I have customised the built-in MHRA format, having two formats working together, one for in-text (footnote) citations and one for bibliographies. According to the MHRA style guide, cited pages in footnotes should be rendered like this [p. 243.] for single pages and [pp. 243-245.] for page ranges. Now, this all looks fine in the bibliography formats manager, but when I scan the references in Mellel, this all gets messed up. If I add @243 or @243-245, I get the following:
p. 243
p. 243-45
There's no use of "pp." and the trailing full stop is missing. My format for books looks like this:
a, t $, trans. by $u3 $, ed. by $e $, Series: $j $, $u13$ vols$ (l: u, u11$; repr. $d), `p. ^pp. `p-.
I tried to add `and $ around the last punctuation mark, but it didn't help either.
Cited pages mess
Re: Cited pages mess
From p. 159 of the User Guide dealing with cited pages (the "two fields" refer to before and after:
Text you enter in the two fields will be output before or after the page number(s). The ^ character is used here just as it is in a format: characters before a ^ will be output if there is only one page number, characters after the ^ will be used if there is a page range. An example is
, p. ^, pp.
Please follow this up with tech support (support@sonnysoftware.com) if these issues aren't resolved.
Jon
Sonny Software
Text you enter in the two fields will be output before or after the page number(s). The ^ character is used here just as it is in a format: characters before a ^ will be output if there is only one page number, characters after the ^ will be used if there is a page range. An example is
, p. ^, pp.
Please follow this up with tech support (support@sonnysoftware.com) if these issues aren't resolved.
Jon
Sonny Software
Re: Cited pages mess
Thanks, Jon for pointing me to this; It works well now!
I was wondering about another thing, though. If I have a multi-volume work, and I am citing, say page 58 of volume 2, it would be the most straightforward thing to add the following to the temporary citation marker:
@II, 58
However, this would (with my format) give the following output:
[...], pp. II, 58.
When what I want is:
[...], II, p. 58.
Should I enter the formatting exactly as I want it in the citation marker, using the quote character (i.e. \, II, p. 58.\), or is it best for me to create a new database entry for every single volume in a multi-volume work? What's the best practise in Bookends?
I was wondering about another thing, though. If I have a multi-volume work, and I am citing, say page 58 of volume 2, it would be the most straightforward thing to add the following to the temporary citation marker:
@II, 58
However, this would (with my format) give the following output:
[...], pp. II, 58.
When what I want is:
[...], II, p. 58.
Should I enter the formatting exactly as I want it in the citation marker, using the quote character (i.e. \, II, p. 58.\), or is it best for me to create a new database entry for every single volume in a multi-volume work? What's the best practise in Bookends?
Re: Cited pages mess
There is no best practice from my point of view. But the *easiest* would be to use literal text and the "quote" character as you suggested instead of cited pages in this case. That's what I would do.
Jon
Sonny Software
Jon
Sonny Software