Omitting authors last name in subsequent citations fails sometimes

I have modified my Chicago author-date style so that it does not include authors last name and date in subsequent citations. For example, to change this:

The argument that all dogs are black (Brown 1990, 152) is a contentious one (Brown 1992, 166) and outdated (Brown 1992, 172).

Into this:
The argument that all dogs are black (Brown 1990, 152) is a contentious one (1992, 166) and outdated (172).

I am aware that you cannot exclude authors last name from different subsequent citations, i.e. (1992, 166), but in those cases I just use "omit author" option.

It works fine for most of the time, however, I noticed that Zotero sometimes fails to do so, like here:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/zotero.org/images/forums/u7992155/0uj4py6g0stixqqhqbw3.png

The last, block quote should also be (150), as it is from the same book. I thought maybe it had something to do with different style, but on other places it works fine.

P.S. I also noticed something else: it seems that inserting a footnote breaks "the continuity" Zotero recognizes, but I would have to test it further.
  • You mean omit year, not last name? Because the last names are all ommitted in your screenshot.

    No Zotero citation style I know of would omit the year, so you would have to start by saying which style you are using.
  • Hey adamsmith! It was actually you who explained it and guided me through it, here is the link to that thread:

    https://forums.zotero.org/discussion/114259/how-to-suppress-author-in-subsequent-citations-in-text?new=1

    It was two years ago, so I believe it is a modified Chicago 17th (author-date). I have it in my Zotero, but I don't know how to share it with you.
  • I'm aware of the rule of course, but we're not going to automate this in any official style because as I say in the old thread, we can't detect proximity and the Chicago rule (same in APA) is explicitly about citations in the same paragraph.

    The issue is the same page number -- when something is both the same work and the same page number, the position is ibid, not ibid-with-locator, so you'd have to experiment with that, probably something like
    <else-if position="ibid" variable="locator" match="all">
    (because position="ibid" is also true for subsequent citations without any page number, which you don't want)
  • In my opinion it is just a cascade-like behavior. If I am talking about one and the same author, and multiple works, then author is ommited. But if I am talking about the same work, then year is also omitted and only page number remains. And if we switch from one work to another - of the same author - we just include the year, not the author aswell.

    Yes, I remember what you said, and it is fine - I just use "Omit Author" option in those cases.

    And no, I don't need 'ibid', it's fine as is. I was just wondering, thinking it is a glitch, that sometimes it does detect it, but sometimes not, and they are rather close.

    But now you explained that it doesn't because it thinks its a new paragraph, am I right? I could swear that sometimes it failed also in the same paragraph, but I just can't seem to find those places for the life of me.
  • No, I'm talking about your issue specifically:
    Your screenshot shows two subsequent citations to the 1991 work, with the second one not omitting the year as you want. The reason it doesn't is that they're both citing the same page (150), a situtaiton which the CSL treats as "ibid" not as "ibid-with-locator" -- the code you're currently using for your style only tests for "ibid-with-locator". You have to adjust it; I'm suggesting how above.
  • For example, here it worked not only in different paragraphs, but in different chapters and it followed from a previous page even!

    https://s3.amazonaws.com/zotero.org/images/forums/u7992155/84ri7bnaawhx164or9tu.png
  • I see. But if that is the case, then why did it here, in the second example, follow with (351) instead with (2005a 351)?
  • P.S. This second example is actually what I would like it to do in the first case. And it obviously can do it ... but refuses sometimes (he's a rebel!)
  • I don't know, you'd have to troubleshoot with the document. What I wrote above is correct in terms of CSL behavior.
Sign In or Register to comment.