# Expanding Page Range Formats

**URL:** <https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/expanding-page-range-formats/1234>\
**Category:** CSL Development\
**Created:** [August 4, 2014, 3:24pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/expanding-page-range-formats/1234 "2014-08-04T15:24:47Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 6\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Andrew\_Dunning](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/discourse.citationstyles.org/andrew_dunning/32/433_2.png) [@Andrew\_Dunning](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Andrew_Dunning)\
**Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 3:24pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/expanding-page-range-formats/1234/1 "2014-08-04T15:24:47Z")

</div>

I’m wondering whether the next version of CSL could provide expanded support for page range formats. In addition to the ones listed at [http://citationstyles.org/downloads/specification.html#appendix-v-page-range-formats](http://citationstyles.org/downloads/specification.html#appendix-v-page-range-formats), I can think of the following additions:

- The MHRA format (see [http://www.mhra.org.uk/Publications/Books/StyleGuide/StyleGuideV3\_1.pdf](http://www.mhra.org.uk/Publications/Books/StyleGuide/StyleGuideV3_1.pdf), p. 47), which is like Chicago but wants a leading zero, e.g. 13–15, 44–47, 100–22, 104–08, 1933–39 but 1098–1101.

- The OUP format, described at [http://global.oup.com/uk/academic/authors/AuthorGuidelinesMain/HouseStyle/#lev20](http://global.oup.com/uk/academic/authors/AuthorGuidelinesMain/HouseStyle/#lev20) (presumably this also matches Hart’s Rules), which is like the minimal style but requests, 'Do not omit digits between 10 and 19 in any hundred.’ I believe this is supposed to fit with English pronunciation.

- I think I’ve also seen a variant on the 'minimal-two’ style that avoids leading zeros.

- Conceivably, there might also be people who would want minimal-three and minimal-four.

I’m sure that one could find some other strange circumstances; there is probably some question of how thorough CSL should be with this.

Additionally, could the concept of page ranges within CSL be expanded to number ranges in general? I can’t think of any reason, for instance, why one wouldn’t want the style’s number range format to apply to a date range as well, and there are some odd cases where it would be applicable to a volume, issue, or series number range.

All best,

Andrew Dunning  
PhD Candidate  
Collaborative Program in Editing Medieval Texts  
Centre for Medieval Studies  
University of Toronto

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Andrew\_Dunning](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/discourse.citationstyles.org/andrew_dunning/32/433_2.png) [@Andrew\_Dunning](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Andrew_Dunning)\
**Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 3:31pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/expanding-page-range-formats/1234/2 "2014-08-04T15:31:29Z")

</div>

I realized right after I hit the send button that a problem with my proposal to extend page range formatting to dates was staring me in the face: the OUP style guide normally requests minimal formatting, but does not want this applied to dates that span centuries (to avoid something like 1866–901). I rather doubt, however, that anyone would ever want a date written this way, so perhaps this could simply be added as an exception for date ranges.

All best,

Andrew Dunning

---

<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:** [August 6, 2014, 7:29pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/expanding-page-range-formats/1234/3 "2014-08-06T19:29:15Z")

</div>

> I’m wondering whether the next version of CSL could provide expanded support  
> for page range formats.

> I’m sure that one could find some other strange circumstances; there is  
> probably some question of how thorough CSL should be with this.

I’m a bit hesitant to keep adding more and more page range formats.

> Additionally, could the concept of page ranges within CSL be expanded to  
> number ranges in general? I can’t think of any reason, for instance, why one  
> wouldn’t want the style’s number range format to apply to a date range as  
> well, and there are some odd cases where it would be applicable to a volume,  
> issue, or series number range.

My gut feeling is that it’s better to have separate definitions of  
range formatting for dates and all other numbers, so that they can be  
configured separately. Volume, issue, and series number ranges don’t  
come up very often (in practice and in citation manuals), so we  
haven’t really thought about whether the page-range-format should  
affect them.

Rintze

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Aurimas\_Vinckevicius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e47774/32.png) [@Aurimas\_Vinckevicius](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Aurimas_Vinckevicius)\
**Post date:** [August 6, 2014, 7:31pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/expanding-page-range-formats/1234/4 "2014-08-06T19:31:19Z")

</div>

> > I’m wondering whether the next version of CSL could provide expanded  
> > support  
> > for page range formats.
> 
> > I’m sure that one could find some other strange circumstances; there is  
> > probably some question of how thorough CSL should be with this.
> 
> I’m a bit hesitant to keep adding more and more page range formats.

Any reason, besides the technical challenge?

---

<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:** [August 6, 2014, 7:45pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/expanding-page-range-formats/1234/5 "2014-08-06T19:45:51Z")

</div>

I don’t see a problem with adding new algorithms. That’s the whole point  
behind that feature.

It would be another issue if we had, say, 20 of them. But we only have a  
handful?

---

<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:** [August 6, 2014, 8:04pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/expanding-page-range-formats/1234/6 "2014-08-06T20:04:39Z")

</div>

I would support adding a few more options for popular citation style  
guides as long as they’re unambiguously described. But I also would  
like to keep down the burden of implementing all these options in the  
CSL processors, and for CSL style authors to deal with them. I think  
that one of the key strengths of CSL is in how it trades in  
flexibility for simplicity (on the other side of the spectrum, you  
could consider encoding styles with a complete programming language),  
and I feel expanding CSL without constraint would hurt it.

Rintze