kpang808 Posted December 22, 2016 Share Posted December 22, 2016 I would like to suggest that Accordance would improve the accuracy of the Citations and Bibliography copy options. For example when copying from some modules the citation and bibliography is pretty spot on. I don't need to make much modification to it. For others, it is really off where I have to add, subtract, or move. It would make things easier for writing. I posted some pictures below for examples (the shorter one with abbreviated title is what happens when copying and pasting: the longer one is the edited version I edited). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbjohnston Posted December 22, 2016 Share Posted December 22, 2016 This looks like the normal citation format for dictionaries, e.g., lexicons like BDAG/LSJ/BDB but also topical Bible dictionaries. Compare to the SBL style guide section 1.4 (https://www.sbl-site.org/assets/pdfs/pubs/SBLHSsupp2015-02.pdf) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kpang808 Posted December 22, 2016 Author Share Posted December 22, 2016 (edited) Hmm maybe so. I am not familiar with SBL, I write in Turabian format. So in my example it is quite a bit off from what Turabian requires. (Image 3 is the one I edited to make into Turabian formatting) (Image 4 is what I get from pasting a citation from accordance) Edited December 22, 2016 by keithp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julie Palmer Posted December 22, 2016 Share Posted December 22, 2016 What Preferences do you have selected under Preferences > Bibliography? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kpang808 Posted December 22, 2016 Author Share Posted December 22, 2016 Hey Julie, I have attached a photo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Francis Posted December 22, 2016 Share Posted December 22, 2016 I just wish I knew why Isaiah volume 1 won't generate a citation in the NIC -Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Allison Posted December 23, 2016 Share Posted December 23, 2016 Look for an update to NICOT today/tomorrow that will fix the citation issue. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Allison Posted December 23, 2016 Share Posted December 23, 2016 Actually, looks like they're ready now :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Bennett Posted December 23, 2016 Share Posted December 23, 2016 I would like to suggest that Accordance would improve the accuracy of the Citations and Bibliography copy options. For example when copying from some modules the citation and bibliography is pretty spot on. I don't need to make much modification to it. For others, it is really off where I have to add, subtract, or move. It would make things easier for writing. I posted some pictures below for examples (the shorter one with abbreviated title is what happens when copying and pasting: the longer one is the edited version I edited). Can you point me to the specific section in Turabian that you think this dictionary is an example of? When writing the spec for Turabian I based this type of citation on §17.5.3 Reference Works. We could expand the title, but if I recall correctly this is acceptable. In book series, for example, we do not abbreviate (e.g. Word Biblical Commentary). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kpang808 Posted December 23, 2016 Author Share Posted December 23, 2016 Can you point me to the specific section in Turabian that you think this dictionary is an example of? When writing the spec for Turabian I based this type of citation on §17.5.3 Reference Works. We could expand the title, but if I recall correctly this is acceptable. In book series, for example, we do not abbreviate (e.g. Word Biblical Commentary). The image I posted above #3 is based out of the Turabian format. #4 is what I get by default. As you can see from the images, #4 is not acceptable for Turabian. It is missing the editor, year of publication, publisher, publisher location. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Bennett Posted December 23, 2016 Share Posted December 23, 2016 (edited) The image I posted above #3 is based out of the Turabian format. #4 is what I get by default. As you can see from the images, #4 is not acceptable for Turabian. It is missing the editor, year of publication, publisher, publisher location. I just looked at §17.5.3 again, and it indicates that you can cite it as we are currently, or with the full publication details. I am inclined to leave it as is unless someone can provide more definitive proof that we are handling it incorrectly. Thanks for the feedback. Edited December 23, 2016 by Rick Bennett Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kpang808 Posted December 23, 2016 Author Share Posted December 23, 2016 Rick what guide are you referencing to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Bennett Posted December 23, 2016 Share Posted December 23, 2016 Rick what guide are you referencing to? Kate L. Turabian, A Manual for Writers of Research Papers, Theses, and Dissertations. 8th ed. University of Chicago Press, 2013. §17.5.3: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kpang808 Posted December 23, 2016 Author Share Posted December 23, 2016 Thanks for the information Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.c3123c857d1029f98e39c9394adc358d.png)
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now