Lightrun Answers was designed to reduce the constant googling that comes with debugging 3rd party libraries. It collects links to all the places you might be looking at while hunting down a tough bug.
And, if you’re still stuck at the end, we’re happy to hop on a call to see how we can help out.
Add positions for op. cit./loc. cit.
See original GitHub issueIs your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
We’ve added terms for “op. cit.” and “loc. cit.” in https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/issues/103
As said here, the problem with them is that they are/were sometimes used in more complex ways:
1. John Doe, Book A (Location: Publisher).
2. John Doe, Book B (Location: Publisher).
3. Doe, Book A, op. cit.
4. Doe, Book B., op. cit.
5. Jane Smith, Book C (Location: Publisher).
6. Doe, op. cit. => This refers to Doe, Book B
7. Doe, Book A, op. cit.
This is arguably hostile to readers, but given we already have the terms, we might want to consider adding new options for position to support this kind of behaviour (e.g. position="subsequent-same-title-as-last-title-by-same-author" or just position="opcit").
Issue Analytics
- State:
- Created 3 years ago
- Comments:7 (7 by maintainers)
Top Results From Across the Web
Top Related Medium Post
Top Related StackOverflow Question
Troubleshoot Live Code
Top Related Reddit Thread
Top Related Hackernoon Post
Top Related Tweet
Top Related Dev.to Post
Top Related Hashnode Post
Yeah, “op cit.” in position=“subsequent” is one thing. The position=“subsequent-same-title-as-last-title-by-same-author” seems really really hostile to readers and not something I think is worth the increased processor difficulty to support.
Nevermind; I obviously missed a nuance.