# CSL Bluebook extensions

**URL:** <https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/csl-bluebook-extensions/532>\
**Category:** CSL Development\
**Created:** [January 20, 2009, 1:13am UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/csl-bluebook-extensions/532 "2009-01-20T01:13:52Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 1

<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:** [January 20, 2009, 1:13am UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/csl-bluebook-extensions/532/1 "2009-01-20T01:13:52Z")

</div>

I have completed a tour through the code of Zotero, tweaking and  
extending the code to support the Bluebook style, for use in our  
faculty writing programs. Unavoidably, some of the changes have  
touched on CSL. To the extent that CSL contemplates Bluebook support,  
the functionality we have implemented here will be required. I would  
welcome a discussion of the changes, with a view to including them, or  
some concrete alternative, in official CSL. I have no special  
attachment to the solutions I have implemented here; but the use cases  
do need to be covered.

Here are the changes, and the use cases that they address.

[A] Note number backreferences

Example:

1. John Doe, The Laws of Lilliput 123 (1900)
2. Jane Roe, A Lilliputian Disputation (1905)
3. Doe, supra note 1.

Problem:  
The note number is required in the back-reference.

Solution:

[B] Previous reference in same note:

Example:

1. John Doe, The Laws of Lilliput 123 (1900); Jane Roe, A Lilliputian  
Disputation (1905). Doe relates the laws of Lilliput to those of  
Brobdingnag throughout his work. Doe, supra.

Problem:  
The supra reference in this case does not have a note number, because  
it is in the same footnote as the target reference.

Solution:  
SUPRA TEXT  
  
  
NOTE TEXT

[C] Reset first reference

1. Putting Things on Top of Other Things Act sec. 123, 999 USC 234 (1900).
2. 99 USC 235 (1900).
3. 99 USC 277 (1900).
4. 99 USC 255 (1900).
5. 99 USC 240 (1900).
6. Putting Things on Top of Other Things Act sec. 124, 99 USC 235 (1900).

Problem:  
A statute must be cited with the full form if the short form does not  
occur within the last five footnotes. Supra is not used.

Solution:  
  
  
FULL  
  
  
SHORT

---

<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:** [January 20, 2009, 2:20pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/csl-bluebook-extensions/532/2 "2009-01-20T14:20:55Z")

</div>

> I have completed a tour through the code of Zotero, tweaking and  
> extending the code to support the Bluebook style, for use in our  
> faculty writing programs. Unavoidably, some of the changes have  
> touched on CSL. To the extent that CSL contemplates Bluebook support,  
> the functionality we have implemented here will be required. I would  
> welcome a discussion of the changes, with a view to including them, or  
> some concrete alternative, in official CSL. I have no special  
> attachment to the solutions I have implemented here; but the use cases  
> do need to be covered.
> 
> Here are the changes, and the use cases that they address.
> 
> [A] Note number backreferences
> 
> Example:
> 
> 1. John Doe, The Laws of Lilliput 123 (1900)
> 2. Jane Roe, A Lilliputian Disputation (1905)
> 3. Doe, supra note 1.
> 
> Problem:  
> The note number is required in the back-reference.
> 
> Solution:

Makes sense. Care to propose the comment text for the schema?

> [B] Previous reference in same note:
> 
> Example:
> 
> 1. John Doe, The Laws of Lilliput 123 (1900); Jane Roe, A Lilliputian  
> Disputation (1905). Doe relates the laws of Lilliput to those of  
> Brobdingnag throughout his work. Doe, supra.
> 
> Problem:  
> The supra reference in this case does not have a note number, because  
> it is in the same footnote as the target reference.
> 
> Solution:  
> SUPRA TEXT  
>   
>   
> NOTE TEXT

For this use case, why is this necessary? Variables don’t print if  
they’re null, so shouldn’t your case A work for B also?

> [C] Reset first reference
> 
> 1. Putting Things on Top of Other Things Act sec. 123, 999 USC 234 (1900).
> 2. 99 USC 235 (1900).
> 3. 99 USC 277 (1900).
> 4. 99 USC 255 (1900).
> 5. 99 USC 240 (1900).
> 6. Putting Things on Top of Other Things Act sec. 124, 99 USC 235 (1900).
> 
> Problem:  
> A statute must be cited with the full form if the short form does not  
> occur within the last five footnotes. Supra is not used.
> 
> Solution:  
>   
>   
> FULL  
>   
>   
> SHORT

Might it not better to just add a new option?

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:** [January 20, 2009, 3:22pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/csl-bluebook-extensions/532/3 "2009-01-20T15:22:58Z")

</div>

Oops; no, since it won’t be null.

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:** [January 20, 2009, 9:57pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/csl-bluebook-extensions/532/4 "2009-01-20T21:57:47Z")

</div>

> > For this use case, why is this necessary? Variables don’t print if  
> > they’re null, so shouldn’t your case A work for B also?
> 
> Oops; no, since it won’t be null.

I’ll check, though. It will be zero, which would return false in  
the case of , I think. And that would cover  
the use case. I’ll give it a whirl and report back.

---

<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:** [January 20, 2009, 10:10pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/csl-bluebook-extensions/532/5 "2009-01-20T22:10:08Z")

</div>

> > > For this use case, why is this necessary? Variables don’t print if  
> > > they’re null, so shouldn’t your case A work for B also?
> > 
> > Oops; no, since it won’t be null.
> 
> I’ll check, though. It will be zero, which would return false in  
> the case of , I think. And that would cover  
> the use case. I’ll give it a whirl and report back.

D’oh! The distance is zero, but the number is some integer, huh. So  
you’re right again of course. There could be a “note-distance”  
variable (that’s needed internally for [C] anyway), but I’m not sure  
there will be additional use cases that it would be needed for. Hmm.

---

<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:** [January 20, 2009, 9:55pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/csl-bluebook-extensions/532/6 "2009-01-20T21:55:00Z")

</div>

> > I have completed a tour through the code of Zotero, tweaking and  
> > extending the code to support the Bluebook style, for use in our  
> > faculty writing programs. Unavoidably, some of the changes have  
> > touched on CSL. To the extent that CSL contemplates Bluebook support,  
> > the functionality we have implemented here will be required. I would  
> > welcome a discussion of the changes, with a view to including them, or  
> > some concrete alternative, in official CSL. I have no special  
> > attachment to the solutions I have implemented here; but the use cases  
> > do need to be covered.
> > 
> > Here are the changes, and the use cases that they address.
> > 
> > [A] Note number backreferences
> > 
> > Example:
> > 
> > 1. John Doe, The Laws of Lilliput 123 (1900)
> > 2. Jane Roe, A Lilliputian Disputation (1905)
> > 3. Doe, supra note 1.
> > 
> > Problem:  
> > The note number is required in the back-reference.
> > 
> > Solution:
> 
> Makes sense. Care to propose the comment text for the schema?

I’ll get cracking on that right away.

> > [B] Previous reference in same note:
> > 
> > Example:
> > 
> > 1. John Doe, The Laws of Lilliput 123 (1900); Jane Roe, A Lilliputian  
> > Disputation (1905). Doe relates the laws of Lilliput to those of  
> > Brobdingnag throughout his work. Doe, supra.
> > 
> > Problem:  
> > The supra reference in this case does not have a note number, because  
> > it is in the same footnote as the target reference.
> > 
> > Solution:  
> > SUPRA TEXT  
> >   
> >   
> > NOTE TEXT
> 
> For this use case, why is this necessary? Variables don’t print if  
> they’re null, so shouldn’t your case A work for B also?

Aha! Exactly right. I love it when that happens.

> > [C] Reset first reference
> > 
> > 1. Putting Things on Top of Other Things Act sec. 123, 999 USC 234 (1900).
> > 2. 99 USC 235 (1900).
> > 3. 99 USC 277 (1900).
> > 4. 99 USC 255 (1900).
> > 5. 99 USC 240 (1900).
> > 6. Putting Things on Top of Other Things Act sec. 124, 99 USC 235 (1900).
> > 
> > Problem:  
> > A statute must be cited with the full form if the short form does not  
> > occur within the last five footnotes. Supra is not used.
> > 
> > Solution:  
> >   
> >   
> > FULL  
> >   
> >   
> > SHORT
> 
> Might it not better to just add a new option?

This applies to statutes only in Bluebook, but if it were used for op  
cit. in Chicago, it would apply to everything. Can the effect of an  
option be limited a particular item type?

---

<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:** [January 22, 2009, 3:13pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/csl-bluebook-extensions/532/7 "2009-01-22T15:13:24Z")

</div>

…

> > > [C] Reset first reference
> > > 
> > > 1. Putting Things on Top of Other Things Act sec. 123, 999 USC 234 (1900).
> > > 2. 99 USC 235 (1900).
> > > 3. 99 USC 277 (1900).
> > > 4. 99 USC 255 (1900).
> > > 5. 99 USC 240 (1900).
> > > 6. Putting Things on Top of Other Things Act sec. 124, 99 USC 235 (1900).
> > > 
> > > Problem:  
> > > A statute must be cited with the full form if the short form does not  
> > > occur within the last five footnotes. Supra is not used.
> > > 
> > > Solution:  
> > >   
> > >   
> > > FULL  
> > >   
> > >   
> > > SHORT
> > 
> > Might it not better to just add a new option?
> 
> This applies to statutes only in Bluebook, but if it were used for op  
> cit. in Chicago, it would apply to everything. Can the effect of an  
> option be limited a particular item type?

Ugh; no.

Something seems wrong about your proposed solution though. If I look  
at that markup, it’s not intuitively obvious to me what “if  
reset-first=‘5’” means.

Bruce

PS - I can’t avoid adding that … op cit is evil!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rintze\_Zelle](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/discourse.citationstyles.org/rintze_zelle/32/175_2.png) [@Rintze\_Zelle](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Rintze_Zelle)\
**Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 3:54pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/csl-bluebook-extensions/532/8 "2009-01-22T15:54:18Z")

</div>

Would something like

FULL SHORT

be clearer?

Rintze

---

<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:** [January 22, 2009, 4:01pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/csl-bluebook-extensions/532/9 "2009-01-22T16:01:50Z")

</div>

But we might consider if there may be need for other examples, such  
that we might have a more generic option like:

… with me not quite sure what “foo” should be called. Kind of  
related to previous discussion of the counting case, where we had  
proposed attributes like min-value and max-value (or something like  
that).

Bruce

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Andrea\_Rossato1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e47774/32.png) [@Andrea\_Rossato1](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Andrea_Rossato1)\
**Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 5:54pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/csl-bluebook-extensions/532/10 "2009-01-22T17:54:57Z")

</div>

> Would something like  
> …  
> be clearer?
> 
> > …
> > 
> > > > > Problem:  
> > > > > A statute must be cited with the full form if the short form does not  
> > > > > occur within the last five footnotes. Supra is not used.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Solution:

sorry if I jump in this discussion even though I’ve not been following  
it very closely, but it is not very clear to me how a CSL  
implementation could be aware of something like the footnote number a  
citation is occurring in?

Does Zotero support something like this?

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:** [January 22, 2009, 6:01pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/csl-bluebook-extensions/532/11 "2009-01-22T18:01:49Z")

</div>

Just in case Simon is slow to respond re: Zotero-specific details …On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Andrea Rossato \<@Andrea\_Rossato1\> wrote:

> sorry if I jump in this discussion even though I’ve not been following  
> it very closely, but it is not very clear to me how a CSL  
> implementation could be aware of something like the footnote number a  
> citation is occurring in?

I imagine there’d be an array of references somewhere, where one might  
annotate those references with additional information (first  
reference, year suffix, etc.), and that in such a context would could  
note this information?

Might not be as easy with pandoc though 😉

Bruce

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Andrea\_Rossato1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e47774/32.png) [@Andrea\_Rossato1](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Andrea_Rossato1)\
**Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 6:30pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/csl-bluebook-extensions/532/12 "2009-01-22T18:30:42Z")

</div>

I would like to point out the fact that my implementation is _not_  
pandoc specific. You could use it as a stand alone library to provide  
citation formatting for a anything you want (actually I’m planning to  
write a small utility to provide a CSL backend that can deal with Open  
Document files: you could use a character style to insert citation  
keys with OpenOffice and then use citeproc-hs to format them,  
similarly to the Zotero plugin)

This is why I fill a bit uncomfortable with this kind of options (the  
same for indent option that has been discussed a few line above or  
below). I’m really trying to write a library that is not format  
specific, but you guys are making it quite a very hard job…😉

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:** [January 22, 2009, 6:39pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/csl-bluebook-extensions/532/13 "2009-01-22T18:39:33Z")

</div>

…

> I would like to point out the fact that my implementation is _not_  
> pandoc specific. You could use it as a stand alone library to provide  
> citation formatting for a anything you want (actually I’m planning to  
> write a small utility to provide a CSL backend that can deal with Open  
> Document files: you could use a character style to insert citation  
> keys with OpenOffice and then use citeproc-hs to format them,  
> similarly to the Zotero plugin)

Cool.

> This is why I fill a bit uncomfortable with this kind of options (the  
> same for indent option that has been discussed a few line above or  
> below). I’m really trying to write a library that is not format  
> specific, but you guys are making it quite a very hard job…😉

I sympathize. Here’s what I really want: to make you and Frank (and  
all the other users who need x or y functionality) happy 🙂

Right now, in the Bluebook style, the output for back-references of  
this kind is just a “\_\_\_”, here the user then has to manually fill  
them in when they’re done with their document. So this is the use case  
that drives Frank’s proposal, and it’s a reasonable one to  
accommodate.

I realize this may not be so easy to implement in all environments,  
but it’s not like not implementing it will result in worse output than  
what these users currently get.

Bruce

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Andrea\_Rossato1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e47774/32.png) [@Andrea\_Rossato1](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Andrea_Rossato1)\
**Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 7:00pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/csl-bluebook-extensions/532/14 "2009-01-22T19:00:51Z")

</div>

I too want Frank to be happy - I’m a comparative lawyer too and so I  
happen to have some familiarity with the Bluebook style, unfortunately  
I’d like to add… 🙂

I’ll add a library function that can take some extra information, like  
footnote numbers, for environment that could provide it. And I’m sure  
I’ll be able to add this support to pandoc too.

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:** [January 22, 2009, 7:58pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/csl-bluebook-extensions/532/15 "2009-01-22T19:58:04Z")

</div>

Yeah, I was thinking you might have such familiarity.

Damn … this is a heinous, sadistic, style! It’s amazing how much  
more complex CSL has had to become to accommodate some of the most  
widely used styles, where that complexity really has no logical basis  
in the 21st century.

But alas, the academy and the legal profession are among the most  
conservative of institutions …

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:** [January 22, 2009, 10:05pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/csl-bluebook-extensions/532/16 "2009-01-22T22:05:15Z")

</div>

> > Would something like
> > 
> > FULL SHORT
> > 
> > be clearer?
> 
> > From my perspective, yes.
> 
> But we might consider if there may be need for other examples, such  
> that we might have a more generic option like:
> 
> … with me not quite sure what “foo” should be called. Kind of  
> related to previous discussion of the counting case, where we had  
> proposed attributes like min-value and max-value (or something like  
> that).

This would be great to have, if “foo” is just variable. The fact that  
I like it may cut the other way, though. 🙂

This would open the way to jurisdiction-specific styling. For example:

MACRO FOR VIETNAMESE STATUTES DEFAULT STATUTE MACRO

I’ve been thinking that I’ll want this kind of conditional branching  
when I get to statutory material, but I’ve also been thinking that the  
structure of the style code could run out of control if you weren’t  
careful – instead of puzzling over exceptional cases, having a  
discussion, and coming up with a minimal solution, I could just add  
some stringy code to the style for each case (and then add some more,  
and then …).

Not sure what Simon will say about this idea; but if used carefully,  
it certainly would add a welcome flexibility. Personally, I’m very  
much in favour. Andrea? Other folks?

---

<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:** [January 22, 2009, 9:44pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/csl-bluebook-extensions/532/17 "2009-01-22T21:44:04Z")

</div>

> Just in case Simon is slow to respond re: Zotero-specific details …
> 
> > sorry if I jump in this discussion even though I’ve not been following  
> > it very closely, but it is not very clear to me how a CSL  
> > implementation could be aware of something like the footnote number a  
> > citation is occurring in?
> 
> I imagine there’d be an array of references somewhere, where one might  
> annotate those references with additional information (first  
> reference, year suffix, etc.), and that in such a context would could  
> note this information?

That’s the deal. Zotero proper can’t do this yet, but it turns out to  
be not too difficult, with one little caveat.

There are clustered references in an author-date style. (Smith 1990;  
Jone 2000). In a footnote style, Zotero pushes those references into  
a single note. (The naming of the internal variables in the Zotero  
source code is a little confusing; the cluster is “Citation”, and the  
individual references are “Item”.) In our local implementation of Z,  
during the scan of the document each Item object is stamped with its  
own cluster number (“thisRef”) and the cluster number of the first  
reference (“firstRef”). When the Items are passed to the CSL  
processor, “firstRef” provides the note number for a supra  
back-reference, and “thisRef” is used with a fresh array inside the  
CSL processor (“lastFirstRef”) to calculate the elapsed distance to  
the nearest full citation generated. Our toy implementation is here:

[gsl-nagoya-u.net&nbsp;-&nbsp;This website is for sale!&nbsp;-&nbsp;gsl nagoya u Resources and Information.](http://gsl-nagoya-u.net/appendix/software/bluebook)

(Be sure to run this one in a clean Firefox profile, it touches some  
of the system tables.)

So it’s pretty simple when all is said and done, but it does assume  
that item clusters == footnotes. In our case, I’ll just caution my  
students that they should create all of their footnotes as Zotero  
references, and steer clear of the Insert → footnote menu item in  
their word processors when they are using Zotero.

---

<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:** [January 23, 2009, 12:34am UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/csl-bluebook-extensions/532/18 "2009-01-23T00:34:44Z")

</div>

…

> So it’s pretty simple when all is said and done, but it does assume  
> that item clusters == footnotes. In our case, I’ll just caution my  
> students that they should create all of their footnotes as Zotero  
> references, and steer clear of the Insert → footnote menu item in  
> their word processors when they are using Zotero.

But WRT to the other discussion on zotero-dev, I keep finding myself  
confused by your description of this. 😉

Why would you tell your students not to use insert → footnote when  
there are times an author legitimately wants to write a footnote that  
just happens to include one or more citations, and that this is a  
different case than the normal case of citations that refer to in-text  
content but which get rendered as footnotes.

Or is this just not the case for law people; that if you were to use a  
different style you’d expect all those citations to be rendered  
in-text?

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:** [January 23, 2009, 1:54am UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/csl-bluebook-extensions/532/19 "2009-01-23T01:54:29Z")

</div>

> …
> 
> > So it’s pretty simple when all is said and done, but it does assume  
> > that item clusters == footnotes. In our case, I’ll just caution my  
> > students that they should create all of their footnotes as Zotero  
> > references, and steer clear of the Insert → footnote menu item in  
> > their word processors when they are using Zotero.
> 
> But WRT to the other discussion on zotero-dev, I keep finding myself  
> confused by your description of this. 😉

I’m not a model of clarity – but I try to make up for it with enthusiasm! :-/

> Why would you tell your students not to use insert → footnote when  
> there are times an author legitimately wants to write a footnote that  
> just happens to include one or more citations, and that this is a  
> different case than the normal case of citations that refer to in-text  
> content but which get rendered as footnotes.
> 
> Or is this just not the case for law people; that if you were to use a  
> different style you’d expect all those citations to be rendered  
> in-text?

It’s kind of a mix of practice and principle at the moment.  
Practically, the Zotero CSL processor still gets back-references wrong  
when reference items are inserted into a user-created footnote. This  
isn’t specific to Bluebook, you can test it with the Chicago note  
style. Create a footnote, enter some text, create a reference to  
Smith before the text, create another reference to Smith after the  
text. Hit the Zotero refresh button, and boom: the FIRST cite becomes  
“Ibid.” and the second becomes the full cite to Smith. I don’t even  
want to think about explaining that result to a student.

---

<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:** [January 23, 2009, 12:36pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/csl-bluebook-extensions/532/20 "2009-01-23T12:36:21Z")

</div>

…

[Next page](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/csl-bluebook-extensions/532.md?page=2)