Upgrade Storagearticle in book / edition / Chicago
I'm not sure if these are feature requests, or "troubleshooting." They all relate to what I'd call Chicago humanities style.
(1)
I don't see a way to put in all the information for an article published in an anthology. There is an item type for "book section" but that seems to assume that the whole book is authored by the same person who wrote the section. I'm talking about a case there there is an editor for the overall collection, which contains articles or chapters by different authors. In Chicago humanities style, if not elsewhere, you need to include both the author's and the editor's name.
(2)
In the Chicago style that I generally use, you need to indicate if a title is a revised or 2d or 3d etc. edition, and that's not being included in the Chicago "Note" options. My workaround at the moment is to put that info in front of the place of publication with proper punctuation, and it's coming out ok.
(3)
And finally, I saw another discussion about the names given for the two Chicago options and I have to tell you I was utterly confused by "Note with bibliography" and "Note without bibliography." I assumed this has to do with generating a list of notes, endnotes for example, when there is or isn't a bibliography provided as well. I just want a (non-author-date) bibliography! It seems like "Note with bibliography" is giving me what I need, but I'm definitely confused by these titles Also, in the help files at http://www.zotero.org/documentation/frequently_asked_questions#i_want_to_format_my_bibliography_in_chicago_style._zotero_supports_three_different_versions_of_that_style_author-date_notes_and_bibliography_and_notes_without_bibliography_._what_are_the_differences_between_them it looks like there should be a "bibliographic entry" option, but it's not listed that way in the Zotero that I downloaded yesterday, just to make sure. Is there something missing?
Thanks!
(1)
I don't see a way to put in all the information for an article published in an anthology. There is an item type for "book section" but that seems to assume that the whole book is authored by the same person who wrote the section. I'm talking about a case there there is an editor for the overall collection, which contains articles or chapters by different authors. In Chicago humanities style, if not elsewhere, you need to include both the author's and the editor's name.
(2)
In the Chicago style that I generally use, you need to indicate if a title is a revised or 2d or 3d etc. edition, and that's not being included in the Chicago "Note" options. My workaround at the moment is to put that info in front of the place of publication with proper punctuation, and it's coming out ok.
(3)
And finally, I saw another discussion about the names given for the two Chicago options and I have to tell you I was utterly confused by "Note with bibliography" and "Note without bibliography." I assumed this has to do with generating a list of notes, endnotes for example, when there is or isn't a bibliography provided as well. I just want a (non-author-date) bibliography! It seems like "Note with bibliography" is giving me what I need, but I'm definitely confused by these titles Also, in the help files at http://www.zotero.org/documentation/frequently_asked_questions#i_want_to_format_my_bibliography_in_chicago_style._zotero_supports_three_different_versions_of_that_style_author-date_notes_and_bibliography_and_notes_without_bibliography_._what_are_the_differences_between_them it looks like there should be a "bibliographic entry" option, but it's not listed that way in the Zotero that I downloaded yesterday, just to make sure. Is there something missing?
Thanks!
As for the explanation of the two Chicago variants, the FAQ should indeed have a bibliographic entry shown for clarity. Still, I don't see what's so confusing about the style names; if you want a bibliography, use the "with bibliography" style.
And a general rule, I think, is that for examples like this it's much more useful to provide constructive suggestions rather than to just complain about a deficiency. Your saying its confusing doesn't really help me come up with an alternative.
I'm sorry I didn't find the URL before-- I was responding to a thread started here where Scot Becker says "The naming of these is a little confusing to me" and then makes a perfectly good suggestion for how to name them:
(A) Chicago Manual of Style (Author-Date method) Reference List
(B) Chicago Manual of Style (foot/endnote method) Bibliography List
(C) Chicago Manual of Style (foot/endnote method) Note citation
He is basing this on what comes out of Zotero when you try the three options. I agree with him--I'm seeing the same results he is.
If his suggested names are too long, then the overall point is this: For people using notes, either foot or end, the bibliography formatting is the same. In addition, the formatting of the notes is the same whether they go at the bottom of the page or the end of the piece. There is no "with" or "without" involved.
I might suggest, for shorter versions:
(A) Chicago Manual of Style (author-date) Reference List
(B) Chicago Manual of Style (foot/end) Bibliography List
(C) Chicago Manual of Style (foot/end) Note citation
There is a different issue that I might expect to see referenced in the "with" and "without" designations, but it is not reflected in the actual records generated by Zotero right now. Many people use author last name and short titles for repeat citations. Sometimes, if there is a bibliography provided with a work, then all the notes, even the first one, provide only this minimal information. Thus, I might expect the following:
Note for first citation, or when no bibliography list is present ("without bibliography":
1. Kenneth L Ames, Beyond Necessity: Art in the Folk Tradition (Winterthur, Del: Winterthur Museum, 1977), 13.
Note for subsequent citation, or if a separate bibliography is present ("with bibliography":
1. Ames, Beyond Necessity, 13.
Am I being clear about what I mean, in any case?
Thanks.
I know all this, and the styles reflect exactly your explanatory logic. I guess we just have different perspectives on clarity. To me "with bibliography" mean simply that a bibliography is printed. But how is "note citation" any more clear? Your B option also involves note citations; they're just a different layout (a shorter form). The primary difference between B and C is that B has a bibliography, and C does not.
I—and I imagine the Zotero devs—are happy to change the title for these styles, but it would help if we could get more participation in this thread so as to have a better sense of consensus about what really is the most clear description. It's possible that Zotero doesn't yet implement first/subsequent handling, but rest assured it's coded in the style, and covered in the style language.
From B, I get:
1. Kenneth L Ames, Beyond Necessity: Art in the Folk Tradition (Winterthur, Del: Winterthur Museum, 1977).
From C, I get:
Ames, Kenneth L. Beyond Necessity: Art in the Folk Tradition. Winterthur, Del: Winterthur Museum, 1977.
I will start a new thread on this topic, which may generate more input with a more catchy heading.
When I use the "Note with Bibliography" style I get (once I add the bibliography) a footnote AND an entry in the bibliography.
If I change to the "Note without Bibliography" style, the footnote text changes, and the bibliography gets removed.
To me that's as it should be.
There are two sources of confusion about these style names, it seems to me.
The first is the fact that the words 'note' and 'reference' are ambiguous in the context of software like Zotero, and even the word 'bibliography' is used properly to mean 'the reference list at the end of the work' and somewhat less properly to mean 'the information (title, author date, etc) about an individual work'. So "Note without bibliography" could (to the unwary) mean something like "print my notes on the item, without any bibliographic info."
The second source of confusion is that the labels of the three Chicago styles in Zotero are meant to indicate "which of the the Chicago citation methods you are using" The three choices are 'Author-date method', 'foot/endnote method which includes a bibliography at the end', or 'foot/endnote method which doesn't include a bibliography at the end.' From this perspective the current names make a lot of sense. They're nearly perfect ('note' is still a little confusing if you're not ready for it, since we're in the habit of calling note-citations either footnotes or endnotes, not usually 'notes,' a word we use more often for annotations or commentary or random jottings.)
But if you are using Zotero's copy-to-clipboard functions as I am (and I suspect slg-lc is), and you come across those style labels in the 'Quick Copy' section of Z's preferences, and you are thinking of them as descriptions of 'how the information Zotero is going to put in the clipboard will be formatted', then those names really are confusing.
For example the style called:
"Chicago Manual of Style (Author-Date)"
doesn't in fact give you the author and date as it seems to promise but something like the example below, which is instead "the full bibliographic information for use in a reference list for an item you cite in the document using the author-date method' And the next one, called:
"Chicago MS (Note with Bibliography)"
doesn't in fact spit out the bit for the note at all, but (again) "the stuff that would go in the bibliography if you had used the foot/endnote + bibliography style" Finally "Chicago MS (Note without bibliography)" does give the note, but (if you are selecting it from quick copy) the "without bibliography" bit is still confusing if you are thinking of it as a description of the format of the stuff put into the clipboard, (as we were) rather than as a choice of citation styles. So now I think the names make fine sense in the word processor plugin, but less sense in the Quick Copy preferences. Part of the problem there is that the first two give you 'the thing that goes in your reference list/bibliography AT THE END of your document' and the last one gives you 'the thing you want WHILE YOU'RE WRITING.'
The trouble that slg-lc and I had is caused by the fact that there is a fundamental difference in what you are doing when you write with Quick Copy than when you write with an automatic citation method. For quick copy there are 5 possible operations if you are using one of the CMS styles:
1. Author-Date method, placing citation inline in the text
2. Author-Date method, placing a citation in the bibliography (reference list)
3. foot/endnote method (with biblio): short citation in a 'note' linked to text.
4. foot/endnote method (with biblio): full citation in bibliography
5. foot/endnote method (without biblio): long citation in a note linked to text.
The current Zotero styles (when used for Quick Copy) correspond to 2, 4, and 5.
A couple of suggestions:
1. I do think that Quick Copy is worth supporting. It's not the 'way of the future' (for which Bruce and others have worked quite hard--thanks!), but for many people it will be all they need--or all they want. And for users of unsupported (or undersupported) word processors, it's all they've got. Just now it's still the only thing that's rock solid, for any word processor.
2. To support Quick Copy nicely for "CMS notes (w/o biblio)", it would be nice to have a second copy command in Zotero which produced a formatted foot/end note with 'short citations' of the kind used after the initial citation. It's a lot to ask perhaps, but it'd be very nice for copy-pasters who use styles with 'subsequent citation' formats.
3. Is necessary to keep the list of 'citation styles' identical in all three of the places where they appear? (QCopy prefs, generate bibliography, and Word Processor plugins), or could the QC menu be made different, perhaps changing the names of the CMS styles and giving us all 5 CMS functions for quick copy? I think even #1 (Author & Date) could be handy, especially to quickly create citations for multiple references. It seems it would make sense to construct the QC pref menu differently, since any style with a ref list/biblio will have 2 separate bits that need to be entered, and you might want to do them separately.
4. What's with the automatic numbering and the indenting in "Chicago MS (Note without bibliography)" when used from Quick Copy? Shouldn't the word processor take care of that? I manually undo them every time. I mentioned this in my former post, and Bruce agreed that it should be nixed. I don't know where the trouble is, but could someone create a ticket to get that changed?
Guess we'll have to sort this out; I don't have any good ideas ATM. But the design of CSL )including the metadata associated with it) needs to be able to scale to hundreds -- if not thousands -- of styles. It needs to be easy for users to browse large lists of them.
bruce: (re: naming from the CSL title element). Right. That makes sense now.
It seems the goal for a style browser should be something that lets users search for CSL styles by name (if they know what they want) or browse, (for which examples are essential). Perhaps styles could also be tagged with broad (standardized, perhaps by necessity English) disciplinary labels, with the possibility for multiple labels to be attached to each style. That would mean that If I'm writing economics, I wouldn't have to visually sort through styles that are not commonly used in that field. Of course, many of the common styles are used for multiple disciplines, so they would need to show up for all of the relevant subject areas. The ideal would be to avoid unnecessary manual paging, while still letting users get the goods they need. Of course this could be done outside of Zotero proper as a web app. Zotero could import the selected styles from a repository with a web catalog, much the same way it imports record data now.
Perhaps the Quick Copy will need a little bit of separate attention from the CSL system for selecting full document styles. For one thing, it seems that for using most any style with Quick Copy, you will want to specify whether you intend to insert the 'inline-reference bit' or the 'bibliography list bit.' The odd thing about the Chicago styles at the moment is that the first two listed above give you the 'bibliography list' bit, and the last one gives you the 'inline reference bit' (which you put in a footnote), and you have no choice over the matter. If you are using "CMS Note w/Biblography," for example, there is no possibility to just insert:
2. Wilde, *Importance of Being Earnest*, 23.
And then there is the matter of naming discussed above.
As I said, I do assume that Quick Copy will continue in wide use even after the WP macros pass into solid reliability, since we'll always need cheap and speedy referencing in texts where full flexible referencing is not worth the additional work, not to mention for document formats that don't support fields, (Plain Text) or in applications that don't have macro capability (the new raft of Web-based word processors).
So the idea is each repository would have one or more Atom feeds generated from this metadata. A user could then subscribe to their area of interest.
The Zotero Quick Copy issues have been mostly fixed on the development branch--there are now two separate quick copy shortcuts for a footnote citation and a bibliographic reference. The remaining bugs will be addressed soon.
Bruce--
For the Chicago Styles, does CSL have a setup for a use case when one needs both long footnotes and a bibliography at the end? Dissertations, for example, always require a bibliography and usually long footnotes as well.
Bruce: another vote for CMS long footnotes WITH bibliography. That's what I'm using.
I'd say once the existing Chicago styles are converted to the new schema, the easy approach is just create a new style by assembling the bibliography and citation pieces from each of the styles (bibliography and no bibliography).