Greetings All,
Bookends offers a number of useful ways to modify a citation ad hoc. For instance, you can add text using the backslashes, you can suppress an author's name using the hyphen character, and you can suppress author and title using the ampersand character. My question is this: is there a similar way to tell Bookends NOT to output the short form/ibid. of a subsequent citation? This would be desirable in certain instances, for clarity and ease of reading. The situation arises because Bookends is not aware of section breaks in a document. So, for example, I happen to cite a particular work at the end of a chapter of my book manuscript. I cite the same work in my next chapter with no other citations intervening. Naturally, Bookends formats it as an Ibid., which is the normal behavior that I want throughout the manuscript. In this instance, however, I'd like to have the short form rather than Ibid. used. Is this possible, perhaps by using options I haven't thought of? If not, I'd like to make it a feature request. It seems like it could be implemented in a way similar to other ad hoc citation modifications.
BTW, I'm using Bookends 12 in combination with Mellel. So far, I'm liking the upgrade to Bookends 12, so thanks very much to Jon for the new version.
Sayyaar
Edit: Perhaps I should have added my post to this topic, instead: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3387
It looks like what I want is not possible now. Would it be too difficult to implement it as one of the ad hoc citation modification options I mention above (described on pp. 197-203 of the current Bookends Guide)?
More ability to control formatting for subsequent citations?
Re: More ability to control formatting for subsequent citati
It's possible I suppose, but it might not be easy. Note that you can simply type the desired form yourself, no need to have Bookends involved.
Jon
Sonny Software
Jon
Sonny Software
Re: More ability to control formatting for subsequent citati
Thanks, Jon, for your reply. It is true that one could manage this issue manually. Probably in a short manuscript it wouldn't be onerous, but in a lengthy book manuscript with eight or nine chapters and 500 some pages, one looks to minimize the amount of post-processing or manual insertions required. If I could specify the override (i.e., force Bookends to output the short form or long form in place of the default Ibid) when I insert the citation, then it would lighten my subsequent workload. It's one fewer thing to fix after scanning the document.
Nevertheless, it is my impression that the problem with correct use of Ibid. applies more to publishing in the humanities than in the sciences, so it may only appeal to a segment of the user base. Also, this feature might not be as useful for those who draft their book documents as separate files. A chapter file of about fifty pages is much more manageable than a single 500 page manuscript. In the case of a single chapter file, finding and fixing orphaned Ibid.'s (those that appear first in a chapter) would be superfluous--no such Ibid.'s would exist. And those Ibid's that refer to a note on the previous page (something not allowed by Turabian or SBL style) could be found and fixed manually in the final proofread. But if you manage a complex book manuscript as a single Mellel file, and if you have a work to which you refer frequently, so that Ibid.'s are common, then it would be nice to have this feature. I'm curious to know: would others like the greater control I'm advocating? How many other people have to fix style violations manually due to this (relatively minor, I admit) limitation?
In any case, thanks for your consideration.
Nevertheless, it is my impression that the problem with correct use of Ibid. applies more to publishing in the humanities than in the sciences, so it may only appeal to a segment of the user base. Also, this feature might not be as useful for those who draft their book documents as separate files. A chapter file of about fifty pages is much more manageable than a single 500 page manuscript. In the case of a single chapter file, finding and fixing orphaned Ibid.'s (those that appear first in a chapter) would be superfluous--no such Ibid.'s would exist. And those Ibid's that refer to a note on the previous page (something not allowed by Turabian or SBL style) could be found and fixed manually in the final proofread. But if you manage a complex book manuscript as a single Mellel file, and if you have a work to which you refer frequently, so that Ibid.'s are common, then it would be nice to have this feature. I'm curious to know: would others like the greater control I'm advocating? How many other people have to fix style violations manually due to this (relatively minor, I admit) limitation?
In any case, thanks for your consideration.
Re: More ability to control formatting for subsequent citati
Yes, I would.would others like the greater control I'm advocating?
I would have had to in my thesis, but I turned off the ibid option in order to avoid having to do so. In other words, I'd rather not have ibid-citations at all than have to check manually for inappropriate ones.How many other people have to fix style violations manually due to this (relatively minor, I admit) limitation?
Re: More ability to control formatting for subsequent citati
I would appreciate such a feature. I’m now working on a long MS Word document (as I have to do quite often) and it would be immediately useful in various cases.Sayyaar wrote: How many other people have to fix style violations manually due to this (relatively minor, I admit) limitation?
I want to keep the document in one file to make overall corrections much easier. The book I’m working on now contains 20 chapters. It would be a nightmare if I had to open 20 files just to make a correction with find and replace in the whole book. Especially if one has a lot of such corrections.
Hope it is not too hard to implement.
Any way, many thanks to Jon for his excellent work and responsiveness.
Jules
Re: More ability to control formatting for subsequent citati
Hello all,
I'm jumping on the bandwagon a bit late here - having only recently purchased Bookends - but I am facing something similar...
I am not at all clear whether the approach I am requiring is common in citations formats in other parts of the world, but my particular style requires that where a particular reference is repeated in a footnote immediately after one another - then only the page number is inserted in the subsequent (repeated) footnote.
By example:
Fn1: Du Toit "Blah blah blah" p189 pp189-192
Fn2: p194 [Where this is still citing Du Toit, as above]
Fn3: p195 [ " " " ]
Fn4: Calitz "Blah blah blah" p23 pp25-29
Fn5: p29 [Where Calitz, as above, is still being cited]
Fn6: p30 [ " " " ]
etc.
I can understand why Bookends would not be able to be much help here - since BE cannot be expected to know what text is placed in the preceding footnote, in order to "evaluate" if it should only be a page number, or a new, complete reference.
Having said that - does it make sense that I do the following: Get BE, at "replace repeated authors with" to input a very particular word/phrase, i.e. "BOING" (or whatever
) - and then use Find & Replace to spot these, and manually delete everything preceding the page number?
What would be super is if one were allowed to have the option of not only replacing "repeated authors", but possibly more of the automatically created citation fields as well - and say replace all of that with a [space]. One could then continue using the reference place-holder as it were, but have it outputted according to your requirements.
I obviously realise that the above can be done manually - but then one runs the risk, especially in instances where you are still moving pieces of text around in the process of hammering at the flow, of being left with a footnote that only says "145", with its preceding footnote reference clearly being some other, unrelated article, freshly introduced through a bit of cutting&pasting.
And then of course - maybe no-one else uses a citation format remotely similar to this - which would also make the above pretty pointless!
I'm jumping on the bandwagon a bit late here - having only recently purchased Bookends - but I am facing something similar...
I am not at all clear whether the approach I am requiring is common in citations formats in other parts of the world, but my particular style requires that where a particular reference is repeated in a footnote immediately after one another - then only the page number is inserted in the subsequent (repeated) footnote.
By example:
Fn1: Du Toit "Blah blah blah" p189 pp189-192
Fn2: p194 [Where this is still citing Du Toit, as above]
Fn3: p195 [ " " " ]
Fn4: Calitz "Blah blah blah" p23 pp25-29
Fn5: p29 [Where Calitz, as above, is still being cited]
Fn6: p30 [ " " " ]
etc.
I can understand why Bookends would not be able to be much help here - since BE cannot be expected to know what text is placed in the preceding footnote, in order to "evaluate" if it should only be a page number, or a new, complete reference.
Having said that - does it make sense that I do the following: Get BE, at "replace repeated authors with" to input a very particular word/phrase, i.e. "BOING" (or whatever
) - and then use Find & Replace to spot these, and manually delete everything preceding the page number? What would be super is if one were allowed to have the option of not only replacing "repeated authors", but possibly more of the automatically created citation fields as well - and say replace all of that with a [space]. One could then continue using the reference place-holder as it were, but have it outputted according to your requirements.
I obviously realise that the above can be done manually - but then one runs the risk, especially in instances where you are still moving pieces of text around in the process of hammering at the flow, of being left with a footnote that only says "145", with its preceding footnote reference clearly being some other, unrelated article, freshly introduced through a bit of cutting&pasting.
And then of course - maybe no-one else uses a citation format remotely similar to this - which would also make the above pretty pointless!
Re: More ability to control formatting for subsequent citati
You can have Bookends "replace repeated authors with" with any text you like. That's editable in the format.
Jon
Sonny Software
Jon
Sonny Software
Re: More ability to control formatting for subsequent citati
Hi Jon - is it possible to have BE only insert a page number? The "Create Temporary Citation with Modifiers menu/Special handling of final citation" menu allows one to:-Jon wrote:You can have Bookends "replace repeated authors with" with any text you like. That's editable in the format.
Jon
Sonny Software
a.) Exclude authors [-]
b.) Exclude authors and title [&]
c.) [insert] Date-only [%] etc.
If I wanted to exclude authors, title AND date in a particular reference - could that be done?
Re: More ability to control formatting for subsequent citati
No, that's not possible I'm afraid.
Jon
Sonny Software
Jon
Sonny Software
Re: More ability to control formatting for subsequent citati
Greetings All,
I know I posted this topic awhile ago, but I have found a fairly simple workaround for those of us who need to force Bookends not to use Ibid. in certain circumstances. Let's say I want to use Ibid. for repeated citations, but there are times when Ibid. would be ambiguous or wrong (for example, in the first footnote at the bottom of a page, with no preceding footnote on that page, or when several content footnotes have intervened between the original citation note and the one output as Ibid.). The easy fix is to create a dummy citation in Bookends. I've actually taken the trouble to label it with one of the unused reference types and to create a special definition for that type in my custom format. Thus, when I notice that an Ibid. would fall in a confusing place, I insert my dummy citation immediately before the citation that I don't want to be output as Ibid. This dummy citation, when processed by Bookends, yields no output, but it does make Bookends think that there is an intervening citation, which forces it to use the short subsequent form, rather than the Ibid.
It's been working for me like a charm so far. I hope it helps others.
I know I posted this topic awhile ago, but I have found a fairly simple workaround for those of us who need to force Bookends not to use Ibid. in certain circumstances. Let's say I want to use Ibid. for repeated citations, but there are times when Ibid. would be ambiguous or wrong (for example, in the first footnote at the bottom of a page, with no preceding footnote on that page, or when several content footnotes have intervened between the original citation note and the one output as Ibid.). The easy fix is to create a dummy citation in Bookends. I've actually taken the trouble to label it with one of the unused reference types and to create a special definition for that type in my custom format. Thus, when I notice that an Ibid. would fall in a confusing place, I insert my dummy citation immediately before the citation that I don't want to be output as Ibid. This dummy citation, when processed by Bookends, yields no output, but it does make Bookends think that there is an intervening citation, which forces it to use the short subsequent form, rather than the Ibid.
It's been working for me like a charm so far. I hope it helps others.