When citing a chapter in a second edition book (Chicago Author-Date), the reference omits the “2nd ed.” I would normally chalk this up to using Pages 5.2, but it’s also omitted in the Endnote x7 preview pane. Any thoughts on how to remedy this? Many thanks.
Thanks very much for the reply, Leanne. That was my first thought, too. I believe, however, that it does contain the edition field (unless, of course, I’m misinterpreting the fields). Here’s what I see in the Book Section template:
Author. Year. “Title.” In Book Title|, edited by Editor|, Pages|. Place Published|: Publisher|. Original edition, Original Publication|.
I’ve assumed that Original Edition corresponded to the edition field, but I could be mistaken. The weird thing is that edition does display for book references. In a last ditch effort, I copied/pasted Original Edition from the Book template into the Book Section template. No luck, however.
Thanks again, Leanne. Here’s the template for Book (Chicago Author-Date):
Author. Year. Title|. Translated by Translator|. Edited by Series Editor|. Edition ed|. Number of Volumes vols|. Vol. Volume|, Series Title|. Place Published|: Publisher|. Type of Work|. Original edition, Original Publication|. Reprint, Reprint Edition|.
So, I copied Edition ed| and pasted it in the Book Section template, giving me this:
Author. Year. “Title.” In Book Title|, edited by Editor|, Edition ed.|, Pages|. Place Published|: Publisher|. Original edition, Original Publication|.
And…it worked! The only problem is that I cannot find any mention of this scenario in the CMOS (perhaps I’m not being thorough), so I haven’t a clue if the placement of the “2nd ed.” is correct. Here’s an example of what I have:
Doe, John, and Jane Doe. 2014. “Sample Title of a Book Chapter.” In Sample Title of Edited Book, edited by Jane Editor, 2nd ed., 1-30. New York: Some Publisher.
This looks a little awkward to me, but it at least follows the order for Chicago book and edited book references. Any thoughts on placement of the “2nd ed.?” Thanks again.
Thanks again, Leanne. You’ve been a big help. I suspect you’re right–for all my hand-wringing over the edition, I don’t think Chicago really cares. As you point out, there is ample information included in the reference to locate the correct book. Perhaps that’s why edition was omitted from the Book Section template. Still, nice to learn more about editing the templates and what the characters mean and do. Really helpful link you provided.