Editor handled differently whether at the beginning of, or within a bibliography reference


Would it be possible to have Editor names formatted this way (beginning of reference):

DUAREZ, F., ed., Opera omnia, Paris 1856-1878.

and this way (inside the reference):

BORGE, F., Memorari, F. DUAREZ, ed., Paris 1856-1878.

Thanks a lot,


If you’re doing this just for one bibliographic reference listing, the simplest would be to convert the completed document to text (which permanently removes the EndNote field codes so make a backup copy of the document), then manually type-in the needed changes.

However, if numerous bibliographic entries are affected, maybe creating a new reference type template and corresponding output style specified for this editor variation might be worth the time.  (Moreso if you anticipate using this variation on future work.)

Thank you Maven,

If I understood correctly, in order to have the Editor:

1 in a different position

2 with a different order of name, surname

the viable solution would be to create a new reference type template and a corresponding output style.

Do you mean a new style altogether or just a bibliography template (say “Diz.”) within the style I am using corresponding to “Diz.”? This latter solution would be preferred. In this case, I understand that the position of the Editor can be easily moved, but I do not understand how the order of name, surname can be different since there is only one Editor Name subsection that applies to the whole bibliography templates of one style.

The workaround I’ve found is to add -yet :)- another field ‘TestodAut’ placed after the Author field in order to have the Editor treated as an Author as far as the Author Name settings are concerned (Smith, J.):

DUAREZ, F., ed., Opera omnia, Paris 1856-1878.


leaving the settings for Editors within the reference (the majority) with the Editor Name settings (J. Smith):

BORGE, F., Memorari, F. DUAREZ, ed., Paris 1856-1878.

In this case, I have to manually enter ‘ed.’ in the ‘TestodAut’ field because some authors are not editors and some dictionaries do not have authors…

I have also attached the -latest- style.

Thanks a lot,


JS.ens (109 KB)

I suggested a separate reference type template thinking to maintain these references as a separate group but If you’re able to utilize an existing reference type by adding/modifying a field to “hold” all the relevant content within the same reference, that would be my preference as well.

BTW, after modifying the reference type templates it helps to make a backup copy of the Reference Type Table - just click the “Export” button.