Create Mediaeval Studies style #3954
Conversation
|
Awesome! You just created a pull request to the Citation Styles Language styles repository. One of our human volunteers will try to get in touch soon (usually within a week). In the meantime, I will run some automated checks. You should be notified of the results in a few minutes. If you haven't done so yet, please make sure your style validates and follows all our other Style Requirements. To update this pull request, visit the "Files changed" tab above, and click on the pencil icon (see below) in the top-right corner of your style to start editing.
If you have any questions, please leave a comment and we'll get back to you. While we usually respond in English, feel free to write in whatever language you're most comfortable. |
|
😟 There are some issues with your submission. Please check the test report for details. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
A couple of comments. You'll also need to delete the following macros:
"access", "access-note", "container-contributors", "container-title", "contributors", "contributors-...", "locators-journal-join-with-colon", "locators-journal-join-with-comma", "secondary-contributors"
which are unused.
Finally, could you briefly say how this differs from regular Chicago?
|
According to the website, it's identical to Chicago, but without publisher names or URLs. Should we not bother with a separate style? |
|
no publisher names is a pretty significant change, we'll need a separate style. |
|
This issue hasn't seen any activity in the past 30 days. It will be automatically closed if no further activity occurs in the next two weeks. |
stale
bot
added
the
waiting
|
@adunning it'd be great if you could make the couple of adjustments as per the above. |
stale
bot
removed
the
waiting
|
This issue hasn't seen any activity in the past 30 days. It will be automatically closed if no further activity occurs in the next two weeks. |
stale
bot
added
the
waiting
|
Have applied requested changes, if you can reassess. |
stale
bot
removed
the
waiting
|
😟 There are some issues with your submission. Please check the test report for details. |
|
😟 There are some issues with your submission. Please check the test report for details. |
|
It's quite confusing that the online CSL Validator doesn't pick up the same errors as Travis. |
|
😟 There are some issues with your submission. Please check the test report for details. |
|
we run a set of additional tests beyond validation on styles for the repository -- naming, macros, etc. -- that aren't caught by just validation against the CSL schema. It's generally possible to run tests locally, but that's probably not worth it for |
|
😟 There are some issues with your submission. Please check the test report for details. |
|
I've gone through the process five times now, and it simply finds more errors each time that it didn't mention before. How does one deal with this normally? |
|
😟 There are some issues with your submission. Please check the test report for details. |
|
I'm guessing that the macros you deleted contained the only call to other macros, which is why new issues came up. There's not a particularly easy way to handle this beyond checking this. |
|
😃 Your submission passed all our automated tests. |
|
Obviously it likes you better. |
|
Thanks! |
Style for the journal Mediaeval Studies.