Implementing dashes for repeated authors

[Jon]

Hi all,

I'm looking into the possibility of having authors' names replaced with dashes (or whatever) in a bibliography when they are in sequential references. Since I don't use this style myself, I thought I'd sound out our users.

My thinking goes like this. Dashes (this would be configurable) would be used in the succeeding reference if:

1. it is in a bibliography (not footnotes)

2. the authors' names *as displayed* are identical (they may not be in the references themselves, e.g. if the format uses et al.). Or should all authors be the same, regardless of how the names are displayed?

3. this will apply to any bibliography (or should it only apply to sorted bibliographies?).

Would this be satisfactory? Anything I left out?

Thanks for any feedback.

Jon
Sonny Software

[niklas]

Hi all,

2. the authors' names *as displayed* are identical (they may not be in the references themselves, e.g. if the format uses et al.). Or should all authors be the same, regardless of how the names are displayed?

In the journals where I have seen this, dashes are only used when the authors are identical. In other words, it is rare when there are multiple authors because they would also need to be in the same order. I guess it might differ between journals but this is the only implementation I have seen.

Niklas

[Jon]

Hi niklas,

Actually, for technical reasons that would this a lot easier.

So you are saying that if two references had Smith as the first author but the other authors were different, and the format called for et al. after the first author, this would be correct? --

1. Smith, AB et al.,...
2. Smith, AB et al.,...

instead of

1. Smith, AB et al.,...
2. ———,...

Jon
Sonny Software

[niklas]

Hi niklas,

Actually, for technical reasons that would this a lot easier.

So you are saying that if two references had Smith as the first author but the other authors were different, and the format called for et al. after the first author, this would be correct? --

1. Smith, AB et al.,...
2. Smith, AB et al.,...

instead of

1. Smith, AB et al.,...
2. ———,...

Exactly. This is definitely the case in the journals I have experience with.

Regards, Niklas

[alexwein]

Hi Jon,

Since I've already asked you about this feature, I, of course, think this would be awesome! I agree with Niklas about when to use the dash. The standard I use (Chicago) is a three-em dash used after the first appearance of a name, but only when the name is exact. This goes for an editor, translator, whoever's name is listed in the author placement in a bibliography. If 'AB Smith' co-authored a book with other folks, or if there is any variant in the name (even if it's the same person--it is rare but it does happen), then you use the full name, no dashes. It is only when the name is exactly the same name.

This also applies if a group of authors have written several books together. Then they would as a group get the three-em dash after the first appearance of their names. Again, only if it is exactly the same group of authors, editors, whatever.

It would also occur if the 'author' was an organization of some kind. Like the "Oregon Historical Society" or whatever. After the first appearance of pretty much anything that appears in the place where 'author' would appear in a bibliography, the three-em dash applies.

Definitely not in a footnote, so #1 of your list is accurate. I'm not sure about #3 because I'm not sure about the distinction between unsorted or sorted bibliographies in this context.

It would be a huge time-saver. Of course, there are other styles that do this differently, even though the three-em dash is used pretty widely with many styles and bibliographies. It sounds like you will have it as an option, so that would allow people to use it or not use it if they choose.

Hope this helps!

Alexandria

[niklas]

Hi all,

3. this will apply to any bibliography (or should it only apply to sorted bibliographies?).

I was also a little uncertain about what you meant with sorted vs unsorted bibliographies, but if by unsorted you mean something like Nature, where authors are listed in the bibliography in a numbered list in order of first appearance, I don't think the em-dashes would apply (and they wouldn't really make much sense since you wouldn't be able to tell which author they refer to...).

Niklas

[Jon]

Yes, like Nature. Well, they would apply to the preceding reference in the bibliography. But upon reflection, this isn't important. It would be left up to the user to set or disable.

One clarification (Alexandria) -- if the first reference was authored by Smith, and the second was edited by Smith (both the same person), would the second substitute dashes for Smith?

Jon
Sonny Software

[alexwein]

One clarification (Alexandria) -- if the first reference was authored by Smith, and the second was edited by Smith (both the same person), would the second substitute dashes for Smith?

Excellent clarification! I'd say no, you would not substitute dashes in this instance. The dash should be used only when the information is precisely the same as the previous reference. The fact that Smith authored one book and edited another would be important information for the reader to know, since there is a significant difference in the content (in the first instance it is Smith who wrote the content, in the second there are likely mutliple authors that Smith merely brought together, or perhaps he translated the work of another author, etc.).

That's my take on it anyway, and it is the standard I followed when working for academic publishers (as a freelance editor). Hope it helps!

Alexandria

[Jon]

Thank you, Alexandria. Not only were your answers helpful, but the particular responses will make the coding easier!

Jon
Sonny Software

[danzac]

In SBL (and chicago/turabian as well I think) the three em dashes is followed directly after by a period > space and then the rest of the information. Just wanted to add that small point so that the change in the formatter will leave in the period.

[Jon]

Hi Danny,

Yes, the emdashes would replace the authors names only -- it would have no effect on punctuation preceding or following the names.

Jon
Sonny Software

[eliason]

One clarification (Alexandria) -- if the first reference was authored by Smith, and the second was edited by Smith (both the same person), would the second substitute dashes for Smith?

Excellent clarification! I'd say no, you would not substitute dashes in this instance. The dash should be used only when the information is precisely the same as the previous reference. The fact that Smith authored one book and edited another would be important information for the reader to know, since there is a significant difference in the content (in the first instance it is Smith who wrote the content, in the second there are likely mutliple authors that Smith merely brought together, or perhaps he translated the work of another author, etc.).

That's my take on it anyway, and it is the standard I followed when working for academic publishers (as a freelance editor). Hope it helps!

Alexandria

My copy of Turabian (6th ed.) actually has it otherwise, according to sect. 9.28. That is...

Blow, Joe. Guide to Life. New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1944.

________, ed. A Compilation of Theories of Everything. New York: Praeger, 1955.

________, trans. La Vie. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1949.

Turabian DOES specify that, with coauthored works, the line shouldn't be used for any coauthor, though it may be used to indicate identical groups of coauthors.

By the way, Turabian also prescribes a modified order of works in the biblio in cases like Joe Blow's above: Authored works, then edited ones, then translated ones, then compilations. Dunno if Bookends can handle this rule.

Hope this helps

[Jon]

Turabian DOES specify that, with coauthored works, the line shouldn't be used for any coauthor, though it may be used to indicate identical groups of coauthors.

By the way, Turabian also prescribes a modified order of works in the biblio in cases like Joe Blow's above: Authored works, then edited ones, then translated ones, then compilations. Dunno if Bookends can handle this rule.

Hi,

Well, I think Bookends will distinguish between Types, and it won't handle that rule.

But why not download the 8.1 public beta and give it a try...

Jon
Sonny Software