Citation key for contribution in collected works

Andrei B. shared this question 4 months ago
Answered

Hello,

I am referencing a chapter in a Collected Work book in Chicago 16. The problem is that, even the second time I cite it, the footnote reads:

Hall, “The "Political" and the "Economic" in Marx's Theory of Classes” in Selected Writings on Marxism, 127–29

It seems completely redundant to have the name of the whole book there (which would not appear if it were an edited book, not collected work). The citation key already is just the title of the chapter. Can I somehow change this?

Thank you!

Andrei

Replies (2)

photo
1

Hi Andrei

Please create a sample file in Word, in which you insert the source twice. If you then upload the Word file here, I'll be happy to take a look at it.

Regards

Lee

photo
1

Hi Lee,

Thank you! Please find attached!

The one in question is "The "Political" and the "Economic" in Marx's Theory of Classes,” which is from a collected work. The other reference I put in there, "Introduction," is from an edited book, so the second citation does not include the title of the volume again.

Best,

Andrei

photo
1

Hi Andrei

When I open your Word file using the style "CMOS Chicago Manual of Style, 16th ed. (Notes)" I see the following output in the footnotes:

9fe46e822d41f0d94851a3542f314722

When I compare this result with the specifications from the citation style (see: https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/tools_citationguide/citation-guide-1.html), it seems to me that this is correct:

f14001d2090980a3eed22ca69bec16e5

Regards,

Lee

photo
1

Hi Andrei

I took another look at the citation style. The style treated the second citation (shortened note) of a reference differently, depending on whether it is a contribution in an edited book or in a collected work. I think we need to ask the Citavi team to review the style after all, since I don't have access to the full CMOS documentation.

I have made a copy of the style - pending the response by the team - in which both cases are treated equally. However, I do not think that this is in the spirit of the documentation. If you copy the attached version of the citation style into the Custom Citation Styles directory, you can try it out and see if you like the result.

Regards,

Lee

photo
1

Hi Lee,

Thank you very much for your help!

Best,

Andrei

photo
photo
1

Hi Andrei,

Thanks for your questions.

We have just published the corrected version of the style. Please restart Citavi if you are connected to the Internet so that Citavi can download the new style version from our server to your computer. Thank you for pointing out the problem.

(Because you are working with the 16th edition, a quick note: Normally, however, we would not correct an older edition of a citation style. The 17th edition is the most current version of the style.)

Best regards

Susanne

photo
1

Hi Susanne,

Thank you very much for your help!

I am using the 16th edition because I want to use ibid., which is not available for the 17th in Citavi.

Best,

Andrei

photo
1

Hi Andrei,

Thanks for your reply.

That is indeed a good reason. However, CMOS has changed this rule with the 17th edition.

It would be too much effort to maintain all editions of a style equally. In this respect, I ask for your understanding that today's correction must unfortunately otherwise remain rather an exception.

Best regards

Susanne

photo
Leave a Comment
 
Attach file (NO confidential documents!)