# back to pages

**URL:** <https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/back-to-pages/454>\
**Category:** CSL Development\
**Created:** [March 21, 2008, 4:10pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/back-to-pages/454 "2008-03-21T16:10:09Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 4\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bruce\_D\_Arcus1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@Bruce\_D\_Arcus1](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Bruce_D_Arcus1)\
**Post date:** [March 21, 2008, 4:10pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/back-to-pages/454/1 "2008-03-21T16:10:09Z")

</div>

So I’ve raised problems with the “page” locator variable before, in part  
b/c of the bug in Zotero and/or some its translators that treats a page  
range for an article or chapters as the same as the number of pages in a  
book.

Now, someone on the Zotero forums using the Bluebook style pointed out  
another issue: some styles don’t print the full page range, but only the  
first page. This is true of a lot of legal styles actually. Right now,  
we can’t support this.

So I’d like to suggest the easy solution is that we add to this list:

cs-terms.locator =  
“book”  
\> “chapter”  
\> “column”  
\> “figure”  
\> “folio”  
\> “issue”  
\> “line”  
\> “note”  
\> “opus”  
\> “page”  
\> “paragraph”  
\> “part”  
\> “section”  
\> “volume”  
\> “verse”

… “first-page”.

Does that make sense? Any objections? Confirmations?

I’d be fine with keeping the “page” string there for consistency, but I  
do think we need to document exactly what we’re referring to here, such  
that it’s clear the current Zotero/translator behavior is a bug 😉

Bruce

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Elena\_Razlogova](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Elena\_Razlogova](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Elena_Razlogova)\
**Post date:** [March 22, 2008, 6:05pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/back-to-pages/454/2 "2008-03-22T18:05:17Z")

</div>

> So I’d like to suggest the easy solution is that we add to this list:
> 
> cs-terms.locator =  
> “book”  
> \> “chapter”  
> \> “column”  
> \> “figure”  
> \> “folio”  
> \> “issue”  
> \> “line”  
> \> “note”  
> \> “opus”  
> \> “page”  
> \> “paragraph”  
> \> “part”  
> \> “section”  
> \> “volume”  
> \> “verse”
> 
> … “first-page”.
> 
> Does that make sense? Any objections? Confirmations?

Would it make more sense to rename “page” as “pages” when you add  
“first-page”? Seems more logical.

Elena\>

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bruce\_D\_Arcus1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@Bruce\_D\_Arcus1](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Bruce_D_Arcus1)\
**Post date:** [March 23, 2008, 4:13pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/back-to-pages/454/3 "2008-03-23T16:13:18Z")

</div>

Yeah, except that it’s not backward compatible. I think I’ll adopt a  
combination of your and Ricks’ suggestion, but maybe keep “page” for  
the time-being so we can move to the new variables.

Bruce

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bruce\_D\_Arcus1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@Bruce\_D\_Arcus1](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Bruce_D_Arcus1)\
**Post date:** [March 24, 2008, 8:12pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/back-to-pages/454/4 "2008-03-24T20:12:51Z")

</div>

Elena Razlogova wrote:

> Would it make more sense to rename “page” as “pages” when you add  
> “first-page”? Seems more logical.

Here’s what I’ve done for now:

```
 > "page"
 >
   ## a synonym for "page" (to be deprecated)
   "page-range"
 > "page-first"

```

I’m not so sure about this though, since I don’t want to have to add a  
bunch of these sorts of variables for different locators. Might be  
easier to just assume an unspecified data type that could be a range by  
default, and to use the modifier for exceptions (like “page-first”).

Bruce