# chicago author-date

**URL:** <https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/chicago-author-date/1048>\
**Category:** CSL Development\
**Created:** [November 19, 2011, 1:55pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/chicago-author-date/1048 "2011-11-19T13:55:33Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 13\
**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:** [November 19, 2011, 1:55pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/chicago-author-date/1048/1 "2011-11-19T13:55:33Z")

</div>

Pandoc is using chicago-author-date as their default citation style,  
and as a consequence of turned up some funky style bugs. This style is  
trying to be far too clever, and as a consequence, doesn’t work very  
well. Consider this macro:

> <https://github.com/citation-style-language/styles/blob/master/chicago-author-date.csl#L267>

Before I hack this, does anyone know why this macro is so complicated  
,with all the long-lists of type-based tests?

For pandoc, I suggest you use APA as default.

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:** [November 19, 2011, 2:23pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/chicago-author-date/1048/2 "2011-11-19T14:23:57Z")

</div>

The style is complicated because it citing all reference types  
according to Chicago as correctly as possible.

What are the problems with the style?

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:** [November 19, 2011, 2:43pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/chicago-author-date/1048/3 "2011-11-19T14:43:49Z")

</div>

It’s mostly around “Anon” substitution (already fixed), and point  
locator labels. See, for example:

[http://groups.google.com/group/pandoc-discuss/msg/7165944a1822af0f](http://groups.google.com/group/pandoc-discuss/msg/7165944a1822af0f)

I am assuming this problem is related to the “point-locators” macro,  
but am not sure.

Bruce

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![andrea\_rossato2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e99b99/32.png) [@andrea\_rossato2](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/andrea_rossato2)\
**Post date:** [November 19, 2011, 6:37pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/chicago-author-date/1048/4 "2011-11-19T18:37:06Z")

</div>

“Bruce D’Arcus” \<@Bruce\_D\_Arcus1\> writes:

> > The style is complicated because it citing all reference types  
> > according to Chicago as correctly as possible.
> > 
> > What are the problems with the style?
> 
> It’s mostly around “Anon” substitution (already fixed), and point  
> locator labels. See, for example:
> 
> [http://groups.google.com/group/pandoc-discuss/msg/7165944a1822af0f](http://groups.google.com/group/pandoc-discuss/msg/7165944a1822af0f)
> 
> I am assuming this problem is related to the “point-locators” macro,  
> but am not sure.

Yes, it seems like “point-locators” is buggy since it renders the  
locator’s label (p., chap., etc.) only for a limited set of entry types  
(for instance, books but not a book’s chapter or an article) while it  
renders the locator (the page or chapter number) for every type. But  
this is just my guess, based John’s reactions. It may be possible that  
this is a Chicago style requirement – I wouldn’t know.

Andrea

---

<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:** [November 19, 2011, 6:52pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/chicago-author-date/1048/5 "2011-11-19T18:52:55Z")

</div>

FYI, from pandoc author John MacFarlane; might be useful for us in  
fixing styles?

> >

I’ve generated test output for every style in the current  
citation-style-language repository, to make it easier to  
check for problems:

[http://johnmacfarlane.net/pandoc/csltest/](http://johnmacfarlane.net/pandoc/csltest/)

Lots of the styles seem to have problems of various sorts!  
(At least when used with our system.)

John

---

<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:** [November 19, 2011, 7:04pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/chicago-author-date/1048/6 "2011-11-19T19:04:56Z")

</div>

> “Bruce D’Arcus” \<@Bruce\_D\_Arcus1\> writes:
> 
> > > The style is complicated because it citing all reference types  
> > > according to Chicago as correctly as possible.
> > > 
> > > What are the problems with the style?
> > 
> > It’s mostly around “Anon” substitution (already fixed), and point  
> > locator labels. See, for example:
> > 
> > [http://groups.google.com/group/pandoc-discuss/msg/7165944a1822af0f](http://groups.google.com/group/pandoc-discuss/msg/7165944a1822af0f)
> > 
> > I am assuming this problem is related to the “point-locators” macro,  
> > but am not sure.
> 
> Yes, it seems like “point-locators” is buggy since it renders the  
> locator’s label (p., chap., etc.) only for a limited set of entry types  
> (for instance, books but not a book’s chapter or an article) while it  
> renders the locator (the page or chapter number) for every type. But  
> this is just my guess, based John’s reactions. It may be possible that  
> this is a Chicago style requirement – I wouldn’t know.

“Anon.” programming was done before I got to the style, but I did the  
locators and point-locators.

In the Chicago style, “p.” is not rendered for pages in book, book  
chapter, article, etc.

“Chap.” should be rendered for books, but not for book sections. I.e.  
if the reference in the bibliography is a chapter, only page no should  
be cited.

But it looks like the problem goes beyond the “p.” issue. Because “p.”  
is not rendered for books, but other point-locators should be  
rendered, the programming is complicated, there are lots of  
conditions, etc.–I will look for bugs.

There also may be errors because I didn’t check the style after Frank  
revised the CSL and Zotero citation code–I think conditions work in a  
slightly different way in the new setup.

Best,  
Elena

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Frank\_Bennett](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/discourse.citationstyles.org/frank_bennett/32/198_2.png) [@Frank\_Bennett](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Frank_Bennett)\
**Post date:** [November 20, 2011, 9:04am UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/chicago-author-date/1048/7 "2011-11-20T09:04:40Z")

</div>

It’s great to see work on style-level testing. It might be interesting  
to have a core suite of test templates in the standard test format.  
People with an interest in support for particular styles could then  
provide result strings, so that the style could be brought under the  
test framework.

Any possibility that the Pandoc test suite might be migrated to the  
shared test framework? It might help move the community in that  
direction.

Frank

---

<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:** [November 20, 2011, 1:26pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/chicago-author-date/1048/8 "2011-11-20T13:26:01Z")

</div>

What would you need? The raw markdown template doc, and the test data?

Bruce

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Frank\_Bennett](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/discourse.citationstyles.org/frank_bennett/32/198_2.png) [@Frank\_Bennett](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Frank_Bennett)\
**Post date:** [November 20, 2011, 1:32pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/chicago-author-date/1048/9 "2011-11-20T13:32:14Z")

</div>

> > It’s great to see work on style-level testing. It might be interesting  
> > to have a core suite of test templates in the standard test format.  
> > People with an interest in support for particular styles could then  
> > provide result strings, so that the style could be brought under the  
> > test framework.
> > 
> > Any possibility that the Pandoc test suite might be migrated to the  
> > shared test framework?
> 
> What would you need? The raw markdown template doc, and the test data?

I’m tied down with work on legal support, but if someone were to work  
on this, they would probably find a set of standard tests most useful.

Frank

---

<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:** [November 20, 2011, 1:35pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/chicago-author-date/1048/10 "2011-11-20T13:35:41Z")

</div>

I don’t know what that means, though. That this markdown + data gets  
converted into the JSON test format you developed?

One issue is that CSL proper is silent on some details of citations  
(like citation prefixes).

Bruce

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Frank\_Bennett](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/discourse.citationstyles.org/frank_bennett/32/198_2.png) [@Frank\_Bennett](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Frank_Bennett)\
**Post date:** [November 20, 2011, 1:50pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/chicago-author-date/1048/11 "2011-11-20T13:50:14Z")

</div>

> > > > It’s great to see work on style-level testing. It might be interesting  
> > > > to have a core suite of test templates in the standard test format.  
> > > > People with an interest in support for particular styles could then  
> > > > provide result strings, so that the style could be brought under the  
> > > > test framework.
> > > > 
> > > > Any possibility that the Pandoc test suite might be migrated to the  
> > > > shared test framework?
> > > 
> > > What would you need? The raw markdown template doc, and the test data?
> > 
> > I’m tied down with work on legal support, but if someone were to work  
> > on this, they would probably find a set of standard tests most useful.
> 
> I don’t know what that means, though. That this markdown + data gets  
> converted into the JSON test format you developed?

That’s the one. The format of the tests that Andrea is using for  
development, and that will be converted for use with the  
cross-processor testing engine that Sylvester is working on.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Sylvester\_Keil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/85e7bf/32.png) [@Sylvester\_Keil](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Sylvester_Keil)\
**Post date:** [November 20, 2011, 2:11pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/chicago-author-date/1048/12 "2011-11-20T14:11:57Z")

</div>

It is very easy to use the test data with citeproc-js using the Ruby wrapper. I’ve put the code and example output into a gist if anyone is interested:

> <https://gist.github.com/inukshuk/1380295>

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Frank\_Bennett](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/discourse.citationstyles.org/frank_bennett/32/198_2.png) [@Frank\_Bennett](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Frank_Bennett)\
**Post date:** [November 20, 2011, 5:52pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/chicago-author-date/1048/13 "2011-11-20T17:52:27Z")

</div>

> > > It’s great to see work on style-level testing. It might be interesting  
> > > to have a core suite of test templates in the standard test format.  
> > > People with an interest in support for particular styles could then  
> > > provide result strings, so that the style could be brought under the  
> > > test framework.
> > > 
> > > Any possibility that the Pandoc test suite might be migrated to the  
> > > shared test framework?
> > 
> > What would you need? The raw markdown template doc, and the test data?
> 
> It is very easy to use the test data with citeproc-js using the Ruby wrapper. I’ve put the code and example output into a gist if anyone is interested:
> 
> [Pandoc CSL Tests for citeproc-js · GitHub](https://gist.github.com/1380295)

Aha. Nevermind …