ProCite Recognition of Citation with Switch

Hello ProCiters: I am experiencing a problem I have been unable to resolve. The problem can be briefly described as follows: After inserting a marked ProCite record into a text, reverting it to the original text, and entering a switch to add page numbers, ProCite refuses to recognize the revised citation. I have had such problems before, but in previous cases, I have finally recognized an error in the way the switch is entered. In this case, I have even taken the step of creating a new record to insert with no luck. There are actually three records involved, all related to the same topic. Here are the original text versions that ProCite will not recognize:[Gore 1884–1888 #75240 /ft β€œ, 49–210”][Gore 1884–1888 #75250 /ft β€œ, 267–425”][Gore 10889–1891 #75260 /ft β€œ, 97–150.”]Actually, when I have reverted to the original text, and added a switch, ProCite will not recognize the record even without the switch.[Gore 10889–1891 #75260] /ft β€œ, 97–150.”] ProCite refuses to recognize the citation between the first two brackets.{Gore 1889–1891 #75260} This was inserted directly from ProCite into this text.Β [Gore 1889–1891 #75260] This was the above marked record inserted and reverted.Β [Gore 1889–1891 #75260] This is the same marked record, also inserted and reverted, but ProCite refused to recognize when the document was scanned even though no effort was made to add the switch. Β I am not having this problem with other than these three records. Can anyone see what is going on, or suggest any further trouble shooting approaches? I have been a ProCite user now for about 13 years and have never had such an intractable problem. I have about fifty other citations in this document and the rest are behaving quite normally. So I think the problem must be related to these three records, but they all look quite normal to me, and I even went to the extent of re-making new records in an effort to solve this problem.Β I hope there is someone who has experienced and successfully resolved a problem like this in the past. I am baffled.Β TomΒ Β Thomas R. Williams1750 Albans RoadHouston, TX 77005-1704trw@rice.eduΒ Β ΒΒ Β 

I finally resolved this problem, so will post the solution here for the possible benefit of others. In the three records that were giving me a problem, the date field referred to a range of years, and I had used an en dash to separate those years. When I replaced the en dash with a normal hyphen, the records were recognized without any trouble. I will have to remember to replace those hyphens with en dashes in the final edit of the book. FWIW.

1 Like