Multiple book sections from same book, Chicago Style Note w/out Bibliography

When I get my hands on my Chicago, I'll try to find the exact page number for this, but I believe that if you have two book sections (A and B) from the same book X, then in the citation of A, it should be full [AAuthor, "A Title," in _Title of X_, eds. blahblah (X publication info)] but then if a citation of B comes directly afterwards, it should *not* be full [BAuthor, "B Title," in _Short Title of X_.] Right now, it always lists the entire citation of X, every time.
  • Found it: Chicago 15th, section 17.70
  • Notwithstanding the Chicago guidelines, is this really that big of a practical problem? IMHO, supporting it would probably add needless complexity to the citation style language (and Zotero's code).
  • Yes, I think it's quite important, because the longer the document is, the more difficult it becomes for a user to sift through for herself all instances of edited volumes (example: 500 pages of text). And then, if she ends up finding a typo or something in a different citation along the way, say on page 400, and then "Zotero Refreshes..." The problem isn't limited to just an edited book, but also applies to multivolume edited collections of primary source materials. (I think the problem might be more thorny here but don't have enough personal experience with this yet. This is more a prohibiting factor for an EndNote user that I know who is hesitating to try Zotero)

    (So, side note: If you have easier way of approaching this problem than 1) taking note of every edited volume in a separate word document that I come across while editing footnotes and then 2) deleting/editing the reference when i come across it, and also 3) using Zotero refresh with a duplicate copy that I paste back into the final document, I would love to know it. I'm still getting familiar with citing in Zotero)

    I understand that it is a challenge -- I don't know if an elegant handling would require a more detailed relationships between objects, like relationships across book sections with a record of the edited book as a whole -- but this is something that I and that other user have struggled over w/regard to EndNote.

    Maybe this might also be an opportunity to think about the redundancy issue: if you have 16 sections of a single book, it seems somehow wrong to enter in the data for the edited volume 16 different times. (Even having a cmd+mouse selection for "Create Book Section from Book" that would automatically populate the record with most of the information would be cool -- I realize that you can create a duplicate record from a Book Section record, but this is just a thought I've had of late)

    Anyways, just IMHO, as well. Thanks.
  • edited October 31, 2007
    connie: I think you misunderstood my "is this a practical problem?" question. I know it is if you strictly follow Chicago, and feel the need to go through and hand-edit every citation.

    What I'm asking is, do you really have to strictly follow it on this point? Is it really a harm to have some redundant information?

    Sometimes what is easier for human editing is actually more difficult for machine automation. And in my view, the short-cuts designed for human authors are not always to the benefit of readers (for example, ugly hacks like op. cit.).

    But if you really think this is a problem I'll try to think if there's some easier way to do this.

    Also, on this:
    Maybe this might also be an opportunity to think about the redundancy issue: if you have 16 sections of a single book, it seems somehow wrong to enter in the data for the edited volume 16 different times.
    Agreed, and, according to the Zotero devs, this will get fixed eventually.
  • hi bdarcus,
    thanks for the response. first thought after my posting, on the ride home: well, actually, if i'm up to 400 pages, then I'd be using a bibliography list, so it wouldn't be a problem really for this case,

    but then, second thought: i am using zotero on a working paper of about 20 pages, now with about 80 footnotes, no bib. i want to cut down on the redundancy because of a) chicago style guidelines, but also because b) it takes up more paper and c) i need it to be clean before submitting it for publication -- the editor's guidelines (fortunately, i have a while yet there).

    so, i'm going to have to edit it down, and i could manage it to some degree, except for the headache of when i have to or accidentally 'zotero refresh' (i feel like this has happened automatically in a couple of cases, but i don't know what user error thing i did to set it off yet).

    i'll be thinking more on the issue as well. again, thanks for the response.
  • I've not tried this, but can Word be coaxed to turn your bibliography fields into flat text? Then you could save all the editing until the end. This is, of course not a brilliant long-term solution, but it might help your present case.
  • scot: yes, you can flatten the fields (though I forget now the key-combination to do this). So yes, the best approach is to finish the manuscript, and when you're done, make a copy of it, flatten the citations, and edit them.

    At that point, of course, you cannot ever update them again, but that's likely fine.
  • Ctrl-Shift-F9 will flatten MS Word fields into text for formatting. You can "Select All" and flatten every field in a document at once, or do it one at a time.

    You can keep two copies of the document; one that has all the Zotero fields, and the other that you can submit/share electronically.
  • groovy, thanks for the tips!
  • Hi,
    Are there any updates on this question since 2007?

    I too am interested in citing multiple chapters from the same book without the publisher information duplicating each time in my footnotes.

  • no updates no - except that the Zotero plugin now has a button to flatten fields, so you don't need any key combination anymore. Otherwise what bdarcus said three years ago still applies.
Sign In or Register to comment.