first citation in zettlr tutorial

michaa7

Hi.

First thanks for this forum and your software. I still have now clue whether or not it will serve my needs, but from what I heard and read so far I am hopefull.

This is my first posting here, so I begin with a short introduction:

I try to find a workflow from zotero to zettlr to libreoffice. I is meant to help to organize a work I already have begun in an analog way (lots of real paper, handwritten remarks and so on). I have mostly stopped contentual work as I now first need to find a reliable SW workflow which realy deserves to be called "flow" and not a sequence of hurdles.

I still have no clue whether or not zettlr will be the right thing. But I hope it will help to solve my main Issue: organizing, structuring and arrange citations and ideas in correspondence to the table of contents.
I hope I find a suitable workflow to then first integrate what I have begun to write so far into this structure. And then resume the contentual work ...

My first simple problem with zettlr:

When following the tutorial, I did not succeed to create the citation (how you name it; I would rather use "reference (source)", as the real citation was there already);
I found the csl-db in the tutorial folder using google ;-).

I then could create my first citation/reference "[@Marx1962]" which yesterday changed to "(Marx 1962)", today does not.
Then I tryed to add the "23: 249" part, which, when typing "23: 249", resulted in "23:23:249"; and when typing "249" resulted in "23:249", not "23: 249") And no citation was or is appearing in the sidebar.

First hurdle, first fall.

What am I doing wrong?

Thanks.

gbm

Are you trying to cite volume 23 page 249? I don't think that works like you seem to want it to here. A single colon and then a number is parsed as page number, but anything more custom than that needs to be a suffix. See the syntax here: https://pandoc.org/MANUAL.html#citation-syntax

michaa7

gbm

Thanks, but OMG, it's supposed to be a zettlr tutorial, not a pandoc test.
This is how the tutorial wants it to look like:
(Marx 1962, 23: 249)

[@Marx1962, vol. 23 S.249] (Marx 1962, Bd.23: Bd.23: 249)
[@Marx1962, chap. 23 S.249] (Marx 1962, Bd.23: Kap.23: 249)

I don't even have an idea what "23: 249" is supposed to mean?

gbm

I tested it out myself and I think you actually found a bug here. It should not print the "vol." part twice. I'll open an issue over on the github. fwiw, the citation engine is currently being reworked, so there's hope it will improve soon.

Scratch that, the problem is simply that the bibliographic entry is for volume 23 already. If you cite it as [@Marx1962, 249] it should render correctly.

I can imagine that this made the tutorial more frustrating than necessary. Maybe it would be better to use another example there, one without multiple volumes. Is there anything else about it that you found unclear? Then we can make suggest improvements.

michaa7

gbm

Thanks for your extensive reply.

The tutorial experience IS frustrating, but should not be. It should give an easy first success. And as you ask, let me explain it blunt and clear:

I followed the tutorial in the hope it would provide a first taste about what zettlr may be used for. I did not read the documentation prior, as I expected the doc to be way more exhaustive. For me it is the most obvious thing to not read the doc before the tutorial. For you it seems the opposite as I noticed only later. Because in the doc you mention that during install zettlr copies a bibliography file to /home/user/Documents (a folder I never ever use as I organize on a project basis).

So you assume the user is aware of this fact when you present this tutorial. But I was not. Were it not for some link I found with google (an other user with the same problem) I never ever would have looked in the document folder). :-(

Ok, first hurdle overcome with some eye rolling.

Then the second. It is the first time I saw "23: 249" representing what I know as "Bd. 23 S. 249" or "vol.23 p.249" only. Ok, shortage of knowledge, ... but is it realy the most suitable example? And then the fact that, as you explained, the bibliographic entry already is for volume 23. How is a user supposed to know? For the user something happens without him knowing what and why. And then the output is still different from the one which was given as an target ("23:249" vs. "23: 249").

And then, if the user has accomplished the execise in the right way there should be visible the citation in the sidebar, as the tutorial says. I don't see no citation in the side bar.

And while we're at it:
I still think that "citation" is the wrong wording for what effectively is the "reference". In german we would use "Quellangabe", english "source reference", short "reference". You (zettlr) are not the only ones to use "citation" where it should be "reference", it is very common .... but still wrong.

I hope I was polite enough in my wording to not stirr up something I do not want to. I still am lost with zettlr, but I think it could serve my needs (see other posting, in a while). That's why I give you an answer.

Regards.

hendrik

michaa7 I agree that a tutorial should not pose a hurdle to using the app. The idea indeed is to simply write [@Marx1962, 249], which will render it the way the tutorial asks you for. I am happy to adapt the wording in the tutorial accordingly, to make it more clear that the citation syntax works the way it does, and that there are differences in how you write a citation, and how it will render. Do you have an idea what would’ve made it easier for you to get that? And wording/sentence/explanation…?

michaa7

hendrik

First, thanks for your kind reply!

Prior to answer your question, I need to state more precisely what I wrote abot citation vs. referenze. In the german tutorial you find the following wording:

Die Zitation selbst umgibst du mit eckigen Klammern

For the english readers: the citation itself you put in brackets

My reaction: Ok, this tutorial wants me to put the (note, in my opinion "actual") citation in brackets. I have no clue why, but they must be right.
Hm ... nothing senible happens. Are they using a wrong or imprecise wording? Did they mean: "put the reference (declaration) in brackets" ... oh, yeah, they did.

-> Your chapter about bibtex and so on should state at the begining:

Contrary to how it is often used in a misleading way in zettlr "citation" refers distictly only to the actual words an author used (and which now you copy here), whereas "reference (declaration)" refers to the source where to find the citation you use here.

I am sure your documentation currently does not follow this rule (to come ?).

To your question: It is unfortunate to use an example which in two ways is uncommon: The 23:249, or 23: 249 IS uncommon, and that a part of the declaration will/has to appear automagically is as surprising as it is distracting and unforseeable. It thus has NO learning effect. It is simply a strange surprise ... what else could I say?

If you want to mitigate a bad example to be less bad, but still confusing, explain the exception ;-) like ...

the "23:" part of the declaration will appear automagically, as in the bibliography the book is already stated as "volume 23"

... proving how unsuitable this example is as it presents rather an outlier than the common case a tutorial wants to show. Sorry for no better solution.

BTW:
tutorial/Arbeiten mit Zettelkästen
EN: working with zettelkasten

Du kannst zwischen beiden mit dem Dreiwege-Schalter oben links in der Werkzeugleiste wechseln.

EN: You may switch using the three-way-button top-left in the tools-bar

There are two icons, one showing a folder, one a loupe (search)
When I approach the folder icon from the left side, there appearchs a three-way-button, but only the left-one can be accessed as all three disapear when I try to reach the middle- or the rightone.

I have no clue what it's for and how it's supposed to work? It does nothing than showing up.

Thanks for all your work you offer which IS much, and, dispite all my criticisms, seems to be a usefull peace of SW. It's me who struggles to get my feet on the ground with it (hopefully this expression is understandable) ...

hendrik

That sounds like a good suggestion, and I understand what the confusion is. I‘ll create an issue so that I don’t forget this!