically in the author date chapter of the manual.
Sign In or Register to comment.