If Better BibTeX is already converting author to director, then I wonder if it is possible to just add scripting to the postscript section of BBT to do a similar conversion of Podcaster to host and Series Title to container-title at export time... That would save the hard-code kludging in the Extra field, and leave the fields untouched ready for the day that the BBT postscripting becomes unnecessary (and could easily be removed in one place)...
And it looks as though the File Type, "podcast" is only shown if the title of the podcast either does not contain the word "podcast" in it, or is not identified as part of, e.g., a podcast network (second example in 14.168). That makes sense.
When a magazine article item has a volume and number entered in Zotero, the new Chicago 18 CSL styles cite it as a journal article--a year instead of a full date in parentheses, and volume and number included. This is incorrect according to the latest CMOS. It cites magazine articles in the same way as before--no volume or number, and a full date. Could this be fixed? It is important for me (but I can't be the only one) to keep volume/number for magazine issues in Zotero for research purposes, but I still want to cite magazine articles correctly.
The problem is deciding how to implement CMOS 14.65: ‘If in doubt whether a particular periodical is better treated as a journal or as a magazine, use journal form if the volume number is easily located, magazine form if it is not.’ There are examples of what I would consider to be magazines cited with a volume or issue number in CMOS 14.100 and 14.102. I have so far used the presence of a volume number rather than the item type to determine the formatting of magazine articles, but I can see a case for taking the opposite approach.
It would be better to leave it up to the user to choose "magazine" or "journal" to format the citation, rather than make the formatting dependent on the data. Here are some arguments:
1. Citations for major magazines imported from online databases automatically include volume and number (example: Billboard magazine, ProQuest). Most magazines--New Yorker, Atlantic, etc.--are weekly or monthly and thus have to be cited with the full date--month/day/year or month/year. Citing the full date is currently impossible with your CSL formatting and volume & number entered. The user will have to delete valid data from an imported entry manually every time to achieve the correct citation.
This is the citation I get after import from ProQuest: Nelson George, “Three Deejays: Snapshots in Black Radio Before One Era Ended and Another Began,” _Billboard_ 98, no. 39 (1986): B6, B12, B15.
Whereas I should get this: Nelson George, “Three Deejays: Snapshots in Black Radio Before One Era Ended and Another Began,” _Billboard_, September 27, 1986.
2. My particular use case: I am analyzing a run of a biweekly column (same title, same authors) in an underground newspaper, East Village Other, from the 1960s. I chose magazine item type specifically to track the volume and number to make sure I cover the entire run--the numbering and dates for an underground publication are inconsistent. Your CSL solution would require me to put that information informally into an extra or abstract field when Zotero helpfully provides fields for this data.
I would be very grateful if you fix this--I know it's difficult formatting, but it would be incredibly helpful.
An updated version of the Chicago styles is now available in the Zotero styles repository. This fixes bugs and adds new variants requested in this forum, most notably providing in-text/parenthetical styles. See the GitHub repository for the full list of changes:
Just a note to say that the "chapter" locator bug seems to have returned, so am editing my copies of the styles to comment out the problematic line of code. Anybody else following this thread for whom this bug has surfaced as an issue should probably also do the same -- at least for now, until the issue with pandoc identified by @dunning is resolved.
@dunning - I looked at CMOS 18 closely and here are the requirements:
14.64 "Indispensable for newspapers and most magazines is the specific date (month, day, and year)."
14.65 "A magazine is a weekly or monthly (or sometimes daily) periodical [...] Magazines are normally cited by date alone (see 14.20). If in doubt whether a particular periodical is better treated as a journal or as a magazine, use journal form if the volume number is easily located, magazine form if it is not." I.e. only if researchers are in doubt if a periodical is a magazine should they use journal form when volume is available. If researchers are not in doubt, they should use magazine form.
14.87 "Weekly or monthly (or bimonthly) magazines, even if numbered by volume and issue, are usually cited by date only."
To me, these sections require that magazines should be cited by date alone--and by the specific date--even if the volume/number field is filled.
@dunning Thank you for writing to the CMOS team. I believe the 18th edition is quite clear on this matter, but thank you for double-checking. If you decide not to make this change, please post your decision on the forum. In that case, I will make my own version of the style.
I feel like a complete pedant asking this, but I notice that in reviews the Zotero style now abbreviates "Review of" to "Rev. of". Looking at CMOS 14.100, there's no indication that this abbreviation is felt to be desirable or necessary. Is there a reason for it here?
@dunning I revised your style to create my own that cites magazine articles with full dates. I guess no one else cares about this so no need to investigate further. Thank you.
@gpatten / @adamsmith This is due to a combination of the redefinition of the long form of 'review of' to 'review of the' (also in APA and MHRA), in combination with the German locale lacking a translation of the review-of term. There might be a better approach than redefining the terms in this way.
@erazlogo I absolutely care about getting this right, but it typically takes the CMOS help desk a month to respond to queries.
Could I ask a quick question about suppressing "n.d." in the 18th edition?
In the 17th edition, full note with bibliography, the part of the code I eliminated was
and it worked perfectly. I'm now formatting my notes according to the 18th, note without bibliography. The CSL here is not the same, with several instances of "no date" in the code. Could you please advise on what parts of the CSL to cut for 18th Chicago, notes without bibliography?
Upgrade Storage
authortodirector, then I wonder if it is possible to just add scripting to the postscript section of BBT to do a similar conversion of Podcaster to host and Series Title to container-title at export time... That would save the hard-code kludging in the Extra field, and leave the fields untouched ready for the day that the BBT postscripting becomes unnecessary (and could easily be removed in one place)...Hmm... @emilianoeheyns -- are you there?
I tried submitting a pull request for the ‘podcaster’ problem several months ago but I’m not sure it was the right place:
https://github.com/zotero/zotero-schema/pull/6
This does not however address the problem of the Series Title field on podcasts in place of Program Title.
1. Citations for major magazines imported from online databases automatically include volume and number (example: Billboard magazine, ProQuest). Most magazines--New Yorker, Atlantic, etc.--are weekly or monthly and thus have to be cited with the full date--month/day/year or month/year. Citing the full date is currently impossible with your CSL formatting and volume & number entered. The user will have to delete valid data from an imported entry manually every time to achieve the correct citation.
This is the citation I get after import from ProQuest:
Nelson George, “Three Deejays: Snapshots in Black Radio Before One Era Ended and Another Began,” _Billboard_ 98, no. 39 (1986): B6, B12, B15.
Whereas I should get this:
Nelson George, “Three Deejays: Snapshots in Black Radio Before One Era Ended and Another Began,” _Billboard_, September 27, 1986.
2. My particular use case: I am analyzing a run of a biweekly column (same title, same authors) in an underground newspaper, East Village Other, from the 1960s. I chose magazine item type specifically to track the volume and number to make sure I cover the entire run--the numbering and dates for an underground publication are inconsistent. Your CSL solution would require me to put that information informally into an extra or abstract field when Zotero helpfully provides fields for this data.
I would be very grateful if you fix this--I know it's difficult formatting, but it would be incredibly helpful.
https://github.com/citation-style-language/styles/pull/7679
pandocidentified by @dunning is resolved.14.64 "Indispensable for newspapers and most magazines is the specific date (month, day, and year)."
14.65 "A magazine is a weekly or monthly (or sometimes daily) periodical [...] Magazines are normally cited by date alone (see 14.20). If in doubt whether a particular periodical is better treated as a journal or as a magazine, use journal form if the volume number is easily located, magazine form if it is not."
I.e. only if researchers are in doubt if a periodical is a magazine should they use journal form when volume is available. If researchers are not in doubt, they should use magazine form.
14.87 "Weekly or monthly (or bimonthly) magazines, even if numbered by volume and issue, are usually cited by date only."
To me, these sections require that magazines should be cited by date alone--and by the specific date--even if the volume/number field is filled.
review-ofterm. There might be a better approach than redefining the terms in this way.@erazlogo I absolutely care about getting this right, but it typically takes the CMOS help desk a month to respond to queries.
In the 17th edition, full note with bibliography, the part of the code I eliminated was
and it worked perfectly. I'm now formatting my notes according to the 18th, note without bibliography. The CSL here is not the same, with several instances of "no date" in the code. Could you please advise on what parts of the CSL to cut for 18th Chicago, notes without bibliography?