TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2007-04 > 1176568440


From: "Michael J. Hannah" <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Ibid and Citation Detail
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 10:34:26 -0600
References: <mailman.45437.1176489820.5575.tmg@rootsweb.com>
In-Reply-To: <mailman.45437.1176489820.5575.tmg@rootsweb.com>


On 4/13/2007 "Jim Byram" replied:
>
> Neal McEwen wrote:
>
>> I have three consecutive citations of the same source. I have Ibid. turned on in the report options. All citations details are the same. The first and second citations have no Citation Memo. The third citation has a memo.
>> It appears that the CD is printing in the third citation because the of the CM. I can remove the CM and the CD does not print in the third citation.
>> Is this a bug, undocumented feature, or do I have a short between the headphones?
>
> Replicated. It's a bug....
>
> Or maybe not. The ibid code could now be testing both the citation
> detail and citation memo fields and you wouldn't see the difference
> unless the template included [CM].
> And Neal responded:
> I hope it is a bug, because I need the freedom to use CM without restraint.

Hmmm... well my testing has shown the following. Currently I rely upon
(expect) the way it works, but could wish for some enhancements.
Specifically, I would like to have a user defined template for “ibid”
for each source, like we have for FF, SF, and B, so that I could include
or exclude various source elements like CM, and use the split memo
features of both CD and CM.

The use of “ibid” can be thought of as an alternative to the Short
Footnote when you output subsequent *consecutive* references to the
*same* source, but it does not have a user-defined output format. The
functioning of “ibid” is controlled in two different locations: the
source options in the Report Definition, and the three choices on each
specific source’s Output tab. Excluding ibid in the Report Definition,
or choosing no ibid for that source, produces obvious results. But if
the conditions are appropriate for “ibid” to be output no source output
template is used, you only get the word “ibid” *possibly* followed by
only [CD1] (which is the same as [CD] only if the citation detail is not
split). Choosing “requires same source” for a particular source produces
ibid every time the previous citation is the same source, *plus* will
follow the word “ibid” with (only) [CD1] *if* any part of *either* the
CD or CM differs from the previous citation. NOTE: identical [CD1]'s but
differing data in other split parts of the CD, or completely identical
CD's but differing CM's, will trigger the condition to print something
after the word “ibid”, but will only print [CD1], making it very unclear
why this occurred. Choosing “requires same source and [CD]” will *only*
output ibid (and always *only* the word ibid) if the source and *all* of
the CD *and* the CM are identical to the previous citation. If *any*
part of the CD's or CM's differ, ibid will not be used and the Short
Footnote template will be used, which is what I think Neal is seeing.

Therefore [my ibid principle here!!] ,
• if a source uses split CD's, or
• if the output templates include CM and two citations are likely to
differ only in the CM,

then that source should never choose only “requires same source” for its
ibid output. If you want ibid, use “requires same source and [CD]”.

Again, like Jim said, I am not sure if this is a bug or a feature, but
this is how I have observed it works currently.

Hope this gives you ideas,

Michael

This thread: