Dear all, in reverting back to the 17th version (notes with biblio, supposedly the equivalent of the old 17th full note) I'm finding a ton of changes. As late as ten days ago, I submitted a paper using the old 17th full note and the output was normal (no "unpublished manuscript" references throughout my citations, and all short entries normal. The 17th notes with biblio (I've tried two different versions in the directory, the normal and the classic variants) both inexplicably mangle many (not all) of the short (subsequent) notes, incorrectly giving publisher and year). Is it possible there is a glitch here? I've checked and double-checked the citation entries in Zotero. Less than two weeks ago I submitted a paper with a polished bibliography according to 17th full note. The 17th note and bibliography versions in the repository are vastly different. Is it possible there's a glitch somewhere? Is the full note version no longer accessible?
Please note, I also tried the Chicago Manual of Style 18th edition (notes and bibliography, with classic variants). The problem seems to persist across versions.
the 17th edition styles were also updated to better conform to the 17th edition. It's possible there are remaining issues in the style; ideally we'd want those described and replicated in minimal documents with 2-3 citations, not in the context of a massive document.
The old full note version can be retrieved and used with some effort via github (you basically go back in github history to before the update, find the old style, rename the file and change the id so it doesn't update), but you'll understand that we're much more willing to spend time troubleshooting the updated styles than helping folks to roll back to the old ones which we have no plans to maintain.
@adamsmith, thank you for your help. No, I'd much prefer staying with supported versions!
To give an example, first
Correct initial citation: Alberto Magnaghi, Precursori di Colombo?: il tentativo di viaggio transoceanico dei genovesi fratelli Vivaldi nel 1291 (Rome: Soc. Anonima Arti Grafiche, 1935), 26–27
Incorrect subsequent citation: Magnaghi, Precursori (Rome: Soc. Anonima Arti Grafiche, 1935), 54. For some reason, the publication info is included. Note that this is the 17th note plus biblio in the directory. The citation is identical in the versions of 18th note plus biblio, minus the place of publication.
It is important to note that for some reason this does not affect all entries. For example,
correct initial citation: Nancy F. Marino, ed., El libro del conoscimiento de todos los reinos (The book of knowledge of all kingdoms) (Tempe: Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 1999), 48 n129
correct subsequent citation: Marino, El libro del conoscimiento, 48–51
I have checked and double-checked the bibliographic entries in zotero. The problem is not duplicated items. I submitted a final draft of an article less than two weeks ago, before my computer picked up the updates. All citations were correctly formatted.
Can you create the first example in a new document with just 2-3 citations?
If so, could you export the item to CSL JSON, open in a text editor, copy & paste to pastebin.com or a similar code sharing page and link to it from here?
I just cited this entry twice in a new document, abd the problem vanishes. Is it possible this is a glitch on my machine? All footnotes are still in grey scale - but is it possible there are some accretions in the document itself that prevent proper updating?
@dstillman would you mind splitting the conversation with padraicrohan into a new thread starting with this post??
@padraicrohan -- it's not your machine, it's the original, long document. It's a little hard to say what's going on, but the old styles did do less to disambiguate the same works, so I think adunning's original hypothesis that these might be duplicates (which wouldn't necessarily still be in your library) is pretty plausible and wouldn't be contradicted by the fact that this looked OK in the old style. Have you tried adding a bibliography to the long document? If there are indeed duplicate items, those would also show up twice in the bibliography. If that's not the case, the next thing I'd try is pasting smaller chunks of the old doc into a new Word document, selecting the same Chicago 17 style in the document preferences, and checking if the publishing information persists or not -- that'd help us isolate the issue. It's still not entirely out of the question that this is a problem in the style, but even if that's the case, we'd have to figure out under what circumstances it occurs in order to fix it properly.
@adamsmith I appreciate your help. Breaking up the document was helpful to identify the multiple problems. I'm nearing the end of a project over a decade long, and over that time I've often tweaked and refined the imported metadata. I've tried to keep my citations up to date through this process, but inevitably some citations are still no doubt populated with funky metadata which render the citations distinct from the current and correct versions (though they do not show up as distinct items in a bibliography, weirdly). This probably accounts for the half-correct subsequent citation problem.
In any case, I'll be in the weeds of this over the next several days. I really appreciate your help!
Upgrade Storage
It's possible there are remaining issues in the style; ideally we'd want those described and replicated in minimal documents with 2-3 citations, not in the context of a massive document.
The old full note version can be retrieved and used with some effort via github (you basically go back in github history to before the update, find the old style, rename the file and change the id so it doesn't update), but you'll understand that we're much more willing to spend time troubleshooting the updated styles than helping folks to roll back to the old ones which we have no plans to maintain.
To give an example, first
Correct initial citation: Alberto Magnaghi, Precursori di Colombo?: il tentativo di viaggio transoceanico dei genovesi fratelli Vivaldi nel 1291 (Rome: Soc. Anonima Arti Grafiche, 1935), 26–27
Incorrect subsequent citation: Magnaghi, Precursori (Rome: Soc. Anonima Arti Grafiche, 1935), 54. For some reason, the publication info is included. Note that this is the 17th note plus biblio in the directory. The citation is identical in the versions of 18th note plus biblio, minus the place of publication.
It is important to note that for some reason this does not affect all entries. For example,
correct initial citation: Nancy F. Marino, ed., El libro del conoscimiento de todos los reinos (The book of knowledge of all kingdoms) (Tempe: Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 1999), 48 n129
correct subsequent citation: Marino, El libro del conoscimiento, 48–51
I have checked and double-checked the bibliographic entries in zotero. The problem is not duplicated items. I submitted a final draft of an article less than two weeks ago, before my computer picked up the updates. All citations were correctly formatted.
Sorry, I hope this is not too long.
If so, could you export the item to CSL JSON, open in a text editor, copy & paste to pastebin.com or a similar code sharing page and link to it from here?
I just cited this entry twice in a new document, abd the problem vanishes. Is it possible this is a glitch on my machine? All footnotes are still in grey scale - but is it possible there are some accretions in the document itself that prevent proper updating?
@padraicrohan -- it's not your machine, it's the original, long document. It's a little hard to say what's going on, but the old styles did do less to disambiguate the same works, so I think adunning's original hypothesis that these might be duplicates (which wouldn't necessarily still be in your library) is pretty plausible and wouldn't be contradicted by the fact that this looked OK in the old style. Have you tried adding a bibliography to the long document? If there are indeed duplicate items, those would also show up twice in the bibliography. If that's not the case, the next thing I'd try is pasting smaller chunks of the old doc into a new Word document, selecting the same Chicago 17 style in the document preferences, and checking if the publishing information persists or not -- that'd help us isolate the issue.
It's still not entirely out of the question that this is a problem in the style, but even if that's the case, we'd have to figure out under what circumstances it occurs in order to fix it properly.
In any case, I'll be in the weeds of this over the next several days. I really appreciate your help!