summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/Master/texmf-dist/doc/latex/biblatex-chicago/biblatex-chicago.tex
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'Master/texmf-dist/doc/latex/biblatex-chicago/biblatex-chicago.tex')
-rw-r--r--Master/texmf-dist/doc/latex/biblatex-chicago/biblatex-chicago.tex7796
1 files changed, 7796 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/Master/texmf-dist/doc/latex/biblatex-chicago/biblatex-chicago.tex b/Master/texmf-dist/doc/latex/biblatex-chicago/biblatex-chicago.tex
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..b62b224ed93
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Master/texmf-dist/doc/latex/biblatex-chicago/biblatex-chicago.tex
@@ -0,0 +1,7796 @@
+%
+% This file documents the biblatex-chicago package, which allows users
+% of the biblatex package to format references according to the
+% Chicago Manual of Style, 15th edition.
+%
+\documentclass[a4paper]{article}
+\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
+\usepackage[latin1]{inputenc}
+\usepackage[american]{babel}
+\usepackage[autostyle]{csquotes}
+\usepackage{vmargin}
+\setpapersize{A4}
+\setmarginsrb{1.65in}{.9in}{1.75in}{.6in}{0pt}{0pt}{12pt}{24pt}
+\setlength{\marginparwidth}{1in}
+\usepackage[colorlinks,urlcolor=blue,linkcolor=blue]{hyperref}
+\usepackage[osf]{mathpazo}
+\usepackage[scaled]{helvet}
+\usepackage[pdftex]{xcolor}
+%\usepackage[dvips]{xcolor}
+\newcommand{\mycolor}[1]{\textcolor[HTML]{228B22}{#1}}
+\usepackage{multicol}
+% Some generic settings.
+\newcommand{\cmd}[1]{\texttt{\textbackslash #1}}
+\setlength{\parindent}{0pt}
+\newcommand{\mymarginpar}[1]{\marginpar{\flushright#1}}
+\newcommand{\colmarginpar}[1]{\mymarginpar{\mycolor{#1}}}
+\newcommand{\mybigspace}{\vspace{\baselineskip}}
+\newcommand{\mylittlespace}{\vspace{.5\baselineskip}}
+\makeatletter
+\renewcommand{\section}{\@startsection
+ {section}%
+ {1}%
+ {0mm}%
+ {\baselineskip}%
+ {\baselineskip}%
+ {\sffamily\normalsize\bfseries}}%
+\renewcommand{\subsection}{\@startsection
+ {subsection}%
+ {1}%
+ {0mm}%
+ {\baselineskip}%
+ {.5\baselineskip}%
+ {\sffamily\normalsize\bfseries}}%
+\renewcommand{\subsubsection}{\@startsection
+ {subsubsection}%
+ {1}%
+ {0mm}%
+ {\baselineskip}%
+ {.5\baselineskip}%
+ {\sffamily\normalsize\bfseries}}%
+\makeatother
+\begin{document}
+\begin{center}
+ \sffamily\large\bfseries The biblatex-chicago package: \\
+ Style files for biblatex
+
+\vspace{.3\baselineskip}
+\sffamily\normalsize\bfseries David Fussner\qquad Version 0.9.5a (beta) \\
+\href{mailto:djf027@googlemail.com}{djf027@googlemail.com}\\ \today
+
+\end{center}
+\setcounter{tocdepth}{3}
+\begin{multicols}{2}
+\footnotesize
+\tableofcontents
+\end{multicols}
+\normalsize
+\vspace{-.5\baselineskip}
+\section{Notice}
+\label{sec:Notice}
+
+\textbf{Please be advised that this package is beta software, in at
+ least two senses. First, it merely contains styles to be used in
+ conjunction with the \textsf{biblatex} package, whose author
+ (Philipp Lehman) has made it clear that some parts of it may be
+ subject to alteration before a final release. Any such changes may
+ necessitate alterations to \textsf{biblatex-chicago}, as well.
+ Second, I have tried to implement as much of the \emph{Chicago
+ Manual of Style}'s specification as possible, though undoubtedly
+ some gaps remain. Most of the ones of which I am aware and which I
+ believe I can fill are in the TODO list, while others, e.g., legal
+ citations, await a convincing argument for inclusion. Consider this
+ beta release, then, a request for comments. If it seems like this
+ package could be of use to you, yet it doesn't do something you
+ need/want it to do, please feel free to let me know, and of course
+ any suggestions for solving problems more elegantly or accurately
+ would be most welcome.}
+
+\mylittlespace\textbf{Important Note:} If you have used
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago} before, please make sure you have read the
+RELEASE file that came with the package. It details the changes
+you'll need to make to your .bib database in order for it to work
+properly with this release. If you are new to these styles, please
+read on.
+
+\section{Quickstart}
+\reversemarginpar
+
+%\enlargethispage{-3\baselineskip}
+
+The \textsf{biblatex-chicago} package is designed for writers who wish
+to use \LaTeX\ and \textsf{biblatex}, and who either want or need to
+format their references according to one of the specifications defined
+by the \emph{Chicago Manual of Style}. This package now, for the
+first time, includes the \emph{Manual's} \enquote{author-date} system,
+favored by many disciplines in the sciences and social sciences,
+whereas previous releases only implemented the \enquote{notes \&\
+ bibliography} style, generally favored in the humanities. The
+latter code produces a full reference in a first footnote, shorter
+references in subsequent notes, and a full reference in the
+bibliography. Some authors prefer to use the shorter note form even
+for the first occurrence, relying on the bibliography to provide the
+full information. This, too, is supported by the code. The
+author-date style produces a short, in-text citation inside
+parentheses --- (Author Year) --- keyed to a list of references where
+entries start with the same name and year.
+
+\mylittlespace The documentation you are reading covers both of these
+Chicago styles and their variants. Much of what follows is relevant
+to all users, but I have decided, after some experimentation, to keep
+the instructions for the two styles separate, at least in
+sections~\ref{sec:Spec} and \ref{sec:authdate}. Information provided
+under one style will often duplicate that found under the other, but
+efficiency's loss should, I hope, be clarity's gain, and much of what
+you learn using one style will be applicable without alteration to the
+other. Throughout the documentation, any \mycolor{green} text
+\colmarginpar{\textsf{New!}} indicates something \mycolor{new} in this
+release, though I shall not so color the entire section on the
+author-date style.
+
+\mylittlespace Here's a list of things you will need in order to use
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago}:
+
+\begin{itemize}{}{}
+\item Philipp Lehman's \textsf{biblatex} package, of course! You
+ \emph{must} use the latest version --- at least 0.9c, 0.9d is
+ current --- as that version introduces incompatibilities with
+ previous releases, meaning that these style files will not function
+ properly with earlier iterations of \textsf{biblatex}. Lehman's
+ tools require several packages, and he strongly recommends several
+ more:
+ \begin{itemize}{}{}
+ \item e-\TeX\ (required)
+ \item \textsf{etoolbox} --- available from CTAN (required)
+ \item \textsf{keyval} --- a standard package (required)
+ \item \textsf{ifthen} --- a standard package (required)
+ \item \textsf{url} --- a standard package (required)
+ \item \textsf{babel} --- a standard package (\emph{strongly}
+ recommended)
+ \item \textsf{csquotes} --- available from CTAN (recommended).
+ Please upgrade to the latest version of \textsf{csquotes} (5.0b).
+ \item \textsf{bibtex8} --- a replacement for \textsc{Bib}\TeX, which
+ can, with the right com\-mand-line switches, process very large
+ .bib files. It also does the right thing when alphabetizing
+ non-ASCII entries. It is available from CTAN (highly
+ recommended).
+ \item \textsf{Biber} --- alternatively, you can use Lehman's
+ next-generation \textsc{Bib}\TeX\ replacement, called
+ \textsf{Biber}, which is available from SourceForge. You need the
+ latest version (0.5.4) to work with \textsf{biblatex} 0.9, and it
+ is required for users who are processing a .bib file in Unicode.
+ \end{itemize}
+\item The \colmarginpar{\textsf{New!}} line:
+ \begin{quote}
+ \cmd{usepackage[notes]\{biblatex-chicago\}}
+ \end{quote}
+ in your document preamble to load the notes \&\ bibliography style,
+ or the line:
+ \begin{quote}
+ \cmd{usepackage[authordate]\{biblatex-chicago\}}
+ \end{quote}
+ to load the author-date style. Any other options you usually pass
+ to \textsf{biblatex} can be given to \textsf{biblatex-chicago}
+ instead, but loading it this way sets up a number of other
+ parameters automatically. You can also load the package via the
+ usual \cmd{usepackage\{biblatex\}}, adding
+ \texttt{style=chicago-notes} or \texttt{style=chicago-authordate},
+ but this is mainly for those who wish to set much of the low-level
+ formatting of their document themselves. Please see
+ sections~\ref{sec:loading} and \ref{sec:loading:auth} below for a
+ fuller discussion of the issues involved here.
+\item You can use \cmd{usepackage[notes,short]\{biblatex-chicago\}} to
+ get the short note format even in the first reference of a notes \&\
+ bibliography document, letting the bibliography provide the full
+ reference.
+\item If you are accustomed to using the \textsf{natbib} compatibility
+ option with \textsf{biblatex}, then you can continue to do so with
+ \textsf{biblatex-chicago}. If you are using
+ \cmd{usepackage\{biblatex-chicago\}} to load the package, then the
+ option must be the plain \texttt{natbib} rather than
+ \texttt{natbib=true}. If you use the latter, you'll get a
+ \textsf{keyval} error. Please see sections~\ref{sec:useropts} and
+ \ref{sec:authuseropts}, below.
+\item By far the simplest setup is to use \textsf{babel}, and to have
+ \texttt{american} as the main text language. As before,
+ \textsf{babel}-less setups, and also those choosing \texttt{english}
+ as the main text language, should work out of the box.
+ \textsf{Biblatex-chicago} also now provides support for German and
+ French. Please see below (section~\ref{sec:international}) for a
+ fuller explanation of all the options.
+\item The \colmarginpar{\textsf{New!}} \textsf{chicago-notes.bbx},
+ \textsf{chicago-notes.cbx},
+ \textsf{\mycolor{chicago-authordate.cbx}},
+ \textsf{\mycolor{chi\-cago-authordate.bbx}},
+ \textsf{biblatex-chicago.sty}, \textsf{cms-am\-erican.lbx},
+ \textsf{cms-french.lbx}, \textsf{cms-german.lbx}, and
+ \textsf{cms-ngerman.lbx} files from \textsf{biblatex-chicago},
+ installed either in a system-wide \TeX\ directory, or in the working
+ directory where you keep your *.tex files. If you use a system-wide
+ directory, I recommend creating the
+ \texttt{<TEXMFLOCAL>/tex/latex/biblatex\-contrib/biblatex-chicago}
+ directory, where \texttt{<TEX\-MFLOCAL>} is the root of your local
+ \TeX\ installation --- for example, and depending on your system,
+ \texttt{/usr/share/texmf-local}, \texttt{/usr/local/share/texmf}, or
+ \texttt{C:\textbackslash{}Local TeX Files\textbackslash}. Then you
+ can place all nine of these files there, as it will be easier to
+ update if they're all in one place. Of course, wherever you choose
+ to place them in the \texttt{texmf} tree, you'll need to update the
+ file name database to make sure \TeX\ can find them.
+\item If you are using the Xe\LaTeX\ engine and are encountering
+ difficulties, please upgrade to the latest version of
+ \textsf{csquotes}, which incorporates chan\-ges that should address
+ formatting bugs that many users have encountered. Please see
+ section~\ref{sec:otherpacks} below for the details.
+\item Philipp Lehman's very clear and detailed documentation of the
+ \textsf{biblatex} system, available in his package as
+ \textsf{biblatex.pdf}. Here he explains why you might want to use
+ the system, the rules for constructing .bib files for it, and the
+ (numerous) methods at your disposal for modifying the formatted
+ output.
+\item The annotated bibliography files \textsf{notes-test.bib} and
+ \mycolor{\textsf{dates-test.bib}}, which will acquaint you with most
+ of the details on how to get started constructing your own .bib
+ files for use with the two \textsf{biblatex-chicago} styles.
+\item The files \textsf{cms-notes-sample.pdf} and
+ \mycolor{\textsf{cms-dates-sample.pdf}}. The first shows how my
+ system processes \textsf{notes-test.bib} and
+ \textsf{cms-notes-sample.tex}, in both footnotes and bibliography,
+ the second is the result of processing
+ \mycolor{\textsf{dates-test.bib}} and
+ \mycolor{\textsf{cms-dates-sample.tex}}.
+\item The file you are reading, \textsf{biblatex-chicago.pdf}, which
+ aims to be as complete a description as possible of the rules for
+ creating a .bib file that will, when processed by \LaTeX\ and
+ \textsc{Bib}\TeX, at least somewhat ease the burden when you try to
+ implement the \emph{Chicago Manual of Style}'s specifications.
+ These docs may seem frustratingly over-long, but remember that you
+ only need to read the part(s) that apply to the style in which you
+ are interested. Much of the information in section~\ref{sec:Spec}
+ is duplicated in section~\ref{sec:authdate}, so even if you have a
+ need for both styles then using one will be excellent preparation
+ for the other. If you have used a previous version of this package,
+ please pay particular attention to the sections on Obsolete and
+ Deprecated Features, starting on page~\pageref{deprec:obsol}. (If
+ you wish to place the seven previous files in a system-wide
+ directory, I would recommend
+ \texttt{<TEXMFLOCAL>/doc/latex/biblatex-contrib/biblatex-chicago},
+ remembering of course to update the file name database afterward.
+ Let me reiterate, also, that if you currently have quoted material
+ in your .bib file, and are using \cmd{enquote} or the standard
+ \LaTeX\ mechanisms there, then the simplest procedure is always to
+ use \cmd{mkbibquote} instead in order to ensure that punctuation
+ works out right.)
+\item Access to a copy of \emph{The Chicago Manual of Style} itself,
+ which naturally contains incomparably more information than I can
+ hope to present here. It should always be your first port of call
+ when any doubts arise as to exactly what the specification requires.
+\end{itemize}
+
+\subsection{License}
+\label{sec:lppl}
+
+Copyright © 2008--2010 David Fussner. This package is
+author-maintained. This work may be copied, distributed and/or
+modified under the conditions of the \LaTeX\ Project Public License,
+either version 1.3 of this license or (at your option) any later
+version. The latest version of this license is in
+http://www.latex-project.org/lppl.txt and version 1.3 or later is part
+of all distributions of \LaTeX\ version 2005/12/01 or later. This
+software is provided \enquote{as is,} without warranty of any kind,
+either expressed or implied, including, but not limited to, the
+implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular
+purpose.
+
+\subsection{Acknowledgements}
+\label{sec:acknowl}
+
+Even a cursory glance at the cbx and bbx files in the package will
+demonstrate how much of Lehman's code from \textsf{biblatex} I've
+adapted and re-used, and I've also followed some of the advice he gave
+to others in the \texttt{comp.text.tex} newsgroup. He has been
+instrumental in improving the contextual capitalization procedures of
+which the style makes such frequent use, and his advice on
+constructing \textsf{biblatex-chicago.sty} was invaluable. The code
+for formatting the footnote marks, and that for printing the
+separating rule only after a run-on note, I've adapted from the
+\textsf{footmisc} package by Robin Fairbairns. I borrowed ideas for
+the \texttt{shorthandibid} option from Dominik Waßenhoven's
+\textsf{biblatex-dw} package. There may be other \LaTeX\ code I've
+appropriated and forgotten, in which case please remind me. Finally,
+Charles Schaum and Joseph Reagle Jr.\ were both extremely generous
+with their help and advice during the development of this package, and
+have both continued indefatigably to test it and suggest needed
+improvements. They were particularly instrumental in encouraging the
+greatest possible degree of compatibility with other \textsf{biblatex}
+styles. Indeed, if the task of adapting .bib files for use with the
+Chicago style seems onerous now, you should have tried it before they
+got their hands on it.
+
+\section{Detailed Introduction}
+\label{sec:Intro}
+
+The \emph{Chicago Manual of Style}, now in its 15th edition, has long,
+in America at least, been one of the most influential style guides for
+writers and publishers. While one's choices are now perhaps more
+extensive than ever, the \emph{Manual} at least still provides a
+widely-recognized, and widely-utilized, standard. Indeed, when you
+add to this the sheer completeness of the specification, its detailed
+instructions for referencing an enormous number of different kinds of
+source material, then your choice (or your publisher's choice) of the
+\emph{Manual} as a style guide seems set to be a happy one.
+
+%\enlargethispage{-\baselineskip}
+
+\mylittlespace These very strengths, however, also make the style
+difficult to use. Admittedly, the \emph{Manual} does leave room for
+\enquote{inventive solutions} to particular problems (17.2), and it
+also emphasizes consistency within a work, as opposed to rigid
+adherence to the specification, at least when writer and publisher
+agree (17.18). Sometimes a publisher demands such adherence, however,
+and anyone who has attempted to produce it may well come away with the
+impression that the specification itself is somewhat idiosyncratic in
+its complexity, and I can't help but agree. In the notes \&\
+bibliography style, the numerous differences in punctuation (and
+strings identifying translators, editors, and the like) between
+footnotes and bibliographies and the sometimes unusual location of
+page numbers; in both styles the distinction between \enquote{journal}
+and \enquote{magazine,} and the formatting differences between (e.g.)
+a work from antiquity and one from the Renaissance, all of these tend
+to overburden the writer who wants to comply with the standard. Many
+of these complexities, in truth, make the specification very nearly
+impossible to implement straightforwardly in a system like
+\textsc{Bib}\TeX\ --- options multiply, each requiring a particular
+sort of formatting, until one almost reaches the point of believing
+that every individual book or article should have its own entry type.
+Completeness and usability tend each to exclude the other, so the code
+you have before you is a first attempt to achieve the former without
+utterly sacrificing the latter.
+
+\subsection*{What \textsf{biblatex-chicago} can and can't do}
+\label{sec:bltries}
+
+In short, the \textsf{biblatex} style files in this package try to
+simplify the task of following the two Chicago specifications. In the
+notes \&\ bibliography style, the two sorts of reference are treated
+separately (as are the two different note forms, long and short), and
+you can choose always to use the short note form, even at the first
+citation. In the author-date style, a series of options allows you to
+choose which date (original printing, reprint, or both) appears in
+citations and at the head of entries in the list of references. In
+both styles, punctuation is placed within quotation marks when needed,
+and as a general rule as many parts of the style as possible are
+implemented as transparently as possible. Thanks to advice I received
+from Joseph Reagle Jr.\ and Charles Schaum while these files were a
+work in progress, I have attended as carefully as I can to backward
+compatibility with the standard \textsf{biblatex} styles, and have
+attempted to minimize both any changes you need to make to achieve
+compliance with the Chicago specification, and indeed also any changes
+necessary to switch between the two Chicago styles. There is no doubt
+room for improvement on this score, but even now, for a substantial
+number of entries, any well-constructed .bib file that works for other
+\textsf{biblatex} styles will \enquote{just work} under
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago}. By no means, however, will all entries in
+such a .bib file produce equally satisfactory results. Using this
+documentation and the examples in \textsf{dates-test.bib} and/or
+\textsf{notes-test.bib}, it should be possible to achieve compliance,
+though the amount of revision necessary to do so will vary
+significantly from .bib file to .bib file. Conversely, once you have
+created a database for \textsf{biblatex-chicago}, it won't necessarily
+work well with other \textsf{biblatex} styles. Indeed, most, quite
+possibly all, users will find that they need to use special formatting
+macros within the .bib file that would make such a file unusable in
+any other context. I strongly recommend, if you want to experiment
+with this style, that you work on a copy of any .bib files that are
+important to you, until you have determined that this package does
+what you need/want it to do.
+
+\mylittlespace When I first began working on this package, I made the
+decision to alter as little as possible the main files from Lehman's
+\textsf{biblatex}, so that my .bbx and .cbx files would use his
+original \LaTeX\ .sty file and \textsc{Bib}\TeX\ .bst file. As you
+proceed, you will no doubt encounter some of the consequences of this
+decision, with certain fields and entry types in the .bib file having
+less-than-memorable names because I chose to use the supplementary
+ones provided by \textsf{biblatex.bst} rather than alter that file. I
+intended then, if it turned out that anyone besides myself actually
+used \textsf{biblatex-chicago}, to ask Mr.\ Lehman to include more
+descriptive names for these few entry types and fields in
+biblatex.bst, if he were willing. As luck would have it, several new
+types appeared in \textsf{biblatex} 0.8, many of which I have
+incorporated as replacements for the custom entry types I defined
+before. If a consensus emerges about how best to assign the data to
+various fields in such entries, then I shall adopt it, but, as you
+will see below, I have begun the process of making the old custom
+types obsolete, though in this release they will continue to work.
+Needless to say, I'm open to advice and suggestions on this score.
+
+\section{The Specification:\ Notes\,\&\,Bibliography}
+\label{sec:Spec}
+
+In what follows, I attempt to explain all the parts of
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes} that might be considered somehow
+\enquote{non standard,} at least with respect to the styles included
+with \textsf{biblatex} itself, though in the section on entry fields I
+have also duplicated a lot of the information in
+\textsf{biblatex.pdf}, which I hope won't badly annoy expert users of
+the system. Headings in \mycolor{green} \colmarginpar{\textsf{New in
+ this release}} indicate material new to this release, or
+occasionally old material that has undergone significant revision.
+Numbers in parentheses refer to sections of the \emph{Chicago Manual
+ of Style}, 15th edition. The file \textsf{notes-test.bib} contains
+many examples from the \emph{Manual} which, when processed using
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes}, should produce the same output as you
+see in the \emph{Manual} itself, or at least compliant output, where
+the specifications are vague or open to interpretation, a state of
+affairs which does sometimes occur. I have provided
+\textsf{cms-notes-sample.pdf}, which shows how my system processes
+\textsf{notes-test.bib}, and I have also included the reference keys
+from the latter file below in parentheses.
+
+\subsection{Entry Types}
+\label{sec:entrytypes}
+
+The complete list of entry types currently available in
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes}, minus the odd \textsf{biblatex}
+alias, is as follows: \textbf{article}, \textbf{artwork},
+\textbf{book}, \mycolor{\textbf{bookinbook}}, \textbf{booklet},
+\textbf{collection}, \mycolor{\textbf{customa}},
+\mycolor{\textbf{customb}}, \mycolor{\textbf{customc}},
+\textbf{image}, \textbf{inbook}, \textbf{incollection},
+\textbf{inproceedings}, \textbf{inreference},
+\mycolor{\textbf{letter}}, \textbf{manual}, \mycolor{\textbf{misc}},
+\textbf{online} (with its alias \textbf{www}), \textbf{patent},
+\textbf{periodical}, \textbf{proceedings}, \textbf{reference},
+\textbf{report} (with its alias \textbf{techreport}), \textbf{review},
+\mycolor{\textbf{suppbook}}, \textbf{suppcollection},
+\textbf{suppperiodical}, \textbf{thesis} (with its aliases
+\textbf{mastersthesis} and \textbf{phdthesis}), and
+\textbf{unpublished}.
+
+\mylittlespace What follows is an attempt to specify all the
+differences between these types and the standard provided by
+\textsf{biblatex}. If an entry type isn't discussed here, then it is
+safe to assume that it works as it does in the standard styles. In
+general, I have attempted not to discuss specific entry fields here,
+unless such a field is crucial to the overall operation of a given
+entry type. As a general and important rule, most entry types require
+very few fields when you use \textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes}, so it
+seemed to me better to gather information pertaining to fields in the
+next section.
+
+\mybigspace The \mymarginpar{\textbf{article}} \emph{Chicago Manual of
+ Style} (17.148) recognizes three different sorts of periodical
+publication, \enquote{journals,} \enquote{magazines,} and
+\enquote{newspapers.} The first (17.150) includes \enquote{scholarly
+ or professional periodicals available mainly by subscription,} while
+the second refers to \enquote{weekly or monthly} publications that are
+\enquote{available either by subscription or in individual issues at
+ bookstores or newsstands.} \enquote{Magazines} will tend to be
+\enquote{more accessible to general readers,} and typically won't have
+a volume number. Indeed, by fiat I declare that should you need to
+refer to a journal that identifies its issues mainly by year, month,
+or week, then for the purposes of \textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes} such
+a publication is a \enquote{magazine,} and not a \enquote{journal.}
+
+\mylittlespace Now, for articles in \enquote{journals} you can simply
+use the traditional \textsc{Bib}\TeX\ --- and indeed \textsf{biblatex}
+--- \textsf{article} entry type, which will work as expected and set
+off the page numbers with a colon, as required by the \emph{Manual}.
+If, however, you need to refer to a \enquote{magazine} or a
+\enquote{newspaper,} then you need to add an \textsf{entrysubtype}
+field containing the exact string \texttt{magazine}. The main
+formatting differences between a \texttt{magazine} (which includes
+both \enquote{magazines} and \enquote{newspapers}) and a plain
+\textsf{article} are that the year isn't placed within parentheses,
+and that page numbers are set off by a comma rather than a colon.
+Otherwise, the two sorts of reference have much in common. (For
+\textsf{article}, see \emph{Manual} 17.154--181; batson,
+beattie:crime, friedman:learning, garaud:gatine, garrett, hlatky:hrt,
+kern, lewis, loften:hamlet, mcmillen:antebellum, warr:ellison,
+white:callimachus. For \textsf{entrysubtype} \texttt{magazine}, see
+17.166, 17.182--198; assocpress:gun, morgenson:market, reaves:rosen,
+rozner:liberation, stenger:privacy.)
+
+\mylittlespace It gets worse. The \emph{Manual} treats reviews (of
+books, plays, performances, etc.) as a sort of recognizable subset of
+\enquote{journals,} \enquote{magazines,} and \enquote{newspapers,}
+distinguished mainly by the way one formats the title of the review
+itself. In \textsf{biblatex 0.7}, happily, Lehman provided a
+\textsf{review} entry type which will handle a large subset of such
+citations, though not all. The key rule is this: if a review has a
+separate, non-generic title (gibbard; osborne:poison) in addition to
+something that reads like \enquote{review of \ldots,} then you need an
+\textsf{article} entry, with or without the \texttt{magazine}
+\textsf{entrysubtype}, depending on the sort of publication containing
+the review. If the only title is the generic \enquote{review of
+ \ldots,} for example, then you'll need the \textsf{review} entry
+type, with or without this same \textsf{entrysubtype} toggle using
+\texttt{magazine}. On \textsf{review} entries, see below. (The
+curious reader will no doubt notice that the code for formatting any
+sort of review still exists in \textsf{article}, as it was initially
+designed for \textsf{biblatex 0.6}, but this new arrangement is
+somewhat simpler and therefore, I hope, better.)
+
+%\enlargethispage{-\baselineskip}
+
+\mylittlespace In the case of a review with a specific as well as a
+generic title, the former goes in the \textsf{title} field, and the
+latter in the \textsf{titleaddon} field. Standard \textsf{biblatex}
+intends this field for use with additions to titles that may need to
+be formatted differently from the titles themselves, and
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes} uses it in just this way, with the
+additional wrinkle that it can, if needed, replace the \textsf{title}
+entirely, and this in, effectively, any entry type, providing a fairly
+powerful, if somewhat complicated, tool for getting \textsc{Bib}\TeX\
+to do what you want. Here, however, if all you need is a
+\textsf{titleaddon}, then you want to switch to the \textsf{review}
+type, where you can simply use the \textsf{title} field instead.
+
+\mylittlespace No less than six more things need explication here.
+First, since the \emph{Manual} specifies that much of what goes into a
+\textsf{titleaddon} field stays unformatted --- no italics, no
+quotation marks --- this plain style is the default for such text,
+which means that you'll have to format any titles within
+\textsf{titleaddon} yourself, e.g., with \cmd{mkbibemph\{\}}. Second,
+the \emph{Manual} specifies a similar plain style for the titles of
+other sorts of material found in \enquote{magazines} and
+\enquote{newspapers,} e.g., obituaries, letters to the editor,
+interviews, the names of regular columns, and the like. References
+may contain both the title of an individual article and the name of
+the regular column, in which case the former should go, as usual, in a
+\textsf{title} field, and the latter in \textsf{titleaddon}. As with
+reviews proper, if there is only the generic title, then you want the
+\textsf{review} entry type. (See 17.188, 17.190, 17.193;
+morgenson:market, reaves:rosen.)
+
+\mylittlespace Third, the \emph{Manual} suggests that, in the case of
+\enquote{unsigned newspaper articles or features \ldots the name of
+ the newspaper stands in place of the author} (17.192). It doesn't
+always carry through on this in its own presentation of newspaper
+citations (see esp.\ 17.188), but I've implemented their
+recommendation nonetheless, which means that in an \textsf{article}
+entry, \textsf{entrysubtype} \texttt{magazine}, or in a
+\textsf{review} entry, \textsf{entrysubtype} \texttt{magazine}, and
+only in such entries, a missing \textsf{author} field results in the
+name of the periodical (in the \textsf{journaltitle} field) being used
+as the missing author. If, for reasons of emphasis or merely because
+of personal preference, you wish to keep the \textsf{title} in initial
+position, then you need to define the \textsf{author} using, as you
+can see from the examples in \textsf{notes-test.bib}, the
+\textsf{biblatex} macro \cmd{isdot}, which functions, in this context,
+to define the \textsf{author}, yet to print nothing. Note that if you
+choose to use the name of the newspaper as an author, then you'll need
+a \textsf{sortkey} field to ensure that the bibliography entry is
+alphabetized by \textsf{journaltitle} rather than by \textsf{title}.
+The \colmarginpar{\textsf{New!}} provision of a \textsf{shortauthor}
+field is no longer necessary with this release, as in its absence the
+package will now automatically take it from \textsf{journaltitle}.
+(See lakeforester:pushcarts.)
+
+%\enlargethispage{-\baselineskip}
+
+\mylittlespace Fourth, if you've been using
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes} for a while, you may remember using
+the single-letter \cmd{bibstring} mechanism in order to help
+\textsf{biblatex} decide where to capitalize a wide variety of strings
+in numerous entry fields. This mechanism was particularly common in
+all the periodical types, but if you've had a look in
+\textsf{notes-test.bib} while following this documentation, you'll
+have noticed that it no longer appears there. The regular whole-word
+bibstrings still work as normal, but the single-letter ones are now
+obsolete, replaced by Lehman's macro \cmd{autocap}, which itself only
+occurs twice in \textsf{notes-test.bib}. Basically, in certain
+fields, just beginning your data with a lowercase letter activates the
+mechanism for capitalizing that letter depending on its context within
+a note or bibliography entry. Please see \textbf{\textbackslash
+ autocap} below for the details, but both the \textsf{titleaddon} and
+\textsf{note} fields are among those treating their data this way, and
+since both appear regularly in \textsf{article} entries, I thought the
+problem merited a preliminary mention here.
+
+\mylittlespace Fifth, if you need to cite an entire issue of any sort
+of periodical, rather than one article in an issue, then the
+\textsf{periodical} entry type, once again with or without the
+\texttt{magazine} toggle in \textsf{entrysubtype}, is what you'll
+need. (You can also use the \textsf{article} type, placing what would
+normally be the \textsf{issuetitle} in the \textsf{title} field and
+retaining the usual \textsf{journaltitle} field, but this arrangement
+isn't compatible with standard \textsf{biblatex}.) The \textsf{note}
+field is where you place something like \enquote{special issue} (with
+the small \enquote{s} enabling the automatic capitalization routines),
+whether you are citing one article or the whole issue
+(conley:fifthgrade, good:wholeissue). Indeed, this is a somewhat
+specialized use of \textsf{note}, and if you have other sorts of
+information you need to include in an \textsf{article},
+\textsf{periodical}, or \textsf{review} entry, then you shouldn't put
+it in the \textsf{note} field, but rather in \textsf{titleaddon} or
+perhaps \textsf{addendum} (brown:bremer).
+
+\mylittlespace Finally, and in the interests of completeness, it may be
+as well to suggest that if you wish to cite a television or radio
+broadcast, the \textsf{article} type, \textsf{entrysubtype}
+\texttt{magazine} is the place for it. The name of the program would
+go in \textsf{journaltitle}, with the name of the episode in
+\textsf{title}. The network's name now goes into the new
+\textsf{usera} field, replacing the formatting kludge I suggested in
+version 0.7. Of course, if the piece you are citing has only a
+generic name (an interview, for example), then the \textsf{review}
+type would be the best place for it. (8.196, 17.207; see
+bundy:macneil for an example of how this all might look in a .bib
+file.)
+
+\enlargethispage{-\baselineskip}
+
+\mylittlespace If you're still with me, allow me to recommend that you
+browse through \textsf{notes-test.bib} to get a feel for just how many
+of the \emph{Manual}'s complexities the \textsf{article} and
+\textsf{review} (and, indeed, \textsf{periodical}) types attempt to
+address. It may be that in future releases of
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes} I'll be able to simplify these
+procedures somewhat, but in the meantime it might be of some comfort
+that I have found in my own research that the unusual and/or limit
+cases are really rather rare, and that the vast majority of sources
+won't require any knowledge of these onerous details.
+
+\mybigspace Arne \mymarginpar{\textbf{artwork}} Kjell Vikhagen has
+pointed out to me that none of the standard entry types were
+straightforwardly adaptable when referring to visual artworks. The
+\emph{Manual} doesn't give any thorough specifications for such
+references, and indeed it's unclear that it believes it necessary to
+include them in the bibliographical apparatus at all. Still, it's
+easy to conceive of contexts in which a list of artworks studied might
+be desirable, and \textsf{biblatex} includes entry types for just this
+purpose, though the standard styles leave them undefined. The two I
+have included in this release are \textsf{artwork} and \textsf{image},
+the former intended for paintings, sculptures, etchings, and the like,
+the latter for photographs. The two entry types work in exactly the
+same way as far as constructing your .bib entry, and when printed the
+only difference will be that the titles of \textsf{artworks} are
+italicized, those of \textsf{images} placed within quotation marks.
+
+\mylittlespace As one might expect, the artist goes in \textsf{author}
+and the name of the work in \textsf{title}. The \textsf{type} field
+is intended for the medium --- e.g., oil on canvas, charcoal on paper
+--- and the \textsf{version} field might contain the state of an
+etching. You can place the dimensions of the work in \textsf{note},
+and the current location in \textsf{organization},
+\textsf{institution}, and/or \textsf{location}, in ascending order of
+generality. The \textsf{type} field, as in several other entry types,
+uses \textsf{biblatex's} automatic capitalization routines, so if the
+first word only needs a capital letter at the beginning of a sentence,
+use lowercase in the .bib file and let \textsf{biblatex} handle it for
+you. (See \emph{Manual} 12.33; leo:madonna, bedford:photo.)
+
+\mylittlespace As a final complication, the \emph{Manual} (8.206) says
+that \enquote{the names of works of antiquity \ldots\,are usually set
+ in roman.} If you should need to include such a work in the
+reference apparatus, you can either define an \textsf{entrysubtype}
+for an \textsf{artwork} entry --- anything will do --- or you could
+use the \textsf{misc} entry type with an \textsf{entrysubtype}.
+Fortunately, in this instance the other fields in a \textsf{misc}
+entry function pretty much as in \textsf{artwork} or \textsf{image}.
+
+\mybigspace This \colmarginpar{\textbf{bookinbook}} type provides the
+means of referring to parts of books that are considered, in other
+contexts, themselves to be books, rather than chapters, essays, or
+articles. (Older versions of \textsf{biblatex-chicago} used
+\textbf{customb} for this purpose, but this is now deprecated.) Such
+an entry can have a \textsf{title} and a \textsf{maintitle}, but it
+can also contain a \textsf{booktitle}, all three of which will be
+italicized when printed. In general usage it is, therefore, rather
+like the traditional \textsf{inbook} type, only with its
+\textsf{title} in italics rather than in quotation marks. (See
+\emph{Manual} 17.72, 17.89, 17.93; bernard:boris, euripides:orestes,
+plato:republic:gr.)
+
+\mylittlespace \textbf{NB}: The Euripides play receives slightly
+different presentations in 17.89 and 17.93. Although the
+specification is very detailed, it doesn't eliminate all choice or
+variation. Using a system like \textsc{Bib}\TeX\ should help to
+maintain consistency.
+
+\mybigspace This \mymarginpar{\textbf{booklet}} is the first of two
+entry types --- the other being \textsf{manual}, on which see below
+--- which are traditional in \textsc{Bib}\TeX\ styles, but which the
+\emph{Manual} (17.241) suggests may well be treated basically as
+books. In the interests of backward compatibility,
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes} will so format such an entry, which
+uses the \textsf{howpublished} field instead of a standard
+\textsf{publisher}, though of course if you do decide just to use a
+\textsf{book} entry then any information you might have given in a
+\textsf{howpublished} field should instead go in \textsf{publisher}.
+(See clark:mesopot.)
+
+\mybigspace This \colmarginpar{\textbf{customa}} entry type is now
+deprecated in favor of the standard \textsf{biblatex} \textbf{letter}
+type, which see. If your .bib files contain any \textsf{customa}
+entries you should change them to \textsf{letter} soon, as I am
+reclaiming this custom type for other uses in the next release of
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago}.
+
+%\enlargethispage{-\baselineskip}
+
+\mybigspace This \colmarginpar{\textbf{customb}} entry type is now
+deprecated in favor of the standard \textsf{biblatex}
+\textbf{bookinbook}, which see. If your .bib files contain any
+\textsf{customb} entries you should change them to \textsf{bookinbook}
+soon, as it will cease to function in the next release of
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago}.
+
+\mybigspace This \colmarginpar{\textbf{customc}} entry type is now
+deprecated in favor of the standard \textsf{biblatex}
+\textbf{suppbook} (and \textbf{suppcollection}, which currently serves
+as an alias to \textsf{suppbook}). Please see their documentation
+below. If your .bib files contain any \textsf{customc} entries you
+should change them to \textsf{suppbook} soon, as it will cease to
+function in the next release of \textsf{biblatex-chicago}.
+
+\mybigspace This \mymarginpar{\textbf{image}} entry type, left
+undefined in the standard styles, is in \textsf{biblatex-chicago}
+intended for referring to photographs. Excluding the possible use of
+the \textsf{entrysubtype} field, which in an \textsf{image} entry
+would be ignored, this type is a clone of \textsf{artwork}, so you
+should consult the latter's documentation above to see how to
+construct your .bib entry. (See \emph{Manual} 12.33; bedford:photo.)
+
+\mybigspace These \mymarginpar{\textbf{inbook}\\\textbf{incollection}}
+two standard \textsf{biblatex} types have very nearly identical
+formatting requirements as far as the Chicago specification is
+concerned, but I have retained both of them for compatibility.
+\textsf{Biblatex.pdf} (§~2.1.1) intends the first for \enquote{a part
+ of a book which forms a self-contained unit with its own title,}
+while the second would hold \enquote{a contribution to a collection
+ which forms a self-contained unit with a distinct author and its own
+ title.} The \textsf{title} of both sorts will be placed within
+quotation marks, and in general you can use either type for most
+material falling into these categories. There is, however, an
+important difference between them, as it is only in
+\textsf{incollection} entries that I implement the \emph{Manual's}
+recommendations for space-saving abbreviations in notes and
+bibliography when you cite multiple pieces from the same
+\textsf{collection}. These abbreviations are activated when you use
+the \textsf{crossref} or \textsf{xref} field in \textsf{incollection}
+entries, and not in \textsf{inbook} entries, mainly because the
+\emph{Manual} (17.70) here specifies a \enquote{multiauthor book.}
+(For more on this mechanism see \textbf{crossref}, below, and note
+that it is also active in \textsf{letter} and \textsf{inproceedings}
+entries.) If the part of a book to which you are referring has had a
+separate publishing history as a book in its own right, then you may
+wish to use the \textsf{bookinbook} type, instead, on which see above.
+(See \emph{Manual} 17.68--72; \textsf{inbook}: ashbrook:brain,
+phibbs:diary, will:cohere; \textsf{incollection}: centinel:letters,
+contrib:contrib, sirosh:visualcortex; ellet:galena, keating:dearborn,
+and lippincott:chicago [and the \textsf{collection} entry
+prairie:state] demonstrate the use of the \textsf{crossref} field with
+its attendant abbreviations in notes and bibliography.)
+
+\mylittlespace \textbf{NB}: The \emph{Manual} suggests that, when
+referring to a chapter, one use either a chapter number or the
+inclusive page numbers, not both. If, however, you wish to refer in a
+footnote to a specific page within the chapter,
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes} will always print the optional,
+postnote argument of a \cmd{cite} command --- the page number, say ---
+instead of any chapter number or inclusive page numbers given in the
+.bib file \textsf{incollection} entry. This mechanism is quite
+general, that is, any specific page reference given in any sort of
+\cmd{cite} command overrides the contents of a \textsf{pages} field in
+a .bib file entry.
+
+\mylittlespace Currently, only the \textsf{chapter} field receives
+this treatment in \textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes}, though it may be
+possible in the future to generalize this to other named parts of a
+book. Do let me know if this would be helpful to you.
+
+\mybigspace This \mymarginpar{\textbf{inproceedings}} entry type works
+pretty much as in standard \textsf{biblatex}. Indeed, the main
+differences between it and \textsf{incollection} are the lack of an
+\textsf{edition} field and the possibility that an
+\textsf{organization} may be cited alongside the \textsf{publisher},
+even though the \emph{Manual} doesn't specify its use (17.71). Please
+note, also, that the \textsf{crossref} and \textsf{xref} mechanism for
+shortening citations of multiple pieces from the same
+\textsf{proceedings} is operative here, just as it is in
+\textsf{incollection} entries. See \textbf{crossref}, below, for more
+details.
+
+\enlargethispage{-\baselineskip}
+
+\mybigspace This \mymarginpar{\textbf{inreference}} entry type is
+aliased to \textsf{incollection} in the standard styles, but the
+\emph{Manual} has particular requirements, so if you are citing
+\enquote{[w]ell-known reference books, such as major dictionaries and
+ encyclopedias,} then this type should simplify the task of
+conforming to the specifications (17.238--239). The main thing to
+keep in mind is that I have designed this entry type for
+\enquote{alphabetically arranged} works, which you shouldn't cite by
+page, but rather by the name(s) of the article(s). Because of the
+formatting required by the \emph{Manual}, we need one of
+\textsf{biblatex's} list fields for this purpose, and in order to keep
+all this out of the way of the standard styles, I have chosen the
+\textsf{lista} field. You should present these article names just as
+they appear in the work, separated by the keyword
+\enquote{\texttt{and}} if there is more than one, and
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes} will provide the appropriate prefatory
+string (\texttt{s.v.}, plural \texttt{s.vv.}), and enclose each in its
+own set of quotation marks (ency:britannica). In a typical
+\textsf{inreference} entry, very few other fields are needed, as
+\enquote{the facts of publication are often omitted, but the edition
+ (if not the first) must be specified.} In practice, this means a
+\textsf{title} and possibly an \textsf{edition} field.
+
+\mylittlespace There are quite a few other peculiarities to explain
+here. First of all, you should present any well-known works
+\emph{only} in notes, not in a bibliography, as your readers are
+assumed to know where to go for such a reference. You can use the
+\texttt{skipbib} option or the \textsf{keywords} mechanism I discuss
+below under \textbf{crossref} and \textbf{keywords}. For such works,
+and given how little information will be present even in a full note,
+you may wish to use \cmd{fullcite} or \cmd{footfullcite} in place of
+the short form, especially if, for example, you are citing different
+versions of an article appearing in different editions.
+
+\mylittlespace If the work is slightly less well known, it may be that
+full publication details are appropriate (times:guide), but this makes
+things more complicated. In previous releases of
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes}, you would have had to format the
+\textsf{postnote} field of short notes appropriately, including the
+prefatory string and quotation marks I mentioned above. Now you can
+put an article name in the \textsf{postnote} field of
+\textsf{inreference} entries and have it formatted for you, and this
+holds for both long and short notes, which could allow you to refer
+separately to many different articles from the same reference work
+using only one .bib entry. (In a long note, any \textsf{postnote}
+field stops the printing of the contents of \textsf{lista}.) The only
+limitation on this system is that the \textsf{postnote} field, unlike
+\textsf{lista}, is not a list, and therefore for the formatting to
+work correctly you can only put one article name in it. Despite this
+limitation, I hope that the current system might simplify things for
+users who cite numerous works of reference.
+
+\mylittlespace If it seems appropriate to include such a work in the
+bibliography, be aware that the contents of the \textsf{lista} field
+will also be presented there, which may not be what you want. A
+separate \textsf{reference} entry might solve this problem, but you
+may also need a \textsf{sortkey} field to ensure proper
+alphabetization, as \textsf{biblatex} will attempt to use an
+\textsf{editor} or \textsf{author} name, if either is present. (Cf.\
+mla:style, a \textsf{reference} entry that uses section numbers
+instead of alphabetized headings, and \texttt{useeditor=false} in the
+\textsf{options} field instead of a \textsf{sortkey} to ensure the
+correct alphabetization.)
+
+\mylittlespace Speaking of the \textsf{author}, this field holds the
+author of the specific entry (in \textsf{lista}), not the author of
+the \textsf{title} as a whole. This name will be printed in
+parentheses after the entry's name (grove:sibelius). If you wish to
+refer to a reference work by author or indeed by editor, having either
+appear at the head of the note (long or short) or bibliography entry,
+then you'll need to use a \textsf{book} entry instead (cf.\
+schellinger:novel), where the \textsf{lista} mechanism will also work
+in the bibliography, but which in every other way will be treated as a
+normal book, often a good choice for unfamiliar or non-standard
+reference works.
+
+\mylittlespace Finally, all of these rules apply to online reference
+works, as well, for which you need to provide not only a \textsf{url}
+but also, always, a \textsf{urldate}, as these sources are in constant
+flux (wikiped:bibtex, grove:sibelius).
+
+\mybigspace This \mymarginpar{\textbf{letter}} is the entry type to
+use for citing letters, memoranda, or similar texts, but \emph{only}
+when they appear in a published collection. (Unpublished material of
+this nature needs a \textsf{misc} entry, for which see below.)
+Depending on what sort of information you need to present in a
+citation, you may simply be able to get away with a standard
+\textsf{book} entry, which may then be cited by page number (see
+\emph{Manual} 17.31, 17.42; meredith:letters, adorno:benj). If,
+however, for whatever reason, you need to give full details of a
+specific letter, then you'll need to use the \textsf{letter} entry
+type, which attempts to simplify for you the \emph{Manual}'s rather
+complicated rules for formatting such references. (See 17.76--78;
+jackson:paulina:letter, white:ross:memo, white:russ [a completely
+fictitious entry to show the \textsf{xref} mechanism], white:total [a
+\textsf{book} entry, for the bibliography]).
+
+\mylittlespace To start, the name of the letter writer goes in the
+\textsf{author} field, while the \textsf{title} field contains both
+the name of the writer and that of the recipient, in the form
+\texttt{Author to Recipient}. The \textsf{titleaddon} field contains
+the type of correspondence involved. If it's a letter, this field may
+be left blank, but if it's a memorandum or report or the like, then
+this is the place to specify that fact. Also, because the
+\textsf{origdate} field only accepts numbers, if you want to use the
+abbreviation \enquote{n.d.} (or \cmd{bibstring\{nodate\}}) for undated
+letters, then this is where you should put it. Most importantly, the
+date of the letter itself goes in the \textsf{origdate} field
+(\texttt{year-month-day}), which now allows a full date specification,
+while the publishing date of the whole collection goes in the
+\textsf{date} field, instead of in the obsolete \textsf{origyear}. As
+in other entry types, then, the \textsf{date} field now has its
+ordinary meaning of \enquote{date of publication.} (You may have
+noticed here that the presentation of the \textsf{origdate} in this
+sort of reference is different from the date format required elsewhere
+by the \emph{Manual}. This appears to result from some recent changes
+to the specification, and it may be that we could get away with
+choosing one or the other format for all occurrences [6.46], but for
+the moment I hope this mixed solution will suffice.) Another
+difficulty arises when producing the short footnote form, which
+requires you to provide a \textsf{shorttitle} field of the form
+\enquote{\texttt{to Recipient},} the latter name as short as possible
+while avoiding ambiguity. The remaining fields are fairly self
+explanatory, but do remember that the title of the published
+collection belongs in \textsf{booktitle} rather than in
+\textsf{title}.
+
+\mylittlespace Finally, the \emph{Manual} specifies that if you cite
+more than one letter from a given published collection, then the
+bibliography should contain only a reference to said collection,
+rather than to each individual letter, while the form of footnotes
+would remain the same. This should be possible using
+\textsc{Bib}\TeX's standard \textsf{crossref} field, with each
+\textsf{letter} entry pointing to a \textsf{collection} or
+\textsf{book} entry, for example. I shall discuss cross references at
+length later (\textbf{crossref} and \textbf{xref}, below), but I
+should mention here that \textsf{letter} is one of the entry types in
+which a \textsf{crossref} or an \textsf{xref} field automatically
+results in special shortened forms in notes and bibliography if more
+than one piece from a single collection is cited. (The other entry
+types are \textsf{incollection} and \textsf{inproceedings}; see 17.70
+for the \emph{Manual}'s specification.) This ordinarily won't be an
+issue for \textsf{letter} entries in the bibliography, as individual
+letters aren't included there, but it is operative in notes, where you
+can disable it simply by not using a \textsf{crossref} or an
+\textsf{xref} field. In the \textsf{crossref} docs, below, I
+recommend a way of keeping the individual letters from turning up in
+the bibliography, involving the use of the \textsf{keywords} field.
+
+\enlargethispage{\baselineskip}
+
+\mybigspace This \colmarginpar{\textbf{manual}} is the second of two
+traditional \textsc{Bib}\TeX\ entry types that the \emph{Manual}
+suggests formatting as books, the other being \textsf{booklet}. As
+with this latter, I have retained it in
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes} for backward compatibility, its main
+peculiarity being that, in the absence of a named author, the
+\textsf{organization} producing the manual will be printed both as
+author and as publisher. In such a case, you'll need a
+\textsf{sortkey} field to aid \textsf{biblatex's} alphabetization
+routines, but you no longer need to provide a \textsf{shortauthor}
+field, as the style will automatically use \textsf{organization} in
+the absence of anything else. Of course, if you were to use a
+\textsf{book} entry for such a reference, then you would need to
+define both \textsf{author} and \textsf{publisher} using the name you
+here might have put in \textsf{organization}. (See 17:47;
+chicago:manual, dyna:browser, natrecoff:camera.)
+
+\mybigspace As \colmarginpar{\textbf{misc}} its name suggests, the
+\textsf{misc} entry type was designed as a hold-all for citations that
+didn't quite fit into other categories. In
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes}, I have somewhat extended its
+applicability, while retaining its traditional use. Put simply, with
+no \textsf{entrysubtype} field, a \textsf{misc} entry will retain
+backward compatibility with the standard styles, so the usual
+\textsf{howpublished}, \textsf{version}, and \textsf{type} fields are
+all available for specifying an otherwise unclassifiable text, and the
+\textsf{title} will be italicized. (The \emph{Manual}, you may wish
+to note, doesn't give specific instructions on how such citations
+should be formatted, so when using the Chicago style I would recommend
+you have recourse to this traditional entry type as sparingly as
+possible.)
+
+\mylittlespace If you do provide an \textsf{entrysubtype} field, the
+\textsf{misc} type provides a means for citing unpublished letters,
+memoranda, private contracts, wills, interviews, and the like, making
+it something of an unpublished analogue to the \textsf{letter},
+\textsf{article}, and \textsf{review} entry types (which see).
+Typically, such an entry will cite part of an archive, and equally
+typically the text cited won't have a specific title, but only a
+generic one, whereas an \textsf{unpublished} entry will ordinarily
+have a specific author and title, and won't come from a named archive.
+The \textsf{misc} type with an \textsf{entrysubtype} defined is the
+least formatted of all those specified by the \emph{Manual}, so titles
+are in plain text, and any location details take no parentheses in
+full footnotes.
+
+\mylittlespace If you are wondering what to put in
+\textsf{entrysubtype}, the answer is, currently, anything at all. You
+no longer need to put the exact string \texttt{letter} there in order
+to move the date into closer proximity with the \textsf{title}.
+Indeed, recent \colmarginpar{\textsf{New}} reconsideration of the
+\emph{Manual} has suggested that the distinction to be drawn in this
+class of material hasn't to do with \emph{where} the date is presented
+but, rather, with \emph{how} it is presented. As I now understand the
+specification, it draws a distinction between archival material that
+is \enquote{letter-like} (letters, memoranda, reports, telegrams) and
+that which isn't (interviews, wills, contracts, or even personal
+communications you've received and which you wish to cite). This may
+not always be the easiest distinction to draw, and in previous
+releases of \textsf{biblatex-chicago} I have been ignoring it, but
+once you've decided to classify it one way or the other you put the
+date in the \textsf{origdate} field for letters, etc., and into the
+\textsf{date} field for the others.
+
+\mylittlespace In effect, whether it's a \textsf{letter} entry or a
+\enquote{letter-like} \textsf{misc} entry (with
+\textsf{entrysubtype}), it is by using the \textsf{origdate} field
+that you identify when it was written. Other sorts of \textsf{misc}
+entry (with \textsf{entrysubtype}) use the \textsf{date} field. This
+maintains consistency of usage across entry types and also, I hope,
+improves compliance when using the \textsf{misc} type for citing
+archival material. Remember, however, that without an
+\textsf{entrysubtype} the entry will be treated as traditional
+\textsf{misc}, and the title italicized. In addition, defining
+\textsf{entrysubtype} activates the automatic capitalization mechanism
+in the \textsf{title} field of \textsf{misc} entries, on which see
+\textbf{\textbackslash autocap} below. (See 17.205-206, 17.220,
+17.222-232; creel:house, dinkel:agassiz, spock:interview.)
+
+\mylittlespace As in \textsf{letter} entries, the titles of
+unpublished letters are of the form \texttt{Author to Recipient}, and
+further information can be given in the \textsf{titleaddon} field,
+including the abbreviation \enquote{\texttt{n.d.}}\ (or
+\cmd{bibstring\{nodate\}}) for undated examples. The \textsf{note},
+\textsf{organization}, \textsf{institution}, and \textsf{location}
+fields (in ascending order of generality) allow the specification of
+which manuscript collection now holds the letter, though the
+\emph{Manual} specifies (17.228) that well-known depositories don't
+usually need a city, state or country specified. (The traditional
+\textsf{misc} fields are all still available, also.) The short note
+form can use the same title, but you may need to define the
+\textsf{shortauthor} field with, e.g., an \cmd{isdot} command to make
+it work (creel:house). If you want to include the date of a letter in
+a short note, I have provided the \cmd{letterdatelong} command for
+inclusion in the postnote field of the citation command. (The
+standard \textsf{biblatex} command \cmd{printdate} will work if you
+need to do the same for interviews.)
+
+%\vspace{\baselineskip}
+
+\mylittlespace As with \textsf{letter} entries, the \emph{Manual}
+(17.223) suggests that bibliography entries contain only the name of
+the manuscript collection, unless only one item from that collection
+is cited. The \textsf{crossref} field can be used, as well as the
+\textsf{keywords} mechanism (or \texttt{skipbib} option) for
+preventing the individual items from turning up in the bibliography.
+Obviously, this is a matter for your discretion, and if you're using
+only short notes (see the \texttt{short} option,
+section~\ref{sec:useropts} below), you may feel the need to include
+more information in the note if the bibliography doesn't contain a
+full reference to an individual item.
+
+\mylittlespace Finally, if the \textsf{misc} entry isn't a letter,
+remember that, as in \textsf{article} and \textsf{review} entries,
+words like \texttt{interview} or \texttt{memorandum} needn't be
+capitalized unless they follow a period --- the automatic
+capitalization routines (with the \textsf{title} field starting with a
+lowercase letter [see dinkel:agassiz, spock:interview, and
+\textbf{\textbackslash autocap}]) will ensure correctness. In all
+this class of archived material, the \emph{Manual} (17.222) quite
+specifically requires more consistency within your own work than
+conformity to some external standard, so it is the former which you
+should pursue. I hope that \textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes} proves
+helpful in this regard.
+
+\mybigspace The \mymarginpar{\textbf{online}} \emph{Manual}'s
+instructions (17.142--147, 17.198, 17.234--237) for citing online
+materials are slightly different from those suggested by standard
+\textsf{biblatex}. Indeed, this is a case where complete backward
+compatibility with other \textsf{biblatex} styles may be impossible,
+because as a general rule the \emph{Manual} considers relevant not
+only where a source is found, but also the nature of that source,
+e.g., if it's an online edition of a book (james:ambassadors), then it
+calls for a \textsf{book} entry. Even if you cite an
+\enquote{intrinsically online} source, if that source is structured
+more or less like a conventional printed periodical, then you'll
+probably want to use \textsf{article} or \textsf{review} instead of
+\textsf{online} (stenger:privacy, which cites \emph{CNN.com} ---
+\emph{Yahoo!\ News} is another example that would be treated in such a
+way). If the \enquote{standard facts of publication} are missing,
+then the \textsf{online} type is usually the best choice
+(evanston:library, powell:email). Some online materials will, no
+doubt, make it difficult to choose an entry type, but so long as all
+locating information is present, then perhaps that is enough to
+fulfill the specification, or at least so I'd like to hope.
+
+\mylittlespace Constructing an \textsf{online} .bib file entry is much
+the same as in \textsf{biblatex}. The \textsf{title} field would
+contain the title of the page, the \textsf{organization} field could
+hold the title or owner of the whole site. If there is no specific
+title for a page, but only a generic one (powell:email), then such a
+title should go in \textsf{titleaddon}, not forgetting to begin that
+field with a lowercase letter so that capitalization will work out
+correctly.
+
+%\enlargethispage{\baselineskip}
+
+\mybigspace The \colmarginpar{\textbf{patent}} \emph{Manual} is very
+brief on this subject (17.219), but very clear about which information
+it wants you to present, so such entries may not work well with other
+\textsf{biblatex} styles. The important date, as far as Chicago is
+concerned, is the filing date. If a patent has been filed but not yet
+granted, then you can place the filing date in either the
+\textsf{date} field or the \textsf{origdate} field, and
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes} will automatically prepend the
+bibstring \texttt{patentfiled} to it. If the patent has been granted,
+then you put the filing date in the \textsf{origdate} field, and you
+put the date it was issued in the \textsf{date} field, to which the
+bibstring \texttt{patentissued} will automatically be prepended. (In
+other words, you no longer need to use a hand-formatted
+\textsf{addendum} field, though you can place additional information
+in that field if desired, and it will be printed in close association
+with the dates.) The patent number goes in the \textsf{number} field,
+and you should use the standard \textsf{biblatex} bibstrings in the
+\textsf{type} field. Though it isn't mentioned by the \emph{Manual},
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes} will print the \textsf{holder} after
+the \textsf{author}, if you provide one. See petroff:impurity.
+
+
+\mybigspace This \mymarginpar{\textbf{periodical}} is the standard
+\textsf{biblatex} entry type for presenting an entire issue of a
+periodical, rather than one article within it. It has the same
+function in \textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes}, and in the main uses the
+same fields, though in keeping with the system established in the
+\textsf{article} entry type (which see) you'll need to provide
+\textsf{entrysubtype} \texttt{magazine} if the periodical you are
+citing is a \enquote{newspaper} or \enquote{magazine} instead of a
+\enquote{journal.} Also, remember that the \textsf{note} field is the
+place for identifying strings like \enquote{special issue,} with its
+initial lowercase letter to activate the automatic capitalization
+routines. (See \emph{Manual} 17.170; good:wholeissue.)
+
+\mybigspace This \mymarginpar{\textbf{reference}} entry type is
+aliased to \textsf{collection} by the standard \textsf{biblatex}
+styles, but I intend it to be used in cases where you need to cite a
+reference work but not an alphabetized entry or entries in that work.
+This could be because it doesn't contain such entries, or perhaps
+because you intend the citation to appear in a bibliography rather
+than in notes. Indeed, the only differences between it and
+\textsf{inreference} are the lack of a \textsf{lista} field to present
+an alphabetized entry, and the fact that any \textsf{postnote} field
+will be printed verbatim, rather than formatted as an alphabetized
+entry. (See mla:style for an example of a reference work that uses
+numbered sections rather than alphabetized entries, and that appears
+in the bibliography as well.)
+
+\mybigspace This \mymarginpar{\textbf{report}} entry type is a
+\textsf{biblatex} generalization of the traditional \textsc{Bib}\TeX\
+type \textsf{techreport}. Instructions for such entries are rather
+thin on the ground in the \emph{Manual} (17.241), so I have followed
+the generic advice about formatting it like a book, and hope that the
+results conform to the specification. Its main peculiarities are the
+\textsf{institution} field in place of a \textsf{publisher}, the
+\textsf{type} field for identifying the kind of report in question,
+and the \textsf{isrn} field containing the International Standard
+Technical Report Number of a technical report. As in standard
+\textsf{biblatex}, if you use a \textsf{techreport} entry, then the
+\textsf{type} field automatically defaults to
+\cmd{bibstring\{techreport\}}. As with \textsf{booklet} and
+\textsf{manual}, you can also use a \textsf{book} entry, putting the
+report type in \textsf{note} and the \textsf{institution} in
+\textsf{publisher}. (See herwign:office.)
+
+\mybigspace The \mymarginpar{\textbf{review}} \textsf{review} entry
+type was added to \textsf{biblatex 0.7}, and it certainly eases the
+task of coping with the \emph{Manual}'s complicated requirements for
+citing periodicals of all sorts, though it doesn't, I admit, eliminate
+all difficulties. As its name suggests, this entry type was designed
+for reviews published in periodicals, and if you've already read the
+\textsf{article} instructions above --- if you haven't, I recommend
+doing so now --- you'll know that \textsf{review} serves as well for
+citing other sorts of material with generic titles, like letters to
+the editor, obituaries, interviews, and the like. The primary rule is
+that any piece that has only a generic title, like \enquote{review of
+ \ldots,} \enquote{interview with \ldots,} or \enquote{obituary of
+ \ldots,} calls for the \textsf{review} type. Any piece that also
+has a specific title, e.g., \enquote{\enquote{Lost in
+ \textsc{Bib}\TeX,} an interview with \ldots,} requires an
+\textsf{article} entry. (This assumes the text is found in a
+periodical of some sort. Were it found in a book, then the
+\textsf{incollection} type would serve your needs, and you could use
+\textsf{title} and \textsf{titleaddon} there. While we're on the
+topic of exceptions, the \emph{Manual} includes an example --- 17.207
+--- where the \enquote{Interview} part of the title is considered a
+subtitle rather than a titleaddon, said part therefore being included
+inside the quotation marks and capitalized accordingly. Not having
+the journal in front of me I'm not sure what prompted that decision,
+but \textsf{biblatex-chicago} would obviously have no difficulty
+coping with such a situation.)
+
+\mylittlespace Once you've decided to use \textsf{review}, then you
+need to determine which sort of periodical you are citing, the rules
+for which are the same as for an \textsf{article} entry. If it is a
+\enquote{magazine} or a \enquote{newspaper}, then you need an
+\textsf{entrysubtype} \texttt{magazine}. The generic title goes in
+\textsf{title} and the other fields work just as as they do in an
+\textsf{article} entry with the same \textsf{entrysubtype}, including
+the substitution of the \textsf{journaltitle} for the \textsf{author}
+if the latter is missing. (See 17.185, 17.188--194, 17.199--203,
+17.207; barcott:review, bundy:macneil, Clemens:letter, gourmet:052006,
+kozinn:review, nyt:obittrevor, nyt:trevorobit, unsigned:ranke,
+wallraff:word.) If, on the other hand, the piece comes from a
+\enquote{journal,} then you don't need an \textsf{entrysubtype}. The
+generic title goes in \textsf{title}, and the remaining fields work
+just as they do in a plain \textsf{article} entry. (See 17.201;
+ratliff:review.)
+
+\mylittlespace The onerous details are the same as I described them in
+the \textbf{article} section above, but I'll repeat some of them
+briefly here. If anything in the \textsf{title} needs formatting, you
+need to provide those instructions yourself, as the default is
+completely plain. In the short note form \colmarginpar{\textsf{New!}}
+you no longer need to provide a formatted \textsf{shortauthor} field
+for when a \textsf{journatitle} replaces an absent \textsf{author}, as
+the package now automatically prints the former there in the absence
+of anything else (gourmet:052006, nyt:trevorobit). If you wish to
+keep the title at the head of an entry, then you'll need to define
+\textsf{author} with \cmd{isdot}, (as in nyt:obittrevor, by contrast
+with nyt:trevorobit). As in \textsf{misc} entries with an
+\textsf{entrysubtype}, words like \enquote{interview,}
+\enquote{review,} and \enquote{letter} only need capitalization after
+a full stop, i.e., ordinarily in a bibliography and not a note, so
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes} automatically deals with this problem
+itself if you start the \textsf{title} field with a lowercase letter.
+The file \textsf{notes-test.bib} and the documentation of
+\cmd{autocap} will provide guidance here.
+
+\mybigspace This \mymarginpar{\textbf{suppbook}} is the entry type to
+use if the main focus of a reference is supplemental material in a
+book or in a collection, e.g., an introduction, afterword, or forward,
+either by the same or a different author. In previous releases of
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago} these three just-mentioned types of
+material, and only these three types, could be referenced using the
+\textsf{introduction}, \textsf{afterword}, or \textsf{foreword}
+fields, a system that required you simply to define one of them in any
+way and leave the others undefined. The macros don't use the text
+provided by such an entry, they merely check to see if one of them is
+defined, in order to decide which sort of pre- or post-matter is at
+stake, and to print the appropriate string before the \textsf{title}
+in long notes, short notes, list of shorthands, and bibliography. I
+have retained this mechanism both for backward compatibility and
+because it works without modification across multiple languages, but
+have also added functionality which allows you to cite any sort of
+supplemental material whatever, using the \textsf{type} field. Under
+this system, simply put the nature of the material, including the
+relevant preposition, in that field, beginning with a lowercase letter
+so \textsf{biblatex} can decide whether it needs capitalization
+depending on the context. Examples might be \enquote{\texttt{preface
+ to}} or \enquote{\texttt{colophon of}.} (Please note, however,
+that unless you use a \cmd{bibstring} command in the \textsf{type}
+field, the resultant entry will not be portable across languages.)
+
+\mylittlespace The other rules for constructing your .bib entry remain
+the same. The \textsf{author} field refers to the author of the
+introduction or afterword, while \textsf{bookauthor} refers to the
+author of the main text of the work, if the two differ. If the focus
+of the reference is the main text of the book, but you want to mention
+the name of the writer of an introduction or afterword for
+bibliographical completeness, then the normal \textsf{biblatex} rules
+apply, and you can just put their name in the appropriate field of a
+\textsf{book} entry, that is, in the \textsf{foreword},
+\textsf{afterword}, or \textsf{introduction} field. (See
+\emph{Manual} 17.74--75; polakow:afterw, prose:intro).
+
+\mybigspace This \mymarginpar{\textbf{suppcollection}} fulfills a
+function analogous to \textsf{suppbook}. Indeed, I believe the
+\textbf{suppbook} type can serve to present supplemental material in
+both types of work, so this entry type is an alias to
+\textsf{suppbook}, which see.
+
+\mybigspace This \mymarginpar{\textbf{suppperiodical}} type, new to
+\textsf{biblatex} 0.8, is intended to allow reference to
+generically-titled works in periodicals, such as regular columns or
+letters to the editor. Previous releases of
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes} provided the \textsf{review} type for
+this purpose, and now you can use either of these, as I've added
+\textsf{suppperiodical} as an alias of \textsf{review}. Please see
+above under \textbf{review} for the full instructions on how to
+construct a .bib entry for such a reference.
+
+\mybigspace The \mymarginpar{\textbf{unpublished}}
+\textsf{unpublished} entry type works largely as it does in standard
+\textsf{biblatex}, though it's worth remembering that you should use a
+lowercase letter at the start of your \textsf{note} field (or perhaps
+an\ \cmd{autocap} command in the somewhat contradictory
+\textsf{howpublished}, if you have one) for material that wouldn't
+ordinarily be capitalized except at the beginning of a sentence
+(nass:address).
+
+\subsection{Entry Fields}
+\label{sec:entryfields}
+
+The following discussion presents, in alphabetical order, a complete
+list of the entry fields you will need to use
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes}. As in section \ref{sec:entrytypes},
+I shall include references to the numbered paragraphs of the
+\emph{Chicago Manual of Style}, and also to the entries in
+\textsf{notes-test.bib}. Many fields are most easily understood with
+reference to other, related fields. In such cases, cross references
+should allow you to find the information you need.
+
+\mybigspace As \mymarginpar{\textbf{addendum}} in standard
+\textsf{biblatex}, this field allows you to add miscellaneous
+information to the end of an entry, after publication data but before
+any \textsf{url} or \textsf{doi} field. In the \textsf{patent} entry
+type (which see), it will be printed in close association with the
+filing and issue dates. In any entry type, if your data begins with a
+word that would ordinarily only be capitalized at the beginning of a
+sentence, then simply ensure that that word is in lowercase, and the
+style will take care of the rest. Cf.\ \textsf{note}. (See
+\emph{Manual} 17.145, 17.123; davenport:attention, natrecoff:camera.)
+
+\mybigspace In most \mymarginpar{\textbf{afterword}} circumstances,
+this field will function as it does in standard \textsf{biblatex},
+i.e., you should include here the author(s) of an afterword to a given
+work. The \emph{Manual} suggests that, as a general rule, the
+afterword would need to be of significant importance in its own right
+to require mentioning in the reference apparatus, but this is clearly
+a matter for the user's judgment. As in \textsf{biblatex}, if the
+name given here exactly matches that of an editor and/or a translator,
+then \textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes} will concatenate these fields in
+the formatted references.
+
+%\vspace{\baselineskip}
+
+\mylittlespace As noted above, however, this field has a special
+meaning in the \textsf{suppbook} entry type, used to make an
+afterword, foreword, or introduction the main focus of a citation. If
+it's an afterword at issue, simply define \textsf{afterword} any way
+you please, leave \textsf{foreword} and \textsf{introduction}
+undefined, and \textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes} will do the rest. Cf.\
+\textsf{foreword} and \textsf{introduction}. (See \emph{Manual} 17.46,
+17.74; polakow:afterw.)
+
+\mybigspace At \mymarginpar{\textbf{annotation}} \label{sec:annote}
+the request of Emil Salim, \textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes} has, as of
+version 0.9, added a package option (see \texttt{annotation} below,
+section \ref{sec:useropts}) to allow you to produce annotated
+bibliographies. The formatting of such a bibliography is currently
+fairly basic, though it conforms with the \emph{Manual's} minimal
+guidelines (16.77). The default in \textsf{chicago-notes.cbx} is to
+define \cmd{DeclareFieldFormat\{an\-notation\}} using
+\cmd{par}\cmd{nobreak} \cmd{vskip} \cmd{bibitemsep}, though you can
+alter it by re-declaring the format in your preamble. The
+page-breaking algorithms don't always give perfect results here, but
+the default formatting looks, to my eyes, fairly decent. In addition
+to tweaking the field formatting you can also insert \cmd{par} (or
+even \cmd{vadjust\{\cmd{eject}\}}) commands into the text of your
+annotations to improve the appearance. Please consider the
+\texttt{annotation} option a work in progress, but it is usable now.
+(N.B.: The \textsc{Bib}\TeX\ field \textsf{annote} serves as an alias
+for this.)
+
+\mybigspace I \mymarginpar{\textbf{annotator}} have implemented this
+\textsf{biblatex} field pretty much as that package's standard styles
+do, even though the \emph{Manual} doesn't actually mention it. It may
+be useful for some purposes. Cf.\ \textsf{commentator}.
+
+%\enlargethispage{\baselineskip}
+
+\mybigspace For \mymarginpar{\textbf{author}} the most part, I have
+implemented this field in a completely standard \textsc{Bib}\TeX\
+fashion. Remember that corporate or organizational authors need to
+have an extra set of curly braces around them (e.g.,
+\texttt{\{\{Associated Press\}\}}\,) to prevent \textsc{Bib}\TeX\ from
+treating one part of the name as a surname (17.47, 17.197;
+assocpress:gun, chicago:manual). If there is no \textsf{author}, then
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes} will look, in sequence, for an
+\textsf{editor}, \textsf{translator}, or \textsf{compiler} (actually
+\textsf{namec}, currently) and use that name (or those names) instead,
+followed by the appropriate identifying string (esp.\ 17.41, also
+17.28--29, 17.88, 17.95, 17.172; boxer:china, brown:bremer,
+harley:cartography, schellinger:novel, sechzer:women, silver:ga\-wain,
+soltes:georgia). Please note that when a \textsf{namec} appears at
+the head of an entry, you'll need to assist \textsf{biblatex}'s
+sorting algorithms by providing a \textsf{sortkey} field to ensure
+correct alphabetization in the bibliography. Also, a
+\textsf{shortauthor} entry is necessary to provide a name at the head
+of the short note form.
+
+\mylittlespace In the rare cases when this substitution mechanism
+isn't appropriate, you have two options: either you can
+(chaucer:liferecords) put all the information into a \textsf{note}
+field rather than individual fields, or you can use the
+\textsf{biblatex} options \texttt{useauthor=false},
+\texttt{useeditor=false}, \texttt{usetranslator=false}, and
+\texttt{usecompiler=\\false} in the \textsf{options} field
+(chaucer:alt). If you look at the chaucer:alt entry in
+\textsf{notes-test.bib}, you'll notice a peculiarity of this system of
+toggles. In order to ensure that the \textsf{title} of the book
+appears at the head of the entry, you need to use \emph{all four} of
+the toggles, even though the entry contains no \textsf{translator}.
+Internally, \textsf{biblatex-chicago} is either searching for an
+author-substitute, or it is skipping over elements of the ordered,
+unidirectional chain \textsf{author -> editor -> translator ->
+ compiler -> title}. If you don't include
+\texttt{usetranslator=false} in the \textsf{options} field, then the
+package begins its search at \textsf{translator} and continues on to
+\textsf{namec}, even though you have \texttt{usecompiler=false} in
+\textsf{options}. The result will be that the compilers' names will
+appear at the head of the entry. If you want to skip over parts of
+the chain, you must turn off \emph{all} of the parts up to the one you
+wish printed.
+
+\mylittlespace This system of toggles, then, can turn off
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes}'s mechanism for finding a name to
+place at the head of an entry, but it also very usefully adds the
+possibility of citing a work with an \textsf{author} by its editor,
+compiler or translator instead (17.45; eliot:pound), something that
+wasn't possible before. For full details of how this works, see the
+\textsf{editortype} documentation below. (Of course, in
+\textsf{collection} and \textsf{proceedings} entry types, an
+\textsf{author} isn't expected, so there the \textsf{editor} is
+required, as in standard \textsf{biblatex}. Also, in \textsf{article}
+or \textsf{review} entries with \textsf{entrysubtype}
+\texttt{magazine}, the absence of an \textsf{author} triggers the use
+of the \textsf{journaltitle} in its stead. See those entry types for
+further details.)
+
+\mylittlespace \textbf{NB}: The \emph{Manual} provides specific
+instructions for formatting the names of both anonymous and
+pseudonymous authors (17.32--39). In the former case, if no author is
+known or guessed at, then it may simply be omitted
+(virginia:plantation). The use of \enquote{Anonymous} as the name is
+\enquote{generally to be avoided,} but may in some cases be useful
+\enquote{in a bibliography in which several anonymous works need to be
+ grouped.} If, on the other hand, \enquote{the authorship is known
+ or guessed at but was omitted on the title page,} then you need to
+use the \textsf{authortype} field to let
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes} know this fact. If the author is
+known (horsley:prosodies), then put \texttt{anon} in the
+\textsf{authortype} field, if guessed at (cook:sotweed) put
+\texttt{anon?}\ there. (In both cases,
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes} tests for these \emph{exact} strings,
+so check your typing if it doesn't work.) This will have the effect
+of enclosing the name in square brackets, with or without the question
+mark indicating doubt. As long as you have the right string in the
+\textsf{authortype} field, \textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes} will also
+do the right thing automatically in the short note form.
+
+\mylittlespace The \textsf{nameaddon} field furnishes the means to
+cope with the case of pseudonymous authorship. If the author's real
+name isn't known, simply put \texttt{pseud.} (or
+\cmd{bibstring\{pseudonym\}}) in that field (centinel:letters). If
+you wish to give a pseudonymous author's real name, simply include it
+there, formatted as you wish it to appear, as the contents of this
+field won't be manipulated as a name by \textsf{biblatex}
+(lecarre:quest). If you have given the author's real name in the
+\textsf{author} field, then the pseudonym goes in \textsf{nameaddon},
+in the form \texttt{Firstname Lastname, pseud.}\ (creasey:ashe:blast,
+creasey:morton:hide, creasey:york:death). This latter method will
+allow you to keep all references to one author's work under different
+pseudonyms grouped together in the bibliography, as recommended by the
+\emph{Manual}.
+
+%\enlargethispage{-\baselineskip}
+
+\mybigspace In \mymarginpar{\textbf{authortype}}
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago}, this field serves a function very much in
+keeping with the spirit of standard \textsf{biblatex}, if not with its
+letter. Instead of allowing you to change the string used to identify
+an author, the field allows you to indicate when an author is
+anonymous, that is, when his or her name doesn't appear on the title
+page of the work you are citing. As I've just detailed under
+\textsf{author}, the \emph{Manual} generally discourages the use of
+\enquote{Anonymous} as an author, preferring that you simply omit it.
+If, however, the name of the author is known or guessed at, then
+you're supposed to enclose that name within square brackets, which is
+exactly what \textsf{biblatex-chicago} does for you when you put
+either \texttt{anon} (author known) or \texttt{anon?} (author guessed
+at) in the \textsf{authortype} field. (Putting the square brackets in
+yourself doesn't work right, hence this mechanism.) The macros test
+for these \emph{exact} strings, so check your typing if you don't see
+the brackets. Assuming the strings are correct,
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes} will also automatically do the right
+thing in the short note form. Cf.\ \textsf{author}. (See 17.33--34;
+cook:sotweed, horsley:prosodies.)
+
+\mybigspace For \mymarginpar{\textbf{bookauthor}} the most part, as in
+\textsf{biblatex}, a \textsf{bookauthor} is the author of a
+\textsf{booktitle}, so that, for example, if one chapter in a book has
+different authorship from the book as a whole, you can include that
+fact in a reference (17.75; will:cohere). Keep in mind, however, that
+the entry type for introductions, forewords and afterwords
+(\textsf{suppbook}) uses \textsf{bookauthor} as the author of
+\textsf{title} (polakow:afterw, prose:intro).
+
+\mybigspace This, \mymarginpar{\vspace{-12pt}\textbf{bookpagination}}
+a standard \textsf{biblatex} field, allows you automatically to prefix
+the appropriate string to information you provide in a \textsf{pages}
+field. If you leave it blank, the default is to print no identifying
+string (the equivalent of setting it to \texttt{none}), as this is the
+practice the \emph{Manual} recommends for nearly all page numbers.
+Even if the numbers you cite aren't pages, but it is otherwise clear
+from the context what they represent, you can still leave this blank.
+If, however, you specifically need to identify what sort of unit the
+\textsf{pages} field represents, then you can either hand-format that
+field yourself, or use one of the provided bibstrings in the
+\textsf{bookpagination} field. These bibstrings currently are
+\texttt{column,} \texttt{line,} \texttt{paragraph,} \texttt{page,}
+\texttt{section,} and \texttt{verse}, all of which are used by
+\textsf{biblatex's} standard styles.
+
+\mylittlespace There are two points that may need explaining here.
+First, all the bibstrings I have just listed follow the Chicago
+specification, which may be confusing if they don't produce the
+strings you expect. Second, remember that \textsf{bookpagination}
+applies only to the \textsf{pages} field --- if you need to format a
+citation's \textsf{postnote} field, then you must use
+\textsf{pagination}, which see (15.45--46, 17.128--138).
+
+\mybigspace The \mymarginpar{\textbf{booksubtitle}} subtitle for a
+\textsf{booktitle}. See the next entry for further information.
+
+\mybigspace In \mymarginpar{\textbf{booktitle}} the
+\textsf{bookinbook}, \textsf{inbook}, \textsf{incollection},
+\textsf{inproceedings}, and \textsf{letter} entry types, the
+\textsf{booktitle} field holds the title of the larger volume in which
+the \textsf{title} itself is contained as one part. It is important
+not to confuse this with the \textsf{maintitle}, which holds the more
+general title of multiple volumes, e.g., \emph{Collected Works}. It
+is perfectly possible for one .bib file entry to contain all three
+sorts of title (euripides:orestes, plato:republic:gr). You may also
+find a \textsf{booktitle} in other sorts of entries (e.g.,
+\textsf{book} or \textsf{collection}), but there it will almost
+invariably be providing information for the \textsc{Bib}\TeX\
+cross-referencing apparatus (prairie:state), which I discuss below
+(\textbf{crossref}).
+
+\mybigspace An \mymarginpar{\textbf{booktitleaddon}} annex to the
+\textsf{booktitle}. It will be printed in the main text font, without
+quotation marks. If your data begins with a word that would
+ordinarily only be capitalized at the beginning of a sentence, then
+simply ensure that that word is in lowercase, and
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes} will automatically do the right thing.
+
+\enlargethispage{-\baselineskip}
+
+\mybigspace This \mymarginpar{\textbf{chapter}} field holds the
+chapter number, mainly useful only in an \textsf{inbook} or an
+\textsf{incollection} entry where you wish to cite a specific chapter
+of a book (ashbrook:brain).
+
+\mybigspace I \mymarginpar{\textbf{commentator}} have implemented this
+\textsf{biblatex} field pretty much as that package's standard styles
+do, even though the \emph{Manual} doesn't actually mention it. It may
+be useful for some purposes. Cf.\ \textsf{annotator}.
+
+\mybigspace \textsf{Biblatex} \mymarginpar{\textbf{crossref}} uses the
+standard \textsc{Bib}\TeX\ cross-referencing mechanism, and has also
+introduced a modified one of its own (\textsf{xref}). The
+\textsf{crossref} field works exactly the same as it always has, while
+\textsf{xref} attempts to remedy some of the deficiencies of the usual
+mechanism by ensuring that child entries will inherit no data at all
+from their parents. Having said all that, a few further instructions
+may be in order for users of both \textsf{biblatex} and
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago}. First, remember that fields in a
+\textsf{collection} entry, for example, differ from those in an
+\textsf{incollection} entry. In order for the latter to inherit the
+\textsf{booktitle} field from the former, the former needs to have
+such a field defined, even though a \textsf{collection} entry has no
+use itself for such an entry (see ellet:galena, keating:dearborn,
+lippincott:chicago, and prairie:state). Note also that an entry with
+a \textsf{crossref} field will mechanically try to inherit all
+applicable fields from the entry it cross-references. In the case of
+ellet:galena et al., you can see that this includes the
+\textsf{subtitle} field found in prairie:state, which would then,
+quite incorrectly, be added to the \textsf{title} of ellet:galena. In
+cases like these, you could just make sure that prairie:state didn't
+contain such a field, by placing the entire title + subtitle in the
+\textsf{title} field, separated by a colon. You'd certainly need to
+provide a \textsf{shorttitle} field for short footnotes, if you chose
+this solution. Alternatively, as you can see in ellet:galena, you can
+just define an empty \textsf{subtitle} field to prevent it inheriting
+the unwanted subtitle from prairie:state.
+
+\mylittlespace Turning now more narrowly to
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes}, the \emph{Manual} (17.70) specifies
+that if you cite several contributions to the same collection, all
+(including the collection itself) may be listed separately in the
+bibliography, which the package does automatically, using the default
+inclusion threshold of 2 in the case both of \textsf{crossref}'ed and
+\textsf{xref}'ed entries. (The familiar \cmd{nocite} command may also
+help in some circumstances.) In footnotes the specification suggests
+that, after a citation of any one contribution to the collection, all
+subsequent contributions may, even in the first, long footnote, be
+cited using a slightly shortened form, thus \enquote{avoiding
+ clutter.} In the bibliography the abbreviated form is appropriate
+for all the child entries. The current version of
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes} implements these instructions, but
+only if you use a \textsf{crossref} or an \textsf{xref} field, and
+only in \textsf{incollection}, \textsf{inproceedings}, or
+\textsf{letter} entries (on the last named, see just below). If you
+look at ellet:galena, keating:dearborn, lippincott:chicago, and
+prairie:state you'll see this mechanism in action in both notes and
+bibliography. If you wish to disable this, then simply don't use a
+\textsf{crossref} or \textsf{xref} field in your entries.
+
+\enlargethispage{\baselineskip}
+
+\mylittlespace A published collection of letters requires a somewhat
+different treatment (17.78). If you cite more than one letter from
+the same collection, then the \emph{Manual} specifies that only the
+collection itself should appear in the bibliography. In footnotes,
+you can use the \textsf{letter} entry type, documented above, for
+each individual letter, while the collection as a whole may well
+require a \textsf{book} entry. I have, after some consideration,
+implemented the system of shortened references in \textsf{letter}
+entries, even though the \emph{Manual} doesn't explicitly require it.
+As with \textsf{incollection} and \textsf{inproceedings}, mere use of
+a \textsf{crossref} or \textsf{xref} field will activate this
+mechanism, while avoidance of said fields will disable it. (See
+white:ross:memo, white:russ, and white:total, for examples of the
+\textsf{xref} field in action in this way, and please note that the
+second of these entries is entirely fictitious, provided merely for
+the sake of example.) How then to keep the individual letters from
+appearing in the bibliography? The simplest mechanism is one provided
+by \textsf{biblatex}, which involves the \textsf{keywords} field.
+Choose a keyword for any entry you wish excluded from the bibliography
+--- I've chosen \texttt{original}, for reasons that will become
+clearer later --- then in the optional argument to the
+\cmd{printbibliography} command in your document include, e.g.,
+\texttt{notkeyword=original}. (Cf.\ \textbf{keywords} and
+\textbf{userf}.)
+
+\mylittlespace If you look closely at the .bib entries for
+white:ross:memo and white:russ, you'll see that, despite using
+\textsf{xref} instead of \textsf{crossref}, the notes referring to
+them inherit data from the parent (white:total). The citation
+mechanism is making a separate call to the parent's .bib entry,
+formatting the information there to fill out the bare data provided by
+the child, but this only happens in \textsf{letter},
+\textsf{incollection}, and \textsf{inproceedings} entries. It is
+perfectly possible that other sorts of entries may make use of
+\textsf{crossref} or \textsf{xref} fields --- \textsf{inbook} and
+\textsf{bookinbook} come to mind --- but such entries will not result in
+the activation of shortened references in notes and bibliography, nor,
+when using \textsf{xref}, in the inheritance I have just pointed out.
+This is how I interpret the specification, though I'm open to
+persuasion on this score.
+
+\mylittlespace I should also take this opportunity to mention that you
+need to be careful when using the \textsf{shorthand} field in
+conjunction with the \textsf{crossref} or \textsf{xref} fields,
+bearing in mind the complicated questions of inheritance posed by all
+such cross-references, most especially in \textsf{letter},
+\textsf{incollection}, and \textsf{inproceedings} entries. A
+\textsf{shorthand} field in a parent entry is, at least in the current
+state of \textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes}, a bad idea.
+
+\mybigspace This \colmarginpar{\textbf{date}} field may be used to
+specify an item's complete date of publication, in \textsc{iso}8601
+format, i.e., \texttt{yyyy-mm-dd}. It may also be used to specify a
+date range, according to Lehman's instructions in §~2.3.8 of
+\textsf{biblatex.pdf}. If only part of a date is required, then the
+\textsf{month} and \textsf{year} fields may be more convenient. The
+latter may be particularly useful in some entries because it can hold
+more than just numerical data, in contrast to \textsf{date} itself.
+Cf.\ the \textsf{misc} entry type in section~\ref{sec:entrytypes}
+above for how to use this field to distinguish between two classes of
+archival material. See also \textsf{origdate} and \textsf{urldate}.
+
+\mylittlespace (Users of the Chicago author-date style who wish to
+minimize the labor needed to convert a .bib database for the notes \&\
+bibliography style should be aware that, in this release, the latter
+style includes compatibility code for the \texttt{cmsdate} (silently
+ignored) and \texttt{switchdates} options, along with the mechanism
+for reversing \textsf{date} and \textsf{origdate}. This means that
+you can, in theory, leave all of this alone in your .bib file when
+making the conversion, though I'm retaining the right to revoke this
+if the code in question demonstrably interferes with the functioning
+of the notes \&\ bibliography style.)
+
+\mybigspace This \mymarginpar{\textbf{day}} field, as of
+\textsf{biblatex} 0.9, is obsolete, and will be ignored if you use it
+in your .bib files. Use \textsf{date} instead.
+
+\mybigspace Standard \mymarginpar{\textbf{doi}} \textsf{biblatex}
+field. The Digital Object Identifier of the work, which the
+\emph{Manual} suggests you can use \enquote{in place of page numbers
+ or other locators} (17.181; friedman:learn\-ing). Cf.\
+\textsf{url}.
+
+\mybigspace Standard \mymarginpar{\textbf{edition}} \textsf{biblatex}
+field. If you enter a plain cardinal number, \textsf{biblatex} will
+convert it to an ordinal (chicago:manual), followed by the appropriate
+string. Any other sort of edition information will be printed as is,
+though if your data begins with a word (or abbreviation) that would
+ordinarily only be capitalized at the beginning of a sentence, then
+simply ensure that that word (or abbreviation) is in lowercase, and
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes} will automatically do the right thing
+(babb:peru, times:guide). In most situations, the \emph{Manual}
+generally recommends the use of abbreviations in both bibliography and
+notes, but there is room for the user's discretion in specific
+citations (emerson:nature).
+
+\mylittlespace In a previous release of
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes}, I introduced the \textsf{userd} field
+to hold this non-numeric information, as \textsf{biblatex} only
+accepted an integer in the \textsf{edition} field, but this changed in
+version 0.8. The \textsf{userd} field is now obsolete, and will be
+silently ignored.
+
+\mybigspace As \mymarginpar{\textbf{editor}} far as possible, I have
+implemented this field as \textsf{biblatex}'s standard styles do, but
+the requirements specified by the \emph{Manual} present certain
+complications that need explaining. Lehman points out in his
+documentation that the \textsf{editor} field will be associated with a
+\textsf{title}, a \textsf{booktitle}, or a \textsf{maintitle},
+depending on the sort of entry. More specifically,
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago} associates the \textsf{editor} with the most
+comprehensive of those titles, that is, \textsf{maintitle} if there is
+one, otherwise \textsf{booktitle}, otherwise \textsf{title}, if the
+other two are lacking. In a large number of cases, this is exactly
+the correct behavior (adorno:benj, centinel:letters,
+plato:republic:gr, among others). Predictably, however, there are
+numerous cases that require, for example, an additional editor for one
+part of a collection or for one volume of a multi-volume work. For
+these cases I have provided the \textsf{namea} field. You should
+format names for this field as you would for \textsf{author} or
+\textsf{editor}, and these names will always be associated with the
+\textsf{title} (donne:var).
+
+\mylittlespace As you will see below, I have also provided a
+\textsf{nameb} field, which holds the translator of a given
+\textsf{title} (euripides:orestes). If \textsf{namea} and
+\textsf{nameb} are the same, \textsf{biblatex-chicago} will
+concatenate them, just as \textsf{biblatex} already does for
+\textsf{editor}, \textsf{translator}, and \textsf{namec} (i.e., the
+compiler). Furthermore, it is conceivable that a given entry will
+need separate editors for each of the three sorts of title. For this,
+and for various other tricky situations, there is the \cmd{partedit}
+macro (and its siblings), designed to be used in a \textsf{note} field
+or in one of the \textsf{titleaddon} fields (chaucer:liferecords).
+(Because the strings identifying an editor differ in notes and
+bibliography, one can't simply write them out in such a field, hence
+the need for a macro, which I discuss further in the commands section
+below [\ref{sec:formatcommands}].) Cf.\ \textsf{namea},
+\textsf{nameb}, \textsf{namec}, and \textsf{translator}.
+
+\mybigspace The \mymarginpar{\textbf{editora\\editorb\\editorc}} new
+release of \textsf{biblatex} provides these fields as a means to
+specify additional contributors to texts in a number of editorial
+roles. I'm uncertain how relevant they may be to users of the Chicago
+style, but I have implemented them just as the standard styles do. To
+specify the role, use the new fields \textsf{editoratype},
+\textsf{editorbtype}, and \textsf{editorctype}, and see
+\textsf{biblatex.pdf} §~2.3.6.
+
+%\enlargethispage{\baselineskip}
+
+\mybigspace Normally, \mymarginpar{\textbf{editortype}} with the
+exception of the \textsf{article} and \textsf{review} types,
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes} will automatically find a name to put
+at the head of an entry, starting with an \textsf{author}, and
+proceeding in order through \textsf{editor}, \textsf{translator}, and
+\textsf{namec} (the compiler). If all four are missing, then the
+\textsf{title} will be placed at the head. (In \textsf{article} and
+\textsf{review} entries with a \texttt{magazine}
+\textsf{entrysubtype}, a missing author immediately prompts the use of
+\textsf{journaltitle} at the head of an entry. See above under
+\textsf{article} for details.) The \textsf{editortype} field, added
+in \textsf{biblatex 0.7}, provides even greater flexibility, giving
+you the ability to put a compiler at the head of an entry without
+using \textsf{namec}, freeing you from the need to use a
+\textsf{sortkey} and a \textsf{shortauthor}. You can do this even
+though an author is named (eliot:pound shows this mechanism in action
+for a standard editor, rather than a compiler). Two things are
+necessary for this to happen. First, in the \textsf{options} field
+you need to set \texttt{useauthor=false}, then you need to put the
+name you wish to see at the head of your entry into the
+\textsf{editor} or the \textsf{namea} field. If the \enquote{editor}
+is in fact a compiler, then you need to put \texttt{compiler} into the
+\textsf{editortype} field, and \textsf{biblatex} will print the
+correct string after the name in both the bibliography and in the long
+note form.
+
+\mylittlespace There are a few details of which you need to be aware.
+Because \textsf{biblatex-chicago} has added the \textsf{namea} field,
+which gives you the ability to identify the editor specifically of a
+\textsf{title} as opposed to a \textsf{maintitle} or a
+\textsf{booktitle}, the \textsf{editortype} mechanism checks first to
+see whether a \textsf{namea} is defined. If it is, that name will be
+used at the head of the entry, if it isn't it will go ahead and look
+for an \textsf{editor}. When the \textsf{editor} field is used,
+\textsf{biblatex}'s sorting algorithms will work properly, and also
+its \textsf{labelname} mechanism, meaning that a shortened form of the
+\textsf{editor} will be used in the short note form. If, however, the
+\textsf{namea} field provides the name, then your .bib entry will need
+to have a \textsf{sortkey} field to aid in alphabetizing, and it will
+also need a \textsf{shorteditor} defined to help with the short note
+form, not a \textsf{shortauthor}, ruled out because
+\texttt{useauthor=false}.
+
+\mylittlespace In \textsf{biblatex} 0.9 Lehman has reworked the string
+concatenation mechanism, for reasons he outlines in his RELEASE file,
+and I have followed his lead. In short, if you define the
+\textsf{editortype} field, then concatenation is turned off, even if
+the name of the \textsf{editor} matches, for example, that of the
+\textsf{translator}. In the absence of an \textsf{editortype}, the
+usual mechanisms remain in place, that is, if the \textsf{editor}
+exactly matches a \textsf{translator} and/or a \textsf{namec}, or
+alternatively if \textsf{namea} exactly matches a \textsf{nameb}
+and/or a \textsf{namec}, then \textsf{biblatex} will print the
+appropriate strings. The \emph{Manual} specifically (17.41)
+recommends not using these identifying strings in the short note form,
+and \textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes} follows their recommendation. If
+you nevertheless need to provide such a string, you'll have to do it
+manually in the \textsf{shorteditor} field, or perhaps, in a different
+sort of entry, in a \textsf{shortauthor} field.
+
+\mylittlespace It may also be worth noting that because of certain
+requirements in the specification -- absence of an \textsf{author},
+for example -- the \texttt{useauthor} mechanism won't work properly in
+the following entry types: \textsf{collection}, \textsf{letter},
+\textsf{patent}, \textsf{periodical}, \textsf{proceedings},
+\textsf{review}, \textsf{suppbook}, \textsf{suppcollection}, and
+\textsf{suppperiodical}.
+
+\mybigspace These
+\mymarginpar{\textbf{editoratype\\editorbtype\\editorctype}} fields
+are new to \textsf{biblatex} 0.9, and identify the exact role of the
+person named in the corresponding \textsf{editor[a-c]} field. Note
+that they are not part of the string concatenation mechanism. I have
+implemented them just as the standard styles do, though I am uncertain
+of their usefulness for users of Chicago. Cf.\ \textsf{biblatex.pdf}
+§~2.3.6.
+
+\mybigspace Standard \mymarginpar{\textbf{eid}} \textsf{biblatex}
+field, providing a string or number some journals use uniquely to
+identify a particular article. Only applicable to the
+\textsf{article} entry type. Not typically required by the
+\emph{Manual}.
+
+\mybigspace Standard \mymarginpar{\textbf{entrysubtype}} and very
+powerful \textsf{biblatex} field, left undefined by the standard
+styles. In \textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes} it has four very specific
+uses, the first three of which I have designed in order to maintain,
+as much as possible, backward compatibility with the standard styles.
+First, in \textsf{article}, \textsf{periodical}, and \textsf{review}
+entries, the field allows you to differentiate between scholarly
+\enquote{journals,} on the one hand, and \enquote{magazines} and
+\enquote{newspapers} on the other. Usage is fairly simple: you need
+to put the exact string \texttt{magazine} into the
+\textsf{entrysubtype} field if you are citing one of the latter two
+types of source, whereas if your source is a \enquote{journal,} then
+you need do nothing.
+
+\mylittlespace The second use involves references to works from
+classical antiquity and, according to the \emph{Manual}, from the
+Middle Ages, as well. When you cite such a work using the traditional
+divisions into books, sections, lines, etc., divisions which are
+presumed to be the same across all editions, then you need to put the
+exact string \texttt{classical} into the \textsf{entrysubtype} field.
+This has no effect in long notes or in the bibliography, but it does
+affect the formatting of short notes, where it suppresses some of the
+punctuation. Ordinarily, you will use this toggle in a \textsf{book}
+or a \textsf{bookinbook} entry, but it is possible that a journal
+might well also present an edition of such a work. Given the
+tradition of using italics for the titles of such works, this may
+require using a \textsf{titleaddon} field (with hand formatting)
+instead of a \textsf{title}. If you wish to reference a classical or
+medieval work by the page numbers of a particular, non-standard
+edition, then you shouldn't use the \textsf{entrysubtype} toggle.
+Also, and the specification is reasonably clear about this, works from
+the Renaissance and later, even if cited by the traditional divisions,
+have short notes formatted normally, and therefore don't need an
+\textsf{entrysubtype} field. (See \emph{Manual} 17.250--262;
+aristotle:metaphy:gr, plato:republic:gr; euripides:orestes is an
+example of a translation cited by page number in a modern edition.)
+
+\mylittlespace The third use occurs in \textsf{misc} entries. If such
+an entry contains no \textsf{entrysubtype} field, then the citation
+will be treated just as the standard \textsf{biblatex} styles would,
+including the use of italics for the \textsf{title}. Any string at
+all in \textsf{entrysubtype} tells \textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes} to
+treat the source as part of an unpublished archive. A \textsf{misc}
+entry with \textsf{entrysubtype} defined is the least formatted of all
+those specified by the \emph{Manual} --- see
+section~\ref{sec:entrytypes} above under \textbf{misc} for all the
+details on how these citations work.
+
+\mylittlespace Fourth, and finally, the field can be defined in the
+new \textsf{artwork} entry type in order to refer to a work from
+antiquity whose title you do not wish to be italicized. Please see
+the documentation of \textsf{artwork} above for the details.
+
+\mybigspace As \mymarginpar{\textbf{foreword}} with the
+\textsf{afterword} field above, \textsf{foreword} will in general
+function as it does in standard \textsf{biblatex}. Like
+\textsf{afterword} (and \textsf{introduction}), however, it has a
+special meaning in a \textsf{suppbook} entry, where you simply need to
+define it somehow (and leave \textsf{afterword} and
+\textsf{introduction} undefined) to make a foreword the focus of a
+citation.
+
+\mybigspace A \mymarginpar{\textbf{holder}} standard \textsf{biblatex}
+field for identifying a \textsf{patent}'s holder(s), if they differ
+from the \textsf{author}. The \emph{Manual} has nothing to say on the
+subject, but \textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes} prints it (them), in
+parentheses, just after the author(s).
+
+%\enlargethispage{\baselineskip}
+
+\mybigspace Standard \mymarginpar{\textbf{howpublished}}
+\textsf{biblatex} field, mainly applicable in the \textsf{booklet}
+entry type, where it replaces the \textsf{publisher}. I have also
+retained it in the \textsf{misc} and \textsf{unpublished} entry types,
+for historical reasons.
+
+\mybigspace Standard \mymarginpar{\textbf{institution}}
+\textsf{biblatex} field. In the \textsf{thesis} entry type, it will
+usually identify the university for which the thesis was written,
+while in a \textsf{report} entry it may identify any sort of
+institution issuing the report.
+
+\mybigspace As \mymarginpar{\textbf{introduction}} with the
+\textsf{afterword} and \textsf{foreword} fields above,
+\textsf{introduction} will in general function as it does in standard
+\textsf{biblatex}. Like those fields, however, it has a special
+meaning in a \textsf{suppbook} entry, where you simply need to define
+it somehow (and leave \textsf{afterword} and \textsf{foreword}
+undefined) to make an introduction the focus of a citation.
+
+\mybigspace Standard \mymarginpar{\textbf{isbn}} \textsf{biblatex}
+field, for providing the International Standard Book Number of a
+publication. Not typically required by the \emph{Manual}.
+
+\mybigspace Standard \mymarginpar{\textbf{isrn}} \textsf{biblatex}
+field, for providing the International Standard Technical Report
+Number of a report. Only relevant to the \textsf{report} entry type,
+and not typically required by the \emph{Manual}.
+
+\mybigspace Standard \mymarginpar{\textbf{issn}} \textsf{biblatex}
+field, for providing the International Standard Serial Number of a
+periodical in an \textsf{article} or a \textsf{periodical} entry. Not
+typically required by the \emph{Manual}.
+
+\mybigspace Standard \mymarginpar{\textbf{issue}} \textsf{biblatex}
+field, designed for \textsf{article}, \textsf{periodical}, or
+\textsf{review} entries identified by something like \enquote{Spring}
+or \enquote{Summer} rather than by the usual \textsf{month} or
+\textsf{number} fields (brown:bremer).
+
+\mybigspace The \mymarginpar{\textbf{issuesubtitle}} subtitle for an
+\textsf{issuetitle} --- see next entry.
+
+\mybigspace Standard \mymarginpar{\textbf{issuetitle}}
+\textsf{biblatex} field, intended to contain the title of a special
+issue of any sort of periodical. If the reference is to one article
+within the special issue, then this field should be used in an
+\textsf{article} entry (conley:fifthgrade), whereas if you are citing
+the entire issue as a whole, then it would go in a \textsf{periodical}
+entry, instead (good:wholeissue). The \textsf{note} field is the
+proper place to identify the type of issue, e.g.,\ \texttt{special
+ issue}, with the initial letter lower-cased to enable automatic
+contextual capitalization.
+
+\mybigspace The \mymarginpar{\textbf{journalsubtitle}} subtitle for a
+\textsf{journaltitle} --- see next entry.
+
+\mybigspace Standard \mymarginpar{\textbf{journaltitle}}
+\textsf{biblatex} field, replacing the standard \textsc{Bib}\TeX\
+field \textsf{journal}, which, however, still works as an alias. It
+contains the name of any sort of periodical publication, and is found
+in the \textsf{article} and \textsf{review} entry types. In the case
+where a piece in an \textsf{article} or \textsf{review}
+(\textsf{entrysubtype} \texttt{magazine}) doesn't have an author,
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes} provides for this field to be used as
+the author. See above (section~\ref{sec:entrytypes}) under
+\textbf{article} for details. The lakeforester:pushcarts and
+nyt:trevorobit entries in \textsf{notes-test.bib} will give you some
+idea of how this works.
+
+\mybigspace This \mymarginpar{\textbf{keywords}} field is
+\textsf{biblatex}'s extremely powerful and flexible technique for
+filtering bibliography entries, allowing you to subdivide a
+bibliography according to just about any criteria you care to invent.
+See \textsf{biblatex.pdf} (3.10.4) for thorough documentation. In
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago}, the field can provide a convenient means to
+exclude certain entries from making their way into a bibliography. We
+have already seen (\textbf{letter}, above) how the \emph{Manual}
+(17.78) requires, in the case of published collections of letters,
+that when more than one letter from the same collected is cited, the
+bibliography should contain only a reference to the collection as a
+whole (white:ross:memo, white:russ, white:total). Similarly, when
+citing both an original text and its translation (see \textbf{userf},
+below), the \emph{Manual} (17.66) suggests including the original at
+the end of the translation's bibliography entry, a procedure which
+requires that the original not also be printed as a separate
+bibliography entry (furet:passing:eng, furet:passing:fr,
+aristotle:metaphy:trans, aristotle:metaphy:gr). Finally, citations of
+well-known reference works (like the \emph{Encyclopaedia Britannica},
+for example), need only be presented in notes, and not in the
+bibliography (17.238--239; ency:britannica, wikiped:bibtex; see
+\textsf{inreference}, above). In all these cases, I have suggested the
+inclusion of \texttt{original} in the \textsf{keywords} field, along
+with a \texttt{notkeyword=original} in the optional argument to the
+\cmd{printbibliography} command, though of course you can choose any
+key you wish.
+
+%\enlargethispage{\baselineskip}
+
+\mybigspace A \mymarginpar{\textbf{language}} standard
+\textsf{biblatex} field, designed to allow you to specify the
+language(s) in which a work is written. As a general rule, the
+Chicago style doesn't require you to provide this information, though
+it may well be useful for clarifying the nature of certain works, such
+as bilingual editions, for example. There is at least one situation,
+however, when the \emph{Manual} does specify this data, and that is
+when the title of a work is given in translation, even though no
+translation of the work has been published, something that might
+happen when a title is in a language deemed to be unparseable by a
+majority of your expected readership (17.65--67, 17.166, 17.177;
+pirumova, rozner:liberation). In such a case, you should provide the
+language(s) involved using this field, connecting multiple languages
+using the keyword \texttt{and}. (I have retained \textsf{biblatex's}
+\cmd{bibstring} mechanism here, which means that you can use the
+standard bibstrings or, if one doesn't exist for the language you
+need, just give the name of the language, capitalized as it should
+appear in your text. You can also mix these two modes inside one
+entry without apparent harm.)
+
+\mylittlespace An alternative arrangement suggested by the
+\emph{Manual} is to retain the original title of a piece but then to
+provide its translation, as well. If you choose this option, you'll
+need to make use of the \textbf{usere} field, on which see below. In
+effect, you'll probably only ever need to use one of these two fields
+in any given entry, and in fact \textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes} will
+only print one of them if both are present, preferring \textsf{usere}
+over \textsf{language} for this purpose (see kern and weresz). Note
+also that both of these fields are universally associated with the
+\textsf{title} of a work, rather than with a \textsf{booktitle} or a
+\textsf{maintitle}. If you need to attach a language or a translation
+to either of the latter two, you could probably manage it with special
+formatting inside those fields themselves.
+
+\mybigspace I \mymarginpar{\textbf{lista}} intend this field
+specifically for presenting citations from reference works that are
+arranged alphabetically, where the name of the item rather than a page
+or volume number should be given. The field is a \textsf{biblatex}
+list, which means you should separate multiple items with the keyword
+\texttt{and}. Each item receives its own set of quotation marks, and
+the whole list will be prefixed by the appropriate string
+(\enquote{s.v.,} \emph{sub verbo}, pl.\ \enquote{s.vv.}).
+\textsf{Biblatex-chicago-notes} will only print such a field in a
+\textsf{book} or an \textsf{inreference} entry, and you should look at
+the documentation of these entry types for further details. (See
+\emph{Manual} 17.238--239; ency:britannica, grove:sibelius,
+times:guide, wikiped:bibtex.)
+
+\mybigspace This \colmarginpar{\textbf{location}} is
+\textsf{biblatex}'s version of the usual \textsc{Bib}\TeX\ field
+\textsf{address}, though the latter is accepted as an alias if that
+simplifies the modification of older .bib files. According to the
+\emph{Manual} (17.99), a citation usually need only provide the first
+city listed on any title page, though a list of cities separated by
+the keyword \enquote{\texttt{and}} will be formatted appropriately.
+If the place of publication is unknown, you can use
+\cmd{autocap\{n\}.p.}\ instead (17.102), though in many or even most
+cases this isn't strictly necessary (17.32--34; virginia:plantation).
+For all cities, you should use the common English version of the name,
+if such exists (17.101).
+
+%\enlargethispage{\baselineskip}
+
+\mylittlespace Two more details need explanation here. In
+\textsf{article}, \textsf{periodical}, and \textsf{review} entries,
+there is usually no need for a \textsf{location} field, but
+\enquote{if a journal might be confused with another with a similar
+ title, or if it might not be known to the users of a bibliography,}
+then this field can present the place or institution where it is
+published (17.174, 17.196; lakeforester:pushcarts, kimluu:diethyl, and
+garrett). Less predictably, it is here that \emph{Manual} indicates
+that a particular book is a reprint edition (17.123), so in such a
+case you can use the \textsf{biblatex-chicago} macro \cmd{reprint},
+followed by a comma, space, and the location (aristotle:metaphy:gr,
+schweitzer:bach). (You can also now, somewhat more simply, just put
+the string \texttt{reprint} into the \textsf{pubstate} field to
+achieve the same result. See the \textsf{pubstate} documentation
+below.) The \textsf{origdate} field may be used to give the original
+date of publication, and of course more complicated situations should
+usually be amenable to inclusion in the \textsf{note} field
+(emerson:nature).
+
+\mybigspace The \mymarginpar{\textbf{mainsubtitle}} subtitle for a
+\textsf{maintitle} --- see next entry.
+
+\mybigspace The \mymarginpar{\textbf{maintitle}} main title for a
+multi-volume work, e.g., \enquote{Opera} or \enquote{Collected Works.}
+(See donne:var, euripides:orestes, harley:cartography, lach:asia,
+pelikan:chris\-tian, and plato:republic:gr.)
+
+\mybigspace An \mymarginpar{\textbf{maintitleaddon}} annex to the
+\textsf{maintitle}, for which see previous entry. Such an annex would
+be printed in the main text font. If your data begins with a word
+that would ordinarily only be capitalized at the beginning of a
+sentence, then simply ensure that that word is in lowercase, and
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes} will automatically do the right thing.
+
+\mybigspace Standard \mymarginpar{\textbf{month}} \textsf{biblatex}
+field, containing the month of publication. This should be an
+integer, i.e., \texttt{month=\{3\}} not \texttt{month=\{March\}}. See
+\textsf{date} for more information.
+
+\mybigspace This \mymarginpar{\textbf{namea}} is one of the fields
+\textsf{biblatex} provides for style writers to use, but which it
+leaves undefined itself. In \textsf{biblatex-chicago} it contains the
+name(s) of the editor(s) of a \textsf{title}, if the entry has a
+\textsf{booktitle} or \textsf{maintitle}, or both, in which situation
+the \textsf{editor} would be associated with one of these latter
+fields (donne:var). You should present names in this field exactly as
+you would those in an \textsf{author} or \textsf{editor} field, and
+the package will concatenate this field with \textsf{nameb} if they
+are identical. See under \textbf{editor} above for the full details.
+Cf.\ also \textsf{nameb}, \textsf{namec}, \textsf{translator}, and the
+macros \cmd{partedit}, \cmd{parttrans}, \cmd{parteditandtrans},
+\cmd{partcomp}, \cmd{parteditandcomp}, \cmd{parttransandcomp}, and
+\cmd{partedittransand\-comp}, for which see
+section~\ref{sec:formatcommands}.
+
+\mybigspace This \mymarginpar{\textbf{nameaddon}} field is provided by
+\textsf{biblatex}, though not used by the standard styles. In
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago}, it allows you to specify that an author's
+name is a pseudo\-nym, or to provide either the real name or the
+pseudonym itself, if the other is being provided in the
+\textsf{author} field. The abbreviation
+\enquote{\texttt{pseud.}\hspace{-2pt}}\ (always lowercase in English)
+is specified, either on its own or after the pseudonym
+(centinel:letters, creasey:ashe:blast, creasey:morton:hide,
+creasey:york:death, and le\-carre:quest); \cmd{bibstring\{pseudonym\}}
+does the work for you. See under \textbf{author} above for the full
+details.
+
+\mybigspace Like \mymarginpar{\textbf{nameb}} \textsf{namea}, above,
+this is a field left undefined by the standard \textsf{biblatex}
+styles. In \textsf{biblatex-chicago}, it contains the name(s) of the
+translator(s) of a \textsf{title}, if the entry has a
+\textsf{booktitle} or \textsf{maintitle}, or both, in which situation
+the \textsf{translator} would be associated with one of these latter
+fields (euripides:orestes). You should present names in this field
+exactly as you would those in an \textsf{author} or
+\textsf{translator} field, and the package will concatenate this field
+with \textsf{namea} if they are identical. See under the
+\textbf{translator} field below for the full details. Cf.\ also
+\textsf{namea}, \textsf{namec}, \textsf{origlanguage},
+\textsf{translator}, \textsf{userf} and the macros \cmd{partedit},
+\cmd{parttrans}, \cmd{parteditandtrans}, \cmd{partcomp},
+\cmd{parteditandcomp}, \cmd{parttransandcomp}, and
+\cmd{partedittransandcomp} in section~\ref{sec:formatcommands}.
+
+\mybigspace The \colmarginpar{\textbf{namec}} \emph{Manual} (17.41)
+specifies that works without an author may be listed under an editor,
+translator, or compiler, assuming that one is available, and it also
+specifies the strings to be used with the name(s) of compiler(s). All
+this suggests that the \emph{Manual} considers this to be standard
+information that should be made available in a bibliographic
+reference, so I have added that possibility to the many that
+\textsf{biblatex} already provides, such as the \textsf{editor},
+\textsf{translator}, \textsf{commentator}, \textsf{annotator}, and
+\textsf{redactor}, along with writers of an \textsf{introduction},
+\textsf{foreword}, or \textsf{afterword}. Since \textsf{biblatex.bst}
+doesn't offer a \textsf{compiler} field, I have adopted for this
+purpose the otherwise unused field \textsf{namec}. It is important to
+understand that, despite the analogous name, this field does not
+function like \textsf{namea} or \textsf{nameb}, but rather like
+\textsf{editor} or \textsf{translator}, and therefore if used will be
+associated with whichever title field these latter two would be were
+they present in the same entry. Identical fields among these three
+will be concatenated by the package, and concatenated too with the
+(usually) unnecessary commentator, annotator and the rest. Also
+please note that I've arranged the concatenation algorithms to include
+\textsf{namec} in the same test as \textsf{namea} and \textsf{nameb},
+so in this particular circumstance you can, if needed, make
+\textsf{namec} analogous to these two latter, \textsf{title}-only
+fields. (See above under \textbf{editortype} for details of how you
+may, in certain circumstances, use that field to identify a compiler.
+This method will be particularly useful if you don't need to
+concatenate the \textsf{namec} with any other role, because if you use
+the \textsf{editor} field \textsf{biblatex} will automatically attend
+to alphabetization and name-replacement in the bibliography, and will
+also provide a name for short notes.)
+
+\mylittlespace It might conceivably be necessary at some point to
+identify the compiler(s) of a \textsf{title} separate from the
+compiler(s) of a \textsf{booktitle} or \textsf{maintitle}, but for the
+moment I've run out of available \textsf{name} fields, so you'll have
+to fall back on the \cmd{partcomp} macro or the related
+\cmd{parteditandcomp}, \cmd{parttransandcomp}, and
+\cmd{partedittransandcomp}, on which see Commands
+(section~\ref{sec:formatcommands}) below. (Future releases may be
+able to remedy this.) It may be as well to mention here too that of
+the three names that can be substituted for the missing
+\textsf{author} at the head of an entry,
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes} will choose an \textsf{editor} if
+present, then a \textsf{translator} if present, falling back to
+\textsf{namec} only in the absence of the other two, and assuming that
+the fields aren't identical, and therefore to be concatenated. In a
+change from the previous behavior, these algorithms also now test for
+\textsf{namea} or \textsf{nameb}, which will be used instead of
+\textsf{editor} and \textsf{translator}, respectively, giving the
+package the greatest likelihood of finding a name to place at the head
+of an entry. Please remember, however, that if this name is supplied
+by any of the non-standard fields \textsf{name[a-c]}, then you will
+need to provide a \textsf{sortkey} to assist with alphabetization in
+the bibliography, and also a \textsf{shortauthor} for the short note
+form.
+
+\mybigspace As \mymarginpar{\textbf{note}} in standard
+\textsf{biblatex}, this field allows you to provide bibliographic data
+that doesn't easily fit into any other field. In this sense, it's
+very like \textsf{addendum}, but the information provided here will be
+printed just before the publication data. (See chaucer:alt,
+chaucer:liferecords, cook:sotweed, emerson:nature, and rodman:walk for
+examples of this usage in action.) It also has a specialized use in
+all the periodical types (\textsf{article}, \textsf{periodical}, and
+\textsf{review}), where it holds supplemental information about a
+\textsf{journaltitle}, such as \enquote{special issue}
+(conley:fifthgrade, good:wholeissue). In all uses, if your data
+begins with a word that would ordinarily only be capitalized at the
+beginning of a sentence, then simply ensure that that word is in
+lowercase, and \textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes} will automatically do
+the right thing. Cf.\ \textsf{addendum}.
+
+\mybigspace This \colmarginpar{\textbf{number}} is a standard
+\textsf{biblatex} field, containing the number of a
+\textsf{journaltitle} in an \textsf{article} or \textsf{review} entry,
+the number of a \textsf{title} in a \textsf{periodical} entry, or the
+volume/number of a book in a \textsf{series}. Generally, in an
+\textsf{article}, \textsf{periodical}, or \textsf{review} entry, this
+will be a plain cardinal number, but in such entries
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago} now does the right thing if you have a list
+or range of numbers (unsigned:ranke). In any \textsf{book}-like entry
+the field may well contain considerably more information, including
+even a reference to \enquote{2nd ser.,} for example, while the
+\textsf{series} field in such an entry will contain the name of the
+series, rather than a number. This field is also the place for the
+patent number in a \textsf{patent} entry. Cf.\ \textsf{issue} and
+\textsf{series}. (See \emph{Manual} 17.90--95 and boxer:china,
+palmatary:pottery, wauchope:ceramics; 17.163 and beattie:crime,
+conley:fifthgrade, friedman:learning, garrett, gibbard, hlatky:hrt,
+mcmillen:antebellum, rozner:liberation, warr:ellison.)
+
+\mylittlespace \textbf{NB}: This may be an opportune place to point
+out that the \emph{Manual} (17.129) prefers arabic to roman numerals
+in most circumstances (chapters, volumes, series numbers, etc.), even
+when such numbers might be roman in the work cited. The obvious
+exception is page numbers, in which roman numerals indicate that the
+citation came from the front matter, and should therefore be retained.
+Another possible exception is in references to works \enquote{with
+ many and complex divisions,} in which \enquote{a mixture of roman
+ and arabic} may be \enquote{easier to disentangle.}
+
+\mybigspace A \mymarginpar{\textbf{options}} standard
+\textsf{biblatex} field, for setting certain options on a per-entry
+basis rather than globally. Information about some of the more common
+options may be found above under \textsf{author} and below in
+section~\ref{sec:options}. See chaucer:alt, eliot:pound,
+herwign:office, lecarre:quest, and mla:style for examples of the field
+in use.
+
+\mybigspace A \mymarginpar{\textbf{organization}} standard
+\textsf{biblatex} field, retained mainly for use in the \textsf{misc},
+\textsf{online}, and \textsf{manual} entry types, where it may be of
+use to specify a publishing body that might not easily fit in other
+categories. In \textsf{biblatex}, it is also used to identify the
+organization sponsoring a conference in a \textsf{proceedings} or
+\textsf{inproceedings} entry, and I have retained this as a
+possibility, though the \emph{Manual} is silent on the matter.
+
+\mybigspace This \colmarginpar{\textbf{origdate}} is a new
+\textsf{biblatex} field, replacing the obsolete \textsf{origyear}, and
+allowing more than one full specification for those references which
+need to provide more than one date. As with the analogous
+\textsf{date} field, you provide the date (or range of dates) in
+\textsc{iso}8601 format, i.e., \texttt{yyyy-mm-dd}. In most entry
+types, you would use \textsf{origdate} to provide the date of first
+publication of a work, most usually needed only in the case of reprint
+editions, but also recommended by the \emph{Manual} for electronic
+editions of older works (17.123, 17.146--7; aristotle:metaphy:gr,
+emerson:nature, james:ambassadors, schweitzer:bach). In the
+\textsf{letter} and \textsf{misc} (with \textsf{entrysubtype}) entry
+types, the \textsf{origdate} identifies when a letter (or similar) was
+written. In such \textsf{misc} entries, some
+\enquote{non-letter-like} materials (like interviews) need the
+\textsf{date} field for this purpose, while in \textsf{letter} entries
+the \textsf{date} applies to the publication of the whole collection.
+If such a published collection were itself a reprint, improvisation in
+the \textsf{location} field might be able to rescue the situation.
+(See jackson:paulina:letter, white:ross:memo, white:russ, and
+white:total for how \textsf{letter} entries usually work; creel:house
+shows the field in action in a \textsf{misc} entry, while
+spock:interview uses \textsf{date}.)
+
+\mylittlespace Because the \textsf{origdate} field only accepts
+numbers, some improvisation may be needed if you wish to include
+\enquote{n.d.}\ (\cmd{bibstring\{nodate\}}) in an entry. In
+\textsf{letter} and \textsf{misc}, this information can be placed in
+\textsf{titleaddon}, but in other entry types you may need to use the
+\textsf{location} field.
+
+\mybigspace In \mymarginpar{\textbf{origlanguage}} keeping with the
+\emph{Manual}'s specifications, I have fairly thoroughly redefined
+\textsf{biblatex}'s facilities for treating translations. The
+\textsf{origtitle} and \textsf{origlocation} fields aren't used, while
+the \textsf{language} and \textsf{origdate} fields have been
+press-ganged for other duties. The \textsf{origlanguage} field, for
+its part, retains a dual role in presenting translations in a
+bibliography. The details of the \emph{Manual}'s suggested treatment
+when both a translation and an original are cited may be found below
+under \textbf{userf}. Here, however, I simply note that the
+introductory string used to connect the translation's citation with
+the original's is \enquote{Originally published as,} which I suggest
+may well be inaccurate in a great many cases, as for instance when
+citing a work from classical antiquity, which will most certainly not
+\enquote{originally} have been published in the Loeb Classical
+Library. Although not, strictly speaking, authorized by the
+\emph{Manual}, I have provided another way to introduce the original
+text, using the \textsf{origlanguage} field, which must be provided
+\emph{in the entry for the translation, not the original text}
+(aristotle:metaphy:trans). If you put one of the standard
+\textsf{biblatex} bibstrings there (enumerated below), then the entry
+will work properly across multiple languages. Otherwise, just put the
+name of the language there, localized as necessary, and
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago} will eschew \enquote{Originally published
+ as} in favor of, e.g., \enquote{Greek edition:} or \enquote{French
+ edition:}. This has no effect in notes, where only the work cited
+--- original or translation --- will be printed, but it may help to
+make the \emph{Manual}'s suggestions for the bibliography more
+palatable.
+
+\mylittlespace That was the first usage, in keeping at least with the
+spirit of the \emph{Manual}. I have also, perhaps less in keeping
+with that specification, retained some of \textsf{biblatex}'s
+functionality for this field. If an entry doesn't have a
+\textsf{userf} field, and therefore won't be combining a text and its
+translation in the bibliography, you can also use
+\textsf{origlanguage} as Lehman intended it, so that instead of
+saying, e.g., \enquote{translated by X,} the entry will read
+\enquote{translated from the German by X.} The \emph{Manual} doesn't
+mention this, but it may conceivably help avoid certain ambiguities in
+some citations. As in \textsf{biblatex}, if you wish to use this
+functionality, you have to provide \emph{not} the name of the
+language, but rather a bibliography string, which may, at the time of
+writing, be one of \texttt{american}, \texttt{brazilian},
+\texttt{danish}, \texttt{dutch}, \texttt{english}, \texttt{french},
+\texttt{german}, \texttt{greek}, \texttt{italian}, \texttt{latin},
+\texttt{norwegian}, \texttt{portuguese}, \texttt{spanish}, or
+\texttt{swedish}, to which I've added \texttt{russian}.
+
+%\enlargethispage{\baselineskip}
+
+\mybigspace NB: \mymarginpar{\textbf{origlocation}} This field is now
+obsolete, and has, as announced previously, been replaced by
+\textsf{lista}, which see. Please update your .bib files accordingly.
+
+\mybigspace This \mymarginpar{\textbf{origyear}} field is, as of
+\textsf{biblatex} 0.9, obsolete. It is ignored if it appears in a
+.bib file.
+
+\mybigspace This \mymarginpar{\textbf{pages}} is the standard
+\textsf{biblatex} field for providing page references. In many
+\textsf{article} and \textsf{review} entries you'll find this contains
+something other than a page number, e.g. a section name or edition
+specification (17.188, 17.191, 17.202; kozinn:review, nyt:obittrevor,
+nyt:trevorobit). Of course, the same may be true of almost any sort
+of entry, though perhaps with less frequency. Curious readers may
+wish to look at brown:bremer (17.172) for an example of a
+\textsf{pages} field used to facilitate reference to a two-part
+journal article. Cf.\ \textsf{number} for more information on the
+\emph{Manual}'s preferences regarding the formatting of numerals;
+\textsf{bookpagination} and \textsf{pagination} provide details about
+\textsf{biblatex's} mechanisms for specifying what sort of division a
+given \textsf{pages} field contains; and \textsf{usera} discusses a
+different way to present the section information pertaining to a
+newspaper article.
+
+\mybigspace This, \mymarginpar{\textbf{pagination}} a standard
+\textsf{biblatex} field, allows you automatically to prefix the
+appropriate identifying string to information you provide in the
+\textsf{postnote} field of a citation command, whereas
+\textsf{bookpagination} allows you to prefix a string to the
+\textsf{pages} field. Please see \textbf{bookpagination} above for
+all the details on this functionality, as aside from the difference
+just mentioned the two fields are equivalent.
+
+\mybigspace Standard \mymarginpar{\textbf{part}} \textsf{biblatex}
+field, which identifies physical parts of a single logical volume in
+\textsf{book}-like entries, not in periodicals. It has the same
+purpose in \textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes}, but because the
+\emph{Manual} (17.88) calls such a thing a \enquote{book} and not a
+\enquote{part,} the string printed in notes and bibliography will, at
+least in English, be \enquote{\texttt{bk.}\hspace{-2pt}}\ instead of
+the plain dot between volume number and part number
+(harley:cartography, lach:asia). This field should only be used in
+association with a \textsf{volume} number, so if you need to identify
+\enquote{parts} or \enquote{books} that are part of a published
+\textsf{series}, for example, then you'll need to use a different
+field, (which in this case would be \textsf{number}
+[palmatary:pottery]). Cf.\ \textsf{volume}.
+
+\mybigspace Standard \mymarginpar{\textbf{publisher}}
+\textsf{biblatex} field. Remember that \enquote{\texttt{and}} is a
+keyword for connecting multiple publishers, so if a publisher's name
+contains \enquote{and,} then you should either use the ampersand (\&)
+or enclose the whole name in additional braces. (See \emph{Manual}
+17.103--114; aristotle:metaphy:gr, cohen:schiff, creasey:ashe:blast,
+dunn:revolutions.)
+
+\mylittlespace There are, as one might expect, a couple of further
+subtleties involved here. Ordinarily, two publishers will be
+separated by a forward slash in both notes and bibliography, but if a
+company issues \enquote{certain books through a special publishing
+ division or under a special imprint,} then the two names will be
+separated by a comma, which you will need to provide in the
+\textsf{publisher} field. The \emph{Manual}'s example (17.112) is
+\enquote{\texttt{Ohio University Press, Swallow Press},} which would
+cause \textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes} no problems. If a book has two
+co-publishers, \enquote{usually in different countries,} (17.113) then
+the simplest thing to do is to choose one, probably the nearest one
+geographically. If you feel it necessary to include both, then
+levistrauss:savage demonstrates one way of doing so, using a
+combination of the \textsf{publisher} and \textsf{location} fields.
+Finally, if the publisher is unknown, then the \emph{Manual}
+recommends (17.109) simply using the place (if known) and the date.
+If for some reason you need to indicate the absence of a publisher,
+the abbreviation given by the \emph{Manual} is \texttt{n.p.}, though
+this can also stand for \enquote{no place.} Some style guides
+apparently suggest using \texttt{s.n.}\,(= \emph{sine nomine}) to
+specify the lack of a publisher, but the \emph{Manual} doesn't mention
+this.
+
+\mybigspace Due \colmarginpar{\textbf{pubstate}} to specific
+requirements in the author-date style, I have implemented this field
+there as a way of providing accurate citations of reprinted books. As
+the functionality seemed useful, I have also, with this release,
+included some of it in \textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes}. In previous
+releases you could identify a reprint by placing
+\cmd{bibstring\{reprint\}} in the \textsf{location} field, followed by
+a comma, and the style would print the appropriate string in notes and
+bibliography. Now, if it is more convenient, easier to remember, or
+if you want to reuse your .bib database for the author-date style, you
+can simply put the string \texttt{reprint} into the \textsf{pubstate}
+field, and the package will take care of everything for you. Both of
+these methods will now work just fine, but please choose only one per
+entry, otherwise the string will be printed twice. Currently, if you
+put anything else in the \textsf{pubstate} field, it will silently be
+ignored, but this may change in future releases.
+
+\mybigspace I \mymarginpar{\textbf{redactor}} have implemented this
+field just as \textsf{biblatex}'s standard styles do, even though the
+\emph{Manual} doesn't actually mention it. It may be useful for some
+purposes. Cf.\ \textsf{annotator} and \textsf{commentator}.
+
+\mybigspace \textbf{NB:} \mymarginpar{\textbf{reprinttitle}}
+\textbf{Please note that this feature is in an alpha state, and that
+ I'm contemplating using a different field in the future for this
+ functionality. I include it here in the hope that it might receive
+ some testing in the meantime.} At the request of Will Small, I have
+included a means of providing the original publication details of an
+essay or a chapter that you are citing from a subsequent reprint,
+e.g., a \emph{Collected Essays} volume. In such a case, at least
+according to the \emph{Manual} (17.73), such details needn't be
+provided in notes, only in the bibliography, and then only if these
+details are \enquote{of particular interest.} The data would follow
+an introductory phrase like \enquote{originally published as,} making
+the problem strictly parallel to that of including details of a work
+in the original language alongside the details of its translation. I
+have addressed the latter problem with the \textsf{userf} field, which
+provides a sort of cross-referencing method for this purpose, and
+\textsf{reprinttitle} works in \emph{exactly} the same way. In the
+.bib entry for the reprint you include a cross-reference to the cite
+key of the original location using the \textsf{reprinttitle} field
+(which it may help mnemonically to think of as a \enquote{reprinted
+ title} field). The main difference between the two forms is that
+\textsf{userf} prints all but the \textsf{author} of the original
+work, whereas \textsf{reprinttitle} suppresses both the
+\textsf{author} and the \textsf{title} of the original, giving only
+the more general details, beginning with, e.g., the
+\textsf{journaltitle} or \textsf{booktitle} and continuing from there.
+The string prefacing this information will be \enquote{Originally
+ published in.} Please see the documentation on \textsf{userf} below
+for all the details on how to create .bib entries for presenting your
+data.
+
+\mybigspace A \mymarginpar{\textbf{series}} standard \textsf{biblatex}
+field, usually just a number in an \textsf{article},
+\textsf{periodical}, or \textsf{review} entry, almost always the name
+of a publication series in \textsf{book}-like entries. If you need to
+attach further information to the \textsf{series} name in a
+\textsf{book}-like entry, then the \textsf{number} field is the place
+for it, whether it be a volume, a number, or even something like
+\enquote{2nd ser.} or \enquote{\cmd{bibstring\{oldseries\}}.} Of
+course, you can also use \cmd{bibstring\{oldseries\}} or
+\cmd{bibstring\{newseries\}} in an \textsf{article} entry, but there
+you would place it in the \textsf{series} field itself. (In fact, the
+\textsf{series} field in \textsf{article}, \textsf{periodical}, and
+\textsf{review} entries is one of the places where \textsf{biblatex}
+allows you just to use the plain bibstring \texttt{oldseries}, for
+example, rather than making you type \cmd{bibstring\{oldseries\}}.
+The \textsf{type} field in \textsf{manual}, \textsf{patent},
+\textsf{report}, and \textsf{thesis} entries also has this
+auto-detection mechanism in place; see the discussion of
+\cmd{bibstring} below for details.) In whatever entry type, these
+bibstrings produce the required abbreviation, which thankfully is the
+same in both notes and bibliography. (For books and similar entries,
+see \emph{Manual} 17.90--95; boxer:china, browning:aurora,
+palmatary:pottery, plato:republic:gr, wauchope:ceramics; for
+periodicals, see 17.178; garaud:gatine, sewall:letter.) Cf.\
+\textsf{number} for more information on the \emph{Manual}'s
+preferences regarding the formatting of numerals.
+
+\mybigspace This \colmarginpar{\textbf{shortauthor}} is a standard
+\textsf{biblatex} field, but \textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes} makes
+considerably grea\-ter use of it than the standard styles. For the
+purposes of the Chicago style, the field provides the name to be used
+in the short form of a footnote. In the vast majority of cases, you
+don't need to specify it, because the \textsf{biblatex} system selects
+the author's last name from the \textsf{author} field and uses it in
+such a reference, but in a few cases this default behavior won't work.
+In books without an author and listed under an editor,
+\textsf{biblatex} does the right thing and uses the surname of the
+editor in a short note (zukowsky:chicago), but if the work is listed
+under a compiler (or any of the non-standard names
+\textsf{name[a-c]}), you need to provide that person's name in
+\textsf{shortauthor}, and also remember to provide a \textsf{sortkey}
+to make sure the work will be alphabetized correctly in the
+bibliography. (The current version of \textsf{biblatex} will now
+automatically alphabetize by \textsf{translator} if that is the name
+given at the head of an entry.) You no longer, however, need to
+provide one in an author-less \textsf{article} or \textsf{review}
+entry (\textsf{entrysubtype} \texttt{magazine}), where you allow
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes} to use the \textsf{journaltitle} as
+the author, nor in author-less \textsf{manual} entries, where the
+\textsf{organization} will be so used. The style now automatically
+provides the same substitution in the short note form, though you'll
+still need to help the alphabetization routines by providing a
+\textsf{sortkey} field in such cases (dyna:browser, gourmet:052006,
+lakeforester:pushcarts, nyt:trevorobit).
+
+\mylittlespace As mentioned under \textsf{editortype}, the
+\emph{Manual} (17.41) recommends against providing the identifying
+string (e.g., ed.\ or trans.)\ in the short note form, and
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes} follows their recommendation. If you
+need to provide these strings in such a citation, then you'll have to
+do so by hand in the \textsf{shortauthor} field, or in the
+\textsf{shorteditor} field, whichever you are using.
+
+\mybigspace Like \mymarginpar{\textbf{shorteditor}}
+\textsf{shortauthor}, a field to provide a name for a short footnote,
+in this case for, e.g., a \textsf{collection} entry that typically
+lacks an author. The \textsf{shortauthor} field works just as well in
+most situations, but if you have set \texttt{useauthor=false} (and not
+\texttt{useeditor=false}) in an entry's \textsf{options} field, then
+only \textsf{shorteditor} will be recognized. Cf.\
+\textsf{editortype}, above.
+
+\mybigspace This \mymarginpar{\textbf{shorthand}} is
+\textsf{biblatex}'s mechanism for using abbreviations in place of the
+usual short note form, and I've left it effectively unmodified in
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes}, apart from a few formatting tweaks.
+Any entry which contains such a field will produce a normal first
+note, either long or short according to your package options,
+informing the reader that the work will hereafter be cited by this
+abbreviation. As in \textsf{biblatex}, the \cmd{printshorthands}
+command will produce a formatted list of abbreviations for reference
+purposes, a list which the \emph{Manual} suggests should be placed
+either in the front matter (when using footnotes) or before the
+endnotes, in case these are used. (See 16.39--40, and also
+\textsf{biblatex.pdf} for more information.)
+
+\mylittlespace As I mentioned above under \textbf{crossref}, extra
+care is needed when using shorthands with cross-references, and I
+would avoid them in all parent entries, at least in the current state
+of \textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes}.
+
+\mybigspace A \mymarginpar{\textbf{shorttitle}} standard
+\textsf{biblatex} field, primarily used to provide an abbreviated
+title for short notes. In \textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes}, you need
+to take particular care with \textsf{letter} entries, where, as
+explained above, the \emph{Manual} requires a special format
+(\enquote{\texttt{to Recipient}}). (See 17.76--78;
+jackson:paulina:letter, white:ross:memo, white:russ.) Some
+\textsf{misc} entries (with an \textsf{entrysubtype}) also need
+special attention. (See creel:house, where the full title is used as
+the shortauthor + shorttitle by putting \cmd{isdot} into the
+\textsf{shortauthor} field.) Remember, also, that the generic titles
+in \textsf{review} and \textsf{misc} entries may not want
+capitalization in all contexts, so, as with the \textsf{title} field,
+if you begin a \textsf{shorttitle} with a lowercase letter the style
+will do the right thing (barcott:review, bundy:macneil,
+Clemens:letter, kozinn:review, ratliff:review, unsigned:ranke).
+
+%\enlargethispage{\baselineskip}
+
+\mybigspace A \mymarginpar{\textbf{sortkey}} standard
+\textsf{biblatex} field, designed to allow you to specify how you want
+an entry alphabetized in a bibliography. In general, if an entry
+doesn't turn up where you expect or want it, this field should provide
+the solution. More particularly, entries without an \textsf{author}
+or an \textsf{editor}, or with a corporate author beginning with the
+definite or indefinite article, will usually require your assistance
+in this way (chaucer:alt, cotton:manufacture, gourmet:052006,
+lakeforester:pushcarts, nyt:obittrevor, nyt:trevorobit, silver:gawain,
+unsigned:ranke, virginia:plantation). Lehman also provides
+\textbf{sortname}, \textbf{sorttitle}, and \textbf{sortyear} for more
+fine-grained control. Please consult \textsf{biblatex.pdf} for the
+details.
+
+\mybigspace The \mymarginpar{\textbf{subtitle}} subtitle for a
+\textsf{title} --- see next entry.
+
+\mybigspace In \mymarginpar{\textbf{title}} the vast majority of
+cases, this field works just as it always has in \textsc{Bib}\TeX, and
+just as it does in \textsf{biblatex}. Nearly every entry will have
+one, the most likely exceptions being \textsf{incollection} or
+\textsf{online} entries with a merely generic title, instead of a
+specific one (centinel:letters, powell:email). The main source of
+difficulties flows from the \emph{Manual}'s rules for formatting
+\textsf{titles}, rules which also hold for \textsf{booktitles} and
+\textsf{maintitles}. The whole point of using a
+\textsc{Bib}\TeX-based system is for it to do the formatting for you,
+and in most cases \textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes} does just that,
+surrounding titles with quotation marks, italicizing them, or
+occasionally just leaving them alone. When, however, a title is
+quoted within a title, then you need to know some of the rules. A
+summary here should serve to clarify them, and help you to understand
+when \textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes} might need your help in order to
+comply with them.
+
+\mylittlespace The internal rules of \textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes}
+are as follows:
+
+\begin{description}
+\item[\qquad Italics:] \textsf{booktitle}, \textsf{maintitle}, and
+ \textsf{journaltitle} in all entry types; \textsf{title} of
+ \textsf{artwork}, \textsf{book}, \textsf{bookinbook},
+ \textsf{booklet}, \textsf{collection}, \textsf{inbook},
+ \textsf{manual}, \textsf{misc} (with no \textsf{entrysubtype}),
+ \textsf{periodical}, \textsf{proceedings}, \textsf{report},
+ \textsf{suppbook}, and \textsf{suppcollection} entry types.
+\item[\qquad Quotation Marks:] \textsf{title} of \textsf{article},
+ \textsf{image}, \textsf{incollection}, \textsf{inproceedings},
+ \textsf{online}, \textsf{patent}, \textsf{periodical},
+ \textsf{thesis}, and \textsf{unpublished} entry types,
+ \textsf{issuetitle} in \textsf{article}, \textsf{periodical}, and
+ \textsf{review} entry types.
+\item[\qquad Unformatted:] \textsf{booktitleaddon},
+ \textsf{maintitleaddon}, and \textsf{titleaddon} in all entry types,
+ \textsf{title} of \textsf{letter}, \textsf{misc} (with an
+ \textsf{entrysubtype}), \textsf{review}, and \textsf{suppperiodical}
+ entry types.
+\end{description}
+
+Now, the rules for which entry type to use for which sort of work tend
+to be fairly straightforward, but in cases of doubt you can consult
+section \ref{sec:entrytypes} above, the examples in
+\textsf{notes-test.bib}, or go to the \emph{Manual} itself,
+8.164--210. Assuming, then, that you want to present a title within a
+title, and you know what sort of formatting each of the two would, on
+its own, require, then the following rules apply:
+
+\begin{enumerate}
+\item Inside an italicized title, all other titles are enclosed in
+ quotation marks and italicized, so in such cases all you need to do
+ is provide the quotation marks using \cmd{mkbibquote}, which will
+ take care of any following punctuation that needs to be brought
+ within the closing quotation mark(s) (17.58; donne:var,
+ mchugh:wake).
+\item Inside a quoted title, you should present another title as it
+ would appear if it were on its own, so in such cases you'll need to
+ do the formatting yourself. Within the double quotes of the title
+ another quoted title would take single quotes --- the
+ \cmd{mkbibquote} command does this for you automatically, and also,
+ I repeat, takes care of any following punctuation that needs to be
+ brought within the closing quotation mark(s). (See 17.157; garrett,
+ loften:hamlet, murphy:silent, white:callimachus.)
+\item Inside a plain title (most likely in a \textsf{review} entry or
+ a \textsf{titleaddon} field), you should present another title as it
+ would appear on its own, once again formatting it yourself using
+ \cmd{mkbibemph} or \cmd{mkbibquote}. (barcott:review, gibbard,
+ osborne:poison, ratliff:review, unsigned:ranke).
+\end{enumerate}
+
+The \emph{Manual} provides a few more rules, as well. A word normally
+italicized in text should also be italicized in a quoted or plain-text
+title, but should be in roman (\enquote{reverse italics}) in an
+italicized title. A quotation used as a (whole) title (with or
+without a subtitle) retains its quotation marks when it is quoted or
+plain, but loses them when it is italicized (17.60, 17.157; lewis). A
+word or phrase in quotation marks, but that isn't a quotation, retains
+those marks in all title types (kimluu:diethyl).
+
+\mylittlespace Finally, please note that in all \textsf{review} (and
+\textsf{suppperiodical}) entries, and in \textsf{misc} entries with an
+\textsf{entrysubtype}, and only in those entries,
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes} will automatically capitalize the
+first word of the \textsf{title} after sentence-ending punctuation,
+assuming that such a \textsf{title} begins with a lowercase letter in
+your .bib database. See \textbf{\textbackslash autocap} below for
+more details.
+
+%\enlargethispage{-\baselineskip}
+
+\mybigspace Standard \mymarginpar{\textbf{titleaddon}}
+\textsf{biblatex} intends this field for use with additions to titles
+that may need to be formatted differently from the titles themselves,
+and \textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes} uses it in just this way, with the
+additional wrinkle that it can, if needed, replace the \textsf{title}
+entirely, and this in, effectively, any entry type, providing a fairly
+powerful, if somewhat complicated, tool for getting \textsc{Bib}\TeX\
+to do what you want (cf.\ centinel:letters, powell:email). This field
+will always be unformatted, that is, neither italicized nor placed
+within quotation marks, so any formatting you may need within it
+you'll need to provide manually yourself. The single exception to
+this rule is when your data begins with a word that would ordinarily
+only be capitalized at the beginning of a sentence, in which case you
+need then simply ensure that that word is in lowercase, and
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes} will automatically do the right thing.
+See\ \textbf{\textbackslash autocap}, below. (Cf.\ brown:bremer,
+osborne:poison, reaves:rosen, and white:ross:memo for examples where
+the field starts with a lowercase letter; morgenson:market provides an
+example where the \textsf{titleaddon} field, holding the name of a
+regular column in a newspaper, is capitalized, a situation that is
+handled as you would expect.)
+
+\mybigspace As \mymarginpar{\textbf{translator}} far as possible, I
+have implemented this field as \textsf{biblatex}'s standard styles do,
+but the requirements specified by the \emph{Manual} present certain
+complications that need explaining. Lehman points out in his
+documentation that the \textsf{translator} field will be associated
+with a \textsf{title}, a \textsf{booktitle}, or a \textsf{maintitle},
+depending on the sort of entry. More specifically,
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago} associates the \textsf{translator} with the
+most comprehensive of those titles, that is, \textsf{maintitle} if
+there is one, otherwise \textsf{booktitle}, otherwise \textsf{title},
+if the other two are lacking. In a large number of cases, this is
+exactly the correct behavior (adorno:benj, centinel:letters,
+plato:republic:gr, among others). Predictably, however, there are
+numerous cases that require, for example, an additional translator for
+one part of a collection or for one volume of a multi-volume work.
+For these cases I have provided the \textsf{nameb} field. You should
+format names for this field as you would for \textsf{author} or
+\textsf{editor}, and these names will always be associated with the
+\textsf{title} (euripides:orestes).
+
+\mylittlespace I have also provided a \textsf{namea} field, which
+holds the editor of a given \textsf{title} (euripides:orestes). If
+\textsf{namea} and \textsf{nameb} are the same,
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago} will concatenate them, just as
+\textsf{biblatex} already does for \textsf{editor},
+\textsf{translator}, and \textsf{namec} (i.e., the compiler).
+Furthermore, it is conceivable that a given entry will need separate
+translators for each of the three sorts of title. For this, and for
+various other tricky situations, there is the \cmd{parttrans} macro
+(and its siblings), designed to be used in a \textsf{note} field or in
+one of the \textsf{titleaddon} fields (ratliff:review). (Because the
+strings identifying a translator differ in notes and bibliography, one
+can't simply write them out in such a field, hence the need for a
+macro, which I discuss further in the commands section below
+[\ref{sec:formatcommands}].)
+
+\mylittlespace Finally, as I detailed above under \textbf{author}, in
+the absence of an \textsf{author} or an \textsf{editor}, the
+\textsf{translator} will be used at the head of an entry
+(silver:gawain), and the bibliography entry alphabetized by the
+translator's name, behavior that can be controlled with the
+\texttt{{usetranslator}} switch in the \textsf{options} field. Cf.\
+\textsf{author}, \textsf{editor}, \textsf{namea}, \textsf{nameb}, and
+\textsf{namec}.
+
+\mybigspace This \mymarginpar{\textbf{type}} is a standard
+\textsf{biblatex} field, and in its normal usage serves to identify
+the type of a \textsf{manual}, \textsf{patent}, \textsf{report}, or
+\textsf{thesis} entry. \textsf{Biblatex} 0.7 introduced the ability,
+in some circumstances, to use a bibstring without inserting it in a
+\cmd{bibstring} command, and in these entry types the \textsf{type}
+field works this way, allowing you simply to input, e.g.,
+\texttt{patentus} rather than \cmd{bibstring\{patentus\}}, though both
+will work. (See petroff:impurity; herwign:office, murphy:silent, and
+ross:thesis all demonstrate how the \textsf{type} field may sometimes
+be automatically set in such entries by using one of the standard
+entry-type aliases).
+
+\mylittlespace With the arrival of Lehman's remarkable
+punctuation-tracking code in \textsf{biblatex} 0.8, there can be
+almost no use for the \textsf{type} field as a switch for the
+\cmd{custpunct} macro, so I have been able to reuse it in order to
+generalize the functioning of the \textsf{suppbook} entry type, and of
+its alias \textsf{suppcollection}. In such entries, you can now use
+the \textsf{type} field to specify what sort of supplemental material
+you are citing, e.g., \enquote{\texttt{preface to}} or
+\enquote{\texttt{postscript to}.} Cf.\ \textsf{suppbook} above for the
+details. (See \emph{Manual} 17.74--75; polakow:afterw, prose:intro).
+
+\mylittlespace You can also use the \textsf{type} field in
+\textsf{artwork} and \textsf{image} entries to identify the medium of
+the artwork or photograph, e.g., \texttt{oil on canvas} or
+\texttt{albumen print}. If the first word in this field would
+normally only be capitalized at the beginning of a sentence, then
+leave it in lowercase in your .bib file and \textsf{biblatex} will
+automatically do the right thing in citations. Cf.\ \textsf{artwork}
+and \textsf{image}, above, for all the details. (See leo:madonna,
+bedford:photo.)
+
+%\enlargethispage{-\baselineskip}
+
+\mybigspace Standard \mymarginpar{\textbf{url}} \textsf{biblatex}
+field, it holds the url of an online publication, though you can
+provide one for all entry types. The required \LaTeX\ package
+\textsf{url} will ensure that your documents format such references
+properly, in the text and in the reference apparatus.
+
+\mybigspace Standard \mymarginpar{\textbf{urldate}} \textsf{biblatex}
+field, it identifies exactly when you accessed a given url. This
+field would contain the whole date, in \textsc{iso}8601 format
+(evanston:library, grove:sibelius, hlatky:hrt, osborne:poison,
+sirosh:visualcortex, wikiped:bibtex). Please note that the
+\textbf{urlday}, \textbf{urlmonth}, and \textbf{urlyear} fields are
+all now obsolete.
+
+\mybigspace A \mymarginpar{\textbf{usera}} supplemental
+\textsf{biblatex} field which functions in \textsf{biblatex-chicago}
+almost as a \enquote{\textsf{journaltitleaddon}} field. In
+\textsf{article}, \textsf{periodical}, and \textsf{review} entries
+with \textsf{entrysubtype} \texttt{magazine}, the contents of this
+field will be placed, unformatted and between commas, after the
+\textsf{journaltitle} and before the date. The main use is for
+identifying the broadcast network when you cite a radio or television
+program (bundy:macneil), though you may also want to use it to
+identify the section of a newspaper in which you've found a particular
+article (morgenson:market). (See \emph{Manual} 17.190, 17.207. As
+far as I can work out, newspaper section information may be placed
+either before the date [\textsf{usera}] or after it [\textsf{pages}].
+Cp. kozinn:review [17.202] and morgenson:market [17.190]. The choice
+would appear to be yours.)
+
+\mybigspace \textbf{NB:} \mymarginpar{\textbf{userb}} \textbf{this
+ field is now deprecated, mainly because it is very unlikely you will
+ have any further need for the \textbackslash custpunct macros. I
+ leave the code, and the instructions for how to use it, in place,
+ because it's barely possible that a need for it might still arise.}
+A supplemental \textsf{biblatex} field, with a very specific use in
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes}. If the occasion does arise when you
+need to supply some context-sensitive punctuation yourself, then
+usually the \cmd{custpunct} command will then be needed, controlled in
+certain circumstances by a toggle in the \textsf{type} field. If,
+however, you already need the \textsf{type} field for its regular
+usage in a \textsf{suppbook}, \textsf{manual}, \textsf{patent},
+\textsf{report}, or \textsf{thesis} entry, and if you need to control
+the \cmd{custpunct} with a toggle, then you'll have to use
+\cmd{custpunctb}, toggled by putting the exact string \texttt{plain}
+in \textsf{userb}.
+
+%\enlargethispage{\baselineskip}
+
+\mybigspace NB: \mymarginpar{\textbf{userd}} this field is now
+obsolete. If it appears in a .bib file it will be ignored.
+
+\mybigspace Another \mymarginpar{\textbf{usere}} supplemental
+\textsf{biblatex} field, which \textsf{biblatex-chicago} uses
+specifically to provide a translated \textsf{title} of a work,
+something that may be needed if you deem the original language
+unparseable by a significant portion of your likely readership. The
+\emph{Manual} offers two alternatives in such a situation: either you
+can translate the title and use that translation in your
+\textsf{title} field, providing the original language in
+\textsf{language}, or you can give the original title in
+\textsf{title} and the translation in \textsf{usere}. If you choose
+the latter, you may need to provide a \textsf{shorttitle} so that the
+short note form is also parseable. Cf.\ \textbf{language}, above.
+(See 17.65--67, 17.166, 17.177; kern, weresz.)
+
+%\enlargethispage{\baselineskip}
+
+\mybigspace This \mymarginpar{\textbf{userf}} is the last of the
+supplemental fields which \textsf{biblatex} provides, used by
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago} for a very specific purpose. When you cite
+both a translation and its original, the \emph{Manual} (17.66)
+recommends that, in the bibliography at least, you combine references
+to both texts in one entry, though the presentation in notes is pretty
+much up to you. In order to follow this specification, I have
+provided a third cross-referencing system (the others being
+\textsf{crossref} and \textsf{xref}), and have chosen the name
+\textsf{userf} because it might act as a mnemonic for its function.
+
+\mylittlespace In order to use this system, you should start by
+entering both the original and its translation into your .bib file,
+just as you normally would. The mechanism works for any entry type,
+and the two entries need not be of the same type. In the entry for
+the \emph{translation}, you put the cite key of the original into the
+\textsf{userf} field. In the \emph{original's} entry, you need to
+include a toggle in the \textsf{keywords} field that will prevent that
+entry from being printed separately in the bibliography --- I have
+chosen the string \texttt{original}, and use
+\texttt{notkeyword=original} in the \cmd{printbibliography} command,
+though you can use anything you want. In this standard case, the data
+for the translation will be printed first, followed by the string
+\texttt{originally published as}, followed by the original, author
+omitted, in what amounts to the same format that the \emph{Manual}
+uses for long footnotes (furet:passing:eng, furet:passing:fr). As
+explained above (\textbf{origlanguage}), I have also included a way to
+modify the string printed before the original. In the entry for the
+\emph{translation}, you put the original's language in
+\textsf{origlanguage}, and instead of \texttt{originally published
+ as}, you'll get \texttt{French edition:} or \texttt{Latin edition:},
+etc.\ (aristotle:metaphy:gr, aristotle:metaphy:trans).
+
+\mybigspace Standard \mymarginpar{\textbf{venue}} \textsf{biblatex}
+offers this field for use in \textsf{proceedings} and
+\textsf{inproceedings} entries, but I haven't yet implemented it,
+mainly because the \emph{Manual} has nothing to say about it. Perhaps
+the \textsf{organization} field could be used, for the moment,
+instead. Anything in a \textsf{venue} field will be ignored.
+
+\mybigspace Standard \mymarginpar{\textbf{version}} \textsf{biblatex}
+field, currently only available in \textsf{misc} and \textsf{patent}
+entries in \textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes}.
+
+\mybigspace Standard \mymarginpar{\textbf{volume}} \textsf{biblatex}
+field. It holds the volume of a \textsf{journaltitle} in
+\textsf{article} (and some \textsf{review}) entries, and also the
+volume of a multi-volume work in many other sorts of entry. Cf.\
+\textsf{part}.
+
+\mybigspace Standard \mymarginpar{\textbf{volumes}} \textsf{biblatex}
+field. It holds the total number of volumes of a multi-volume work,
+and its use in an entry triggers particular behavior in short notes
+referring to such an entry, which notes will not print any punctuation
+between the title of the work and the volume+page reference given in
+the optional postnote field of the relevant \cmd{cite} command
+(17.134; meredith:letters). If this behavior is inconvenient in a
+particular entry, you may need to provide a \textsf{shorttitle} field
+ending in an \cmd{addcomma}, though in such a case you'd need to
+ensure that the \cmd{cite} command's postnote field contained
+something, as otherwise the note would end, wrongly, with a comma.
+(The \emph{Manual} appears to be somewhat inconsistent on this
+question [cf.\ 16.47], so if this feature proves onerous in use I
+could remove it.)
+
+\mybigspace A \mymarginpar{\textbf{xref}} modified \textsf{crossref}
+field provided by \textsf{biblatex}. See \textbf{crossref}, above.
+
+\mybigspace Standard \mymarginpar{\textbf{year}} \textsf{biblatex}
+field. It usually identifies the year of publication, though unlike
+the \textsf{date} field it allows non-numeric input, so you can put
+\enquote{n.d.}\ (or, to be language agnostic,
+\cmd{bibstring\{nodate\}}) here if required, or indeed any other sort
+of non-numerical date information. If you can guess the date then you
+can include that guess in square brackets instead of, or after, the
+\enquote{n.d.}\ abbreviation. Cf.\ bedford:photo, clark:mesopot,
+ross:leo, thesis:madonna.
+
+\subsection{Commands}
+\label{sec:commands}
+
+In this section I shall attempt to document all those commands you may
+need when using \textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes} that I have either
+altered with respect to the standard provided by \textsf{biblatex} or
+that I have provided myself. Some of these, unfortunately, will make
+your .bib file incompatible with other \textsf{biblatex} styles, but
+I've been unable to avoid this. Any ideas for more elegant, and more
+compatible, solutions will be warmly welcomed.
+
+\subsubsection{Formatting Commands}
+\label{sec:formatcommands}
+
+These commands allow you to fine-tune the presentation of your
+references in both notes and bibliography. You can find many examples
+of their usage in \textsf{notes-test.bib}, and I shall try to point
+you toward a few such entries in what follows. \textbf{NB:}
+\textsf{biblatex's} \cmd{mkbibquote} command is now mandatory in some
+situations. See its entry below.
+
+\mybigspace Version \mymarginpar{\textbf{\textbackslash autocap}} 0.8
+of \textsf{biblatex} introduced the \cmd{autocap} command, which
+capitalizes a word inside a note or bibliography entry if that word
+follows sentence-ending punctuation, and leaves it lowercase
+otherwise. As this command is both more powerful and more elegant
+than the kludge I designed for a previous version of
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes} (see\ \textbf{\textbackslash
+ bibstring} below), you should be aware that the use of the
+single-letter \cmd{bibstring} commands in your .bib file is obsolete.
+
+\mylittlespace In order somewhat to reduce the burden on users even
+further, I have, following Lehman's example, implemented a new system
+which automatically tracks the capitalization of certain fields in
+your .bib file. I chose these fields after a non-scientific survey of
+entries in my own databases, so of course if you have ideas for the
+extension of this facility I would be most interested to hear them.
+In order to take advantage of this functionality, all you need do is
+begin the data in the appropriate field with a lowercase letter,
+e.g.,\ \texttt{note = \{with the assistance of X\}}. If the data
+begins with a capital letter --- and this is not infrequent --- that
+capital will always be retained. (cf., e.g., creel:house,
+morgenson:market.) If, on the other hand, you for some reason need
+such a field always to start with a lowercase letter, then you can try
+using the \cmd{isdot} macro at the start, which turns off the
+mechanism without printing anything itself. Here, then, is the
+complete list of fields where this functionality is active:
+
+\begin{enumerate}
+\item The \textbf{addendum} field in all entry types.
+\item The \textbf{booktitleaddon} field in all entry types.
+\item The \textbf{edition} field in all entry types. (Numerals work
+ as you expect them to here.)
+\item The \textbf{maintitleaddon} field in all entry types.
+\item The \textbf{note} field in all entry types.
+\item The \textbf{shorttitle} field in the \textsf{review}
+ (\textsf{suppperiodical}) entry type and in the \textsf{misc} type,
+ in the latter case, however, only when there is an
+ \textsf{entrysubtype} defined, indicating that the work cited is
+ from an archive.
+\item The \textbf{title} field in the \textsf{review}
+ (\textsf{suppperiodical}) entry type and in the \textsf{misc} type,
+ in the latter case, however, only when there is an
+ \textsf{entrysubtype} defined, indicating that the work cited is
+ from an archive.
+\item The \textbf{titleaddon} field in all entry types.
+\item The \textbf{type} field in \textsf{artwork}, \textsf{image},
+ \textsf{suppbook}, and \textsf{suppcollection} entry types.
+\end{enumerate}
+
+In any other cases --- and there are only two examples of this in
+\textsf{notes-test.bib} (centinel:letters, powell:email) --- you'll
+need to provide the \cmd{autocap} command yourself. Indeed, if you
+accidentally do so in one of the above fields, it shouldn't matter at
+all, and you'll still get what you want, but taking advantage of the
+automatic provisions should at least save some typing.
+
+\mybigspace This \mymarginpar{\textbf{\textbackslash bibstring}} is
+Lehman's very powerful mechanism to allow \textsf{biblatex}
+automatically to provide a localized version of a string, and to
+determine whether that string needs capitalization, depending on where
+it falls in an entry. In the first release of
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes}, the style relied very heavily on this
+macro, particularly on an extension I provided by defining all 26
+letters of the (ASCII) alphabet as \texttt{bibstrings}
+(\cmd{bibstring\{a\}}, \cmd{bibstring\{b\}}, etc.) While you should
+continue to use the standard, whole-word bibstrings, \textbf{all use
+ of the single-letter variants I formerly provided is obsolete, and
+ will generate an error}. This functionality has been replaced by
+the \cmd{autocap} command, which does the same thing, only more
+elegantly. This command was designed by Philipp Lehman, and has now
+been included in version 0.8 of \textsf{biblatex}. For yet greater
+convenience I have implemented, following Lehman's example, a system
+automating this functionality in all of the entry fields where its use
+was, by my reckoning, most frequent. This means that, when you
+require this functionality, all you need do is input the data in such
+a field starting with a lowercase letter, and
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes} will do the rest with no further
+assistance. In my \textsf{notes-test.bib} file, this new mechanism in
+effect eliminated all need for the single-letter \texttt{bibstrings}
+and very nearly all need for the \cmd{autocap} command ---
+centinel:letters and powell:email being the only exceptions. Please
+see \textbf{\textbackslash autocap} above for full details.
+
+%\enlargethispage{\baselineskip}
+
+\mylittlespace I should also mention here that \textsf{biblatex 0.7}
+introduced a new functionality which sometimes allows you simply to
+input, for example, \texttt{newseries} instead of
+\cmd{bib\-string\{newseries\}}, the package auto-detecting when a
+bibstring is involved and doing the right thing, though in all such
+cases either form will work. This functionality is available in the
+\textsf{series} field of \textsf{article}, \textsf{periodical}, and
+\textsf{review} entries; in the \textsf{type} field of
+\textsf{manual}, \textsf{patent}, \textsf{report}, and \textsf{thesis}
+entries; in the \textsf{location} field of \textsf{patent} entries;
+and in the \textsf{language} field in all entry types. These are the
+places, as far as I can make out, where \textsf{biblatex's} standard
+styles support this feature, and I have followed suit. If Lehman
+generalizes it still further in a future release, I shall do the same,
+if possible.
+
+\mybigspace In \mymarginpar{\textbf{\textbackslash custpunct} \\
+ \textbf{\textbackslash custpunctb}} common with other American
+citation styles, the \emph{Manual} requires that the commas and
+periods separating units of a reference go inside any quotation marks
+that happen to be present. As of version 0.8c, \textsf{biblatex}
+contains truly remarkable code that handles this situation in very
+nearly complete generality, detecting punctuation after the closing
+quotation mark and moving it inside when necessary, and also
+controlling which punctuation marks can be printed after which other
+punctuation marks, whether quotation marks intervene or not. This
+functionality is now mature, and \textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes}
+relies on this code to place punctuation in the \enquote{American
+ style,} rather than on complicated \cmd{DeclareFieldFormat}
+instructions that attempt to anticipate all possible permutations.
+One result of this, thankfully, is that both \cmd{custpunct} and
+\cmd{custpunctb} are now basically unnecessary, as their only purpose
+was to supply context-appropriate punctuation inside any quotation
+marks that users themselves provided as part of various entry fields.
+A second consequence, and I've already recommended this in previous
+releases anyway, is that users now \emph{must} use \cmd{mkbibquote}
+instead of \cmd{enquote} or the usual \LaTeX\ mechanisms inside their
+.bib files. For further details, please see the \cmd{mkbibquote}
+entry below.
+
+%\enlargethispage{\baselineskip}
+
+\mylittlespace I have retained the code for the \cmd{custpunct}
+commands in \textsf{chicago-notes.cbx}, in case a particularly gnarly
+entry might still require them, but I have already started to re-use
+the \textsf{type} field, which formerly served as a switch for
+\cmd{custpunct}, in other contexts (see \textbf{artwork},
+\textbf{image}, and \textbf{suppbook} above).
+
+\mybigspace This \mymarginpar{\textbf{\textbackslash isdot}} is a
+standard \textsf{biblatex} macro, but I thought I might mention it
+here as a convenient placeholder in entry fields that you may, for one
+reason or another, wish simultaneously to have defined and yet to
+print nothing. (See creel:house, nyt:obittrevor, sewall:letter,
+unsigned:ranke, and white:total.)
+
+\mybigspace I \mymarginpar{\textbf{\textbackslash letterdatelong}}
+have provided this macro mainly for use in the optional postnote field
+of the various citation commands. When citing a letter (published or
+unpublished, \textsf{letter} or \textsf{misc}), it may be useful to
+append the date to the usual short note form in order to disambiguate
+references. This macro simply prints the date of a letter, or indeed
+of any other sort of correspondence. (If your main document language
+isn't English, it's better just to use the standard \textsf{biblatex}
+command \cmd{printorigdate}.)
+
+\mybigspace This \mymarginpar{\textbf{\textbackslash mkbibquote}} is
+the standard \textsf{biblatex} command, which requires attention here
+because it is a crucial part of the mechanism of Lehman's
+\enquote{American} punctuation system. If you look in
+\textsf{chicago-notes.cbx} you'll see that the quoted fields, e.g., an
+\textsf{article} or \textsf{incollection title}, have this command in
+their formatting, which does most of the work for you. If, however,
+you need to provide additional quotation marks in a field --- a quoted
+title within a title, for example --- then you may need to use this
+command so that any following period or comma will be brought within
+the closing quotation marks. Its use is \emph{required} when the
+quoted material comes at the end of a field, and I recommend always
+using it in your .bib database, as it does no harm even when that
+condition is not fulfilled. A few examples from
+\textsf{notes-test.bib} should help to clarify this.
+
+\mylittlespace In an \textsf{article} entry, the \textsf{title}
+contains a quoted phrase:
+
+\begin{quotation}
+ \noindent\texttt{title = \{Diethylstilbestrol and Media Coverage of the \\
+ \indent\cmd{mkbibquote}\{Morning After\} Pill\}}
+\end{quotation}
+
+Here, because the quoted text doesn't come at the end of title, and no
+punctuation will ever need to be drawn within the closing quotation
+mark, you could instead use \texttt{\cmd{enquote}\{Morning After\}} or
+even \texttt{`Morning After'}. (Note the single quotation marks here
+--- the other two methods have the virtue of taking care of nesting
+for you.) All of these will produce the formatted
+\enquote{Diethylstilbestrol and Media Coverage of the \enquote{Morning
+ After} Pill.} Here, by contrast, is a \textsf{book title}:
+
+\begin{quotation}
+ \noindent \texttt{title = \{Annotations to
+ \cmd{mkbibquote}\{Finnegans Wake\}\}}
+\end{quotation}
+
+Because the quoted title within the title comes at the end of the
+field, and because this bibliographical unit will be separated from
+what follows by a period in the bibliography, then the
+\cmd{mkbibquote} command is necessary to bring that period within the
+final quotation marks, like so: \emph{Annotations to
+ \enquote{Finnegans Wake.}}
+
+\mylittlespace Let me also add that this command interacts well with
+Lehman's \textsf{csquotes} package, which I highly recommend, though
+the latter isn't strictly necessary in texts using an American style,
+to which \textsf{biblatex} defaults when \textsf{csquotes} isn't
+loaded.
+
+\mybigspace This \mymarginpar{\textbf{\textbackslash reprint}} and the
+following 7 macros all help \textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes} cope with
+the fact that many bibstrings in the Chicago system differ between
+notes and bibliography, the former sometimes using abbreviated forms
+when the latter prints them in full. In the current case, if a book
+is a reprint, then the macro \cmd{reprint}, followed by a comma,
+should go in the \textsf{location} field before the city of
+publication (aristotle:metaphy:gr, schweitzer:bach). See
+\textbf{location}, above.
+
+\mylittlespace \textbf{NB:} The rules for employing abbreviated or
+full bibstrings in the \emph{Manual} are remarkably complex, but I
+have attempted to make them as transparent for users as possible. In
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes}, if you don't see it mentioned in this
+section, then in theory you should always provide an abbreviated
+version, using the \cmd{bibstring} mechanism, if necessary
+(babb:peru). The standard \textsf{biblatex} bibstrings should also
+work (palmatary:pottery), and any that won't should be covered by the
+series of macros beginning here with \cmd{reprint} and ending below
+with \cmd{parttransandcomp}.
+
+\mybigspace Since \mymarginpar{\textbf{\textbackslash partcomp}} the
+\emph{Manual} specifies that the strings \texttt{editor},
+\texttt{translator}, and \texttt{compiler} all require different forms
+in notes and bibliography, and since it mentions these three apart
+from all the others \textsf{biblatex} provides (\textsf{annotator},
+\textsf{commentator}, et al.), and further since it may indeed happen
+that the available fields (\textsf{editor}, \textsf{namea},
+\textsf{translator}, \textsf{nameb}, and \textsf{namec}) aren't
+adequate for presenting some entries, I have provided 7 macros to
+allow you to print the correct strings for these functions in both
+notes and bibliography. Their names all begin with \cmd{part}, as
+originally I intended them for use when a particular name applied only
+to a specific \textsf{title}, rather than to a \textsf{maintitle} or
+\textsf{booktitle} (cf.\ \textbf{namea} and \textbf{nameb}, above).
+
+%\enlargethispage{\baselineskip}
+
+\mylittlespace In the present instance, you can use \cmd{partcomp} to
+identify a compiler when \textsf{namec} won't do, e.g., in a
+\textsf{note} field or the like. In such a case,
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes} will print the appropriate string in
+your references.
+
+\mybigspace Use \mymarginpar{\textbf{\textbackslash partedit}} this
+macro when identifying an editor whose name doesn't conveniently fit
+into the usual fields (\textsf{editor} or \textsf{namea}). (N.B.: If
+you are writing in French and using \textsf{cms-french.lbx}, then
+currently you'll need to add either \texttt{de} or \texttt{d'} after
+this command in your .bib files to make the references come out right.
+I'm working on this.) See chaucer:liferecords.
+
+\mybigspace As \mymarginpar{\textbf{\textbackslash
+ partedit-\\andcomp}} before, but for use when an editor is also a
+compiler.
+
+\vspace{1.3\baselineskip} As \mymarginpar{\textbf{\textbackslash
+ partedit-\\andtrans}} before, but for when when an editor is also a
+translator (ratliff:review).
+
+\mybigspace As \mymarginpar{\textbf{\textbackslash
+ partedit-\\transandcomp}} before, but for when an editor is also a
+translator and a compiler.
+
+\vspace{1.3\baselineskip} As \mymarginpar{\textbf{\textbackslash
+ parttrans}} before, but for use when identifying a translator
+whose name doesn't conveniently fit into the usual fields
+(\textsf{translator} and \textsf{nameb}).
+
+\mybigspace As \mymarginpar{\textbf{\textbackslash
+ parttrans-\\andcomp}} before, but for when a translator is also a
+compiler.
+
+\subsubsection{Citation Commands}
+\label{sec:citecommands}
+
+The \textsf{biblatex} package is particularly rich in citation
+commands, some of which (e.g., \cmd{supercite(s)}, \cmd{citeyear})
+provide functionality that isn't really needed by the Chicago notes
+and bibliography style offered here. If you are getting unexpected
+behavior when using them please have a look in your .log file. A
+command like \cmd{textcite}, listed in §~3.6.2 of the
+\textsf{biblatex} manual but not defined by \textsf{biblatex-chicago},
+defaults to \cmd{cite}, and leaves a warning in the .log. Others
+(e.g., \cmd{cite\-author}), though I haven't tested them extensively,
+should pretty much work out of the box. What remains are the commands
+I have found most useful and necessary for following the
+\emph{Manual}'s specifications, and I document in this section any
+alterations I have made to these. As always, if there are standard
+commands that don't work for you, or new commands that would be
+useful, please let me know, and it should be possible to fix or add
+them.
+
+\mylittlespace A number of users have run into a problem that appears
+when they've used a command like \cmd{cite} inside a \cmd{footnote}
+macro. In this situation, the automatic capitalization routines will
+not be in operation at the start of the footnote, so instead of
+\enquote{Ibid.,} for example, you'll see \enquote{ibid.} If you need
+to use the \cmd{cite} command within a \cmd{footnote} command, the
+solution is to use \cmd{Cite} instead. Alternatively, don't use a
+\cmd{footnote} macro at all, rather try \cmd{footcite} or
+\cmd{autocite} with the optional prenote and postnote arguments. Cf.\
+\cmd{Citetitle} below, and also section~3.6 of \textsf{biblatex.pdf}.
+
+\mybigspace I \mymarginpar{\textbf{\textbackslash autocite}} haven't
+adapted this in the slightest, but I thought it worth pointing out
+that \textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes} sets this command to use
+\cmd{footcite} as the default option. It is, in my experience, much
+the most common citation command you will use, and also works fine in
+its multicite form, \textbf{\textbackslash autocites}.
+
+\mybigspace While \mymarginpar{\textbf{\textbackslash cite*}} the
+\cmd{cite} command works just as you would expect it to, I have also
+provided a starred version for the rare situations when you might need
+to turn off the ibidem tracking mechanism. \textsf{Biblatex} provides
+very sophisticated algorithms for using \enquote{Ibid} in notes, so in
+general you won't find a need for this command, but in case you'd
+prefer a longer citation where you might automatically find
+\enquote{Ibid,} I've provided this. Of course, you'll need to put it
+inside a \cmd{footnote} command manually. (See also section
+\ref{sec:useropts}, below.)
+
+\mybigspace This \mymarginpar{\textbf{\textbackslash Citetitle}}
+simply prepends \cmd{bibsentence} to the usual \cmd{citetitle}
+command. Some titles may need this for the automatic contextual
+capitalization facility to work correctly. (Included as standard from
+\textsf{biblatex} 0.8d.)
+
+\mybigspace Joseph \mymarginpar{\textbf{\textbackslash citetitles}}
+Reagle noticed that, because of the way
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes} formats titles in quotation marks,
+using the \cmd{citetitle} command will often get you punctuation you
+don't want, especially when presenting a list of titles. I've
+included this multicite command to enable you to present such a list,
+if the need arises. Remember that you'll have to put it inside a
+\cmd{footnote} command manually.
+
+\mybigspace Another \mymarginpar{\textbf{\textbackslash footfullcite}}
+standard \textsf{biblatex} command, modified to work properly with
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes}, and provided in case you find
+yourself in a situation where you really need the full citation in a
+footnote, but where \cmd{autocite} would print a short note or even
+\enquote{Ibid.} This may be particularly useful if you've chosen to use all
+short notes by setting the \texttt{short} option in the arguments to
+\cmd{usepackage\{biblatex\}}, yet still feel the need for the
+occasional full citation.
+
+\mybigspace This, \mymarginpar{\textbf{\textbackslash fullcite}} too,
+is a standard command, and it too provides a full citation, but unlike
+the previous command it doesn't automatically place it in a footnote.
+It may be useful within long textual notes.
+
+\mybigspace Matthew \mymarginpar{\textbf{\textbackslash headlesscite}}
+Lundin requested a more generalized \cmd{headlesscite} macro,
+suppressing the author's name in specific contexts while allowing
+users not to worry about whether a particular citation needs the long
+or short form, a responsibility thereby handed over to
+\textsf{biblatex's} tracking mechanisms. This citation command
+attempts to fulfill this request. Please note that, in the short
+form, the result will be rather like a \cmd{citetitle} command, which
+may or may not be what you want. Note, also, that as I have provided
+only the most flexible form of the command, you'll have to wrap it in
+a \cmd{footnote} yourself. Please see the next entry for further
+discussion of some of the needs this command might help address.
+
+%\enlargethispage{-\baselineskip}
+
+\mybigspace I \mymarginpar{\textbf{\textbackslash
+ headless-\\fullcite}} have provided this command in case you want
+to print a full citation without the author's name. The \emph{Manual}
+(17.31, 17.42) suggests this for brevity's sake in cases where that
+name is already obvious enough from the title, and where repetition
+might seem awkward (creel:house, feydeau:farces, meredith:letters, and
+sewall:letter). \textsf{Letter} entries --- and only such entries ---
+do this for you automatically, and of course the repetition is
+tolerated in bibliographies for the sake of alphabetization, but in
+notes this command may help achieve greater elegance, even if it isn't
+strictly necessary. As I've provided only the most flexible form of
+the command, you'll have to wrap it in a \cmd{footnote} yourself.
+
+\mybigspace I \mymarginpar{\textbf{\textbackslash shortcite}} have
+provided this command in case, for any reason, you specifically
+require the short form of a note, and \textsf{biblatex} thinks you
+want something else. Again, I've provided only the most flexible form
+of the command, so you'll have to wrap it in a \cmd{footnote}
+manually.
+
+\mylittlespace If you look at \textsf{chicago-notes.cbx}, you'll see a
+number of other citation commands, but those are intended for internal
+use only, mainly in cross-references of various sorts. Use at your
+own risk.
+
+\subsection{Package Options}
+\label{sec:options}
+
+\subsubsection{Pre-Set \textsf{biblatex} Options}
+\label{sec:presetopts}
+
+Although a quick glance through \textsf{biblatex-chicago.sty} will
+tell you which \textsf{biblatex} options the package sets for you, I
+thought I might gather them here also for your perusal. These
+settings are, I believe, consistent with the specification, but you
+can alter them in the options to \textsf{biblatex-chicago} in your
+preamble or by loading the package via
+\cmd{usepackage[style=chicago-notes]\{biblatex\}}, which gives you the
+\textsf{biblatex} defaults unless you redefine them yourself inside
+the square brackets.
+
+\mylittlespace By \mymarginpar{\texttt{abbreviate=\\false}} default,
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes} prints the longer bibstrings, mainly
+for use in the bibliography, but since notes require the shorter forms
+of many of them, I've had to define many new strings for use there.
+
+\mylittlespace \textsf{Biblatex-chicago-notes}
+\mymarginpar{\texttt{autocite=\\footnote}} places references in
+footnotes by default.
+
+\mybigspace The \mymarginpar{\texttt{citetracker=\\true}} citetracker
+for the \cmd{ifciteseen} test is enabled globally.
+
+\mybigspace The \mymarginpar{\texttt{alldates=comp}} specification calls
+for the long format when presenting dates, slightly shortened when
+presenting date ranges.
+
+\mylittlespace The \colmarginpar{\texttt{dateabbrev=\\false}}
+\emph{Manual} prefers full month names in the notes \&\ bibliography
+style.
+
+\mybigspace This \mymarginpar{\texttt{ibidtracker=\\constrict}}
+enables the use of \enquote{Ibid} in notes, but only in the most
+strictly-defined circumstances. Whenever there might be any
+ambiguity, \textsf{biblatex} should default to printing a more
+informative reference. Remember also that you can use the \cmd{cite*}
+command to disable this functionality in any given reference, or
+indeed one of the \texttt{fullcite} commands if you need the long note
+form for any reason.
+
+\mylittlespace This \marginpar{\texttt{loccittracker\\=constrict}}
+allows the package to determine whether two consecutive citations of
+the same source also cite the same page of that source. In such a
+case, \texttt{Ibid} alone will be printed, without the page reference,
+following the specification (16.47).
+
+\mylittlespace This \mymarginpar{\texttt{pagetracker=\\true}} enables
+page tracking for the \cmd{iffirstonpage} and \cmd{ifsamepage}
+commands for controlling, among other things, the printing of
+\enquote{Ibid.} It tracks individual pages if \LaTeX\ is in oneside
+mode, or whole spreads in twoside mode.
+
+\mylittlespace This \mymarginpar{\texttt{usetranslator\\=true}}
+enables automatic use of the \textsf{translator} at the head of
+entries in the absence of an \textsf{author} or an \textsf{editor}.
+In the bibliography, the entry will be alphabetized by the
+translator's surname. You can disable this functionality on a
+per-entry basis by setting \texttt{usetranslator=false} in the
+\textsf{options} field. Cf.\ silver:gawain.
+
+\subsubsection*{{Pre-set \textsf{biblatex-chicago} Option}}
+\label{sec:chicpreset}
+
+This \mymarginpar{\texttt{usecompiler=\\true}} option enables
+automatic use of the name of the compiler (in the \textsf{namec}
+field) at the head of an entry, usually in the absence of an
+\textsf{author}, \textsf{editor}, or \textsf{translator}, in
+accordance with the specification (\emph{Manual} 17.41). It may also,
+like \texttt{useauthor}, \texttt{useeditor}, and
+\texttt{usetranslator}, be disabled on a per-entry basis by setting
+\texttt{usecompiler=false} in the \textsf{options} field. Please
+remember that, because \textsf{namec} isn't a standard
+\textsf{biblatex} field, this name won't be part of its standard name
+algorithms, and that any entry headed by a \textsf{namec} will
+therefore need a \textsf{shortauthor} for short notes and a
+\textsf{sortkey} or the like in order to have it appear in the correct
+place in the bibliography. (The exception to this is when you modify
+the \textsf{editor's} identifying string using the \textsf{editortype}
+field, which is the procedure I recommend if the entry-heading
+compiler is only a compiler, and not also, e.g., an editor or a
+translator.)
+
+\subsubsection*{Other \textsf{biblatex} Formatting Options}
+\label{sec:formatopts}
+
+I've chosen defaults for many of the general formatting commands
+provided by \textsf{biblatex}, including the vertical space between
+bibliography items and between items in the list of shorthands
+(\cmd{bibitemsep} and \cmd{lositemsep}). I define many of these in
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago.sty}, and of course you may want to redefine
+them to your own needs and tastes. It may be as well you know that
+the \emph{Manual} does state a preference for two of the formatting
+options I've implemented by default: the 3-em dash as a replacement
+for repeated names in the bibliography (16.103--106); and the
+formatting of note numbers, both in the main text and at the bottom of
+the page / end of the essay (superscript in the text, in-line in the
+notes; 16.25). The code for this last formatting is also in
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago.sty}, and I've wrapped it in a test that
+disables it if you are using the \textsf{memoir} class, which I
+believe has its own commands for defining these parameters. You can
+also disable it by using the \texttt{footmarkoff} package option, on
+which see below.
+
+\mylittlespace Finally, \mymarginpar{\texttt{maxnames=10\\minnames=7}}
+in the \cmd{printbibliography} command at the bottom of
+\textsf{sample.tex} you'll see that I've set these two options, which
+control the number of names printed in the bibliography when that
+number exceeds 10. These numbers follow the recommendations of the
+\emph{Manual} (17.29--30), and they are different from those for use
+in notes. By putting these options in your \cmd{printbibliography}
+command, you can use \textsf{biblatex's} default settings for notes,
+which are correct as far as the \emph{Manual} is concerned, and then
+switch to these settings for the bibliography.
+
+\subsubsection{Style Options -- Preamble}
+\label{sec:useropts}
+
+These are parts of the specification that not everyone will wish to
+enable. All except the second can be used even if you load the
+package in the old way via a call to \textsf{biblatex}, but most users
+can just place the appropriate string(s) in the options to the
+\cmd{usepackage\{biblatex-chicago\}} call in your preamble.
+
+\mylittlespace At \mymarginpar{\texttt{annotation}} the request of
+Emil Salim, I included in \textsf{biblatex-chicago} the ability to
+produce annotated bibliographies. If you turn this option on then the
+contents of your \textsf{annotation} (or \textsf{annote}) field will
+be printed after the bibliographical reference. (You can also use
+external files to store annotations -- please see
+\textsf{biblatex.pdf} §~3.10.7 for details on how to do this.) This
+functionality is currently in a beta state, so before you use it
+please have a look at the documentation for the \textsf{annotation}
+field, on page~\pageref{sec:annote} above.
+
+\mylittlespace Although \mymarginpar{\texttt{footmarkoff}} the
+\emph{Manual} (16.25) recommends specific formatting for footnote (and
+endnote) marks, i.e., superscript in the text and in-line in foot- or
+endnotes, Charles Schaum has brought it to my attention that not all
+publishers follow this practice, even when requiring Chicago style. I
+have retained this formatting as the default setup, but if you include
+the \texttt{footmarkoff} option, \textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes} will
+not alter \LaTeX 's (or the \textsf{endnote} package's) defaults in
+any way, leaving you free to follow the specifications of your
+publisher. I have placed all of this code in
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago.sty}, so if you load the package with a call
+to \textsf{biblatex} instead, then once again footnote marks will
+revert to the \LaTeX\ default, but of course you also lose a fair
+amount of other formatting, as well. See section~\ref{sec:loading},
+below.
+
+%\enlargethispage{\baselineskip}
+
+\mylittlespace This \mymarginpar{\texttt{natbib}} may look like the
+standard \textsf{biblatex} option, but to keep the coding of
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago.sty} simpler for the moment I have
+reimplemented it there, from whence it is merely passed on to
+\textsf{biblatex}. If you load the Chicago style with
+\cmd{usepackage\{biblatex-chicago\}}, then the option should simply
+read \texttt{natbib}, rather than \texttt{natbib=true}. The shorter
+form also works if you load the style using
+\cmd{usepackage[style=chicago-notes]\{biblatex\}}, so I hope this
+requirement isn't too onerous.
+
+\mylittlespace At \mymarginpar{\texttt{noibid}} the request of an
+early tester, I have included this option to allow you globally to
+turn off the \texttt{ibidem} mechanism that
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes} uses by default. Some publishers, it
+would appear, require this. Setting this option will mean that all
+possible instances of \emph{ibid.}\ will be replaced by the short note
+form. For more fine-grained control of individual citations you'll
+probably want to use specialized citation commands, instead. See
+section \ref{sec:citecommands}.
+
+\mylittlespace This \mymarginpar{\texttt{short}} option means that
+your text will only use the short note form, even in the first
+citation of a particular work. The \emph{Manual} (16.3) recommends
+this space-saving format only when you provide a \emph{full}
+bibliography, though even with such a bibliography you may feel it
+easier for your readers to present long first citations. If you do
+use the \texttt{short} option, remember that there are several
+citation commands which allow you to present the full reference in
+specific cases (see section \ref{sec:citecommands}). If your
+bibliography is not complete, then you should not use this option.
+
+\mylittlespace Chris Sparks \mymarginpar{\texttt{shorthandibid}}
+pointed out that \textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes} would never use
+\emph{ibid.}\ in the case of entries containing a \textsf{shorthand}
+field, but rather that consecutive references to such an entry
+continued to provide the shorthand, instead. The \emph{Manual} isn't,
+as far as I can tell, completely clear on this question. In 17.252,
+discussing references to works from classical antiquity, it states
+that \enquote{when abbreviations are used, these rather than
+ \emph{ibid.}\ should be used in succeeding references to the same
+ work,} but I can't make out whether this rule is specific to
+classical references or has more general scope. Given this ambiguity,
+I don't think it unreasonable to provide an option to allow printing
+of \emph{ibid.}\ instead of the shorthand in such circumstances,
+though the default behavior remains the same as it always has.
+
+%\enlargethispage{\baselineskip}
+
+\mylittlespace This \mymarginpar{\texttt{strict}} still-experimental
+option attempts to follow the \emph{Manual}'s recommendations (16.57)
+for formatting footnotes on the page, using no rule between them and
+the main text unless there is a run-on note, in which case a short
+rule intervenes to emphasize this continuation. I haven't tested this
+code very thoroughly, and it's possible that frequent use of floats
+might interfere with it. Let me know if it causes problems.
+
+
+\subsection{General Usage Hints}
+\label{sec:hints}
+
+\subsubsection{Loading the Style}
+\label{sec:loading}
+
+With the addition of the author-date style to the package, I have
+provided two keys for choosing which style to load, \texttt{notes} and
+\texttt{authordate}, one of which you put in the options to the
+\cmd{usepackage} command. The default way of loading the notes +
+bibliography style has therefore slightly changed. With early
+versions of \textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes}, the standard way of
+loading the package was via a call to \textsf{biblatex}, e.g.:
+\begin{quote}
+ \cmd{usepackage[style=chicago-notes,strict,backend=bibtex8,\%\\
+ babel=other,bibencoding=inputenc]\{biblatex\}}
+\end{quote}
+Now, the default way to load the style, and one that will in the
+vast majority of standard cases produce the same results as the old
+invocation, will look like this:
+\begin{quote}
+ \cmd{usepackage[notes,strict,backend=bibtex8,babel=other,\%\\
+ bibencoding=inputenc]\{biblatex-chicago\}}
+\end{quote}
+
+(In point of fact, the previous \textsf{biblatex-chicago} loading
+method without the \texttt{notes} option will still work, but only
+because I've made the notes \&\ bibliography style the default if no
+style is explicitly requested.) If you read through
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago.sty}, you'll see that it sets a number of
+\textsf{biblatex} options aimed at following the Chicago
+specification, as well as setting a few formatting variables intended
+as reasonable defaults (see section~\ref{sec:presetopts}, above).
+Some parts of this specification, however, are plainly more
+\enquote{suggested} than \enquote{required,} and indeed many
+publishers, while adopting the main skeleton of the Chicago style in
+citations, nonetheless maintain their own house styles to which the
+defaults I have provided do not conform.
+
+\mylittlespace If you only need to change one or two parameters, this
+can easily be done by putting different options in the call to
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago} or redefining other formatting variables in
+the preamble, thereby overriding the package defaults. If, however,
+you wish more substantially to alter the output of the package,
+perhaps to use it as a base for constructing another style altogether,
+then you may want to revert to the old style of invocation above.
+You'll lose all the definitions in \textsf{biblatex-chicago.sty},
+including those to which I've already alluded and also the code that
+sets the note number in-line rather than superscript in endnotes or
+footnotes. Also in this file is the code that calls
+\textsf{cms-american.lbx}, which means that you'll lose all the
+Chicago-specific bibstrings I've defined unless you provide, in your
+preamble, a \cmd{DeclareLanguageMapping} command adapted for your
+setup, on which see section~\ref{sec:international} below and also
+§§~4.8.1 and 4.10.8 in Lehman's \textsf{biblatex.pdf}.
+
+\mylittlespace What you \emph{will not} lose is the ability to call
+the package options \texttt{annotation, strict, short,} and
+\texttt{noibid} (section~\ref{sec:useropts}, above), in case these
+continue to be useful to you when constructing your own modifications.
+There's very little code, therefore, actually in
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago.sty}, but I hope that even this minimal
+separation will make the package somewhat more adaptable. Any
+suggestions on this score are, of course, welcome.
+
+\subsubsection{Other Hints}
+\label{sec:otherhints}
+
+One useful rule, when you are having difficulty creating a .bib entry,
+is to ask yourself whether all the information you are providing is
+strictly necessary. The Chicago specification is a very full one, but
+the \emph{Manual} is actually, in many circumstances, fairly relaxed
+about how much of the data from a work's title page you need to fit
+into a reference. Authors of introductions and afterwords, multiple
+publishers in different countries, the real names of authors more
+commonly known under pseudonyms, all of these are candidates for
+exclusion if you aren't making specific reference to them, and if you
+judge that their inclusion won't be of particular interest to your
+readers. Of course, any data that may be of such interest, and
+especially any needed to identify and track down a reference, has to
+be present, but sometimes it pays to step back and reevaluate how much
+information you're providing. I've tried to make
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes} robust enough to handle the most
+complex, data-rich citations, but there may be instances where you can
+save yourself some typing by keeping it simple.
+
+\mylittlespace Scot Becker has pointed out to me that the inverse
+problem not only exists but may well become increasingly common, to
+wit, .bib database entries generated by bibliographic managers which
+helpfully provide as much information as is available, including
+fields that users may well wish not to have printed (ISBN, URL, DOI,
+\textsf{pagetotal}, inter alia). The standard \textsf{biblatex}
+styles contain a series of options, detailed in \textsf{biblatex.pdf}
+§3.1.3, for controlling the printing of some of these fields, but I
+haven't yet implemented them in \textsf{biblatex-chicago}. This is in
+my TODO list, and the next release will also include some more
+general options, at Scot's recommendation, that turn off everything at
+once. Until then judicious pruning remains the only solution.
+
+\mylittlespace If you are having problems with the interaction of
+punctuation and quotation marks in notes or bibliography, first please
+check that you've used \cmd{mkbibquote} in the relevant part of your
+.bib file. If you are still getting errors, please let me know, as it
+may well be a bug.
+
+\mylittlespace For the \textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes} style, I have
+fully adopted \textsf{biblatex's} system for providing punctuation at
+the end of entries. Several users noted insufficiencies in previous
+releases of \textsf{biblatex-chicago}, sometimes related to the
+semicolon between multiple citations, sometimes to ineradicable
+periods after long notes, bugs that were byproducts of my attempt to
+fix other end-of-entry errors. One of the side effects of this older
+code was (wrongly) to put a period after a long note produced, e.g.,
+by a command like \cmd{footnote\{\textbackslash headlessfullcite\}},
+whereas only the \enquote{foot} cite commands (including
+\cmd{autocite} in the default \textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes} set up)
+should do so. If you came to rely on this side effect, please note
+now that you'll have to put the period in yourself when explicitly
+calling \cmd{footnote}, like so: \cmd{footnote\{\textbackslash
+ headlessfullcite\{key\}.\}}
+
+\mylittlespace When you use abbreviations at the ends of fields in
+your .bib file (e.g., \enquote{\texttt{n.d.}} or
+\enquote{\texttt{Inc.},}) \textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes} should deal
+automatically with adding (or suppressing) appropriate punctuation
+after the final dot. This includes retaining periods after such dots
+when a closing parenthesis intervenes, as in (n.d.). Merely entering
+the abbreviation without informing \textsf{biblatex} that the final
+dot is a dot and not a period should always work, though you do have
+to provide manual formatting in those rare cases when you need a comma
+after the author's initials in a bibliography, usually in a
+\textsf{misc} entry (see house:papers). If you find you need to
+provide such formatting elsewhere, please let me know.
+
+\mylittlespace Finally, allow me to reiterate what Philipp Lehman says
+in \textsf{biblatex.pdf}, to wit, use \textsf{bibtex8}, rather than
+standard \textsc{Bib}\TeX, and avoid the cryptic errors that ensue
+when your .bib file gets to a certain size.
+
+\section{The Specification: Author-Date}
+\label{sec:authdate}
+
+In what follows, I attempt to explain all the parts of
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago-authordate} that might be considered somehow
+\enquote{non standard,} at least with respect to the styles included
+with \textsf{biblatex} itself, though in the section on entry fields I
+have also duplicated a lot of the information in
+\textsf{biblatex.pdf}, which I hope won't badly annoy expert users of
+the system. Headings in \mycolor{green} \colmarginpar{\textsf{New in
+ this release}} indicate material new to this release, or
+occasionally old material that has undergone significant revision.
+Numbers in parentheses refer to sections of the \emph{Chicago Manual
+ of Style}, 15th edition. The file \textsf{dates-test.bib} contains
+many examples from the \emph{Manual} which, when processed using
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago-authordate}, should produce the same output
+as you see in the \emph{Manual} itself, or at least compliant output,
+where the specifications are vague or open to interpretation, a state
+of affairs which does sometimes occur. I have provided
+\textsf{cms-dates-sample.pdf}, which shows how my system processes
+\textsf{dates-test.bib}, and I have also included the reference keys
+from the latter file below in parentheses.
+
+\subsection{Entry Types}
+\label{sec:types:authdate}
+
+The complete list of entry types currently available in
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago-authordate}, minus the odd \textsf{biblatex}
+alias, is as follows: \textbf{article}, \textbf{artwork},
+\textbf{book}, \textbf{bookinbook}, \textbf{booklet},
+\textbf{collection}, \textbf{customa}, \textbf{customb},
+\textbf{customc}, \textbf{image}, \textbf{inbook},
+\textbf{incollection}, \textbf{inproceedings}, \textbf{inreference},
+\textbf{letter}, \textbf{manual}, \textbf{misc}, \textbf{online} (with
+its alias \textbf{www}), \textbf{patent}, \textbf{periodical},
+\textbf{proceedings}, \textbf{reference}, \textbf{report} (with its
+alias \textbf{techreport}), \textbf{review}, \textbf{suppbook},
+\textbf{suppcollection}, \textbf{suppperiodical}, \textbf{thesis}
+(with its aliases \textbf{mastersthesis} and \textbf{phdthesis}), and
+\textbf{unpublished}.
+
+\mylittlespace What follows is an attempt to specify all the
+differences between these types and the standard provided by
+\textsf{biblatex}. If an entry type isn't discussed here, then it is
+safe to assume that it works as it does in the standard styles. In
+general, I have attempted not to discuss specific entry fields here,
+unless such a field is crucial to the overall operation of a given
+entry type. As a general and important rule, most entry types require
+very few fields when you use \textsf{biblatex-chicago-authordate}, so
+it seemed to me better to gather information pertaining to fields in
+the next section.
+
+\mybigspace The \mymarginpar{\textbf{article}} \emph{Chicago Manual of
+ Style} (17.148) recognizes three different sorts of periodical
+publication, \enquote{journals,} \enquote{magazines,} and
+\enquote{newspapers.} The first (17.150) includes \enquote{scholarly
+ or professional periodicals available mainly by subscription,} while
+the second refers to \enquote{weekly or monthly} publications that are
+\enquote{available either by subscription or in individual issues at
+ bookstores or newsstands.} \enquote{Magazines} will tend to be
+\enquote{more accessible to general readers,} and typically won't have
+a volume number.
+
+\mylittlespace Now, for articles in \enquote{journals} you can simply
+use the traditional \textsc{Bib}\TeX\ --- and indeed \textsf{biblatex}
+--- \textsf{article} entry type, which will work as expected and set
+off the page numbers with a colon in the list of references, as
+required by the \emph{Manual}. If, however, you need to refer to a
+\enquote{magazine} or a \enquote{newspaper,} then you need to add an
+\textsf{entrysubtype} field containing the exact string
+\texttt{magazine}. The main formatting differences between a
+\texttt{magazine} (which includes both \enquote{magazines} and
+\enquote{newspapers}) and a plain \textsf{article} are that time
+specifications (month, day, season) aren't placed within parentheses,
+and that page numbers are set off by a comma rather than a colon.
+Otherwise, the two sorts of reference have much in common. (For
+\textsf{article}, see \emph{Manual} 17.154--181; batson,
+beattie:crime, chu:panda, connell:chronic, conway:evolution,
+friedman:learning, garaud:gatine, garrett, hlatky:hrt, kern, lewis,
+loften:hamlet, loomis:structure, rozner:liberation,
+schneider:mittelpleistozaene, terborgh:preservation, wall:ra\-di\-o,
+warr:ellison, white:callimachus. With \textsf{entrysubtype}
+\texttt{magazine}, cf.\ 17.166, 17.182--198; assocpress:gun,
+lakeforester:pushcarts, morgenson:market, reaves:ro\-sen,
+stenger:privacy.)
+
+\mylittlespace If you are familiar with the notes \&\ bibliography
+style, you'll know that the \emph{Manual} treats reviews (of books,
+plays, performances, etc.) as a sort of recognizable subset of
+\enquote{journals,} \enquote{magazines,} and \enquote{newspapers,}
+distinguished mainly by the way one formats the title of the review
+itself. In the author-date style, however, since both a generic title
+like \enquote{review of \ldots} and a specific one (cf. gibbard;
+osborne:poison) are formatted in the same way (no quotation marks or
+italics, sentence-style capitalization), all you really need,
+conveniently, is the \textsf{article} type, with the
+\textsf{entrysubtype} toggle to distinguish the sort of periodical
+which contains the review.
+
+%\enlargethispage{-\baselineskip}
+
+\mylittlespace In the case of a review with a specific as well as a
+generic title, the former goes in the \textsf{title} field, and the
+latter in the \textsf{titleaddon} field. Standard \textsf{biblatex}
+intends this field for use with additions to titles that may need to
+be formatted differently from the titles themselves, and
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago-authordate} uses it in just this way, with
+the additional wrinkle that it can, if needed, replace the
+\textsf{title} entirely, and this in, effectively, any entry type,
+providing a fairly powerful, if somewhat complicated, tool for getting
+\textsc{Bib}\TeX\ to do what you want. Here, however, if all you need
+is a generic title like \enquote{review of \ldots,} then you can
+simply use the \textsf{title} field for it, ignoring
+\textsf{titleaddon}.
+
+\mylittlespace No less than seven more things need explication under
+this heading. First, since the \emph{Manual} specifies, for the
+author-date style, that what goes into the \textsf{title} or the
+\textsf{titleaddon} fields of \textsf{article} entries stays
+unformatted --- no italics, no quotation marks --- this plain style
+(with sentence-style capitalization, as usual) is the default for such
+text, which means that you'll have to format any titles within these
+fields yourself, e.g., with \cmd{mkbibemph\{\}}. Second, the
+\emph{Manual} specifies a similar plain style for the titles of other
+sorts of material found in \enquote{magazines} and
+\enquote{newspapers,} e.g., obituaries, letters to the editor,
+interviews, the names of regular columns, and the like, though the
+names of regular columns, please note, need to be capitalized headline
+style. References may contain both the title of an individual article
+and the name of the regular column, in which case the former should
+go, as usual, in a \textsf{title} field, and the latter in
+\textsf{titleaddon}. (See 17.188, 17.190, 17.193; morgenson:market,
+reaves:rosen.)
+
+\mylittlespace Third, the \emph{Manual} suggests that, in the case of
+\enquote{unsigned newspaper articles or features \ldots the name of
+ the newspaper stands in place of the author} (17.192). It doesn't
+always carry through on this in its own presentation of newspaper
+citations (see esp.\ 17.188), but I've implemented their
+recommendation nonetheless, which means that in an \textsf{article}
+entry, \textsf{entrysubtype} \texttt{magazine}, and only in such an
+entry, a missing \textsf{author} field results in the name of the
+periodical (in the \textsf{journaltitle} field) being used as the
+missing author. Note that if you choose to use the name of the
+newspaper as an author, then you'll need to define the
+\textsf{sortkey} field to ensure that the reference list entry is
+alphabetized by \textsf{journaltitle} rather than by \textsf{title}.
+Also, if you want to abbreviate the \textsf{journaltitle} for use in
+citations, then the \textsf{shortauthor} field, somewhat surprisingly,
+is the place for it. (See lakeforester:pushcarts, nyt:trevorobit,
+unsigned:ranke.)
+
+%\enlargethispage{-\baselineskip}
+
+\mylittlespace Fourth, in certain fields, just beginning your data
+with a lowercase letter activates the mechanism for capitalizing that
+letter depending on its context within a list of references entry.
+This is less important in the author-date style, where this
+information only turns up in the reference list and not in citations,
+but you can consult \textbf{\textbackslash autocap} below for all the
+details. Both the \textsf{titleaddon} and \textsf{note} fields are
+among those treating their data this way, and since both appear
+regularly in \textsf{article} entries, I thought the problem merited a
+preliminary mention here.
+
+\mylittlespace Fifth, if you need to cite an entire issue of any sort
+of periodical, rather than one article in an issue, then the
+\textsf{periodical} entry type, once again with or without the
+\texttt{magazine} toggle in \textsf{entrysubtype,} is what you'll
+need. (You can also use the \textsf{article} type, placing what would
+normally be the \textsf{issuetitle} in the \textsf{title} field and
+retaining the usual \textsf{journaltitle} field, but this arrangement
+isn't compatible with standard \textsf{biblatex}.) The \textsf{note}
+field is where you place something like \enquote{special issue} (with
+the small \enquote{s} enabling the automatic capitalization routines),
+whether you are citing one article or the whole issue
+(conley:fifthgrade, good:wholeissue). Indeed, this is a somewhat
+specialized use of \textsf{note}, and if you have other sorts of
+information you need to include in an \textsf{article} or
+\textsf{periodical} entry, then you shouldn't put it in the
+\textsf{note} field, but rather in \textsf{titleaddon} or perhaps
+\textsf{addendum} (brown:bremer).
+
+\mylittlespace Sixth, I would suggest that if you wish to cite a
+television or radio broadcast, the \textsf{article} type,
+\textsf{entrysubtype} \texttt{magazine} is the place for it. The name
+of the program would go in \textsf{journaltitle}, with the name of the
+episode in \textsf{title}. The network's name goes into the
+\textsf{usera} field. (8.196, 17.207; see bundy:macneil for an
+example of how this all might look in a .bib file.)
+
+\mylittlespace Finally, if you're planning to use the same .bib file
+for the author-date and for the notes \&\ bibliography style, you may
+need to look under the \textsf{article} and \textsf{review} entries in
+section~\ref{sec:entrytypes} above for the full instructions on their
+differences. Any well-constructed \textsf{review} entry will work
+just fine under author-date, but if you only need the author-date
+style then you can avoid the complexity of learning another entry
+type.
+
+\mylittlespace If you're still with me, allow me to recommend that you
+browse through \textsf{dates-test.bib} to get a feel for just how many of
+the \emph{Manual}'s complexities the \textsf{article} and
+\textsf{periodical} types attempt to address. It may be that in
+future releases of \textsf{biblatex-chicago} I'll be able to simplify
+these procedures somewhat, but if you are only using author-date at
+least you've avoided some of the worst of it.
+
+\mybigspace Arne \mymarginpar{\textbf{artwork}} Kjell Vikhagen has
+pointed out to me that none of the standard entry types were
+straightforwardly adaptable when referring to visual artworks. The
+\emph{Manual} doesn't give any thorough specifications for such
+references, and indeed it's unclear that it believes it necessary to
+include them in the reference apparatus at all. Still, it's easy to
+conceive of contexts in which a list of artworks studied might be
+desirable, and \textsf{biblatex} includes entry types for just this
+purpose, though the standard styles leave them undefined. The two I
+have adopted are \textsf{artwork} and \textsf{image}, the former
+intended for paintings, sculptures, etchings, and the like, the latter
+for photographs. The two entry types work in exactly the same way as
+far as constructing your .bib entry, and when printed the only
+difference will be that the titles of \textsf{artworks} are
+italicized, those of \textsf{images} in plain text.
+
+\mylittlespace As one might expect, the artist goes in \textsf{author}
+and the name of the work in \textsf{title}. The \textsf{type} field
+is intended for the medium --- e.g., oil on canvas, charcoal on paper
+--- and the \textsf{version} field might contain the state of an
+etching. You can place the dimensions of the work in \textsf{note},
+and the current location in \textsf{organization},
+\textsf{institution}, and/or \textsf{location}, in ascending order of
+generality. The \textsf{type} field, as in several other entry types,
+uses \textsf{biblatex's} automatic capitalization routines, so if the
+first word only needs a capital letter at the beginning of a sentence,
+use lowercase in the .bib file and let \textsf{biblatex} handle it for
+you. (See \emph{Manual} 12.33; leo:madonna, bedford:photo.)
+
+\mylittlespace As a final complication, the \emph{Manual} (8.206) says
+that \enquote{the names of works of antiquity \ldots\,are usually set
+ in roman.} If you should need to include such a work in the
+reference apparatus, you can either define an \textsf{entrysubtype}
+for an \textsf{artwork} entry --- anything will do --- or you could
+use the \textsf{image} type, or you could try the \textsf{misc} entry
+type with an \textsf{entrysubtype}. Fortunately, in this instance the
+other fields in a \textsf{misc} entry function pretty much as in
+\textsf{artwork} or \textsf{image}.
+
+\mybigspace This \mymarginpar{\textbf{bookinbook}} type provides the
+means of referring to parts of books that are considered, in other
+contexts, themselves to be books, rather than chapters, essays, or
+articles. (Older versions of \textsf{biblatex-chicago} used
+\textbf{customb} for this purpose, but this is now deprecated.) Such
+an entry can have a \textsf{title} and a \textsf{maintitle}, but it
+can also contain a \textsf{booktitle}, all three of which will be
+italicized in the reference matter. In general usage it is,
+therefore, rather like the traditional \textsf{inbook} type, only with
+its \textsf{title} in italics rather than in plain text. (See
+\emph{Manual} 17.72, 17.89, 17.93; bernard:boris, euripides:orestes,
+plato:republic:gr.)
+
+\mylittlespace \textbf{NB}: The Euripides play receives slightly
+different presentations in 17.89 and 17.93. Although the
+specification is very detailed, it doesn't eliminate all choice or
+variation. Using a system like \textsc{Bib}\TeX\ should help to
+maintain consistency.
+
+\mybigspace This \mymarginpar{\textbf{booklet}} is the first of two
+entry types --- the other being \textsf{manual}, on which see below
+--- which are traditional in \textsc{Bib}\TeX\ styles, but which the
+\emph{Manual} (17.241) suggests may well be treated basically as
+books. In the interests of backward compatibility,
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago-authordate} will so format such an entry,
+which uses the \textsf{howpublished} field instead of a standard
+\textsf{publisher}, though of course if you do decide just to use a
+\textsf{book} entry then any information you might have given in a
+\textsf{howpublished} field should instead go in \textsf{publisher}.
+(See clark:mesopot.)
+
+\mybigspace This \mymarginpar{\textbf{customa}} entry type is now
+deprecated in favor of the standard \textsf{biblatex} \textbf{letter}
+type, which see. If your .bib files contain any \textsf{customa}
+entries you should change them to \textsf{letter} soon, as I am
+reclaiming this custom type for other uses in the next release of
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago}.
+
+\mybigspace This \mymarginpar{\textbf{customb}} entry type is now
+deprecated in favor of the standard \textsf{biblatex}
+\textbf{bookinbook}, which see. If your .bib files contain any
+\textsf{customb} entries you should change them to \textsf{bookinbook}
+soon, as it will cease to function in the next release of
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago}.
+
+\mybigspace This \mymarginpar{\textbf{customc}} entry type is now
+deprecated in favor of the standard \textsf{biblatex}
+\textbf{suppbook} (and \textbf{suppcollection}, which currently serves
+as an alias to \textsf{suppbook}). Please see their documentation
+below. If your .bib files contain any \textsf{customc} entries you
+should change them to \textsf{suppbook} soon, as it will cease to
+function in the next release of \textsf{biblatex-chicago}.
+
+\mybigspace This \mymarginpar{\textbf{image}} entry type, left
+undefined in the standard styles, is in
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago-authordate} intended for referring to
+photographs. Excluding the possible use of the \textsf{entrysubtype}
+field, which in an \textsf{image} entry would be ignored, this type is
+a clone of \textsf{artwork}, so you should consult the latter's
+documentation above to see how to construct your .bib entry. (See
+\emph{Manual} 12.33; bedford:photo.)
+
+\mybigspace These \mymarginpar{\textbf{inbook}\\\textbf{incollection}}
+two standard \textsf{biblatex} types have very nearly identical
+formatting requirements as far as the Chicago specification is
+concerned, but I have retained both of them for compatibility.
+\textsf{Biblatex.pdf} (§~2.1.1) intends the first for \enquote{a part
+ of a book which forms a self-contained unit with its own title,}
+while the second would hold \enquote{a contribution to a collection
+ which forms a self-contained unit with a distinct author and its own
+ title.} The \textsf{title} of both sorts will be in plain text, and
+in general you can use either type for most material falling into
+these categories. There is, however, an important difference between
+them, as it is only in \textsf{incollection} entries that I implement
+the \emph{Manual's} recommendations for space-saving abbreviations in
+the list of references when you cite multiple pieces from the same
+\textsf{collection}. These abbreviations are activated when you use
+the \textsf{crossref} or \textsf{xref} field in \textsf{incollection}
+entries, and not in \textsf{inbook} entries, mainly because the
+\emph{Manual} (17.70) here specifies a \enquote{multiauthor book.}
+(For more on this mechanism see \textbf{crossref}, below, and note
+that it is also active in \textsf{letter} and \textsf{inproceedings}
+entries.) If the part of a book to which you are referring has had a
+separate publishing history as a book in its own right, then you may
+wish to use the \textsf{bookinbook} type, instead, on which see above.
+(See \emph{Manual} 17.68--72; \textsf{inbook}: ashbrook:brain,
+phibbs:diary, will:cohere; \textsf{incollection}: centinel:letters,
+contrib:contrib, sirosh:visualcortex; ellet:galena, keating:dearborn,
+and lippincott:chicago [and the \textsf{collection} entry
+prairie:state] demonstrate the use of the \textsf{crossref} field with
+its attendant abbreviations in the list of references.)
+
+\mylittlespace \textbf{NB}: The \emph{Manual} suggests that, when
+referring to a chapter, one use either a chapter number or the
+inclusive page numbers, not both. In-text citations, of course,
+require any \textsf{postnote} field to specify if it is a whole
+chapter to which you are referring.
+
+\mybigspace This \mymarginpar{\textbf{inproceedings}} entry type works
+pretty much as in standard \textsf{biblatex}. Indeed, the main
+differences between it and \textsf{incollection} are the lack of an
+\textsf{edition} field and the possibility that an
+\textsf{organization} may be cited alongside the \textsf{publisher},
+even though the \emph{Manual} doesn't specify its use (17.71). Please
+note, also, that the \textsf{crossref} and \textsf{xref} mechanism for
+shortening citations of multiple pieces from the same
+\textsf{proceedings} is operative here, just as it is in
+\textsf{incollection} entries. See \textbf{crossref}, below, for more
+details.
+
+\mybigspace This \mymarginpar{\textbf{inreference}} entry type is
+aliased to \textsf{incollection} in the standard styles, but the
+\emph{Manual's} requirements for the notes \&\ bibliography style
+prompted a thoroughgoing revision. Unfortunately, instructions for
+the author-date style are considerably less copious, so parts of what
+follows are my best guess at following the specification
+(17.238--239).
+
+\mylittlespace One thing, at least, seems clear. If your reference
+work can easily or conveniently be presented like a regular book, that
+is, with an author or editor, a year of publication, and a title, and
+if you you will be citing it by page or section number, then you
+should almost certainly simply choose the \textsf{book} entry type for
+your .bib entry. (Cf.\ mla:style, schellinger:novel, times:guide. The
+latter was presented as an \textsf{inreference} entry for the notes
+\&\ bibliography style, but because the \textsf{book} entry type can
+also present references to alphabetized headings [see below], at least
+in the list of references, then it seemed better just to choose a
+\textsf{book} entry for the author-date style.)
+
+\mylittlespace If you simply cannot make your source fit the template
+for a \textsf{book}, then you may need to use the \textsf{inreference}
+type, the main feature of which is the \textsf{lista} field, which you
+use to present citations from \enquote{alphabetically arranged} works
+by named article rather than by page number. You should present these
+article names just as they appear in the work, separated by the
+keyword \enquote{\texttt{and}} if there is more than one, and
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago-authordate} will provide the appropriate
+prefatory string (\texttt{s.v.}, plural \texttt{s.vv.}), and enclose
+each in its own set of quotation marks (times:guide). More relevant
+to the author-date style is the fact that the \textsf{postnote} field
+works the same way in \textsf{inreference} entries, the only
+limitation on this system being that this field, unlike
+\textsf{lista}, is not a list, and therefore for the formatting to
+work correctly you can only put one article name in it. In the case
+of \enquote{[w]ell-known reference books, such as major dictionaries
+ and encyclopedias,} you are encouraged not to include them in the
+list of references, so the \textsf{lista} field actually may be of
+less use than this special formatting of \textsf{postnote}. You may
+want to look at ency:britannica, where only a (carefully-formatted)
+\textsf{shorttitle} and an \textsf{options} field are necessary to
+allow you to produce in-text citations that look like (\emph{Ency.\
+ Brit.}\ 15th ed., s.v. \enquote{Article}).
+
+\mylittlespace If it seems appropriate to include such a work in the
+list of references, perhaps because the work is not so well known that
+a short citation will be parseable by your readers, or perhaps because
+it is an online work, which requires you to provide a \textsf{urldate}
+(see below), be aware that the contents of the \textsf{lista} field
+will also be presented there, which may not be what you want. A
+separate \textsf{inreference} or \textsf{reference} entry might solve
+this problem, but you may also need a \textsf{sortkey} field to ensure
+proper alphabetization, as \textsf{biblatex} will attempt to use an
+\textsf{editor} or \textsf{author} name, if either is present. In a
+typical \textsf{inreference} entry, very few fields are needed, as
+\enquote{the facts of publication are often omitted, but the edition
+ (if not the first) must be specified.} In practice, this means a
+\textsf{title} and possibly an \textsf{edition} field. The
+\textsf{author} field holds the author of the specific article (in
+\textsf{lista}), not the author of the \textsf{title} as a whole.
+This name will be printed in parentheses after the entry's name
+(grove:sibelius).
+
+\mylittlespace All of these rules apply to online reference works, as
+well, for which you need to provide not only a \textsf{url} but also,
+always, a \textsf{urldate}, as these sources are in constant flux
+(wikiped:bibtex, grove:sibelius). For author-date, it may be
+convenient to duplicate the \textsf{urlyear} in the \textsf{year}, as
+this will help to present and categorize the material both in
+citations and in the list of references. Please note, however, that
+the automatic provision of the \enquote{n.d.} abbreviation when a
+\textsf{year} is missing has been turned off for \textsf{inreference}
+entries, as for \textsf{misc} and \textsf{reference} entries.
+
+\mylittlespace Some of these presentational difficulties might make
+switching between the two Chicago styles rather more difficult,
+depending on the nature of your sources. The advice I offer in
+section~\ref{sec:twostyles} below may be of assistance.
+
+\mybigspace This \mymarginpar{\textbf{letter}} entry type was designed
+to be used for citing letters, memoranda, or similar texts, but
+\emph{only} when they appear in a published collection. (Unpublished
+material of this nature needs a \textsf{misc} entry, for which see
+below.) The author-date specification (17.77), however, recommends
+against individual letters appearing in a list of references,
+suggesting instead that you put the whole published collection in a
+\textsf{book} entry and use a notice in the text to specify the letter
+(white:total).
+
+\mylittlespace If you absolutely must include individual letters in
+the list of references, for whatever reason, then the instructions
+above for the notes \&\ bibliography style in
+section~\ref{sec:entrytypes}, s.v.\ \enquote{\textsf{letter,}} should
+get you started. There are a few wrinkles, related to date
+specifications, that I shall attempt to clarify here. If you look at
+white:ross and white:russ, you'll see the worst-case scenario, when
+you want to present two letters from the same published collection,
+which two letters were written in the same year. The
+\texttt{cmsdate=on} call in the \textsf{options} field means that it
+will be the \textsf{origdate}, i.e., the year the letter was written,
+that will head the entry (and appear in a citation). Since the two
+letters are from the same year, the \textsf{origdate} field can't
+actually be used, as \textsf{biblatex} will only append the letters
+\texttt{a,b,c} etc.\ to a \textsf{date}, so we place the
+\textsf{origdate} in the \textsf{date} field and put
+\texttt{switchdates} in the \textsf{options} field. The latter is
+necessary because the entry doesn't have both dates, which would turn
+on the \texttt{switchdates} mechanism automatically if the
+\textsf{date} were earlier than the \textsf{origdate}. This is the
+case, in turn, because we are using the \textsf{xref} mechanism to
+refer to the whole published collection (white:total), so that entry
+provides the \textsf{date} for the shortened cross-reference included
+in the list of references.
+
+\mylittlespace If this all seems clear as mud, I'm not surprised, but
+let me suggest that you experiment with the different date settings to
+see what kinds of effects they have on the final result, and also read
+the documentation of the \textsf{date} field in
+section~\ref{sec:fields:authdate} below.
+
+\mybigspace This \mymarginpar{\textbf{manual}} is the second of two
+traditional \textsc{Bib}\TeX\ entry types that the \emph{Manual}
+suggests formatting as books, the other being \textsf{booklet}. As
+with this latter, I have retained it in
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago-authordate} for backward compatibility, its
+main peculiarity being that, in the absence of a named author, the
+\textsf{organization} producing the manual will be provided both as
+author and as publisher. In such a case, you'll also need a
+\textsf{sortkey} field to aid \textsf{biblatex's} alphabetization
+routines. (You can give a shortened form of the \textsf{organization}
+in the \textsf{shortauthor} field for text citations, if needed.) Of
+course, if you were to use a \textsf{book} entry for such a reference,
+then you would need to define both \textsf{author} and
+\textsf{publisher} using the name you here might have put in
+\textsf{organization}. (See 17:47; chicago:manual, dyna:browser,
+natrecoff:camera.)
+
+\mybigspace As \mymarginpar{\textbf{misc}} its name suggests, the
+\textsf{misc} entry type was designed as a hold-all for citations that
+didn't quite fit into other categories. In \textsf{biblatex-chicago},
+I have somewhat extended its applicability, while retaining its
+traditional use. Put simply, with no \textsf{entrysubtype} field, a
+\textsf{misc} entry will retain backward compatibility with the
+standard styles, so the usual \textsf{howpublished}, \textsf{version},
+and \textsf{type} fields are all available for specifying an otherwise
+unclassifiable text, and the \textsf{title} will be italicized. (The
+\emph{Manual}, you may wish to note, doesn't give specific
+instructions on how such citations should be formatted, so when using
+the Chicago style I would recommend you have recourse to this
+traditional entry type as sparingly as possible.)
+
+\mylittlespace If you do provide an \textsf{entrysubtype} field, the
+\textsf{misc} type provides a means for citing unpublished letters,
+memoranda, private contracts, wills, interviews, and the like, making
+it something of an unpublished analogue to the \textsf{letter} and
+\textsf{article} entry types (which see). Typically, such an entry
+will cite part of an archive, and equally typically the text cited
+won't have a specific title, but only a generic one, whereas an
+\textsf{unpublished} entry will ordinarily have a specific author and
+title, and won't come from a named archive. As a rule, and as with
+the \textsf{letter} type, the \emph{Manual} (17.233) suggests that the
+list of references will usually contain only the name of the whole
+archived collection, with more specific information about individual
+items provided in the text, \enquote{outside the parentheses.} If, on
+the other hand, \enquote{only one item from a collection has been
+ mentioned in text, the entry may begin with the writer's name (if
+ known).} (See 17.205-206, 17.220, 17.222-232; house:papers cites a
+whole archive, while creel:house, dinkel:agassiz, and spock:interview
+cite individual pieces.)
+
+\mylittlespace As far as constructing your .bib entry goes, you should
+first know that, like the \textsf{inreference} and \textsf{reference}
+types, the absence of any date will not result in the \enquote{n.d.}
+abbreviation automatically being provided. As for presenting the
+date, the \emph{Manual} draws a distinction between archival material
+that is \enquote{letter-like} (letters, memoranda, reports, telegrams)
+and that which isn't (interviews, wills, contracts, or even personal
+communications you've received and which you wish to cite). This may
+not always be the easiest distinction to draw, and in previous
+releases of \textsf{biblatex-chicago} I have been ignoring it, but
+once you've decided to classify it one way or the other you put the
+date in the \textsf{origdate} field for letters, etc.\ (creel:house),
+and into the \textsf{date} field for the others (spock:interview).
+Like with the \textsf{letter} type, if you've used the
+\textsf{origdate} field, you need to put \texttt{cmsdate=on} in the
+\textsf{options} field to make sure that that year appears at the head
+of the entry (and in citations). (Cf.\ particularly the documentation
+in section~\ref{sec:fields:authdate} below, s.v.\ \enquote{date}, and
+also the \textsf{letter} type above for some of the date-related
+complications that can arise, and how you can address them with
+judicious use of the \textsf{options}, \textsf{date}, and
+\textsf{origdate} fields.)
+
+\mylittlespace As in \textsf{letter} entries, the titles of
+unpublished letters are of the form \texttt{Author to Recipient}, and
+further information can be given in the \textsf{titleaddon} field.
+Interviews or similar pieces will have a different sort of title, but
+all types will use the \textsf{note}, \textsf{organization},
+\textsf{institution}, and \textsf{location} fields (in ascending order
+of generality) to identify the archive, though the \emph{Manual}
+specifies (17.228) that well-known depositories don't usually need a
+city, state or country specified. (The traditional \textsf{misc}
+fields are all still available, also.)
+
+\mylittlespace When your .bib entry refers to an entire archived
+collection, then you may wish to use the word
+\enquote{\texttt{classical}} as your \textsf{entrysubtype}, which will
+have no effect on the list of references but will change the look of
+the in-text citations (house:papers). Instead of any date, the
+citation will include the \textsf{title}, separated from the
+\textsf{author's} name by a space, e.g., (House Papers). This same
+arrangement, happily, allows you easily to cite individual books of
+the Bible, and also certain other sacred texts (17.246--49; genesis).
+Please see under \textsf{entrysubtype} in
+section~\ref{sec:fields:authdate} below for all the details of the
+\texttt{classical} toggle.
+
+\mylittlespace In all this class of archived material, the
+\emph{Manual} (17.222) quite specifically requires more consistency
+within your own work than conformity to some external standard, so it
+is the former which you should pursue. I hope that
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago} proves helpful in this regard.
+
+\mybigspace The \mymarginpar{\textbf{online}} \emph{Manual}'s
+instructions (17.142--147, 17.198, 17.234--237) for citing online
+materials are slightly different from those suggested by standard
+\textsf{biblatex}. Indeed, this is a case where complete backward
+compatibility with other \textsf{biblatex} styles may be impossible,
+because as a general rule the \emph{Manual} considers relevant not
+only where a source is found, but also the nature of that source,
+e.g., if it's an online edition of a book (james:ambassadors), then it
+calls for a \textsf{book} entry. Even if you cite an
+\enquote{intrinsically online} source, if that source is structured
+more or less like a conventional printed periodical, then you'll
+probably want to use \textsf{article} or \textsf{review} instead of
+\textsf{online} (stenger:privacy, which cites \emph{CNN.com} ---
+\emph{Yahoo!\ News} is another example that would be treated in such a
+way). If the \enquote{standard facts of publication} are missing,
+then the \textsf{online} type is usually the best choice
+(evanston:library, powell:email). Some online materials will, no
+doubt, make it difficult to choose an entry type, but so long as all
+locating information is present, then perhaps that is enough to
+fulfill the specification, or at least so I'd like to hope.
+
+\mylittlespace Constructing an \textsf{online} .bib file entry is much
+the same as in \textsf{biblatex}. The \textsf{title} field would
+contain the title of the page, the \textsf{organization} field could
+hold the title or owner of the whole site. If there is no specific
+title for a page, but only a generic one (powell:email), then in the
+author-date style the \textsf{title} will serve just as well as
+\textsf{titleaddon}, which latter is required for the notes \&\
+bibliography style.
+
+\mybigspace The \mymarginpar{\textbf{patent}} \emph{Manual} is very
+brief on the subject of patents (17.219), but very clear about which
+information it wants you to present, so such entries may not work well
+with other \textsf{biblatex} styles. The important date, as far as
+Chicago is concerned, is the filing date. If a patent has been filed
+but not yet granted, then you can place the filing date in either the
+\textsf{date} field or the \textsf{origdate} field, and
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago-authordate} will automatically prepend the
+bibstring \texttt{patentfiled} to it. If the patent has been granted,
+then you put the filing date in the \textsf{origdate} field, and you
+put the date it was issued in the \textsf{date} field, to which the
+bibstring \texttt{patentissued} will automatically be prepended. In
+this entry type, and in no other, the \texttt{cmsdate=on} option is
+turned on by default, so that the filing date will be at the head of
+the entry in the list of references and in the citation, as well. If
+you have more than one patent by the same author(s) filed in the same
+year, and if one or both of them have also been granted, then you'll
+need to reverse the dates (or put \texttt{switchdates} in the
+\textsf{options} field) so that \enquote{a,b,c} etc.\ can be appended
+to the year. (If there is just the one, filing, date, please don't
+use the \texttt{switchdates} option.) The patent number goes in the
+\textsf{number} field, and you should use the standard
+\textsf{biblatex} bibstrings in the \textsf{type} field. Though it
+isn't mentioned by the \emph{Manual},
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago-authordate} will print the \textsf{holder}
+after the \textsf{author}, if you provide one. See petroff:impurity.
+
+\mybigspace This \mymarginpar{\textbf{periodical}} is the standard
+\textsf{biblatex} entry type for presenting an entire issue of a
+periodical, rather than one article within it. It has the same
+function in \textsf{biblatex-chicago}, and in the main uses the same
+fields, though in keeping with the system established in the
+\textsf{article} entry type (which see) you'll need to provide
+\textsf{entrysubtype} \texttt{magazine} if the periodical you are
+citing is a \enquote{newspaper} or \enquote{magazine} instead of a
+\enquote{journal.} Also, remember that the \textsf{note} field is the
+place for identifying strings like \enquote{special issue,} with its
+initial lowercase letter to activate the automatic capitalization
+routines, though this isn't strictly necessary in the author-date
+style. (See \emph{Manual} 17.170; good:wholeissue.)
+
+\mybigspace This \mymarginpar{\textbf{reference}} entry type is
+aliased to \textsf{collection} by the standard \textsf{biblatex}
+styles, but I intend it to be used in cases where you need to cite a
+reference work but not an alphabetized article or articles in that
+work. This could be because it doesn't contain such articles, and yet
+you still want the entry in the list of references to start with the
+\textsf{title}. Indeed, the only differences between it and
+\textsf{inreference} are the lack of a \textsf{lista} field to present
+an alphabetized entry, and the fact that any \textsf{postnote} field
+will be printed verbatim, rather than formatted as an alphabetized
+entry. (Cf.\ \textsf{inreference}, above.)
+
+\mybigspace This \mymarginpar{\textbf{report}} entry type is a
+\textsf{biblatex} generalization of the traditional \textsc{Bib}\TeX\
+type \textsf{techreport}. Instructions for such entries are rather
+thin on the ground in the \emph{Manual} (17.241), so I have followed
+the generic advice about formatting it like a book, and hope that the
+results conform to the specification. Its main peculiarities are the
+\textsf{institution} field in place of a \textsf{publisher}, the
+\textsf{type} field for identifying the kind of report in question,
+and the \textsf{isrn} field containing the International Standard
+Technical Report Number of a technical report. As in standard
+\textsf{biblatex}, if you use a \textsf{techreport} entry, then the
+\textsf{type} field automatically defaults to
+\cmd{bibstring\{techreport\}}. As with \textsf{booklet} and
+\textsf{manual}, you can also use a \textsf{book} entry, putting the
+report type in \textsf{note} and the \textsf{institution} in
+\textsf{publisher}. (See herwign:office.)
+
+\mybigspace As \mymarginpar{\textbf{review}} its name suggests, this
+entry type was designed for reviews published in periodicals, and if
+you've already read the \textsf{article} documentation above you'll
+know that I haven't yet found an example where you absolutely need to
+use it for the author-date style. The code to process such an entry
+remains in \textsf{biblatex-chicago-authordate}, so if you are
+building a .bib file for use with both Chicago styles then any
+\textsf{review} entries in it will work fine in both, but otherwise
+the \textsf{article} type will suffice. If you find I'm wrong about
+this, please let me know. (Cf.\ barcott:review, bundy:macneil,
+Clemens:letter, gourmet:052006, kozinn:review, nyt:trevorobit,
+ratliff:review, unsigned:ranke, wallraff:word.)
+
+\mybigspace This \mymarginpar{\textbf{suppbook}} is the entry type to
+use if the main focus of a reference is supplemental material in a
+book or in a collection, e.g., an introduction, afterword, or forward,
+either by the same or by a different author. There are two mechanisms
+in \textsf{biblatex-chicago} for producing such a citation. First,
+these three just-mentioned types of material, and only these three
+types, can be referenced using the \textsf{introduction},
+\textsf{afterword}, or \textsf{foreword} fields, a system that
+requires you simply to define one of them in any way and leave the
+others undefined. The macros don't use the text provided by such an
+entry, they merely check to see if one of them is defined, in order to
+decide which sort of pre- or post-matter is at stake, and to print the
+appropriate string before the \textsf{title} in the list of
+references, and possibly also in the list of shorthands. This
+mechanism works without modification across multiple languages, but I
+have also provided functionality which allows you to cite any sort of
+supplemental material whatever, using the \textsf{type} field. Under
+this second system, simply put the nature of the material, including
+the relevant preposition, in that field, beginning with a lowercase
+letter so \textsf{biblatex} can decide whether it needs capitalization
+depending on the context. Examples might be \enquote{\texttt{preface
+ to}} or \enquote{\texttt{colophon of}.} (Please note, however,
+that unless you use a \cmd{bibstring} command in the \textsf{type}
+field, the resultant entry will not be portable across languages.)
+
+\mylittlespace The other rules for constructing your .bib entry remain
+the same. The \textsf{author} field refers to the author of the
+introduction or afterword, while \textsf{bookauthor} refers to the
+author of the main text of the work, if the two differ. If the focus
+of the reference is the main text of the book, but you want to mention
+the name of the writer of an introduction or afterword for
+completeness, then the normal \textsf{biblatex} rules apply, and you
+can just put their name in the appropriate field of a \textsf{book}
+entry, that is, in the \textsf{foreword}, \textsf{afterword}, or
+\textsf{introduction} field. (See \emph{Manual} 17.74--75;
+friedman:intro, polakow:afterw, prose:intro).
+
+\mybigspace This \mymarginpar{\textbf{suppcollection}} fulfills a
+function analogous to \textsf{suppbook}. Indeed, I believe the
+\textbf{suppbook} type can serve to present supplemental material in
+both types of work, so this entry type is an alias to
+\textsf{suppbook}, which see.
+
+\mybigspace This \mymarginpar{\textbf{suppperiodical}} type is
+intended to allow reference to generically-titled works in
+periodicals, such as regular columns or letters to the editor.
+\textsf{Biblatex} also provides the \textsf{review} type for this
+purpose, and in the notes \&\ bibliography style
+\textsf{suppperiodical} is an alias of \textsf{review}. In the
+author-date style, however, as discussed above, you really only need
+the \textsf{article} entry type for this purpose, though I have
+retained \textsf{suppperiodical} in order to facilitate switching
+between the two Chicago styles.
+
+\subsection{Entry Fields}
+\label{sec:fields:authdate}
+
+The following discussion presents, in alphabetical order, a complete
+list of the entry fields you will need to use
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago-authordate}. As in
+section~\ref{sec:types:authdate}, I shall include references to the
+numbered paragraphs of the \emph{Chicago Manual of Style}, and also to
+the entries in \textsf{dates-test.bib}. Many fields are most easily
+understood with reference to other, related fields. In such cases,
+cross references should allow you to find the information you need.
+
+\mybigspace As \mymarginpar{\textbf{addendum}} in standard
+\textsf{biblatex}, this field allows you to add miscellaneous
+information to the end of an entry, after publication data but before
+any \textsf{url} or \textsf{doi} field. In the \textsf{patent} entry
+type (which see), it will be printed in close association with the
+filing and issue dates. In any entry type, if your data begins with a
+word that would ordinarily only be capitalized at the beginning of a
+sentence, then simply ensure that that word is in lowercase, and the
+style will take care of the rest. Cf.\ \textsf{note}. (See
+\emph{Manual} 17.145, 17.123; davenport:attention, natrecoff:camera.)
+
+\mybigspace In most \mymarginpar{\textbf{afterword}} circumstances,
+this field will function as it does in standard \textsf{biblatex},
+i.e., you should include here the author(s) of an afterword to a given
+work. The \emph{Manual} suggests that, as a general rule, the
+afterword would need to be of significant importance in its own right
+to require mentioning in the reference apparatus, but this is clearly
+a matter for the user's judgment. As in \textsf{biblatex}, if the
+name given here exactly matches that of an editor and/or a translator,
+then \textsf{biblatex-chicago} will concatenate these fields in the
+formatted references.
+
+\mylittlespace As noted above, however, this field has a special
+meaning in the \textsf{suppbook} entry type, used to make an
+afterword, foreword, or introduction the main focus of a citation. If
+it's an afterword at issue, simply define \textsf{afterword} any way
+you please, leave \textsf{foreword} and \textsf{introduction}
+undefined, and \textsf{biblatex-chicago} will do the rest. Cf.\
+\textsf{foreword} and \textsf{introduction}. (See \emph{Manual} 17.46,
+17.74; polakow:afterw.)
+
+\mybigspace At \mymarginpar{\textbf{annotation}} the request of Emil
+Salim, \textsf{biblatex-chicago} has, as of version 0.9, added a
+package option (see \texttt{annotation} below, section
+\ref{sec:useropts}) to allow you to produce annotated lists of
+references. The formatting of such a list is currently fairly basic,
+though it conforms with the \emph{Manual's} minimal guidelines
+(16.77). The default in \textsf{chicago-authordate.cbx} is to define
+\cmd{DeclareFieldFormat\{an\-notation\}} using \cmd{par}\cmd{nobreak}
+\cmd{vskip} \cmd{bibitemsep}, though you can alter it by re-declaring
+the format in your preamble. The page-breaking algorithms don't
+always give perfect results here, but the default formatting looks, to
+my eyes, fairly decent. In addition to tweaking the field formatting
+you can also insert \cmd{par} (or even \cmd{vadjust\{\cmd{eject}\}})
+commands into the text of your annotations to improve the appearance.
+Please consider the \texttt{annotation} option a work in progress, but
+it is usable now. (N.B.: The \textsc{Bib}\TeX\ field \textsf{annote}
+serves as an alias for this.)
+
+\mybigspace I \mymarginpar{\textbf{annotator}} have implemented this
+\textsf{biblatex} field pretty much as that package's standard styles
+do, even though the \emph{Manual} doesn't actually mention it. It may
+be useful for some purposes. Cf.\ \textsf{commentator}.
+
+\mybigspace For \mymarginpar{\textbf{author}} the most part, I have
+implemented this field in a completely standard \textsc{Bib}\TeX\
+fashion. Remember that corporate or organizational authors need to
+have an extra set of curly braces around them (e.g.,
+\texttt{\{\{Associated Press\}\}}\,) to prevent \textsc{Bib}\TeX\ from
+treating one part of the name as a surname (17.47, 17.197;
+assocpress:gun, chicago:manual). If there is no \textsf{author}, then
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago} will look, in sequence, for an
+\textsf{editor}, \textsf{translator}, or \textsf{compiler} (actually
+\textsf{namec}, currently) and use that name (or those names) instead,
+followed by the appropriate identifying string (esp.\ 17.41, also
+17.28--29, 17.88, 17.95, 17.172; boxer:china, brown:bremer,
+harley:cartography, schellinger:novel, sechzer:women, silver:ga\-wain,
+soltes:georgia). Please note that when a \textsf{namec} appears at
+the head of an entry, you'll need to assist \textsf{biblatex}'s
+sorting algorithms by providing a \textsf{sortkey} field to ensure
+correct alphabetization in the list of references. Also, a
+\textsf{shortauthor} field is necessary to provide a name for
+citations.
+
+\mylittlespace As its name suggests, the author-date style very much
+wants to have a name of some sort present both for the entries in the
+list of references and for the in-text citations. Indeed,
+\enquote{this system works best where all or most of the sources are
+ easily convertible to author-date references} (16.4). The
+\emph{Manual} is nothing if not flexible, however, so with unsigned
+articles or encyclopedia entries the \textsf{journaltitle} or
+\textsf{title} may take the place of the \textsf{author}
+(gourmet:052006, lakeforester:pushcarts, nyt:trevorobit,
+unsigned:ranke, wikipedia:bibtex). Even in such \textsf{article}
+entries, however, it may be advantageous to provide a (formatted and
+abbreviated) \textsf{shortauthor} field to keep the in-text citations
+to a reasonable length, though not at the expense of making it hard to
+find the relevant entries in the reference list.
+
+\mylittlespace If you wish to emphasize the activity of an editor or a
+translator, you can use the \textsf{biblatex} and
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago} options \texttt{useauthor=false},
+\texttt{useeditor=false}, \texttt{usetranslator=false}, and
+\texttt{usecompiler=false} in the \textsf{options} field to choose
+which one appears at the head of an entry. A peculiarity of this
+system of toggles is that in order to ensure that the \textsf{title}
+of a book appears at the head of an entry, you would need to use
+\emph{all four} of the toggles, even though the hypothetical entry
+contains no \textsf{translator}. Internally,
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago} is either searching for an
+author-substitute, or it is skipping over elements of the ordered,
+unidirectional chain \textsf{author -> editor -> translator ->
+ compiler -> title}. If you don't include
+\texttt{usetranslator=false} in the \textsf{options} field, then the
+package begins its search at \textsf{translator} and continues on to
+\textsf{namec}, even though you have \texttt{usecompiler=false} in
+\textsf{options}. The result will be that the compilers' names will
+appear at the head of the entry. If you want to skip over parts of
+the chain, you must turn off \emph{all} of the parts up to the one you
+wish printed.
+
+\mylittlespace This system of toggles, then, can turn off
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago}'s mechanism for finding a name to place at
+the head of an entry, but it also very usefully adds the possibility
+of citing a work with an \textsf{author} by its editor, compiler or
+translator instead (17.45; eliot:pound), something that wasn't
+possible before. For full details of how this works, see the
+\textsf{editortype} documentation below. (Of course, in
+\textsf{collection} and \textsf{proceedings} entry types, an
+\textsf{author} isn't expected, so there the \textsf{editor} is
+required, as in standard \textsf{biblatex}. Also, in \textsf{article}
+entries with \textsf{entrysubtype} \texttt{magazine}, the absence of
+an \textsf{author} triggers the use of the \textsf{journaltitle} in
+its stead. See those entry types for further details.)
+
+\mylittlespace \textbf{NB}: The \emph{Manual} provides specific
+instructions for formatting the names of both anonymous and
+pseudonymous authors (17.32--39). The use of \enquote{Anonymous} as
+the name is \enquote{generally to be avoided,} but may in some cases
+be useful \enquote{in a bibliography in which several anonymous works
+ need to be grouped.} I would add that sometimes it's the simplest
+option for a difficult citation --- cf.\ virginia:plantation, where
+placing \enquote{\texttt{Anon.}\hspace{-2pt}}\ in the \textsf{author}
+field seems about the only way to fit this text into the author-date
+style. If \enquote{the authorship is known or guessed at but was
+ omitted on the title page,} then you need to use the
+\textsf{authortype} field to let \textsf{biblatex-chicago} know this
+fact. If the author is known (horsley:prosodies), then put
+\texttt{anon} in the \textsf{authortype} field, if guessed at
+(cook:sotweed) put \texttt{anon?}\ there. (In both cases,
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago} tests for these \emph{exact} strings, so
+check your typing if it doesn't work.) This will have the effect of
+enclosing the name in square brackets, with or without the question
+mark indicating doubt. As long as you have the right string in the
+\textsf{authortype} field, \textsf{biblatex-chicago-authordate} will
+also do the right thing automatically in text citations.
+
+\enlargethispage{-\baselineskip}
+
+\mylittlespace The \textsf{nameaddon} field furnishes the means to
+cope with the case of pseudonymous authorship. If the author's real
+name isn't known, simply put \texttt{pseud.}\ (or
+\cmd{bibstring\{pseudonym\}}) in that field (centinel:letters). If
+you wish to give a pseudonymous author's real name, simply include it
+there, formatted as you wish it to appear, as the contents of this
+field won't be manipulated as a name by \textsf{biblatex}
+(lecarre:quest, stendhal:parma). If you have given the author's real
+name in the \textsf{author} field, then the pseudonym goes in
+\textsf{nameaddon}, in the form \texttt{Firstname Lastname, pseud.}\
+(creasey:ashe:blast, creasey:morton:hide, creasey:\\york:death). This
+latter method will allow you to keep all references to one author's
+work under different pseudonyms grouped together in the list of
+references, a method recommended by the \emph{Manual}.
+
+\mylittlespace One final piece of advice. An institutional author's
+name, or a journal's name being used in place of an author, can be
+rather too long for in-text citations. In unsigned:ranke I placed an
+abbreviated form of the \textsf{journaltitle} into
+\textsf{shortauthor}, a practice condoned by the \emph{Manual}
+(17.159) even in author-date reference lists. In iso:electrodoc, I
+provided a \textsf{shorthand} field, which by default in
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago-authordate} will appear in text citations and
+will produce an entry in a list of shorthands that clarifies the
+abbreviation. (A future release of \textsf{biblatex-chicago} will
+allow you to explain the abbreviation inside the list of references
+itself, as suggested by the \emph{Manual}, 17.47.) Please see
+\textsf{shorthands} below for the details.
+
+\mybigspace In \mymarginpar{\textbf{authortype}}
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago}, this field serves a function very much in
+keeping with the spirit of standard \textsf{biblatex}, if not with its
+letter. Instead of allowing you to change the string used to identify
+an author, the field allows you to indicate when an author is
+anonymous, that is, when his or her name doesn't appear on the title
+page of the work you are citing. As I've just detailed under
+\textsf{author}, the \emph{Manual} generally discourages the use of
+\enquote{Anonymous} (or \enquote{Anon.} as an author, though in some
+cases it may well be your best option. If, however, the name of the
+author is known or guessed at, then you're supposed to enclose that
+name within square brackets, which is exactly what
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago} does for you when you put either
+\texttt{anon} (author known) or \texttt{anon?} (author guessed at) in
+the \textsf{authortype} field. (Putting the square brackets in
+yourself doesn't work right, hence this mechanism.) The macros test
+for these \emph{exact} strings, so check your typing if you don't see
+the brackets. Assuming the strings are correct,
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago} will also automatically do the right thing
+in the short note form. (See the \textsf{author} docs just above.
+Also \emph{Manual} 17.33--34; cook:sotweed, horsley:prosodies.)
+
+\mybigspace For \mymarginpar{\textbf{bookauthor}} the most part, as in
+\textsf{biblatex}, a \textsf{bookauthor} is the author of a
+\textsf{booktitle}, so that, for example, if one chapter in a book has
+different authorship from the book as a whole, you can include that
+fact in a reference (17.75; will:cohere). Keep in mind, however, that
+the entry type for introductions, forewords and afterwords
+(\textsf{suppbook}) uses \textsf{bookauthor} as the author of
+\textsf{title} (polakow:afterw, prose:intro).
+
+\mybigspace This, \mymarginpar{\vspace{-12pt}\textbf{bookpagination}}
+a standard \textsf{biblatex} field, allows you automatically to prefix
+the appropriate string to information you provide in a \textsf{pages}
+field. If you leave it blank, the default is to print no identifying
+string (the equivalent of setting it to \texttt{none}), as this is the
+practice the \emph{Manual} recommends for nearly all page numbers.
+Even if the numbers you cite aren't pages, but it is otherwise clear
+from the context what they represent, you can still leave this blank.
+If, however, you specifically need to identify what sort of unit the
+\textsf{pages} field represents, then you can either hand-format that
+field yourself, or use one of the provided bibstrings in the
+\textsf{bookpagination} field. These bibstrings currently are
+\texttt{column,} \texttt{line,} \texttt{paragraph,} \texttt{page,}
+\texttt{section,} and \texttt{verse}, all of which are used by
+\textsf{biblatex's} standard styles.
+
+\mylittlespace There are two points that may need explaining here.
+First, all the bibstrings I have just listed follow the Chicago
+specification, which may be confusing if they don't produce the
+strings you expect. Second, remember that \textsf{bookpagination}
+applies only to the \textsf{pages} field --- if you need to format a
+citation's \textsf{postnote} field, then you must use
+\textsf{pagination}, which see (15.45--46, 17.128--138).
+
+\mybigspace The \mymarginpar{\textbf{booksubtitle}} subtitle for a
+\textsf{booktitle}. See the next entry for further information.
+
+\mybigspace In \mymarginpar{\textbf{booktitle}} the
+\textsf{bookinbook}, \textsf{inbook}, \textsf{incollection},
+\textsf{inproceedings}, and \textsf{letter} entry types, the
+\textsf{booktitle} field holds the title of the larger volume in which
+the \textsf{title} itself is contained as one part. It is important
+not to confuse this with the \textsf{maintitle}, which holds the more
+general title of multiple volumes, e.g., \emph{Collected Works}. It
+is perfectly possible for one .bib file entry to contain all three
+sorts of title (euripides:orestes, plato:republic:gr). You may also
+find a \textsf{booktitle} in other sorts of entries (e.g.,
+\textsf{book} or \textsf{collection}), but there it will almost
+invariably be providing information for the \textsc{Bib}\TeX\
+cross-referencing apparatus (prairie:state), which I discuss below
+(\textbf{crossref}). The \textsf{booktitle} takes sentence-style
+capitalization in author-date.
+
+\mybigspace An \mymarginpar{\textbf{booktitleaddon}} annex to the
+\textsf{booktitle}. It will be printed in the main text font, without
+quotation marks. If your data begins with a word that would
+ordinarily only be capitalized at the beginning of a sentence, then
+simply ensure that that word is in lowercase, and
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago} will automatically do the right thing.
+
+\mybigspace This \mymarginpar{\textbf{chapter}} field holds the
+chapter number, mainly useful only in an \textsf{inbook} or an
+\textsf{incollection} entry where you wish to cite a specific chapter
+of a book (ashbrook:brain).
+
+\mybigspace I \mymarginpar{\textbf{commentator}} have implemented this
+\textsf{biblatex} field pretty much as that package's standard styles
+do, even though the \emph{Manual} doesn't actually mention it. It may
+be useful for some purposes. Cf.\ \textsf{annotator}.
+
+\mybigspace \textsf{Biblatex} \mymarginpar{\textbf{crossref}} uses the
+standard \textsc{Bib}\TeX\ cross-referencing mechanism, and has also
+introduced a modified one of its own (\textsf{xref}). The
+\textsf{crossref} field works exactly the same as it always has, while
+\textsf{xref} attempts to remedy some of the deficiencies of the usual
+mechanism by ensuring that child entries will inherit no data at all
+from their parents. Having said all that, a few further instructions
+may be in order for users of both \textsf{biblatex} and
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago}. First, remember that fields in a
+\textsf{collection} entry, for example, differ from those in an
+\textsf{incollection} entry. In order for the latter to inherit the
+\textsf{booktitle} field from the former, the former needs to have
+such a field defined, even though a \textsf{collection} entry has no
+use itself for such an entry (see ellet:galena, keating:dearborn,
+lippincott:chicago, and prairie:state). Note also that an entry with
+a \textsf{crossref} field will mechanically try to inherit all
+applicable fields from the entry it cross-references. In the case of
+ellet:galena et al., you can see that this includes the
+\textsf{subtitle} field found in prairie:state, which would then,
+quite incorrectly, be added to the \textsf{title} of ellet:galena. In
+cases like these, you could just make sure that prairie:state didn't
+contain such a field, by placing the entire title + subtitle in the
+\textsf{title} field, separated by a colon. Alternatively, as you can
+see in ellet:galena, you can just define an empty \textsf{subtitle}
+field to prevent it inheriting the unwanted subtitle from
+prairie:state.
+
+\mylittlespace Turning now more narrowly to \textsf{biblatex-chicago},
+the \emph{Manual} (17.70) specifies that if you cite several
+contributions to the same collection, all (including the collection
+itself) may be listed separately in the list of references, which the
+package does automatically, using the default inclusion threshold of 2
+in the case both of \textsf{crossref}'ed and \textsf{xref}'ed entries.
+(The familiar \cmd{nocite} command may also help in some
+circumstances.) In the list of references an abbreviated form will be
+appropriate for all the child entries. The current version of
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago-authordate} implements these instructions,
+but only if you use a \textsf{crossref} or an \textsf{xref} field, and
+only in \textsf{incollection}, \textsf{inproceedings}, or
+\textsf{letter} entries (on the last named, see just below). If you
+look at ellet:galena, keating:dearborn, lippincott:chicago, and
+prairie:state you'll see this mechanism in action in the list of
+references. If you wish to disable this, then simply don't use a
+\textsf{crossref} or \textsf{xref} field in your entries.
+
+%\enlargethispage{\baselineskip}
+
+\mylittlespace A published collection of letters requires a somewhat
+different treatment (17.77--78). If you cite more than one letter
+from the same collection, then the \emph{Manual} specifies that only
+the collection itself --- probably in a \textsf{book} entry --- should
+appear in the list of references. In the author-date style, it
+discourages individual letters from appearing in that list at all,
+even if only one is cited from a collection. If you have special
+reason to do so, however, you can still present individual published
+letters there, and they too can use the system of shortened references
+just outlined, even though the \emph{Manual} doesn't explicitly
+require it. As with \textsf{incollection} and \textsf{inproceedings},
+mere use of a \textsf{crossref} or \textsf{xref} field will activate
+this mechanism, while avoidance of said fields will disable it. (See
+white:ross:memo, white:russ, and white:total, for examples of the
+\textsf{xref} field in action in this way, and please note that the
+second of these entries is entirely fictitious, provided merely for
+the sake of example.)
+
+\mylittlespace I should also take this opportunity to mention that you
+need to be careful when using the \textsf{shorthand} field in
+conjunction with the \textsf{crossref} or \textsf{xref} fields,
+bearing in mind the complicated questions of inheritance posed by all
+such cross-references, most especially in \textsf{letter},
+\textsf{incollection}, and \textsf{inproceedings} entries. A
+\textsf{shorthand} field in a parent entry is, at least in the current
+state of \textsf{biblatex-chicago}, a bad idea.
+
+\mybigspace Predictably, \mymarginpar{\textbf{date}} this is one of
+the key fields for the author-date style, and one which, as a general
+rule, every .bib entry designed for this system ought to contain. So
+important is it, that \textsf{biblatex-chicago-authordate} will, in
+most entry types, supply a missing \cmd{bibstring\{nodate\}} if there
+is no date otherwise provided; citations will look like (Author n.d.),
+and entries in the list of references will begin: Author, Firstname.\
+n.d. This seems simple enough, but there are a surprising number of
+complications which require attention.
+
+\mylittlespace First, the entry types in which the automatic provision
+of \cmd{bibstring\{nodate\}} is turned off are \textsf{inreference},
+\textsf{misc}, and \textsf{reference}, none of which may be expected
+in the standard case to have a date provided. In all other entry
+types \enquote{\texttt{n.d.}} will appear if no date is provided,
+though you can turn this off throughout the document in all entry
+types with the option \texttt{nodates=false} when loading
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago} in your preamble. (See
+section~\ref{sec:authpreset}, below.) Second, if you wish to provide
+the \enquote{\texttt{n.d.}} yourself in the \textsf{year} field,
+please instead put \cmd{bibstring\{nodate\}} there, as otherwise the
+punctuation in citations will come out (subtly) wrong. Third, while
+we're on the subject, the \textsf{year} field is also the place for
+things like \enquote{\texttt{forthcoming}}, though you should use the
+\cmd{autocap} macro there to make sure the word comes out correctly in
+both citations and the list of references. The reason for this is
+that the \textsf{date} field accepts only numerical data, in
+\textsc{iso}8601 format (\texttt{yyyy-mm-dd}), whereas \textsf{year}
+can, conveniently, hold just about anything.
+
+\mylittlespace Fourth, for most entry types, only a year is really
+necessary, and in all types only the year --- or year range --- will
+be printed in text citations and at the head of entries in the list of
+references. More specific \textsf{date} fields are often present,
+however, in \textsf{article}, \textsf{misc}, \textsf{online},
+\textsf{patent}, and \textsf{unpublished} entries, for all of which
+any day or month provided will be printed later in the reference list
+entry. The \emph{Manual} is a little inconsistent when presenting the
+names of months in the author-date style, but currently
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago-authordate} uses abbreviated forms, which you
+can change by setting the option \texttt{dateabbrev=false} in your
+document preamble. (Cf.\ assocpress:gun, barcott:review, batson,
+creel:house, nass:address, petroff:impurity, powell:email.)
+
+\mylittlespace Fifth, the \emph{Manual} (17.125--7) provides a number
+of options for when a particular entry --- a reprinted edition, say
+--- has more than one date, and \textsf{biblatex-chicago-authordate}
+allows you to choose among all of them. The user interface is a
+little more complicated than I had hoped, but I shall attempt to
+explain it here as clearly as I can. If a reprinted book, say, has
+both a \textsf{date} of publication for the reprint edition and an
+\textsf{origdate} for the original edition, then by default
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago-authordate} will use the \textsf{date} in
+citations and at the head of the entry in the reference list. If you
+inform \textsf{biblatex-chicago} that the book is a reprint by putting
+the string \texttt{reprint} in the \textsf{pubstate} field, then a
+parenthetical notice will be printed at the end of the entry saying
+\enquote{(Orig.\ pub.\ 1898.)} With no \textsf{pubstate} field (and
+no \texttt{cmsdate} option), the algorithms will ignore the
+\textsf{origdate}.
+
+\mylittlespace If, for any reason, you wish the \textsf{origdate} to
+appear at the head of the entry, then you need to use the
+\texttt{cmsdate} toggle in the \textsf{options} field. This has 4
+possible states:
+
+\begin{enumerate}
+\item \texttt{cmsdate=on} prints the \textsf{origdate} at the head of
+ the entry in the list of references and in citations: (Author 1898).
+\item \texttt{cmsdate=new} prints both the \textsf{origdate} and the
+ \textsf{date}, using the \emph{Manual's}\ \enquote{new} format:
+ (Author 1898/1952).
+\item \texttt{cmsdate=old} prints both the \textsf{origdate} and the
+ \textsf{date}, using the \emph{Manual's}\ \enquote{old} format:
+ (Author [1898] 1952).
+\item \texttt{cmsdate=off} is the default, discussed above:
+ (Author 1952).
+\end{enumerate}
+
+In the first three cases, if you put the string \texttt{reprint} in
+the \textsf{pubstate} field, then the publication data in the list of
+references will include a notice, formatted according to the
+specifications, that the modern, cited edition is a reprint. In the
+first case, since the \textsf{date} hasn't yet been printed, this
+publication data will also include the date of the modern reprint.
+
+\mylittlespace Let us imagine, however, that your list of references
+contains another book by the same author, also a reprint edition:
+(Author 1896/1974). How will these two works be ordered in the list
+of references? By whatever appears in the \textsf{date} field,
+\emph{always}, which in this case will be wrong, because the entries
+should always be ordered by the \emph{first} date to appear there, in
+this case the contents of \textsf{origdate}. In this example, the
+solution can be as simple as a \textsf{sortyear} field set to
+something earlier than the date of the other work, e.g., 1951.
+
+\mylittlespace And if the original publication dates of the two works
+are the same? Just as when it is ordering entries, \textsf{biblatex}
+will only process the contents of the \textsf{date} field when it is
+deciding whether to add the alphabetical suffix (\texttt{a,b,c} etc.)
+to the year to distinguish different works by the same author
+published in the same year. You can't even put the suffix on yourself
+because the \textsf{origdate} field only accepts numerical data.
+Citations of the two works should read, e.g., (Author 1898a) and
+(Author 1898b), but will in fact read, ambiguously, (Author 1898) and
+(Author 1898). Here we are forced to resort to an unusual expedient,
+which amounts to switching the two date fields, placing the earlier
+date in \textsf{date} and the later one in \textsf{origdate}.
+\textsf{Biblatex-chicago-authordate} tests for this condition using a
+simple arithmetical comparison between the two years, then printing
+the two dates according to the state of the \texttt{cmsdate} toggle.
+The four states of this toggle are the same as before, but there are
+only three possible outcomes, as follows:
+
+\begin{enumerate}
+\item \texttt{cmsdate=off} (the default) and \texttt{cmsdate=on}
+ \emph{both} print the \textsf{date} at the head of the entry in the
+ list of references and in citations: (Author 1898a), (Author 1898b).
+\item \texttt{cmsdate=new} prints both the \textsf{date} and the
+ \textsf{origdate}, using the \emph{Manual's}\ \enquote{new} format:
+ (Author 1898a/1952), (Author 1898b/1974).
+\item \texttt{cmsdate=old} prints both the \textsf{date} and the
+ \textsf{origdate}, using the \emph{Manual's}\ \enquote{old} format:
+ (Author [1898a] 1952), (Author [1898b] 1974).
+\end{enumerate}
+
+If, for some reason, the automatic switching of the dates cannot be
+achieved, perhaps in crossref'd \textsf{letter} entries that you
+really want to have in your list of references (white:ross:memo,
+white:russ), or perhaps in a reprint edition that that hasn't yet
+appeared in print (preventing the comparison between a year and the
+word \enquote{forthcoming}), then you can use the per-entry option
+\texttt{switchdates} in the \textsf{options} field to achieve the
+required effects. It may also be worth remarking that the
+instructions in the \emph{Manual} aren't entirely clear on the subject
+of the alphabetical affix when both dates are used in a citation or at
+the head of an entry. It's possible that the differentiation between
+(Author 1898/1952) and (Author 1898/1974) is good enough without
+affixing anything to the first year, but then in this situation you
+would have to be using either \texttt{cmsdate=new} or
+\texttt{cmsdate=old}, so the switching functionality at least allows
+maximum flexibility.
+
+\mylittlespace Finally, in the \textsf{misc} entry type this field can
+help to distinguish between two classes of archival material, letters
+and \enquote{letter-like} sources using \textsf{origdate} while others
+(interviews, wills, contracts) use \textsf{date}. (See \textsf{misc}
+in section~\ref{sec:types:authdate} for the details.) If such an
+entry, as may well occur, contains only an \textsf{origdate}, you need
+to provide \texttt{cmsdate=on} in order to get that \textsf{origdate}
+to appear in citations and at the head of the entry in the reference
+list. I recommend that you have a look through
+\textsf{dates-test.bib} to see how all these complications will affect
+the construction of your .bib database, especially at
+aristotle:metaphy:gr, creel:house, emerson:nature, james:ambassadors,
+maitland:canon, maitland:equity, schweit\-zer:bach, spock:in\-terview,
+white:ross:memo, and white:russ. Cf.\ also \textsf{origdate} and
+\textsf{year}, below, and the \texttt{cmsdate}, \texttt{nodates}, and
+\texttt{switchdates} options in sections~\ref{sec:preset:authdate} and
+\ref{sec:authentryopts}.
+
+\mybigspace This \mymarginpar{\textbf{day}} field, as of
+\textsf{biblatex} 0.9, is obsolete, and will be ignored if you use it
+in your .bib files. Use \textsf{date} instead.
+
+\mybigspace Standard \mymarginpar{\textbf{doi}} \textsf{biblatex}
+field. The Digital Object Identifier of the work, which the
+\emph{Manual} suggests you can use \enquote{in place of page numbers
+ or other locators} (17.181; friedman:learn\-ing). Cf.\
+\textsf{url}.
+
+\mybigspace Standard \mymarginpar{\textbf{edition}} \textsf{biblatex}
+field. If you enter a plain cardinal number, \textsf{biblatex} will
+convert it to an ordinal (chicago:manual), followed by the appropriate
+string. Any other sort of edition information will be printed as is,
+though if your data begins with a word (or abbreviation) that would
+ordinarily only be capitalized at the beginning of a sentence, then
+simply ensure that that word (or abbreviation) is in lowercase, and
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago} will automatically do the right thing
+(babb:peru, times:guide). In most situations, the \emph{Manual}
+generally recommends the use of abbreviations in the list of
+references, but there is room for the user's discretion in specific
+citations (emerson:nature).
+
+\mybigspace As \mymarginpar{\textbf{editor}} far as possible, I have
+implemented this field as \textsf{biblatex}'s standard styles do, but
+the requirements specified by the \emph{Manual} present certain
+complications that need explaining. Lehman points out in his
+documentation that the \textsf{editor} field will be associated with a
+\textsf{title}, a \textsf{booktitle}, or a \textsf{maintitle},
+depending on the sort of entry. More specifically,
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago} associates the \textsf{editor} with the most
+comprehensive of those titles, that is, \textsf{maintitle} if there is
+one, otherwise \textsf{booktitle}, otherwise \textsf{title}, if the
+other two are lacking. In a large number of cases, this is exactly
+the correct behavior (adorno:benj, centinel:letters,
+plato:republic:gr, among others). Predictably, however, there are
+numerous cases that require, for example, an additional editor for one
+part of a collection or for one volume of a multi-volume work. For
+these cases I have provided the \textsf{namea} field. You should
+format names for this field as you would for \textsf{author} or
+\textsf{editor}, and these names will always be associated with the
+\textsf{title} (donne:var).
+
+\mylittlespace As you will see below, I have also provided a
+\textsf{nameb} field, which holds the translator of a given
+\textsf{title} (euripides:orestes). If \textsf{namea} and
+\textsf{nameb} are the same, \textsf{biblatex-chicago} will
+concatenate them, just as \textsf{biblatex} already does for
+\textsf{editor}, \textsf{translator}, and \textsf{namec} (i.e., the
+compiler). Furthermore, it is conceivable that a given entry will
+need separate editors for each of the three sorts of title. For this,
+and for various other tricky situations, there is the \cmd{partedit}
+macro (and its siblings), designed to be used in a \textsf{note}
+field, in one of the \textsf{titleaddon} fields, or even in a
+\textsf{number} field (howell:marriage). (Because the strings
+identifying an editor differ in notes and bibliography, one can't
+simply write them out in such a field when using the notes \&\
+bibliography style, but you can certainly do so in the author-date
+style, if you wish. Using the macros will make your .bib file more
+portable across both Chicago specifications, and also across multiple
+languages, but they are otherwise unnecessary.
+Cf. section~\ref{sec:international}, and also \textsf{namea},
+\textsf{nameb}, \textsf{namec}, and \textsf{translator}.)
+
+\mybigspace The \mymarginpar{\textbf{editora\\editorb\\editorc}} new
+release of \textsf{biblatex} provides these fields as a means to
+specify additional contributors to texts in a number of editorial
+roles. I'm uncertain how relevant they may be to users of the Chicago
+styles, but I have implemented them just as the standard styles do. To
+specify the role, use the new fields \textsf{editoratype},
+\textsf{editorbtype}, and \textsf{editorctype}, and see
+\textsf{biblatex.pdf} §~2.3.6.
+
+\mybigspace Normally, \mymarginpar{\textbf{editortype}} with the
+exception of the \textsf{article} type,
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago-authordate} will automatically find a name to
+put at the head of an entry, starting with an \textsf{author}, and
+proceeding in order through \textsf{editor}, \textsf{translator}, and
+\textsf{namec} (the compiler). If all four are missing, then the
+\textsf{title} will be placed at the head. (In \textsf{article}
+entries with a \texttt{magazine} \textsf{entrysubtype}, a missing
+author immediately prompts the use of \textsf{journaltitle} at the
+head of an entry. See above under \textsf{article} for details.) The
+\textsf{editortype} field provides even greater flexibility, giving
+you the ability to put a compiler at the head of an entry without
+using \textsf{namec}, freeing you from the need to use a
+\textsf{sortkey} and a \textsf{shortauthor}. You can do this even
+though an author is named (eliot:pound shows this mechanism in action
+for a standard editor, rather than a compiler). Two things are
+necessary for this to happen. First, in the \textsf{options} field
+you need to set \texttt{useauthor=false} (if there is an
+\textsf{author)}, then you need to put the name you wish to see at the
+head of your entry into the \textsf{editor} or the \textsf{namea}
+field. If the \enquote{editor} is in fact a compiler, then you need
+to put \texttt{compiler} into the \textsf{editortype} field, and
+\textsf{biblatex} will print the correct string after the name in the
+list of references.
+
+\mylittlespace There are a few details of which you need to be aware.
+Because \textsf{biblatex-chicago} has added the \textsf{namea} field,
+which gives you the ability to identify the editor specifically of a
+\textsf{title} as opposed to a \textsf{maintitle} or a
+\textsf{booktitle}, the \textsf{editortype} mechanism checks first to
+see whether a \textsf{namea} is defined. If it is, that name will be
+used at the head of the entry, if it isn't it will go ahead and look
+for an \textsf{editor}. When the \textsf{editor} field is used,
+\textsf{biblatex}'s sorting algorithms will work properly, and also
+its \textsf{labelname} mechanism, meaning that a shortened form of the
+\textsf{editor} will be used in citations. If, however, the
+\textsf{namea} field provides the name, then your .bib entry will need
+to have a \textsf{sortkey} field to aid in alphabetizing, and it will
+also need a \textsf{shorteditor} defined to help with in-text
+citations, not a \textsf{shortauthor}, ruled out because
+\texttt{useauthor=false}.
+
+\mylittlespace In \textsf{biblatex} 0.9 Lehman has reworked the string
+concatenation mechanism, for reasons he outlines in his RELEASE file,
+and I have followed his lead. In short, if you define the
+\textsf{editortype} field, then concatenation is turned off, even if
+the name of the \textsf{editor} matches, for example, that of the
+\textsf{translator}. In the absence of an \textsf{editortype}, the
+usual mechanisms remain in place, that is, if the \textsf{editor}
+exactly matches a \textsf{translator} and/or a \textsf{namec}, or
+alternatively if \textsf{namea} exactly matches a \textsf{nameb}
+and/or a \textsf{namec}, then \textsf{biblatex} will print the
+appropriate strings. The \emph{Manual} specifically (17.41)
+recommends not using these identifying strings in citations, and
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago-authordate} follows that recommendation. If
+you nevertheless need to provide such a string, you'll have to do it
+manually in the \textsf{shorteditor} field, or perhaps, in a different
+sort of entry, in a \textsf{shortauthor} field.
+
+\mylittlespace It may also be worth noting that because of certain
+requirements in the specification -- absence of an \textsf{author},
+for example -- the \texttt{useauthor} mechanism won't work properly in
+the following entry types: \textsf{collection}, \textsf{letter},
+\textsf{patent}, \textsf{periodical}, \textsf{proceedings},
+\textsf{suppbook}, \textsf{suppcollection}, and
+\textsf{suppperiodical}.
+
+\mybigspace These
+\mymarginpar{\textbf{editoratype\\editorbtype\\editorctype}} fields
+are new to \textsf{biblatex} 0.9, and identify the exact role of the
+person named in the corresponding \textsf{editor[a-c]} field. Note
+that they are not part of the string concatenation mechanism. I have
+implemented them just as the standard styles do, though I am uncertain
+of their usefulness for users of Chicago. Cf.\ \textsf{biblatex.pdf}
+§~2.3.6.
+
+\mybigspace Standard \mymarginpar{\textbf{eid}} \textsf{biblatex}
+field, providing a string or number some journals use uniquely to
+identify a particular article. Only applicable to the
+\textsf{article} entry type. Not typically required by the
+\emph{Manual}.
+
+\mybigspace Standard \mymarginpar{\textbf{entrysubtype}} and very
+powerful \textsf{biblatex} field, left undefined by the standard
+styles. In \textsf{biblatex-chicago-authordate} it has four very
+specific uses, the first three of which I have designed in order to
+maintain, as much as possible, backward compatibility with the
+standard styles. First, in \textsf{article} and \textsf{periodical}
+entries, the field allows you to differentiate between scholarly
+\enquote{journals,} on the one hand, and \enquote{magazines} and
+\enquote{newspapers} on the other. Usage is fairly simple: you need
+to put the exact string \texttt{magazine} into the
+\textsf{entrysubtype} field if you are citing one of the latter two
+types of source, whereas if your source is a \enquote{journal,} then
+you need do nothing.
+
+\mylittlespace The second use involves references to works from
+classical antiquity and, according to the \emph{Manual}, from the
+Middle Ages, as well. When you cite such a work using the traditional
+divisions into books, sections, lines, etc., divisions which are
+presumed to be the same across all editions, then you need to put the
+exact string \texttt{classical} into the \textsf{entrysubtype} field.
+This has no effect in the list of references, which will still present
+the particular edition you are using, but it does affect the
+formatting of in-text citations, in two ways. First, it suppresses
+some of the punctuation. Second, and more importantly, it suppresses
+the \textsf{date} field in favor of the \textsf{title}, so that
+citations look like (Aristotle \emph{Metaphysics} 3.2.996b5--8)
+instead of (Aristotle 1997, 3.2.996b5--8). This mechanism may also
+prove useful in \textsf{misc} entries for citations from the Bible or
+other sacred texts (cf.\ genesis), and for citing archival collections
+(house:papers), where it produces citations of the form (House
+Papers). (Cf.\ the next but one paragraph.)
+
+\mylittlespace If you wish to reference a classical or medieval work
+by the page numbers of a particular, non-standard edition, then you
+shouldn't use the \texttt{classical} \textsf{entrysubtype} toggle.
+Also, and the specification isn't entirely clear about this, works
+from the Renaissance and later, even if cited by the traditional
+divisions, seem to have citations formatted normally, and therefore
+don't need an \textsf{entrysubtype} field. (See \emph{Manual}
+17.246--262; aristotle:metaphy:gr, plato:republic:gr;
+euripides:orestes is an example of a translation cited by page number
+in a modern edition.)
+
+\mylittlespace The third use of the \textsf{entrysubtype} field occurs
+in \textsf{misc} entries. If such an entry contains no such field,
+then the citation will be treated just as the standard
+\textsf{biblatex} styles would, including the use of italics for the
+\textsf{title}. Any string at all in \textsf{entrysubtype} tells
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago} to treat the source as part of an
+unpublished archive. Please see section~\ref{sec:types:authdate}
+above under \textbf{misc} for all the details on how these citations
+work.
+
+\mylittlespace Fourth, and finally, the field can be defined in the
+\textsf{artwork} entry type in order to refer to a work from antiquity
+whose title you do not wish to be italicized. Please see the
+documentation of \textsf{artwork} above for the details.
+
+\mybigspace As \mymarginpar{\textbf{foreword}} with the
+\textsf{afterword} field above, \textsf{foreword} will in general
+function as it does in standard \textsf{biblatex}. Like
+\textsf{afterword} (and \textsf{introduction}), however, it has a
+special meaning in a \textsf{suppbook} entry, where you simply need to
+define it somehow (and leave \textsf{afterword} and
+\textsf{introduction} undefined) to make a foreword the focus of a
+citation.
+
+\mybigspace A \mymarginpar{\textbf{holder}} standard \textsf{biblatex}
+field for identifying a \textsf{patent}'s holder(s), if they differ
+from the \textsf{author}. The \emph{Manual} has nothing to say on the
+subject, but \textsf{biblatex-chicago} prints it (them), in
+parentheses, just after the author(s).
+
+%\enlargethispage{\baselineskip}
+
+\mybigspace Standard \mymarginpar{\textbf{howpublished}}
+\textsf{biblatex} field, mainly applicable in the \textsf{booklet}
+entry type, where it replaces the \textsf{publisher}. I have also
+retained it in the \textsf{misc} and \textsf{unpublished} entry types,
+for historical reasons.
+
+\mybigspace Standard \mymarginpar{\textbf{institution}}
+\textsf{biblatex} field. In the \textsf{thesis} entry type, it will
+usually identify the university for which the thesis was written,
+while in a \textsf{report} entry it may identify any sort of
+institution issuing the report.
+
+\mybigspace As \mymarginpar{\textbf{introduction}} with the
+\textsf{afterword} and \textsf{foreword} fields above,
+\textsf{introduction} will in general function as it does in standard
+\textsf{biblatex}. Like those fields, however, it has a special
+meaning in a \textsf{suppbook} entry, where you simply need to define
+it somehow (and leave \textsf{afterword} and \textsf{foreword}
+undefined) to make an introduction the focus of a citation.
+
+\mybigspace Standard \mymarginpar{\textbf{isbn}} \textsf{biblatex}
+field, for providing the International Standard Book Number of a
+publication. Not typically required by the \emph{Manual}.
+
+\mybigspace Standard \mymarginpar{\textbf{isrn}} \textsf{biblatex}
+field, for providing the International Standard Technical Report
+Number of a report. Only relevant to the \textsf{report} entry type,
+and not typically required by the \emph{Manual}.
+
+\mybigspace Standard \mymarginpar{\textbf{issn}} \textsf{biblatex}
+field, for providing the International Standard Serial Number of a
+periodical in an \textsf{article} or a \textsf{periodical} entry. Not
+typically required by the \emph{Manual}.
+
+\mybigspace Standard \mymarginpar{\textbf{issue}} \textsf{biblatex}
+field, designed for \textsf{article} or \textsf{periodical} entries
+identified by something like \enquote{Spring} or \enquote{Summer}
+rather than by the usual \textsf{month} or \textsf{number} fields
+(brown:bremer).
+
+\mybigspace The \mymarginpar{\textbf{issuesubtitle}} subtitle for an
+\textsf{issuetitle} --- see next entry.
+
+\mybigspace Standard \mymarginpar{\textbf{issuetitle}}
+\textsf{biblatex} field, intended to contain the title of a special
+issue of any sort of periodical. If the reference is to one article
+within the special issue, then this field should be used in an
+\textsf{article} entry (conley:fifthgrade), whereas if you are citing
+the entire issue as a whole, then it would go in a \textsf{periodical}
+entry, instead (good:wholeissue). The \textsf{note} field is the
+proper place to identify the type of issue, e.g.,\ \texttt{special
+ issue}, with the initial letter lower-cased to enable automatic
+contextual capitalization.
+
+\mybigspace The \mymarginpar{\textbf{journalsubtitle}} subtitle for a
+\textsf{journaltitle} --- see next entry.
+
+\mybigspace Standard \mymarginpar{\textbf{journaltitle}}
+\textsf{biblatex} field, replacing the standard \textsc{Bib}\TeX\
+field \textsf{journal}, which, however, still works as an alias. It
+contains the name of any sort of periodical publication, and is found
+in the \textsf{article} entry type. In the case where a piece in an
+\textsf{article} (\textsf{entrysubtype} \texttt{magazine}) doesn't
+have an author, \textsf{biblatex-chicago} provides for this field to
+be used as the author. See above (section~\ref{sec:fields:authdate})
+under \textbf{article} for details. The lakeforester:pushcarts and
+nyt:trevorobit entries in \textsf{dates-test.bib} will give you some
+idea of how this works.
+
+\mybigspace This \mymarginpar{\textbf{keywords}} field is
+\textsf{biblatex}'s extremely powerful and flexible technique for
+filtering entries in a list of references, allowing you to subdivide
+it according to just about any criteria you care to invent. See
+\textsf{biblatex.pdf} (3.10.4) for thorough documentation. In
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago}, the field provides one convenient means to
+exclude certain entries from making their way into a list of
+references, though the toggle \texttt{skipbib} in the \textsf{options}
+field works just as well, and perhaps more simply. There are a few
+reasons for so excluding entries. When citing both an original text
+and its translation (see \textbf{userf}, below), the \emph{Manual}
+(17.66) suggests including the original at the end of the
+translation's reference list entry, a procedure which requires that
+the original not also be printed as a separate entry
+(furet:passing:eng, furet:passing:fr, aristotle:metaphy:trans,
+aristotle:metaphy:gr). Well-known reference works (like the
+\emph{Encyclopaedia Britannica}, for example) and many sacred texts
+need only be presented in citations, and not in the list of references
+(17.238--239; ency:britannica, genesis, wikiped:bibtex; see
+\textsf{inreference} and \textsf{misc}, above).
+
+\mybigspace A \mymarginpar{\textbf{language}} standard
+\textsf{biblatex} field, designed to allow you to specify the
+language(s) in which a work is written. As a general rule, the
+Chicago style doesn't require you to provide this information, though
+it may well be useful for clarifying the nature of certain works, such
+as bilingual editions, for example. There is at least one situation,
+however, when the \emph{Manual} does specify this data, and that is
+when the title of a work is given in translation, even though no
+translation of the work has been published, something that might
+happen when a title is in a language deemed to be unparseable by a
+majority of your expected readership (17.65--67, 17.166, 17.177;
+chu:panda, pirumova, rozner:liberation). In such a case, you should
+provide the language(s) involved using this field, connecting multiple
+languages using the keyword \texttt{and}. (I have retained
+\textsf{biblatex's} \cmd{bibstring} mechanism here, which means that
+you can use the standard bibstrings or, if one doesn't exist for the
+language you need, just give the name of the language, capitalized as
+it should appear in your text. You can also mix these two modes
+inside one entry without apparent harm.)
+
+\mylittlespace An alternative arrangement suggested by the
+\emph{Manual} is to retain the original title of a piece but then to
+provide its translation, as well. If you choose this option, you'll
+need to make use of the \textbf{usere} field, on which see below. In
+effect, you'll probably only ever need to use one of these two fields
+in any given entry, and in fact \textsf{biblatex-chicago} will only
+print one of them if both are present, preferring \textsf{usere} over
+\textsf{language} for this purpose (see kern, pirumova:russian, and
+weresz). Note also that both of these fields are universally
+associated with the \textsf{title} of a work, rather than with a
+\textsf{booktitle} or a \textsf{maintitle}. If you need to attach a
+language or a translation to either of the latter two, you could
+probably manage it with special formatting inside those fields
+themselves.
+
+\mybigspace I \mymarginpar{\textbf{lista}} intend this field
+specifically for presenting citations from reference works that are
+arranged alphabetically, where the name of the article rather than a
+page or volume number should be given. The field is a
+\textsf{biblatex} list, which means you should separate multiple items
+with the keyword \texttt{and}. Each item receives its own set of
+quotation marks, and the whole list will be prefixed by the
+appropriate string (\enquote{s.v.,} \emph{sub verbo}, pl.\
+\enquote{s.vv.}). \textsf{Biblatex-chicago} will only print such a
+field in a \textsf{book} or an \textsf{inreference} entry, and you
+should look at the documentation of these entry types for further
+details. (See \emph{Manual} 17.238--239; grove:sibelius, times:guide,
+wikiped:bibtex.)
+
+\mybigspace This \mymarginpar{\textbf{location}} is
+\textsf{biblatex}'s version of the usual \textsc{Bib}\TeX\ field
+\textsf{address}, though the latter is accepted as an alias if that
+simplifies the modification of older .bib files. According to the
+\emph{Manual} (17.99), a citation usually need only provide the first
+city listed on any title page, though a list of cities separated by
+the keyword \enquote{\texttt{and}} will be formatted appropriately.
+If the place of publication is unknown, you can use
+\cmd{autocap\{n\}.p.}\ instead (17.102), though in many or even most
+cases this isn't strictly necessary (17.32--34; virginia:plantation).
+For all cities, you should use the common English version of the name,
+if such exists (17.101).
+
+%\enlargethispage{\baselineskip}
+
+\mylittlespace One other use needs explanation here. In
+\textsf{article} and \textsf{periodical} entries, there is usually no
+need for a \textsf{location} field, but \enquote{if a journal might be
+ confused with another with a similar title, or if it might not be
+ known to the users of a bibliography,} then this field can present
+the place or institution where it is published (17.174, 17.196;
+garrett, kimluu:diethyl, and lakeforester:pushcarts).
+
+\mybigspace The \mymarginpar{\textbf{mainsubtitle}} subtitle for a
+\textsf{maintitle} --- see next entry.
+
+\mybigspace The \mymarginpar{\textbf{maintitle}} main title for a
+multi-volume work, e.g., \enquote{Opera} or \enquote{Collected Works.}
+It takes sentence-style capitalization in author-date. (See
+donne:var, euripides:\-orestes, harley:cartography, lach:asia,
+pelikan:chris\-tian, and plato:republic:gr.)
+
+\mybigspace An \mymarginpar{\textbf{maintitleaddon}} annex to the
+\textsf{maintitle}, for which see previous entry. Such an annex would
+be printed in the main text font. If your data begins with a word
+that would ordinarily only be capitalized at the beginning of a
+sentence, then simply ensure that that word is in lowercase, and
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago} will automatically do the right thing.
+
+\mybigspace Standard \mymarginpar{\textbf{month}} \textsf{biblatex}
+field, containing the month of publication. This should be an
+integer, i.e., \texttt{month=\{3\}} not \texttt{month=\{March\}}. See
+\textsf{date} for more information.
+
+\mybigspace This \mymarginpar{\textbf{namea}} is one of the fields
+\textsf{biblatex} provides for style writers to use, but which it
+leaves undefined itself. In \textsf{biblatex-chicago} it contains the
+name(s) of the editor(s) of a \textsf{title}, if the entry has a
+\textsf{booktitle} or \textsf{maintitle}, or both, in which situation
+the \textsf{editor} would be associated with one of these latter
+fields (donne:var). You should present names in this field exactly as
+you would those in an \textsf{author} or \textsf{editor} field, and
+the package will concatenate this field with \textsf{nameb} if they
+are identical. See under \textbf{editor} above for the full details.
+Cf.\ also \textsf{nameb}, \textsf{namec}, \textsf{translator}, and the
+macros \cmd{partedit}, \cmd{parttrans}, \cmd{parteditandtrans},
+\cmd{partcomp}, \cmd{parteditandcomp}, \cmd{parttransandcomp}, and
+\cmd{partedittransand\-comp}, for which see
+section~\ref{sec:formatting:authdate}.
+
+\mybigspace This \mymarginpar{\textbf{nameaddon}} field is provided by
+\textsf{biblatex}, though not used by the standard styles. In
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago}, it allows you to specify that an author's
+name is a pseudo\-nym, or to provide either the real name or the
+pseudonym itself, if the other is being provided in the
+\textsf{author} field. The abbreviation
+\enquote{\texttt{pseud.}\hspace{-2pt}}\ (always lowercase in English)
+is specified, either on its own or after the pseudonym
+(centinel:letters, creasey:ashe:blast, creasey:morton:hide,
+creasey:york:death, and le\-carre:quest); \cmd{bibstring\{pseudonym\}}
+does the work for you. See under \textbf{author} above for the full
+details.
+
+\mybigspace Like \mymarginpar{\textbf{nameb}} \textsf{namea}, above,
+this is a field left undefined by the standard \textsf{biblatex}
+styles. In \textsf{biblatex-chicago}, it contains the name(s) of the
+translator(s) of a \textsf{title}, if the entry has a
+\textsf{booktitle} or \textsf{maintitle}, or both, in which situation
+the \textsf{translator} would be associated with one of these latter
+fields (euripides:orestes). You should present names in this field
+exactly as you would those in an \textsf{author} or
+\textsf{translator} field, and the package will concatenate this field
+with \textsf{namea} if they are identical. See under the
+\textbf{translator} field below for the full details. Cf.\ also
+\textsf{namea}, \textsf{namec}, \textsf{origlanguage},
+\textsf{translator}, \textsf{userf} and the macros \cmd{partedit},
+\cmd{parttrans}, \cmd{parteditandtrans}, \cmd{partcomp},
+\cmd{parteditandcomp}, \cmd{parttransandcomp}, and
+\cmd{partedittransandcomp} in section~\ref{sec:formatting:authdate}.
+
+\mybigspace The \mymarginpar{\textbf{namec}} \emph{Manual} (17.41)
+specifies that works without an author may be listed under an editor,
+translator, or compiler, assuming that one is available, and it also
+specifies the strings to be used with the name(s) of compiler(s). All
+this suggests that the \emph{Manual} considers this to be standard
+information that should be made available in a bibliographic
+reference, so I have added that possibility to the many that
+\textsf{biblatex} already provides, such as the \textsf{editor},
+\textsf{translator}, \textsf{commentator}, \textsf{annotator}, and
+\textsf{redactor}, along with writers of an \textsf{introduction},
+\textsf{foreword}, or \textsf{afterword}. Since \textsf{biblatex.bst}
+doesn't offer a \textsf{compiler} field, I have adopted for this
+purpose the otherwise unused field \textsf{namec}. It is important to
+understand that, despite the analogous name, this field does not
+function like \textsf{namea} or \textsf{nameb}, but rather like
+\textsf{editor} or \textsf{translator}, and therefore if used will be
+associated with whichever title field these latter two would be were
+they present in the same entry. Identical fields among these three
+will be concatenated by the package, and concatenated too with the
+(usually) unnecessary commentator, annotator and the rest. Also
+please note that I've arranged the concatenation algorithms to include
+\textsf{namec} in the same test as \textsf{namea} and \textsf{nameb},
+so in this particular circumstance you can, if needed, make
+\textsf{namec} analogous to these two latter, \textsf{title}-only
+fields. (See above under \textbf{editortype} for details of how you
+may, in certain circumstances, use that field to identify a compiler.
+This method will be particularly useful if you don't need to
+concatenate the \textsf{namec} with any other role, because if you use
+the \textsf{editor} field \textsf{biblatex} will automatically attend
+to alphabetization and name-replacement in the list of references, and
+will also provide a name for citations.)
+
+\mylittlespace It might conceivably be necessary at some point to
+identify the compiler(s) of a \textsf{title} separate from the
+compiler(s) of a \textsf{booktitle} or \textsf{maintitle}, but for the
+moment I've run out of available \textsf{name} fields, so you'll have
+to fall back on the \cmd{partcomp} macro or the related
+\cmd{parteditandcomp}, \cmd{parttransandcomp}, and
+\cmd{partedittransandcomp}, on which see Commands
+(section~\ref{sec:formatting:authdate}) below. (Future releases may
+be able to remedy this.) It may be as well to mention here too that
+of the three names that can be substituted for the missing
+\textsf{author} at the head of an entry, \textsf{biblatex-chicago}
+will choose an \textsf{editor} if present, then a \textsf{translator}
+if present, falling back to \textsf{namec} only in the absence of the
+other two, and assuming that the fields aren't identical, and
+therefore to be concatenated. In a change from the previous behavior,
+these algorithms also now test for \textsf{namea} or \textsf{nameb},
+which will be used instead of \textsf{editor} and \textsf{translator},
+respectively, giving the package the greatest likelihood of finding a
+name to place at the head of an entry. Please remember, however, that
+if this name is supplied by any of the non-standard fields
+\textsf{name[a-c]}, then you will need to provide a \textsf{sortkey}
+to assist with alphabetization in the list of references, and a
+\textsf{shortauthor} for citations.
+
+\mybigspace As \mymarginpar{\textbf{note}} in standard
+\textsf{biblatex}, this field allows you to provide bibliographic data
+that doesn't easily fit into any other field. In this sense, it's
+very like \textsf{addendum}, but the information provided here will be
+printed just before the publication data. (See chaucer:alt,
+cook:sotweed, emerson:nature, and rodman:walk for examples of this
+usage in action.) It also has a specialized use in the periodical
+types (\textsf{article} and \textsf{periodical}), where it holds
+supplemental information about a \textsf{journaltitle}, such as
+\enquote{special issue} (conley:fifthgrade, good:wholeissue). In all
+uses, if your data begins with a word that would ordinarily only be
+capitalized at the beginning of a sentence, then simply ensure that
+that word is in lowercase, and \textsf{biblatex-chicago} will
+automatically do the right thing. Cf.\ \textsf{addendum}.
+
+\mybigspace This \mymarginpar{\textbf{number}} is a standard
+\textsf{biblatex} field, containing the number of a
+\textsf{journaltitle} in an \textsf{article} entry, the number of a
+\textsf{title} in a \textsf{periodical} entry, or the volume/number of
+a book in a \textsf{series}. Generally, in an \textsf{article} or
+\textsf{periodical} entry, this will be a plain cardinal number, but
+in such entries \textsf{biblatex-chicago} now does the right thing if
+you have a list or range of numbers (unsigned:ranke). In any
+\textsf{book}-like entry it may well contain considerably more
+information, including even a reference to \enquote{2nd ser.,} for
+example, while the \textsf{series} field in such an entry will contain
+the name of the series, rather than a number. This field is also the
+place for the patent number in a \textsf{patent} entry. Cf.\
+\textsf{issue} and \textsf{series}. (See \emph{Manual} 17.90--95 and
+boxer:china, palmatary:pottery, wauchope:ceramics; 17.163 and
+beattie:crime, conley:fifthgrade, friedman:learning, garrett, gibbard,
+hlatky:hrt, mcmillen:antebellum, rozner:liberation, warr:ellison.)
+
+\mylittlespace \textbf{NB}: This may be an opportune place to point
+out that the \emph{Manual} (17.129) prefers arabic to roman numerals
+in most circumstances (chapters, volumes, series numbers, etc.), even
+when such numbers might be roman in the work cited. The obvious
+exception is page numbers, in which roman numerals indicate that the
+citation came from the front matter, and should therefore be retained.
+Another possible exception is in references to works \enquote{with
+ many and complex divisions,} in which \enquote{a mixture of roman
+ and arabic} may be \enquote{easier to disentangle.}
+
+\mybigspace A \mymarginpar{\textbf{options}} standard
+\textsf{biblatex} field, for setting certain options on a per-entry
+basis rather than globally. Information about some of the more common
+options may be found above under \textsf{author} and \textsf{date},
+and below in section~\ref{sec:authuseropts}. See creel:house,
+eliot:pound, emerson:nature, ency:britannica, herwign:office,
+lecarre:quest, and maitland:canon for examples of the field in use.
+
+\enlargethispage{\baselineskip}
+
+\mybigspace A \mymarginpar{\textbf{organization}} standard
+\textsf{biblatex} field, retained mainly for use in the \textsf{misc},
+\textsf{online}, and \textsf{manual} entry types, where it may be of
+use to specify a publishing body that might not easily fit in other
+categories. In \textsf{biblatex}, it is also used to identify the
+organization sponsoring a conference in a \textsf{proceedings} or
+\textsf{inproceedings} entry, and I have retained this as a
+possibility, though the \emph{Manual} is silent on the matter.
+
+\mybigspace This \mymarginpar{\textbf{origdate}} is a standard
+\textsf{biblatex} field which replaced the obsolete \textsf{origyear},
+and which therefore allows more than one full date specification for
+those references which need to provide more than just one. As with
+the analogous \textsf{date} field, you provide the date (or range of
+dates) in \textsc{iso}8601 format, i.e., \texttt{yyyy-mm-dd}. In most
+entry types, you would use \textsf{origdate} to provide the date of
+first publication of a work, most usually needed only in the case of
+reprint editions, but also recommended by the \emph{Manual} for
+electronic editions of older works (17.123, 17.146--7;
+aristotle:metaphy:gr, emerson:nature, james:ambassadors,
+schweitzer:bach). In both the \textsf{letter} and \textsf{misc} (with
+\textsf{entrysubtype)} entry types, the \textsf{origdate} identifies
+when a letter (or similar) was written. In such \textsf{misc}
+entries, some \enquote{non-letter-like} materials (like interviews)
+need the \textsf{date} field for this purpose, while in
+\textsf{letter} entries the \textsf{date} applies to the publication
+of the whole collection. If such a published collection were itself a
+reprint, judicious use of the \textsf{pubstate} field or perhaps
+improvisation in the \textsf{location} field might be able to rescue
+the situation. (See white:ross:memo, white:russ, and white:total for
+how \textsf{letter} entries can work; creel:house shows the field in
+action in a \textsf{misc} entry, while spock:interview uses
+\textsf{date} instead.)
+
+\mylittlespace Because of the importance of date specifications in the
+author-date style, \textsf{biblatex-chicago-authordate} provides a
+series of options and automated behaviors to allow you to emphasize
+the \textsf{origdate} in citations and at the head of entries in the
+list of references. In entries which have \emph{only} an
+\textsf{origdate} --- usually \textsf{misc} with an
+\textsf{entrysubtype} --- you'll need to include \texttt{cmsdate=on}
+in your \textsf{options} field so that that date will appear where it
+should, but in other entries you have a choice of which year appears
+where. In some cases it may even be necessary to reverse the two date
+fields, putting the earlier year in \textsf{date} and the later in
+\textsf{origdate}. Please see above under \textbf{date} for all the
+details on how these options interact.
+
+\mylittlespace Because the \textsf{origdate} field only accepts
+numbers, some improvisation may be needed if you wish to include
+\enquote{n.d.}\ (\cmd{bibstring\{nodate\}}) in an entry. In
+\textsf{letter} and \textsf{misc}, this information can be placed in
+\textsf{titleaddon}, but in other entry types you may need to use the
+\textsf{location} field.
+
+\mybigspace In \mymarginpar{\textbf{origlanguage}} keeping with the
+\emph{Manual}'s specifications, I have fairly thoroughly redefined
+\textsf{biblatex}'s facilities for treating translations. The
+\textsf{origtitle} and \textsf{origlocation} fields aren't used, while
+the \textsf{language} and \textsf{origdate} fields have been
+press-ganged for other duties. The \textsf{origlanguage} field, for
+its part, retains a dual role in presenting translations in a list of
+references. The details of the \emph{Manual}'s suggested treatment
+when both a translation and an original are cited may be found below
+under \textbf{userf}. Here, however, I simply note that the
+introductory string used to connect the translation's citation with
+the original's is \enquote{Originally published as,} which I suggest
+may well be inaccurate in a great many cases, as for instance when
+citing a work from classical antiquity, which will most certainly not
+\enquote{originally} have been published in the Loeb Classical
+Library. Although not, strictly speaking, authorized by the
+\emph{Manual}, I have provided another way to introduce the original
+text, using the \textsf{origlanguage} field, which must be provided
+\emph{in the entry for the translation, not the original text}
+(aristotle:metaphy:trans). If you put one of the standard
+\textsf{biblatex} bibstrings there (enumerated below), then the entry
+will work properly across multiple languages. Otherwise, just put the
+name of the language there, localized as necessary, and
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago} will eschew \enquote{Originally published
+ as} in favor of, e.g., \enquote{Greek edition:} or \enquote{French
+ edition:}. This has no effect in citations, where only the work
+cited --- original or translation --- will be printed, but it may help
+to make the \emph{Manual}'s suggestions for the list of references
+more palatable.
+
+\mylittlespace That was the first usage, in keeping at least with the
+spirit of the \emph{Manual}. I have also, perhaps less in keeping
+with that specification, retained some of \textsf{biblatex}'s
+functionality for this field. If an entry doesn't have a
+\textsf{userf} field, and therefore won't be combining a text and its
+translation in the list of references, you can also use
+\textsf{origlanguage} as Lehman intended it, so that instead of
+saying, e.g., \enquote{translated by X,} the entry will read
+\enquote{translated from the German by X.} The \emph{Manual} doesn't
+mention this, but it may conceivably help avoid certain ambiguities in
+some citations. As in \textsf{biblatex}, if you wish to use this
+functionality, you have to provide \emph{not} the name of the
+language, but rather a bibstring, which may, at the time of writing,
+be one of \texttt{american}, \texttt{brazilian}, \texttt{danish},
+\texttt{dutch}, \texttt{english}, \texttt{french}, \texttt{german},
+\texttt{greek}, \texttt{italian}, \texttt{latin}, \texttt{norwegian},
+\texttt{portuguese}, \texttt{spanish}, or \texttt{swedish}, to which
+I've added \texttt{russian}.
+
+\mybigspace This \mymarginpar{\textbf{origyear}} field is, as of
+\textsf{biblatex} 0.9, obsolete. It is ignored if it appears in a
+.bib file. Please use \textsf{origdate} instead.
+
+\mybigspace This \mymarginpar{\textbf{pages}} is the standard
+\textsf{biblatex} field for providing page references. In many
+\textsf{article} entries you'll find this contains something other
+than a page number, e.g. a section name or edition specification
+(17.188, 17.191, 17.202; kozinn:review, nyt:trevorobit). Of course,
+the same may be true of almost any sort of entry, though perhaps with
+less frequency. Curious readers may wish to look at brown:bremer
+(17.172) for an example of a \textsf{pages} field used to facilitate
+reference to a two-part journal article. Cf.\ \textsf{number} for
+more information on the \emph{Manual}'s preferences regarding the
+formatting of numerals; \textsf{bookpagination} and
+\textsf{pagination} provide details about \textsf{biblatex's}
+mechanisms for specifying what sort of division a given \textsf{pages}
+field contains; and \textsf{usera} discusses a different way to
+present the section information pertaining to a newspaper article.
+
+\mybigspace This, \mymarginpar{\textbf{pagination}} a standard
+\textsf{biblatex} field, allows you automatically to prefix the
+appropriate identifying string to information you provide in the
+\textsf{postnote} field of a citation command, whereas
+\textsf{bookpagination} allows you to prefix a string to the
+\textsf{pages} field. Please see \textbf{bookpagination} above for
+all the details on this functionality, as aside from the difference
+just mentioned the two fields are equivalent.
+
+\mybigspace Standard \mymarginpar{\textbf{part}} \textsf{biblatex}
+field, which identifies physical parts of a single logical volume in
+\textsf{book}-like entries, not in periodicals. It has the same
+purpose in \textsf{biblatex-chicago}, but because the \emph{Manual}
+(17.88) calls such a thing a \enquote{book} and not a \enquote{part,}
+the string printed in the list of references will, at least in
+English, be \enquote{\texttt{bk.}\hspace{-2pt}}\ instead of the plain
+dot between volume number and part number (harley:cartography,
+lach:asia). This field should only be used in association with a
+\textsf{volume} number, so if you need to identify \enquote{parts} or
+\enquote{books} that are part of a published \textsf{series}, for
+example, then you'll need to use a different field, (which in the case
+of a series would be \textsf{number} [palmatary:pottery]). Cf.\
+\textsf{volume}; iso:electrodoc.
+
+\mybigspace Standard \mymarginpar{\textbf{publisher}}
+\textsf{biblatex} field. Remember that \enquote{\texttt{and}} is a
+keyword for connecting multiple publishers, so if a publisher's name
+contains \enquote{and,} then you should either use the ampersand (\&)
+or enclose the whole name in additional braces. (See \emph{Manual}
+17.103--114; aristotle:metaphy:gr, cohen:schiff, creasey:ashe:blast,
+dunn:revolutions.)
+
+\mylittlespace There are, as one might expect, a couple of further
+subtleties involved here. Ordinarily, two publishers will be
+separated by a forward slash in the list of references, but if a
+company issues \enquote{certain books through a special publishing
+ division or under a special imprint,} then the two names will be
+separated by a comma, which you will need to provide in the
+\textsf{publisher} field. The \emph{Manual}'s example (17.112) is
+\enquote{\texttt{Ohio University Press, Swallow Press},} which would
+cause \textsf{biblatex-chicago} no problems. If a book has two
+co-publishers, \enquote{usually in different countries,} (17.113) then
+the simplest thing to do is to choose one, probably the nearest one
+geographically. If you feel it necessary to include both, then
+levistrauss:savage demonstrates one way of doing so, using a
+combination of the \textsf{publisher} and \textsf{location} fields.
+Finally, if the publisher is unknown, then the \emph{Manual}
+recommends (17.109) simply using the place (if known) and the date.
+If for some reason you need to indicate the absence of a publisher,
+the abbreviation given by the \emph{Manual} is \texttt{n.p.}, though
+this can also stand for \enquote{no place.} Some style guides
+apparently suggest using \texttt{s.n.}\,(= \emph{sine nomine}) to
+specify the lack of a publisher, but the \emph{Manual} doesn't mention
+this.
+
+\mybigspace A \mymarginpar{\textbf{pubstate}} standard
+\textsf{biblatex} field, new to version 0.9. Because the author-date
+specification has fairly complicated rules about presenting reprinted
+editions, I have adopted this field as a means of simplifying the
+problem for users. Instead of hand-formatting in the
+\textsf{location} field, you can now simply put the string
+\texttt{reprint} into the \textsf{pubstate} field, and depending on
+which date you have chosen to appear at the head of the entry,
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago-authordate} will either print the string
+\texttt{Repr.}\ in the proper place or otherwise provide a
+parenthesized notice at the end of the entry detailing the original
+publication date. See under \textbf{date} above for the available
+permutations. (Cf.\ aristotle:metaphy:gr, maitland:canon,
+maitland:equity, schweitzer:bach.) If the field contains something
+other than the word \texttt{reprint}, then it will be treated as in
+the standard styles, and printed after the publication information,
+although the \emph{Manual} has nothing to say about this.
+
+\mybigspace I \mymarginpar{\textbf{redactor}} have implemented this
+field just as \textsf{biblatex}'s standard styles do, even though the
+\emph{Manual} doesn't actually mention it. It may be useful for some
+purposes. Cf.\ \textsf{annotator} and \textsf{commentator}.
+
+\mybigspace \textbf{NB:} \mymarginpar{\textbf{reprinttitle}}
+\textbf{Please note that this feature is in an alpha state, and that
+ I'm contemplating using a different field in the future for this
+ functionality. I include it here in the hope that it might receive
+ some testing in the meantime.} At the request of Will Small, I have
+included a means of providing the original publication details of an
+essay or a chapter that you are citing from a subsequent reprint,
+e.g., a \emph{Collected Essays} volume. In such a case, at least
+according to the \emph{Manual} (17.73), such details need be provided
+only if they are \enquote{of particular interest.} The data would
+follow an introductory phrase like \enquote{originally published as,}
+making the problem strictly parallel to that of including details of a
+work in the original language alongside the details of its
+translation. I have addressed the latter problem with the
+\textsf{userf} field, which provides a sort of cross-referencing
+method for this purpose, and \textsf{reprinttitle} works in
+\emph{exactly} the same way. In the .bib entry for the reprint you
+include a cross-reference to the cite key of the original location
+using the \textsf{reprinttitle} field (which it may help mnemonically
+to think of as a \enquote{reprinted title} field). The main
+difference between the two forms is that \textsf{userf} prints all but
+the \textsf{author} of the original work, whereas
+\textsf{reprinttitle} suppresses both the \textsf{author} and the
+\textsf{title} of the original, giving only the more general details,
+beginning with, e.g., the \textsf{journaltitle} or \textsf{booktitle}
+and continuing from there. The string prefacing this information will
+be \enquote{Orig.\ pub.\ in.} Please see the documentation on
+\textsf{userf} below for all the details on how to create .bib entries
+for presenting your data.
+
+\mybigspace A \mymarginpar{\textbf{series}} standard \textsf{biblatex}
+field, usually just a number in an \textsf{article},
+\textsf{periodical}, or \textsf{review} entry, almost always the name
+of a publication series in \textsf{book}-like entries. If you need to
+attach further information to the \textsf{series} name in a
+\textsf{book}-like entry, then the \textsf{number} field is the place
+for it, whether it be a volume, a number, or even something like
+\enquote{2nd ser.} or \enquote{\cmd{bibstring\{oldseries\}}.} Of
+course, you can also use \cmd{bibstring\{oldseries\}} or
+\cmd{bibstring\{newseries\}} in an \textsf{article} entry, but there
+you would place it in the \textsf{series} field itself. (In fact, the
+\textsf{series} field in \textsf{article} and \textsf{periodical}
+entries is one of the places where \textsf{biblatex} allows you just
+to use the plain bibstring \texttt{oldseries}, for example, rather
+than making you type \cmd{bibstring\{oldseries\}}. The \textsf{type}
+field in \textsf{manual}, \textsf{patent}, \textsf{report}, and
+\textsf{thesis} entries also has this auto-detection mechanism in
+place; see the discussion of \cmd{bibstring} below for details.) In
+whatever entry type, these bibstrings produce the required
+abbreviation. (For books and similar entries, see \emph{Manual}
+17.90--95; boxer:china, browning:aurora, palmatary:pottery,
+plato:republic:gr, wauchope:ceramics; for periodicals, see 17.178;
+garaud:gatine, sewall:letter.) Cf.\ \textsf{number} for more
+information on the \emph{Manual}'s preferences regarding the
+formatting of numerals.
+
+\mybigspace This \mymarginpar{\textbf{shortauthor}} is a standard
+\textsf{biblatex} field, but \textsf{biblatex-chicago} makes
+considerably grea\-ter use of it than the standard styles. For the
+purposes of the author-date specification, the field provides the name
+to be used in text citations. In the vast majority of cases, you
+don't need to specify it, because the \textsf{biblatex} system selects
+the author's last name from the \textsf{author} field and uses it in
+such a reference, but in a few cases this default behavior won't work.
+In books without an author and listed under an editor,
+\textsf{biblatex} does the right thing and uses the surname of the
+editor in a short note (zukowsky:chicago), but if the work is listed
+under a \textsf{namec} (or any of the non-standard names
+\textsf{name[a-c]}), you need to provide that person's name in
+\textsf{shortauthor}, and also remember to provide a \textsf{sortkey}
+to make sure the work will be alphabetized correctly in the list of
+references. (The current version of \textsf{biblatex} will now
+automatically alphabetize by \textsf{translator} if that is the name
+given at the head of an entry.) If, in an author-less
+\textsf{article} entry (\textsf{entrysubtype} \texttt{magazine}), you
+allow \textsf{biblatex-chicago} to use the title of the periodical as
+the author --- the default behavior --- then your \textsf{shortauthor}
+field can optionally contain an abbreviated form of the periodical
+name, formatted appropriately, which usually means something like
+\enquote{\cmd{mkbibemph\{Abbrev. Period. Title\}}.} Note that in this
+case, too, you'll need to help the alphabetizing routines by providing
+a \textsf{sortkey} field (gourmet:052006, lakeforester:pushcarts,
+nyt:trevorobit, unsigned:ranke). Indeed, with long, institutional
+authors, a shortened version in \textsf{shortauthor} may save space in
+the running text (cotton:manufacture, evanston:library). See just
+below under \textbf{shorthand} for another method of saving space.
+
+\mylittlespace As mentioned under \textsf{editortype}, the
+\emph{Manual} (17.41) recommends against providing the identifying
+string (e.g., ed.\ or trans.)\ in text citations, and
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago} follows their recommendation. If you need
+to provide these strings in such a citation, then you'll have to do so
+by hand in the \textsf{shortauthor} field, or in the
+\textsf{shorteditor} field, whichever you are using.
+
+\mybigspace Like \mymarginpar{\textbf{shorteditor}}
+\textsf{shortauthor}, a field to provide a name for a text citation,
+in this case for, e.g., a \textsf{collection} entry that typically
+lacks an author. The \textsf{shortauthor} field works just as well in
+most situations, but if you have set \texttt{useauthor=false} (and not
+\texttt{useeditor=false}) in an entry's \textsf{options} field, then
+only \textsf{shorteditor} will be recognized. Cf.\
+\textsf{editortype}, above.
+
+\mybigspace This \mymarginpar{\textbf{shorthand}} is
+\textsf{biblatex}'s mechanism for using abbreviations in citations.
+For \textsf{biblatex-chicago-authordate} I have modified it somewhat
+to conform to the needs of the specification, though there is a
+package option to revert the behavior to something closer to the
+\textsf{biblatex} standard --- see under \texttt{cmslos} in
+section~\ref{sec:authpreset}. The main problem when presenting
+readers with an abbreviation is to ensure that they know how to expand
+it. In the notes \&\ bibliography style this is accomplished with a
+notice in the first footnote citing a given work, which explains that
+henceforth the abbreviation will be used instead, and also, if needed,
+a list of shorthands that summarizes all the abbreviations used in a
+particular text. The first part of this system isn't available in the
+author-date style of citation, and indeed these citations are in
+themselves already highly-abbreviated keys to the fuller information
+to be found in the list of references. There are cases, however,
+particularly when institutions or \textsf{journaltitles} appear as
+authors, when you may feel the need to provide a shortened version for
+citations. I have already discussed one option available to you just
+above (cf.\ \textbf{shortauthor}), but for this to work the
+abbreviation must either be instantly recognizable to your readership
+or at least easily parseable by them.
+
+\mylittlespace The \emph{Manual's} suggestion, particularly when
+\enquote{long names are cited several times} (17.47), is to provide an
+abbreviation which is then explained by a cross-refer\-ence inside the
+list of references itself. In a future release of
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago}, once I have reclaimed one of the custom
+entry types from its current use, I shall implement exactly this
+system. For the moment, the author-date style will automatically
+produce this cross-reference in the list of shorthands, rather than in
+the list of references. (Cf.\ bsi:abbreviation, iso:electrodoc.) As
+in standard \textsf{biblatex}, the \cmd{printshorthands} command will
+produce a formatted list of these cross-references. You can, if
+necessary, place \texttt{skiplos} in the \textsf{options} field to
+exclude a particular entry from the list of shorthands. (See
+16.39--40, and also \textsf{biblatex.pdf} for more information.)
+
+\enlargethispage{-\baselineskip}
+
+\mylittlespace As I mentioned above under \textbf{crossref}, extra
+care is needed when using shorthands with cross-references, and I
+would avoid them in all parent entries, at least in the current state
+of \textsf{biblatex-chicago}.
+
+\mybigspace A \mymarginpar{\textbf{shorttitle}} standard
+\textsf{biblatex} field, primarily used to provide an abbreviated
+title for citation styles that need one. In
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago-authordate} such a field will be necessary
+only very rarely (unlike in the notes \&\ bibliography style), and is
+most likely to turn up in \textsf{inreference} or \textsf{reference}
+entries (where the \textsf{title} takes the place of the
+\textsf{author}), or in any sort of entry with a \texttt{classical}
+\textsf{entrysubtype}. This latter toggle makes citations use
+\textsf{author} and \textsf{title} instead of \textsf{author} and
+\textsf{year}, and if an abbreviated version of that title would save
+space in your running text this is the field where you can provide it.
+(Cf.\ ency:britannica, grove:sibelius, aristotle:metaphy:gr.)
+
+\mybigspace A \mymarginpar{\textbf{sortkey}} standard
+\textsf{biblatex} field, designed to allow you to specify how you want
+an entry alphabetized in a list of references. In general, if an
+entry doesn't turn up where you expect or want it, this field should
+provide the solution. More particularly, entries without an
+\textsf{author} an \textsf{editor}, or a \textsf{translator}, or with
+a corporate author beginning with the definite or indefinite article,
+will usually require your assistance in this way (cotton:manufacture,
+dyna:browser, gourmet:052006, grove:sibelius, lakeforester:pushcarts,
+nyt:trevorobit, unsigned:ranke). There may be circumstances ---
+several reprinted books by the same author, for example --- when the
+\textbf{sortyear} field is more appropriate, on which see below.
+Lehman also provides \textbf{sortname} and \textbf{sorttitle} for
+equally fine-grained control. Please consult \textsf{biblatex.pdf}
+for the details.
+
+\mybigspace A \mymarginpar{\textbf{sortyear}} standard
+\textsf{biblatex} field, provided by Lehman for more fine-grained
+control over the sorting of entries in a list of references, and
+possibly useful in \textsf{biblatex-chicago-authordate} to help
+present several reprinted books by the same author. See
+\textsf{sortkey} above and maitland:equity.
+
+\mybigspace The \mymarginpar{\textbf{subtitle}} subtitle for a
+\textsf{title} --- see next entry.
+
+\enlargethispage{-\baselineskip}
+
+\mybigspace In \mymarginpar{\textbf{title}} the vast majority of
+cases, this field works just as it always has in \textsc{Bib}\TeX, and
+just as it does in \textsf{biblatex}. Nearly every entry for the
+author-date specification will have such a field, any exceptions
+likely stemming from the need to re-use a database for the notes \&\
+bibliography style. Aside from this, the main source of difficulties
+flows from the \emph{Manual}'s rules for formatting \textsf{titles},
+rules which also hold for \textsf{booktitles} and \textsf{maintitles}.
+The whole point of using a \textsc{Bib}\TeX-based system is for it to
+do the formatting for you, and in most cases
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago-authordate} does just that, capitalizing them
+sentence-style, italicizing them, and sometimes both. There are two
+situations that require user intervention. First, in titles that take
+sentence-style capitalization, you need, as always in traditional
+\textsc{Bib}\TeX, to assist the algorithms by placing anything that
+needs to remain capitalized within an extra pair of curly braces.
+Second, when a title is quoted within a title, you need to know some
+of the rules of the Chicago style. A summary here should serve to
+clarify them, and help you to understand when
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago-authordate} might need your help in order to
+comply with them.
+
+\mylittlespace With regard to sentence-style capitalization, the rules
+of the Chicago author-date style are fairly simple:
+
+\begin{description}
+\item[\qquad Headline Style:] \textsf{journaltitle} in all types,
+ \textsf{series} in all \textsf{book}-like entries (i.e., not in
+ \textsf{articles}), and \textsf{title} in \textsf{periodical}
+ entries.
+\item[\qquad Sentence Style:] Every other \textsf{title},
+ \emph{except} in \textsf{letter} entries and in \textsf{misc}
+ entries with an \textsf{entrysubtype}. Also, the
+ \textsf{booktitle}, \textsf{issuetitle}, and \textsf{maintitle} in
+ all entry types.
+\item[\qquad Contextual Capitalization of First Word:]
+ \textsf{titleaddon}, \textsf{booktitleaddon},
+ \textsf{maintitleaddon} in all entry types, and the \textsf{title}
+ of \textsf{misc} entries with an \textsf{entrysubtype}.
+\item[\qquad Plain:] \textsf{title} in \textsf{letter} entries.
+\end{description}
+
+What this means in practice is that to get a title like \emph{The
+ Chicago manual of style}, your .bib entry needs to have a field that
+looks something like this:
+\begin{quote}
+ \texttt{title = \{The \{Chicago\} Manual of Style\}}
+\end{quote}
+
+This is completely straightforward, but remember that if an
+\textsf{article} has a title like: Review of \emph{The Chicago manual
+ of style}, then the curly braces enclosing material to be formatted
+in italics will cause the capitalization algorithm to stop and leave
+all of that material as it is, so your .bib entry would need to have a
+field something like this:
+
+\begin{quote}
+ \texttt{title = \{}\cmd{bibstring\{reviewof\}} \cmd{mkbibemph\{The
+ Chicago manual of style\}\}}
+\end{quote}
+
+(As an aside, the use of the \texttt{reviewof} bibstring isn't
+strictly necessary here, but it helps with portability across
+languages and across the two Chicago styles. If you've noticed a lot
+of lowercase letters starting fields in \textsf{dates-test.bib},
+they're present because in the notes \&\ bibliography style
+capitalization is complicated by notes using commas where the
+bibliography uses periods, and words like \enquote{review} start in
+uppercase only if the context demands it. There's considerably less
+of this in the author-date style [note the \textsf{*titleaddon}
+fields], but it still pays to be aware of the issue.)
+
+\mylittlespace With regard to italics, the rules of
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago-authordate} are as follows:
+
+\begin{description}
+\item[\qquad Italics:] \textsf{booktitle}, \textsf{maintitle}, and
+ \textsf{journaltitle} in all entry types; \textsf{title} of
+ \textsf{artwork}, \textsf{book}, \textsf{bookinbook},
+ \textsf{booklet}, \textsf{collection}, \textsf{inbook},
+ \textsf{manual}, \textsf{misc} (with no \textsf{entrysubtype}),
+ \textsf{periodical}, \textsf{proceedings}, \textsf{report},
+ \textsf{suppbook}, and \textsf{suppcollection} entry types.
+\item[\qquad Main Text Font (Roman):] \textsf{title} of
+ \textsf{article}, \textsf{image}, \textsf{incollection},
+ \textsf{inproceedings}, \textsf{letter}, \textsf{misc} (with an
+ \textsf{entrysubtype}), \textsf{online}, \textsf{patent},
+ \textsf{periodical}, \textsf{suppperiodical}, \textsf{thesis}, and
+ \textsf{unpublished} entry types, \textsf{issuetitle} in
+ \textsf{article} and \textsf{periodical} entry types.
+ \textsf{booktitleaddon}, \textsf{maintitleaddon}, and
+ \textsf{titleaddon} in all entry types.
+\end{description}
+
+Now, the rules for which entry type to use for which sort of work tend
+to be fairly straightforward, but in cases of doubt you can consult
+section~\ref{sec:types:authdate} above, the examples in
+\textsf{dates-test.bib}, or go to the \emph{Manual} itself,
+8.164--210. Assuming, then, that you want to present a title within a
+title, and you know what sort of formatting each of the two would, on
+its own, require, then the following rules apply:
+
+\begin{enumerate}
+\item Inside an italicized title, all other titles are enclosed in
+ quotation marks and italicized, so in such cases all you need to do
+ is provide the quotation marks using \cmd{mkbibquote}, which will
+ take care of any following punctuation that needs to be brought
+ within the closing quotation mark(s) (17.58; donne:var,
+ mchugh:wake).
+\item Inside a plain-text title, you should present another title as
+ it would appear if it were on its own, so in such cases you'll need
+ to do the formatting yourself, using \cmd{mkbibemph} or
+ \cmd{mkbibquote}. (See 17.157; barcott:review, garrett, gibbard,
+ loften:hamlet, loomis:structure, murphy:silent, osborne:poi\-son,
+ ratliff:review, unsigned:ranke, white:callimachus.)
+\end{enumerate}
+
+The \emph{Manual} provides a few more rules, as well. A word normally
+italicized in text should also be italicized in a plain-text title,
+but should be in roman (\enquote{reverse italics}) in an italicized
+title. A quotation used as a (whole) title (with or without a
+subtitle) retains its quotation marks when it is plain, but loses them
+when it is italicized (17.60, 17.157; lewis). A word or phrase in
+quotation marks, but that isn't a quotation, retains those marks in
+all title types (kimluu:diethyl).
+
+\mylittlespace Finally, please note that in all \textsf{review} (and
+\textsf{suppperiodical}) entries (if you happen to be using those),
+and in \textsf{misc} entries with an \textsf{entrysubtype}, and only
+in those entries, \textsf{biblatex-chicago-authordate} will
+automatically capitalize the first word of the \textsf{title} after
+sentence-ending punctuation, assuming that such a \textsf{title}
+begins with a lowercase letter in your .bib database. See
+\textbf{\textbackslash autocap} below for more details.
+
+\mybigspace Standard \mymarginpar{\textbf{titleaddon}}
+\textsf{biblatex} intends this field for use with additions to titles
+that may need to be formatted differently from the titles themselves,
+and \textsf{biblatex-chicago} uses it in just this way, with the
+additional wrinkle that it can, if needed, replace the \textsf{title}
+entirely, and this in, effectively, any entry type, providing a fairly
+powerful, if somewhat complicated, tool for getting \textsc{Bib}\TeX\
+to do what you want (cf.\ centinel:letters). This field will always
+be unformatted, that is, neither italicized nor placed within
+quotation marks, so any formatting you may need within it you'll need
+to provide manually yourself. The single exception to this rule is
+when your data begins with a word that would ordinarily only be
+capitalized at the beginning of a sentence, in which case you need
+then simply ensure that that word is in lowercase, and
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago} will automatically do the right thing. See\
+\textbf{\textbackslash autocap}, below. (Cf.\ brown:bremer,
+osborne:poison, reaves:rosen, and white:ross:memo for examples where
+the field starts with a lowercase letter; morgenson:market provides an
+example where the \textsf{titleaddon} field, holding the name of a
+regular column in a newspaper, is capitalized, a situation that is
+handled as you would expect.)
+
+\mybigspace As \mymarginpar{\textbf{translator}} far as possible, I
+have implemented this field as \textsf{biblatex}'s standard styles do,
+but the requirements specified by the \emph{Manual} present certain
+complications that need explaining. Lehman points out in his
+documentation that the \textsf{translator} field will be associated
+with a \textsf{title}, a \textsf{booktitle}, or a \textsf{maintitle},
+depending on the sort of entry. More specifically,
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago} associates the \textsf{translator} with the
+most comprehensive of those titles, that is, \textsf{maintitle} if
+there is one, otherwise \textsf{booktitle}, otherwise \textsf{title},
+if the other two are lacking. In a large number of cases, this is
+exactly the correct behavior (adorno:benj, centinel:letters,
+plato:republic:gr, among others). Predictably, however, there are
+numerous cases that require, for example, an additional translator for
+one part of a collection or for one volume of a multi-volume work.
+For these cases I have provided the \textsf{nameb} field. You should
+format names for this field as you would for \textsf{author} or
+\textsf{editor}, and these names will always be associated with the
+\textsf{title} (euripides:orestes).
+
+\mylittlespace I have also provided a \textsf{namea} field, which
+holds the editor of a given \textsf{title} (euripides:orestes). If
+\textsf{namea} and \textsf{nameb} are the same,
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago} will concatenate them, just as
+\textsf{biblatex} already does for \textsf{editor},
+\textsf{translator}, and \textsf{namec} (i.e., the compiler).
+Furthermore, it is conceivable that a given entry will need separate
+translators for each of the three sorts of title. For this, and for
+various other tricky situations, there is the \cmd{parttrans} macro
+(and its siblings), designed to be used in a \textsf{note} field or in
+one of the \textsf{titleaddon} fields (ratliff:review). (Because the
+strings identifying a translator differ in notes and bibliography, one
+can't simply write them out in such a field when using the notes \&\
+bibliography style, but you can certainly do so in the author-date
+style, if you wish. Using the macros will make your .bib file more
+portable across both Chicago specifications, and also across multiple
+languages, but they are otherwise unnecessary. [See
+section~\ref{sec:international}].)
+
+\mylittlespace Finally, as I detailed above under \textbf{author}, in
+the absence of an \textsf{author} or an \textsf{editor}, the
+\textsf{translator} will be used at the head of an entry
+(silver:gawain), and the reference list entry alphabetized by the
+translator's name, behavior that can be controlled with the
+\texttt{{usetranslator}} switch in the \textsf{options} field. Cf.\
+\textsf{author}, \textsf{editor}, \textsf{namea}, \textsf{nameb}, and
+\textsf{namec}.
+
+\enlargethispage{\baselineskip}
+
+\mybigspace This \mymarginpar{\textbf{type}} is a standard
+\textsf{biblatex} field, and in its normal usage serves to identify
+the type of a \textsf{manual}, \textsf{patent}, \textsf{report}, or
+\textsf{thesis} entry. \textsf{Biblatex} implements the possibility,
+in some circumstances, to use a bibstring without inserting it in a
+\cmd{bibstring} command, and in these entry types the \textsf{type}
+field works this way, allowing you simply to input, e.g.,
+\texttt{patentus} rather than \cmd{bibstring\{patentus\}}, though both
+will work. (See petroff:impurity; herwign:office, murphy:silent, and
+ross:thesis all demonstrate how the \textsf{type} field may sometimes
+be automatically set in such entries by using one of the standard
+entry-type aliases).
+
+\mylittlespace Another use for the field is to generalize the
+functioning of the \textsf{suppbook} entry type, and of its alias
+\textsf{suppcollection}. In such entries, the \textsf{type} field can
+specify what sort of supplemental material you are citing, e.g.,
+\enquote{\texttt{preface to}} or \enquote{\texttt{postscript to}.}
+Cf.\ \textsf{suppbook} above for the details. (See \emph{Manual}
+17.74--75; polakow:afterw, prose:intro).
+
+\mylittlespace You can also use the \textsf{type} field in
+\textsf{artwork} and \textsf{image} entries to identify the medium of
+the artwork or photograph, e.g., \texttt{oil on canvas} or
+\texttt{albumen print}. If the first word in this field would
+normally only be capitalized at the beginning of a sentence, then
+leave it in lowercase in your .bib file and \textsf{biblatex} will
+automatically do the right thing in citations. Cf.\ \textsf{artwork}
+and \textsf{image}, above, for all the details. (See leo:madonna,
+bedford:photo.)
+
+\mybigspace Standard \mymarginpar{\textbf{url}} \textsf{biblatex}
+field, it holds the url of an online publication, though you can
+provide one for all entry types. The required \LaTeX\ package
+\textsf{url} will ensure that your documents format such references
+properly, in the text and in the reference apparatus.
+
+\mybigspace Standard \mymarginpar{\textbf{urldate}} \textsf{biblatex}
+field, it identifies exactly when you accessed a given url. This
+field would contain the whole date, in \textsc{iso}8601 format
+(evanston:library, grove:sibelius, hlatky:hrt, osborne:poison,
+sirosh:visualcortex, wikiped:bibtex). Please note that the
+\textbf{urlday}, \textbf{urlmonth}, and \textbf{urlyear} fields are
+all now obsolete.
+
+\mybigspace A \mymarginpar{\textbf{usera}} supplemental
+\textsf{biblatex} field which functions in \textsf{biblatex-chicago}
+almost as a \enquote{\textsf{journaltitleaddon}} field. In
+\textsf{article} and \textsf{periodical} entries with
+\textsf{entrysubtype} \texttt{maga\-zine}, the contents of this field
+will be placed, unformatted and between commas, after the
+\textsf{journaltitle} and before the date. The main use is for
+identifying the broadcast network when you cite a radio or television
+program (bundy:macneil), though you may also want to use it to
+identify the section of a newspaper in which you've found a particular
+article (morgenson:market). (See \emph{Manual} 17.190, 17.207. As
+far as I can work out, newspaper section information may be placed
+either before the date [\textsf{usera}] or after it [\textsf{pages}].
+Cp. kozinn:review [17.202] and morgenson:market [17.190]. The choice
+would appear to be yours.)
+
+\mybigspace Another \mymarginpar{\textbf{usere}} supplemental
+\textsf{biblatex} field, which \textsf{biblatex-chicago} uses
+specifically to provide a translated \textsf{title} of a work,
+something that may be needed if you deem the original language
+unparseable by a significant portion of your likely readership. The
+\emph{Manual} offers two alternatives in such a situation: either you
+can translate the title and use that translation in your
+\textsf{title} field, providing the original language in
+\textsf{language}, or you can give the original title in
+\textsf{title} and the translation in \textsf{usere}. Cf.\
+\textbf{language}, above. (See 17.65--67, 17.166, 17.177; kern,
+pirumova:russian, weresz.)
+
+\mybigspace This \mymarginpar{\textbf{userf}} is the last of the
+supplemental fields which \textsf{biblatex} provides, used by
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago} for a very specific purpose. When you cite
+both a translation and its original, the \emph{Manual} (17.66)
+recommends that, in a reference list at least, you combine references
+to both texts in one entry. Lacking specific instructions about the
+author-date style, I have nonetheless chosen to implement this
+possibility also for a list of references, though in-text citations
+will still only refer to individual works. In order to follow this
+specification, I have provided a third cross-referencing system (the
+others being \textsf{crossref} and \textsf{xref}), and have chosen the
+name \textsf{userf} because it might act as a mnemonic for its
+function.
+
+\mylittlespace In order to use this system, you should start by
+entering both the original and its translation into your .bib file,
+just as you normally would. The mechanism works for any entry type,
+and the two entries need not be of the same type. In the entry for
+the \emph{translation}, you put the cite key of the original into the
+\textsf{userf} field. In the \emph{original's} entry, you need to
+include some means of preventing it appearing separately in the list
+of references, either a toggle in the \textsf{keywords} field or
+perhaps \texttt{skipbib} in the \textsf{options} field. In this
+standard case, the data for the translation will be printed first,
+followed by the string \texttt{orig. pub. as}, followed by the
+original, author omitted (furet:passing:eng, furet:passing:fr). As
+explained above (\textbf{origlanguage}), I have also included a way to
+modify the string printed before the original. In the entry for the
+\emph{translation}, you put the original's language in
+\textsf{origlanguage}, and instead of \texttt{originally published
+ as}, you'll get \texttt{French edition:} or \texttt{Latin edition:},
+etc.\ (aristotle:metaphy:gr, aristotle:metaphy:trans).
+
+\mybigspace Standard \mymarginpar{\textbf{venue}} \textsf{biblatex}
+offers this field for use in \textsf{proceedings} and
+\textsf{inproceedings} entries, but I haven't yet implemented it,
+mainly because the \emph{Manual} has nothing to say about it. Perhaps
+the \textsf{organization} field could be used, for the moment,
+instead. Anything in a \textsf{venue} field will be ignored.
+
+\mybigspace Standard \mymarginpar{\textbf{version}} \textsf{biblatex}
+field, currently only available in \textsf{misc} and \textsf{patent}
+entries in \textsf{biblatex-chicago}.
+
+\mybigspace Standard \mymarginpar{\textbf{volume}} \textsf{biblatex}
+field. It holds the volume of a \textsf{journaltitle} in
+\textsf{article} entries, and also the volume of a multi-volume work
+in many other sorts of entry. Cf.\ \textsf{part}; conway:evolution
+shows how sometimes this field may hold series information, as well.
+
+\mybigspace Standard \mymarginpar{\textbf{volumes}} \textsf{biblatex}
+field. It holds the total number of volumes of a multi-volume work,
+and in such references you should provide the volume and page numbers
+in the \textsf{postnote} field of the relevant \cmd{cite} command,
+e.g.:
+
+\begin{quote}
+\cmd{autocite}\texttt{[3:25]\{bibfile:key\}}.
+\end{quote}
+
+Cf.\ 16.110; meredith:letters, tillich:system, weber:saugetiere,
+wright:evolution. The entry wright:theory presents one volume of such
+a multi-volume work, so you would no longer need to give the volume in
+any \textsf{postnote} field when citing it.
+
+\mybigspace A \mymarginpar{\textbf{xref}} modified \textsf{crossref}
+field provided by \textsf{biblatex}. See \textbf{crossref}, above.
+
+\mybigspace Standard \mymarginpar{\textbf{year}} \textsf{biblatex}
+field, especially important for the author-date specification. Please
+see all the details under \textbf{date} above. Unlike the
+\textsf{date} field \textsf{year} allows non-numeric input, so you can
+put \cmd{bibstring\{nodate\}} here if required, or indeed any other
+sort of non-numerical date information. If you can guess the date
+then you can include that guess in square brackets instead of
+\cmd{bibstring\{nodate\}}. Cf.\ bedford:photo, clark:mesopot,
+ross:leo, thesis:madonna.
+
+\subsection{Commands}
+\label{sec:commands:authdate}
+
+In this section I shall attempt to document all those commands you may
+need when using \textsf{biblatex-chicago-authordate} that I have either
+altered with respect to the standard provided by \textsf{biblatex} or
+that I have provided myself. Some of these, unfortunately, will make
+your .bib file incompatible with other \textsf{biblatex} styles, but
+I've been unable to avoid this. Any ideas for more elegant, and more
+compatible, solutions will be warmly welcomed.
+
+\subsubsection{Formatting Commands}
+\label{sec:formatting:authdate}
+
+These commands allow you to fine-tune the presentation of your
+references in both citations and list of references. You can find
+many examples of their usage in \textsf{dates-test.bib}, and I shall
+try to point you toward a few such entries in what follows.
+\textbf{NB:} \textsf{biblatex's} \cmd{mkbibquote} command is now
+mandatory in some situations. See its entry below.
+
+\mybigspace Version \mymarginpar{\textbf{\textbackslash autocap}} 0.8
+of \textsf{biblatex} introduced the \cmd{autocap} command, which
+capitalizes a word inside a citation or list of references entry if
+that word follows sentence-ending punctuation, and leaves it lowercase
+otherwise. The whole question of capitalization is considerably more
+complicated in the notes \&\ bibliography style, where the former uses
+commas and the latter (often) periods to separate blocks of
+information, whereas the more streamlined author-date specification
+has few such issues. In \textsf{dates-test.bib} there are only two
+places where the \cmd{autocap} macro is necessary, and they both
+involve the string \texttt{forthcoming} in the \textsf{year} field
+(author:forthcoming, contrib:contrib).
+
+\mylittlespace I have nonetheless retained the system developed,
+following Lehman's example, for the notes \&\ bibliography style,
+which automatically tracks the capitalization of certain fields in
+your .bib file. I chose these fields after a non-scientific survey of
+entries in my own databases, so of course if you have ideas for the
+extension of this facility I would be most interested to hear them.
+In order to take advantage of this functionality, all you need do is
+begin the data in the appropriate field with a lowercase letter,
+e.g.,\ \texttt{note = \{with the assistance of X\}}. If the data
+begins with a capital letter --- and this is not infrequent --- that
+capital will always be retained. (cf., e.g., creel:house,
+morgenson:market.) If, on the other hand, you for some reason need
+such a field always to start with a lowercase letter, then you can try
+using the \cmd{isdot} macro at the start, which turns off the
+mechanism without printing anything itself. Here, then, for reference
+purposes, is the complete list of fields where this functionality is
+active:
+
+\begin{enumerate}
+\item The \textbf{addendum} field in all entry types.
+\item The \textbf{booktitleaddon} field in all entry types.
+\item The \textbf{edition} field in all entry types. (Numerals work
+ as you expect them to here.)
+\item The \textbf{maintitleaddon} field in all entry types.
+\item The \textbf{note} field in all entry types.
+\item The \textbf{shorttitle} field in the \textsf{review}
+ (\textsf{suppperiodical}) entry type and in the \textsf{misc} type,
+ in the latter case, however, only when there is an
+ \textsf{entrysubtype} defined, indicating that the work cited is
+ from an archive.
+\item The \textbf{title} field in the \textsf{review}
+ (\textsf{suppperiodical}) entry type and in the \textsf{misc} type,
+ in the latter case, however, only when there is an
+ \textsf{entrysubtype} defined, indicating that the work cited is
+ from an archive.
+\item The \textbf{titleaddon} field in all entry types.
+\item The \textbf{type} field in \textsf{artwork}, \textsf{image},
+ \textsf{suppbook}, and \textsf{suppcollection} entry types.
+\end{enumerate}
+
+If you accidentally use the \cmd{autocap} macro in one of the above
+fields, it frankly shouldn't matter at all, and you'll still get what
+you want, but taking advantage of the automatic provisions should at
+least save some typing.
+
+\enlargethispage{-\baselineskip}
+
+\mybigspace This \mymarginpar{\textbf{\textbackslash bibstring}} is
+Lehman's very powerful mechanism to allow \textsf{biblatex}
+automatically to provide a localized version of a string, and to
+determine whether that string needs capitalization, depending on where
+it falls in an entry. \textsf{Biblatex} also provides functionality
+which allows you sometimes simply to input, for example,
+\texttt{newseries} instead of \cmd{bib\-string\{newseries\}}, the
+package auto-detecting when a bibstring is involved and doing the
+right thing, though in all such cases either form will work. This
+functionality is available in the \textsf{series} field of
+\textsf{article}, \textsf{periodical}, and \textsf{review} entries; in
+the \textsf{type} field of \textsf{manual}, \textsf{patent},
+\textsf{report}, and \textsf{thesis} entries; in the \textsf{location}
+field of \textsf{patent} entries; and in the \textsf{language} field
+in all entry types. These are the places, as far as I can make out,
+where \textsf{biblatex's} standard styles support this feature, and I
+have followed suit. If Lehman generalizes it still further in a
+future release, I shall do the same, if possible.
+
+\mybigspace This \mymarginpar{\textbf{\textbackslash mkbibquote}} is
+the standard \textsf{biblatex} command, which requires attention here
+because it is a crucial part of the mechanism of Lehman's
+\enquote{American} punctuation system. No titles in the author-date
+system require quotation marks, but titles-within-titles frequently
+do, so it is best to get accustomed to using this command to make sure
+any periods or commas appearing in the neighborhood of the closing
+quotes will appear inside them automatically. A few examples from
+\textsf{dates-test.bib} should help to clarify this.
+
+\mylittlespace In an \textsf{article} entry, the \textsf{title}
+contains a quoted phrase:
+
+\begin{quotation}
+ \noindent\texttt{title = \{Diethylstilbestrol and Media Coverage of the \\
+ \indent\cmd{mkbibquote}\{morning after\} Pill\}}
+\end{quotation}
+
+Here, because the quoted text doesn't come at the end of title, and no
+punctuation will ever need to be drawn within the closing quotation
+mark, you could instead use \texttt{\cmd{enquote}\{morning after\}} or
+even \texttt{``morning after''}. (Note the double quotation marks here
+--- the other two methods have the virtue of taking care of nesting
+for you.) All of these will produce the formatted: Diethylstilbestrol
+and media coverage of the \enquote{morning after} pill.
+
+\mylittlespace Here, by contrast, is a \textsf{book title}:
+
+\begin{quotation}
+ \noindent \texttt{title = \{Annotations to
+ \cmd{mkbibquote}\{Finnegans wake\}\}}
+\end{quotation}
+
+Because the quoted title within the title comes at the end of the
+field, and because this reference unit will be separated from
+what follows by a period in the list of references, then the
+\cmd{mkbibquote} command is necessary to bring that period within the
+final quotation marks, like so: \emph{Annotations to
+ \enquote{Finnegans wake.}}
+
+\mylittlespace Note in both cases how you need to be careful with the
+sentence-style capitalization inside the curly brackets. The
+automatic algorithms assume anything inside the brackets doesn't need
+alteration, so you need to provide lower- or uppercase as they should
+appear in the list of references.
+
+\mylittlespace Let me also add that this command interacts well with
+Lehman's \textsf{csquotes} package, which I highly recommend, though
+the latter isn't strictly necessary in texts using an American style,
+to which \textsf{biblatex} defaults when \textsf{csquotes} isn't
+loaded.
+
+\mybigspace This \mymarginpar{\textbf{\textbackslash partcomp}} and
+the following 6 macros were all designed to help
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago} cope with the fact that many bibstrings in
+the notes \&\ bibliography style differ between notes and
+bibliography, the former sometimes using abbreviated forms when the
+latter prints them in full. These problems do not arise in the
+author-date style, but using these macros will make your .bib database
+more portable across languages and across both Chicago styles, and may
+be slightly easier to remember than the strings themselves. On the
+other hand, of course, they will make your .bib file less portable
+across multiple \textsf{biblatex} styles.
+
+\mylittlespace These macros allow you to provide an \texttt{editor}, a
+\texttt{translator}, and/or a \texttt{compiler} in situations where
+the available fields (\textsf{editor}, \textsf{namea},
+\textsf{translator}, \textsf{nameb}, and \textsf{namec}) aren't
+adequate. Their names all begin with \cmd{part}, as originally I
+intended them for use when a particular name applied only to a
+specific \textsf{title}, rather than to a \textsf{maintitle} or
+\textsf{booktitle} (cf.\ \textbf{namea} and \textbf{nameb}, above).
+
+%\enlargethispage{\baselineskip}
+
+\mylittlespace In the present instance, you can use \cmd{partcomp} to
+identify a compiler when \textsf{namec} (or \textsf{editortype}) won't
+do, e.g., in a \textsf{note} field or the like. In such a case,
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago} will print the appropriate string in your
+references.
+
+\mybigspace Use \mymarginpar{\textbf{\textbackslash partedit}} this
+macro when identifying an editor whose name doesn't conveniently fit
+into the usual fields (\textsf{editor} or \textsf{namea}). (N.B.: If
+you are writing in French and using \textsf{cms-french.lbx}, then
+currently you'll need to add either \texttt{de} or \texttt{d'} after
+this command in your .bib files to make the references come out right.
+I'm working on this.) See howell:marriage.
+
+\mybigspace As \mymarginpar{\textbf{\textbackslash
+ partedit-\\andcomp}} before, but for use when an editor is also a
+compiler.
+
+\vspace{1.3\baselineskip} As \mymarginpar{\textbf{\textbackslash
+ partedit-\\andtrans}} before, but for when when an editor is also a
+translator (ratliff:review).
+
+\mybigspace As \mymarginpar{\textbf{\textbackslash
+ partedit-\\transandcomp}} before, but for when an editor is also a
+translator and a compiler.
+
+\vspace{1.3\baselineskip} As \mymarginpar{\textbf{\textbackslash
+ parttrans}} before, but for use when identifying a translator
+whose name doesn't conveniently fit into the usual fields
+(\textsf{translator} and \textsf{nameb}).
+
+\mybigspace As \mymarginpar{\textbf{\textbackslash
+ parttrans-\\andcomp}} before, but for when a translator is also a
+compiler.
+
+\subsubsection{Citation Commands}
+\label{sec:cite:authordate}
+
+The \textsf{biblatex} package is particularly rich in citation
+commands, most of which, in \textsf{biblatex-chicago-authordate},
+function as they do in the standard author-date styles. If you are
+getting unexpected behavior when using them please have a look in your
+.log file. A command like \cmd{supercite}, listed in §~3.6.2 of the
+\textsf{biblatex} manual but not defined by
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago-authordate} or by core \textsf{biblatex},
+defaults to \cmd{cite}, and leaves a warning in the .log. The
+following commands may require some minimal explanation, but if there
+are standard commands that don't work for you, or new commands that
+would be useful, please let me know, and it should be possible to fix
+or add them.
+
+\mybigspace I \mymarginpar{\textbf{\textbackslash autocite}} haven't
+adapted this in the slightest, but I thought it worth pointing out
+that \textsf{biblatex-chicago-authordate} sets this command to use
+\cmd{parencite} as the default option. It is, in my experience, much
+the most common citation command you will use, and also works fine in
+its multicite form, \textbf{\textbackslash autocites}.
+
+\mybigspace In \mymarginpar{\textbf{\textbackslash textcite}} standard
+\textsf{biblatex} this command searches first for a
+\textsf{labelname}, usually taken from the \textsf{author} or
+\textsf{shortauthor} field, then uses the \textsf{shorthand} field if
+the former doesn't exist. Because of the way the Chicago author-date
+specification recommends handling abbreviations, I have switched this
+around, and the command now searches for a \textsf{shorthand} first.
+This holds also for the multicite form \textbf{\textbackslash
+ textcites}.
+
+\subsection{Package Options}
+\label{sec:opts:authdate}
+
+\subsubsection{Pre-set \textsf{biblatex} Options}
+\label{sec:preset:authdate}
+
+Although a quick glance through \textsf{biblatex-chicago.sty} will
+tell you which \textsf{biblatex} options the package sets for you, I
+thought I might gather them here also for your perusal. These
+settings are, I believe, consistent with the specification, but you
+can alter them in the options to \textsf{biblatex-chicago} in your
+preamble or by loading the package using
+\cmd{usepackage[style=chicago-authordate]\{biblatex\}}, which gives
+you the \textsf{biblatex} defaults unless you redefine them yourself
+inside the square brackets.
+
+\mylittlespace \textsf{Biblatex-chicago-authordate}
+\mymarginpar{\texttt{autocite=\\inline}} places references in
+footnotes by default.
+
+\mybigspace The \mymarginpar{\texttt{citetracker=\\true}} citetracker
+for the \cmd{ifciteseen} test is enabled globally.
+
+\mybigspace The \mymarginpar{\texttt{alldates=comp}} specification
+calls for the long format when presenting dates, slightly shortened
+when presenting date ranges. Please note that because of the
+author-date style's complicated requirements with respect to dates,
+there will be cases when printed ranges don't look exactly right ---
+cf., e.g., nass:address. I'm working on this.
+
+\mylittlespace This \mymarginpar{\texttt{ibidtracker=\\constrict}}
+enables an \emph{ibidem} mechanism in citations, but only in the most
+strictly-defined circumstances. The Chicago author-date style doesn't
+print \enquote{Ibid} in citations, but in general a repeated citation
+on the same page will print only the page reference. Technically,
+this should only occur when a source is cited \enquote{more than once
+ in one paragraph} (16.114), so you can use the \cmd{citereset}
+command from \textsf{biblatex} to achieve the greatest compliance, as
+the package only offers automatic resetting on part, chapter, section,
+and subsection boundaries, while \textsf{biblatex-chicago}
+automatically resets the tracker at page breaks. (Cf./
+\textsf{biblatex.pdf} §3.1.2.) Whenever there might be any ambiguity,
+\textsf{biblatex} should default to printing a more informative
+reference.
+
+\mylittlespace If you are going to repeat a source, make sure that the
+cite command provides a \textsf{postnote} --- if you don't need to cite a
+specific page, then it's better only to use one citation rather than
+two, as otherwise, in the current state of the code, you'll get empty
+parentheses, like so: ().
+
+\mylittlespace This \mymarginpar{\texttt{labelyear=\\true}} option
+tells \textsf{biblatex} to provide the special \textsf{labelyear} and
+\textsf{extrayear} fields for author-date styles.
+
+\mylittlespace This \mymarginpar{\texttt{pagetracker=\\true}} enables
+page tracking for the \cmd{iffirstonpage} and \cmd{ifsamepage}
+commands for controlling, among other things, the \emph{ibidem}
+mechanism. It tracks individual pages if \LaTeX\ is in oneside mode,
+or whole spreads in twoside mode.
+
+\mylittlespace This \mymarginpar{\texttt{sorting=nyt}} changes
+\textsf{biblatex's} default sorting order in the list of references to
+comply with the Chicago author-date specification.
+
+\mylittlespace This \mymarginpar{\texttt{uniquename=\\true}} enables
+the package to distinguish different authors who share a surname,
+using initials in the first instance, and whole names if initials
+aren't enough (16.108).
+
+\mylittlespace This \mymarginpar{\texttt{usetranslator\\=true}}
+enables automatic use of the \textsf{translator} at the head of
+entries in the absence of an \textsf{author} or an \textsf{editor}.
+In the list of references, the entry will be alphabetized by the
+translator's surname. You can disable this functionality on a
+per-entry basis by setting \texttt{usetranslator=false} in the
+\textsf{options} field. Cf.\ silver:gawain.
+
+\subsubsection*{{Pre-set \textsf{biblatex-chicago} Options}}
+\label{sec:authpreset}
+
+This \mymarginpar{\texttt{cmslos=true}} option alters
+\textsf{biblatex's} standard behavior when processing the
+\textsf{shorthand} field. Chicago's author-date style only seems to
+recommend the use of shorthands as abbreviations for long authors'
+names, particularly institutional names, which means the shorthand
+will replace only the name part in citations rather than the whole
+citation (17.47; bsi:abbreviation, iso:electrodoc). It suggests
+placing the expansion of the abbreviation into the reference list
+itself, a procedure that I shall implement in the next release of
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago}. For now, the list of shorthands will
+present the expansion. Please note, also, that you can get back
+something approaching the \enquote{standard} behavior of shorthands if
+you give the \texttt{cmslos=false} option to \textsf{biblatex-chicago}
+in your document preamble. Cf.\ section~\ref{sec:fields:authdate},
+s.v. \enquote{\textbf{shorthand}} above, and also
+\textsf{cms-dates-sample.pdf}.
+
+\mylittlespace This \mymarginpar{\texttt{nodates=true}} option means
+that for all entry types except \textsf{inreference}, \textsf{misc},
+and \textsf{reference}, \textsf{biblatex-chicago} will automatically
+provide \cmd{bibstring\{nodates\}} for any entry that doesn't
+otherwise provide a date for citations and for the heads of entries in
+the list of references. If you set \texttt{nodates=false} in your
+preamble, then the package won't perform this substitution in any
+entry type whatsoever. (The bibstring expands to
+\enquote{\texttt{n.d.}} in English.)
+
+\mylittlespace This \mymarginpar{\texttt{usecompiler=\\true}} option
+enables automatic use of the name of the compiler (in the
+\textsf{namec} field) at the head of an entry, usually in the absence
+of an \textsf{author}, \textsf{editor}, or \textsf{translator}, in
+accordance with the specification (\emph{Manual} 17.41). It may also,
+like \texttt{useauthor}, \texttt{useeditor}, and
+\texttt{usetranslator}, be disabled on a per-entry basis by setting
+\texttt{usecompiler=false} in the \textsf{options} field. Please
+remember that, because \textsf{namec} isn't a standard
+\textsf{biblatex} field, this name won't be part of its sorting
+algorithms, and that any entry headed by a \textsf{namec} will
+therefore need a \textsf{shortauthor} defined for citations and a
+\textsf{sortkey} or the like in order to have it appear in the correct
+place in the list of references. (The exception to this is when you
+modify the \textsf{editor's} identifying string using the
+\textsf{editortype} field, which is the procedure I recommend if the
+entry-heading compiler is only a compiler, and not also, e.g., an
+editor or a translator. Cf.\ times:guide.)
+
+\subsubsection*{Other \textsf{biblatex} Formatting Options}
+\label{sec:authformopts}
+
+I've chosen defaults for many of the general formatting commands
+provided by \textsf{biblatex}, including the vertical space between
+items in the list of references and between items in the list of
+shorthands (\cmd{bibitemsep} and \cmd{lositemsep}). I define many of
+these in \textsf{biblatex-chicago.sty}, and of course you may want to
+redefine them to your own needs and tastes. It may be as well you
+know that the \emph{Manual} does state a preference for two of the
+formatting options I've implemented by default: the 3-em dash as a
+replacement for repeated names in the list of references
+(16.103--106); and the formatting of note numbers, both in the main
+text and at the bottom of the page / end of the essay (superscript in
+the text, in-line in the notes; 16.25). The code for this last
+formatting is also in \textsf{biblatex-chicago.sty}, and I've wrapped
+it in a test that disables it if you are using the \textsf{memoir}
+class, which I believe has its own commands for defining these
+parameters. You can also disable it by using the \texttt{footmarkoff}
+package option, on which see below.
+
+\mylittlespace Finally, \mymarginpar{\texttt{maxnames=10\\minnames=7}}
+in the \cmd{printbibliography} command at the bottom of
+\textsf{cms-dates-sam\-ple.tex} you'll see that I've set these two
+options, which control the number of names printed in the list of
+references when that number exceeds 10. These numbers follow the
+recommendations of the \emph{Manual} (17.29--30), and they are
+different from those for use in citations. By putting these options
+in your \cmd{printbibliography} command, you can use
+\textsf{biblatex's} default settings for citations, which are correct
+as far as the \emph{Manual} is concerned, and then switch to these
+settings for the list of references. Please see
+section~\ref{sec:otherhints:auth} below (and the file
+\textsf{cms-dates-sample.pdf}) for hints on dealing with entries with
+more than three authors.
+
+\subsubsection{Style Options -- Preamble}
+\label{sec:authuseropts}
+
+These are parts of the specification that not everyone will wish to
+enable. All except the second can be used even if you load the
+package in the old way via a call to \textsf{biblatex}, but most users
+can just place the appropriate string(s) in the options to the
+\cmd{usepackage\{biblatex-chicago\}} call in your preamble.
+
+\mylittlespace At \mymarginpar{\texttt{annotation}} the request of
+Emil Salim, I have added to this version of \textsf{biblatex-chicago}
+the ability to produce annotated reference lists. If you turn this
+option on then the contents of your \textsf{annotation} (or
+\textsf{annote}) field will be printed after the reference. (You can
+also use external files to store annotations -- please see
+\textsf{biblatex.pdf} §~3.10.7 for details on how to do this.) This
+functionality is currently in a beta state, so before you use it
+please have a look at the documentation for the \textsf{annotation}
+field, in section~\ref{sec:fields:authdate} above.
+
+\mylittlespace Although \mymarginpar{\texttt{footmarkoff}} the
+\emph{Manual} (16.25) recommends specific formatting for footnote (and
+endnote) marks, i.e., superscript in the text and in-line in foot- or
+endnotes, Charles Schaum has brought it to my attention that not all
+publishers follow this practice, even when requiring Chicago style. I
+have retained this formatting as the default setup, but if you include
+the \texttt{footmarkoff} option, \textsf{biblatex-chicago} will not
+alter \LaTeX 's (or the \textsf{endnote} package's) defaults in any
+way, leaving you free to follow the specifications of your publisher.
+I have placed all of this code in \textsf{biblatex-chicago.sty}, so if
+you load the package with a call to \textsf{biblatex} instead, then
+once again footnote marks will revert to the \LaTeX\ default, but of
+course you also lose a fair amount of other formatting, as well. See
+section~\ref{sec:loading:auth}, below.
+
+%\enlargethispage{\baselineskip} Sort this out???
+
+\mylittlespace This \mymarginpar{\texttt{natbib}} may look like the
+standard \textsf{biblatex} option, but to keep the coding of
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago.sty} simpler for the moment I have
+reimplemented it there, from whence it is merely passed on to
+\textsf{biblatex}. If you load the Chicago style with
+\cmd{usepackage\{biblatex-chicago\}}, then the option should simply
+read \texttt{natbib}, rather than \texttt{natbib=true}. The shorter
+form also works if you use \cmd{usepackage}\\
+\texttt{[style=chicago-authordate]\{biblatex\}}, so I hope this
+requirement isn't too onerous.
+
+\mylittlespace At \mymarginpar{\texttt{noibid}} the request of an
+early tester, I have included this option to allow you globally to
+turn off the \texttt{ibidem} mechanism that
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago-authordate} uses by default. This mechanism
+doesn't actually print \enquote{Ibid,} but rather includes only the
+\textsf{postnote} information in a citation, i.e., it will print (224)
+instead of (Author 2000, 224). Setting this option will mean that
+none of these shortened citations will appear automatically. For more
+fine-grained control of individual citations you'll probably want to
+use the \cmd{citereset} command, allied possibly with the
+\textsf{biblatex}\ \texttt{citereset} option, on which see
+\textsf{biblatex.pdf} §3.1.2.
+
+%\enlargethispage{\baselineskip}
+
+\mylittlespace This \mymarginpar{\texttt{strict}} still-experimental
+option attempts to follow the \emph{Manual}'s recommendations (16.57)
+for formatting footnotes on the page, using no rule between them and
+the main text unless there is a run-on note, in which case a short
+rule intervenes to emphasize this continuation. I haven't tested this
+code very thoroughly, and it's possible that frequent use of floats
+might interfere with it. Let me know if it causes problems.
+
+\subsubsection{Style Options -- Entry}
+\label{sec:authentryopts}
+
+These options are settable on a per-entry basis in the
+\textsf{options} field; both relate to the presentation of dates in
+citations and the list of references.
+
+\mylittlespace The \mymarginpar{\texttt{cmsdate}} \emph{Manual}
+outlines a series of options for entries with more than one date
+(17.124--27). All of these possibilities are available in
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago} using the \texttt{cmsdate} entry option. It
+has 4 possible states, which are perhaps best illustrated by example.
+Let us assume that an entry presents a reprinted edition of a work by
+Smith, first published in 1926 (the \textsf{origdate}) and reprinted
+in 1985 (the \textsf{date}):
+
+\begin{description}
+\item[\qquad \textbf{off}:] This is the default. The citation will
+ look like (Smith 1985).
+\item[\qquad \textbf{on}:] The citation will look like (Smith 1926).
+\item[\qquad \textbf{new}:] The citation will look like (Smith
+ 1926/1985).
+\item[\qquad \textbf{old}:] The citation will look like (Smith [1926]
+ 1985).
+\end{description}
+
+As I explained in detail above in section~\ref{sec:fields:authdate},
+s.v.\ \enquote{\textbf{date},}\ because \textsf{biblatex's} sorting
+algorithms and automatic creation of the \textsf{extrayear} field
+\emph{always} refer to the \textsf{date}, there may be situations when
+you need to have the \emph{earlier} year in the \textsf{date} field,
+and the later one in \textsf{origdate}, e.g., if you have another
+reprinted work by the same author originally printed in the same year.
+\textsf{Biblatex-chicago-authordate} will automatically detect this
+switch, and given the same reprinted work as above, the results will
+be as follows:
+
+\begin{description}
+\item[\qquad \textbf{off}:] This is the default. The citation will
+ look like (Smith 1926a).
+\item[\qquad \textbf{on}:] The citation will look like (Smith 1926a).
+\item[\qquad \textbf{new}:] The citation will look like (Smith
+ 1926a/1985).
+\item[\qquad \textbf{old}:] The citation will look like (Smith [1926a]
+ 1985).
+\end{description}
+
+If, \mymarginpar{\texttt{switchdates}} for any reason, simply
+switching the \textsf{date} and the \textsf{origdate} isn't possible
+in a given entry, then you can put \texttt{switchdates} in the
+\textsf{options} field to achieve the same result. Please take a look
+at the full documentation of the \textbf{date} field to which I
+referred just above, and also at \textsf{cms-dates-sample.pdf} and
+\textsf{dates-test.bib} for examples of how all this works.
+
+\mylittlespace As a final note, I should point out that the code in
+\textsf{chicago-authordate.cbx} allows \texttt{cmsdate} to be used in
+the document preamble as a general setting. This leads to a world of
+pain, so I very strongly advise against it, though I'm leaving it in
+for testing purposes.
+
+\subsection{General Usage Hints}
+\label{sec:hints:auth}
+
+\subsubsection{Loading the Style}
+\label{sec:loading:auth}
+
+With the addition of the author-date style to the package, I have
+provided two keys for choosing which style to load, \texttt{notes} and
+\texttt{authordate}, one of which you put in the options to the
+\cmd{usepackage} command. With early versions of
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago}, the standard way of loading the package was
+via a call to \textsf{biblatex}, e.g.:
+\begin{quote}
+ \cmd{usepackage[style=chicago-authordate,strict,backend=bibtex8,\%\\
+ babel=other,bibencoding=inputenc]\{biblatex\}}
+\end{quote}
+Now, the default way to load the style, and one that will in the
+vast majority of standard cases produce the same results as the old
+invocation, will look like this:
+\begin{quote}
+ \cmd{usepackage[authordate,strict,backend=bibtex8,babel=other,\%\\
+ bibencoding=inputenc]\{biblatex-chicago\}}
+\end{quote}
+
+If you read through \textsf{biblatex-chicago.sty}, you'll see that it
+sets a number of \textsf{biblatex} options aimed at following the
+Chicago specification, as well as setting a few formatting variables
+intended as reasonable defaults (see section~\ref{sec:preset:authdate},
+above). Some parts of this specification, however, are plainly more
+\enquote{suggested} than \enquote{required,} and indeed many
+publishers, while adopting the main skeleton of the Chicago style in
+citations, nonetheless maintain their own house styles to which the
+defaults I have provided do not conform.
+
+\mylittlespace If you only need to change one or two parameters, this
+can easily be done by putting different options in the call to
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago} or redefining other formatting variables in
+the preamble, thereby overriding the package defaults. If, however,
+you wish more substantially to alter the output of the package,
+perhaps to use it as a base for constructing another style altogether,
+then you may want to revert to the old style of invocation above.
+You'll lose all the definitions in \textsf{biblatex-chicago.sty},
+including those to which I've already alluded and also the code that
+sets the note number in-line rather than superscript in endnotes or
+footnotes. Also in this file is the code that calls
+\textsf{cms-american.lbx}, which means that you'll lose all the
+Chicago-specific bibstrings I've defined unless you provide, in your
+preamble, a \cmd{DeclareLanguageMapping} command adapted for your
+setup, on which see section~\ref{sec:international} below and also
+§§~4.8.1 and 4.10.8 in Lehman's \textsf{biblatex.pdf}.
+
+\mylittlespace What you \emph{will not} lose is the ability to call
+the package options \texttt{annotation, strict, cmslos=false} and
+\texttt{noibid} (section~\ref{sec:authuseropts}, above), in case these
+continue to be useful to you when constructing your own modifications.
+There's very little code, therefore, actually in
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago.sty}, but I hope that even this minimal
+separation will make the package somewhat more adaptable. Any
+suggestions on this score are, of course, welcome.
+
+\subsubsection{Other Hints}
+\label{sec:otherhints:auth}
+
+If your .bib file contains a large number of entries with more than
+three authors, then you may run into some limitations of the
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago} code. The default settings in the package
+are \texttt{maxnames=3,minnames=1} in citations and
+\texttt{max\-names=10,minnames=7} in the list of references
+(parameters you provide in the \cmd{printbibliography} command). In
+practice, this means that an entry like hlatky:hrt, with 5 authors,
+will present all of them in the list of references but will truncate
+to one in citations, like so: (Hlatky et al. 2002). For the vast
+majority of circumstances, these settings are exactly right for the
+Chicago author-date specification. However, if \enquote{a reference
+ list includes another work \emph{of the same date} that would also
+ be abbreviated as [\enquote{Hlatky et al.}] but whose coauthors are
+ different persons or listed in a different order, the text citations
+ must distinguish between them} (16.118). By default,
+\textsf{biblatex} would present such a work as, e.g., (Hlatky et
+al. 2002b), while hlatky:hrt would be (Hlatky et al. 2002a). This
+does distinguish between them, but inaccurately, as it suggests that
+the two different author lists are exactly the same.
+
+\mylittlespace The solution to this problem is the
+\textsf{shortauthor} field. For our two entries they might look like,
+e.g., \{\{Hlatky, Boothroyd et al.\}\} and \{\{Hlatky, Smith et
+al.\}\}. This will produce the two citations (Hlatky, Boothroyd et
+al.\ 2002) and (Hlatky, Smith et al.\ 2002), which is what the
+specification requires. If the distinguishing name occurs further
+down the author list --- in fourth or fifth position in our examples
+--- then you may have to use \textsf{shortauthor} fields that look
+like this: \{\{Hlatky et al., \textbackslash mkbibquote\{Quality of
+Life,\}\}\} and \{\{Hlatky et al., \textbackslash
+mkbibquote\{Depressive Symptoms,\}\}\}, using a shortened title to
+distinguish the references. This would produce (Hlatky et al.,
+\enquote{Quality of Life,} 2002) and (Hlatky et al.,
+\enquote{Depressive Symptoms,} 2002), again as the spec requires.
+There is, unfortunately, no simpler way that I know of to deal with
+this situation.
+
+\mylittlespace One useful rule, when you are having difficulty
+creating a .bib entry, is to ask yourself whether all the information
+you are providing is strictly necessary. The Chicago specification is
+a very full one, but the \emph{Manual} is actually, in many
+circumstances, fairly relaxed about how much of the data from a work's
+title page you need to fit into a reference. Authors of introductions
+and afterwords, multiple publishers in different countries, the real
+names of authors more commonly known under pseudonyms, all of these
+are candidates for exclusion if you aren't making specific reference
+to them, and if you judge that their inclusion won't be of particular
+interest to your readers. Of course, any data that may be of such
+interest, and especially any needed to identify and track down a
+reference, has to be present, but sometimes it pays to step back and
+reevaluate how much information you're providing. I've tried to make
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago} robust enough to handle the most complex,
+data-rich citations, but there may be instances where you can save
+yourself some typing by keeping it simple.
+
+\mylittlespace Scot Becker has pointed out to me that the inverse
+problem not only exists but may well become increasingly common, to
+wit, .bib database entries generated by bibliographic managers which
+helpfully provide as much information as is available, including
+fields that users may well wish not to have printed (ISBN, URL, DOI,
+\textsf{pagetotal}, inter alia). The standard \textsf{biblatex}
+styles contain a series of options, detailed in \textsf{biblatex.pdf}
+§3.1.3, for controlling the printing of some of these fields, but I
+haven't yet implemented them in \textsf{biblatex-chicago}. This is in
+my TODO list, and the next release will also include some more
+general options, at Scot's recommendation, that turn off everything at
+once. Until then judicious pruning remains the only solution.
+
+\mylittlespace Finally, allow me to reiterate what Philipp Lehman says
+in \textsf{biblatex.pdf}, to wit, use \textsf{bibtex8}, rather than
+standard \textsc{Bib}\TeX, and avoid the cryptic errors that ensue
+when your .bib file gets to a certain size.
+
+\section{Internationalization}
+\label{sec:international}
+
+Several users have requested that, in line with analogous provisions
+in other \enquote{American} \textsf{biblatex} styles (e.g.,
+\textsf{biblatex-apa} and \textsf{biblatex-mla}), I include facilities
+for producing a Chicago-like style in other languages. I have
+supplied three new lbx files, \textsf{cms-german.lbx}, its clone
+\textsf{cms-ngerman.lbx}, and \textsf{cms-french.lbx}, in at least
+partial fulfilment of this request. This means that all of the
+Chicago-specific bibstrings are now available for documents and
+reference apparatuses written in French and German, with, as I intend,
+more languages to follow, limited mainly by my finite time and
+even-more-finite competence. (If you would like to provide bibstrings
+for a language in which you want to work, or indeed correct
+deficiencies in the lbx files I have prepared, please contact me.)
+
+\mylittlespace Using \mymarginpar{\textbf{babel}} these new facilities
+is fairly simple. By default, and this functionality remains the same
+as it was in the previous release of \textsf{biblatex-chicago}, calls
+to \cmd{DeclareLanguage\-Mapping} in \textsf{biblatex-chicago.sty}
+will automatically load the American strings, and also
+\textsf{biblatex's} American-style punctuation tracking, when you:
+\begin{enumerate}
+\item Load \textsf{babel} with \texttt{american} as the main text
+ language.
+\item Load \textsf{babel} with \texttt{english} as the main text
+ language.
+\item[] \qquad \emph{or}
+\item Do not load \textsf{babel} at all.
+\end{enumerate}
+(This last is a change from the \textsf{biblatex} defaults --- cp.\
+§~3.9.1 in \textsf{biblatex.pdf} --- but it seems to me reasonable, in
+an American citation style, to expect this arrangement to work well
+for the majority of users.)
+
+\mylittlespace If, for whatever reason, you wanted to use
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago} but retain British typographical conventions
+--- punctuation outside of quotation marks, outer quotes single rather
+than double, etc.\ --- then one possible solution at least would be to
+follow these three steps:
+\begin{enumerate}
+\item Load \textsf{babel} with the \texttt{british} option.
+\item Put \cmd{DeclareLanguageMapping\{british\}\{cms-american\}} in
+ your preamble.
+\item Edit \textsf{cms-american.lbx} so that the line reading:\\
+ \cmd{InheritBibliographyExtras\{american\}}\\ instead reads:\\
+ \cmd{InheritBibliographyExtras\{british\}}.
+\end{enumerate}
+
+If you want to use French or German strings in the reference
+apparatus, then you can:
+\begin{enumerate}
+\item Load \textsf{babel} with \texttt{german} or \texttt{french} as
+ the main document language.
+\item Put \cmd{DeclareLanguageMapping\{german\}\{cms-german\}} or
+ \cmd{Declare-\\ LanguageMapping\{french\}\{cms-french\}} in your
+ document preamble.
+\end{enumerate}
+
+You can also define which bibstrings to use on an entry-by-entry basis
+by using the \textsf{hyphenation} field in your bib file, but you will
+have to make sure that the Chicago-specific strings for the given
+language are loaded using a \cmd{DeclareLanguageMapping} call in the
+preamble. Indeed, if \texttt{american} isn't the main text language
+when loading \textsf{babel}, then in order to have access to those
+strings you'll need
+\cmd{DeclareLanguageMapping\{american\}\{cms-american\}} in your
+preamble, as \textsf{biblatex-chicago.sty} won't load it for you.
+
+\mylittlespace Three other hints may be in order here. Please note,
+first, that I haven't altered the standard punctuation procedures used
+in German or French, so commas and full stops will appear outside of
+quotation marks, and those quotation marks themselves will be
+language-specific. If, for whatever reason, you wish to follow the
+Chicago specification and move punctuation inside quotation marks,
+then you'll need a declaration of this sort in your preamble:
+
+\begin{quote}
+ \cmd{DefineBibliographyExtras\{german\}\{\%}\\
+ \hspace*{2em}\cmd{DeclareQuotePunctuation\{.,\}\}}
+\end{quote}
+
+Second, depending on the nature of your bibliography database, it will
+only rarely be possible to process the same bib file in different
+languages and obtain completely satisfactory results. Fields like
+\textsf{note} and \textsf{addendum} will often contain
+language-specific information that won't be translated when you switch
+languages, so manual intervention will be necessary. If you suspect
+you may have a need to use the same bib file in different languages,
+you can minimize the amount of manual intervention required by using
+the bibstrings defined either by \textsf{biblatex} or by
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago}. Here, a quick read through
+\textsf{notes-test.bib} and/or \textsf{dates-test.bib} should give you
+an idea of what is available for this purpose --- see esp.\ the
+strings \texttt{by}, \texttt{nodate}, \texttt{newseries},
+\texttt{number}, \texttt{numbers}, \texttt{oldseries},
+\texttt{pseudonym}, \texttt{reviewof}, \texttt{revisededition}, and
+\texttt{volume}, and also section \ref{sec:formatcommands} above,
+esp.\ s.v.\ \enquote{\cmd{partedit}.}
+
+\mylittlespace Finally, the French and German bibstrings I have
+provided may well break with established bibliographical traditions in
+those languages, but my main concern when choosing them was to remain
+as close as possible to the quirks of the Chicago specification. If
+you have strong objections to any of the strings, or indeed to any of
+my formatting decisions, please let me know.
+
+\section{One .bib Database, Two Chicago Styles}
+\label{sec:twostyles}
+
+I have, when designing this package, attempted to keep at least half
+an eye on the possibility that users might want to re-use a .bib
+database in documents using the two different Chicago styles. I have
+no idea whether this will even be a common concern, but I thought I
+might gather in this section the issues that a hypothetical user might
+face. The two possible conversion vectors are by no means
+symmetrical, so I provide two lists, items within the lists appearing
+in no particular order. These may well be incomplete, so any
+additions are welcome.
+
+\subsection{Notes -> Author-Date }
+\label{sec:conv:notesauth}
+
+This is, I believe, the simpler conversion, as most well-constructed
+.bib entries for the notes \& bibliography style will nearly
+\enquote{just work} in author-date, but here are a few caveats
+nonetheless:
+
+\begin{enumerate}
+\item You'll need curly brackets in titles, subtitles, etc., to
+ protect capitalization in the sentence-style defaults of
+ author-date.
+\item You may need to reevaluate your use of shorthands, given that by
+ default the author-date style uses them in place of authors rather
+ than in place of the whole citation. The preamble option
+ \textsf{cmslos=false} may help, but this may leave your document
+ out-of-spec.
+\item The potential problem with multiple author lists containing more
+ than three names doesn't arise in the notes \& bibliography style,
+ so the \textsf{shortauthor} fields in such entries may need
+ alteration according to the instructions in
+ section~\ref{sec:otherhints:auth} above.
+\item Date presentation is relatively simple in notes \& bibliography,
+ but you'll need to contemplate the \texttt{cmsdate} options from
+ section~\ref{sec:authentryopts} when doing the conversion to
+ author-date.
+\end{enumerate}
+
+\subsection{Author-date -> Notes}
+\label{sec:conv:authnotes}
+
+It is my impression that an author-date .bib database is somewhat
+easier to construct in the first instance, but subsequently converting
+it to notes \& bibliography is a little more onerous. Here are some
+of the things you may need to address:
+
+\begin{enumerate}
+\item If you've decided against using the \cmd{partedit} macro and
+ friends from section~\ref{sec:formatting:authdate} above, commands
+ not strictly necessary for author-date, you'll need to insert them
+ now.
+\item In general, you need to be more careful in notes \& bibliography
+ about capitalization issues. Fields which only appear once in
+ author-date --- in the list of references --- may appear in both
+ long notes and in the bibliography, in different syntactic contexts,
+ so a quick perusal of the documentation of the \cmd{autocap} macro
+ in section~\ref{sec:formatting:authdate} above may help.
+\item You also need to be more careful about the use of abbreviations,
+ e.g., in journal names, where the author-date style is more liberal
+ in their use than the notes \&\ bibliography style. (Cf.\ 17.159.)
+ The bibstrings mechanism and package options sort much of this out
+ automatically, but not all.
+\item Although you can get away with the \textsf{article} type for all
+ sorts of periodical entries in author-date, you'll need the
+ \textsf{review} type for notes \& bibliography. Any
+ well-constructed \textsf{review} entry should work just fine in
+ author-date, so this is a one-time conversion. Please see the
+ documentation in section~\ref{sec:entrytypes},
+ s.vv. \enquote{article} and \enquote{review,} above.
+\item The \textsf{shorttitle} field is used extensively in notes \&
+ bibliography to keep short notes short, so you may find that you
+ need to add a fair number of these to an author-date database. In
+ general this field is ignored by the latter style, so this, too,
+ will be a one-time conversion.
+\item You may need to add \textsf{letter} entries if you are citing
+ just one letter from a published collection. See
+ section~\ref{sec:entrytypes}, s.v. \enquote{letter,} above.
+\item The default shorthand presentation differs from one style to the
+ other. You may need to reconsider how you use this field when
+ making the conversion.
+\item As I explained above in section~\ref{sec:entryfields}, s.v.\
+ \enquote{date,} I have included compatibility code in
+ \textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes} for the \texttt{cmsdate} (silently
+ ignored) and \texttt{switchdates} options, along with the automatic
+ mechanism for reversing \textsf{date} and \textsf{origdate}. This
+ means that you can, in theory, leave all of this alone in your .bib
+ file when making the conversion, though I'm retaining the right to
+ revise this if the code in question demonstrably interferes with the
+ functioning of the notes \&\ bibliography style.
+\end{enumerate}
+
+\section{Interaction with Other Packages}
+\label{sec:otherpacks}
+
+For \mymarginpar{\textbf{endnotes}} users of the \textsf{endnotes}
+package --- or of \textsf{pagenote} --- \textsf{biblatex} 0.9 offers
+considerably enhanced functionality. Please read Lehman's RELEASE
+file and the documentation of the \texttt{notetype} option in
+\textsf{biblatex.pdf} §~3.1.2.
+
+\mylittlespace Another \mymarginpar{\textbf{memoir}} problem I have
+found occurs because the \textsf{memoir} class provides its own
+commands for the formatting of foot- and end-note marks. By default,
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago} uses superscript numbers in the text, and
+in-line numbers in foot- or end-notes, but I have turned this off when
+the \textsf{memoir} class is loaded, reasoning that users of that
+package may well have their own ideas about such formatting.
+
+\mylittlespace The \mymarginpar{\textbf{ragged2e}} footnote mark code
+I've just mentioned also causes problems for the \textsf{rag\-ged2e}
+package, but in this case a simple workaround is to load
+\textsf{biblatex} \emph{after} you've loaded \textsf{ragged2e} in your
+document preamble.
+
+%\enlargethispage{\baselineskip}
+
+\mylittlespace Nick \mymarginpar{\textbf{Xe\LaTeX}} Andrewes alerted
+me to problems that appeared when he used the Xe\LaTeX\ engine to
+process his files. These included spurious punctuation after
+quotation marks in some situations, and also failures in the automatic
+capitalization routines. Some of these problems disappeared when I
+switched to using Lehman's punctuation-tracking code for
+\enquote{American} styles, but some remained. A bug report from
+J. P. E.~Harper-Scott suggested a new way of addressing the issue, and
+the newest version of Lehman's \textsf{csquotes} package (4.4)
+incorporates a full fix. This, thankfully, doesn't require turning
+off any of Xe\LaTeX 's features, and indeed merely involves upgrading
+to the latest version of \textsf{csquotes}, which I recommend doing in
+any case. Compatibility with the EU1 encoding is now standard in that
+package.
+
+\section{TODO \&\ Known Bugs}
+\label{sec:bugs}
+
+Johan Nordstrom asked me to look into citing audiovisual sources, and
+I agree with him that as it now stands \textsf{biblatex-chicago}
+doesn't conveniently handle as many different kinds as it could.
+\textsf{Biblatex} provides a number of entry types for such
+references, so in the next major release I shall include as many of
+these types as seem necessary. The \emph{Manual} believes such
+material is mainly relevant for the notes \&\ bibliography style, but
+I shall attempt to provide similar functionality for author-date, as
+well.
+
+\enlargethispage{-\baselineskip}
+
+\mylittlespace For the author-date style, the \emph{Manual} (17.47)
+recommends expanding shorthands inside the list of references itself.
+Currently, \textsf{biblatex-chicago-authordate} does so only in the
+separate list of shorthands. In the next major release I shall
+attempt to rectify this, probably using one of the \textsf{custom}
+entry types which are now dedicated to other purposes, but which I
+have marked as deprecated in this release.
+
+\mylittlespace As recommended by Scot Becker, I shall implement the
+standard \textsf{biblatex} options \texttt{isbn,\,url,} and
+\texttt{doi}, along with some more draconian general options for
+turning off the printing of fields that bibliographic managers
+routinely provide but which the Chicago styles don't particularly
+require.
+
+\mylittlespace I am planning to implement the \textsf{shorthandintro}
+field to improve the flexibility of the package. I shall also be
+looking into the \textsf{pubstate} field, which currently functions
+more fully in author-date than it does in notes \&\ bibliography.
+
+\mylittlespace There are a number of things I haven't implemented.
+The solution in brown:bre\-mer to multi-part journal articles
+obviously isn't optimal, and I should investigate a way of making it
+simpler. If the kludge presented there doesn't appeal, you can
+always, for the time being, refer separately to the various parts.
+Legal citations are another thorny issue, and implementing them would
+involve choosing a particular documentation scheme (for which there
+exist at least three widely-used standards in the US), then providing
+what would effectively be an entirely separate \textsf{biblatex}
+style, bearing little or no relation to the usual look of Chicago
+citations. Indeed, the \emph{Manual} (17.275) even makes it clear
+that you should be using a different reference book if you are
+presenting work in the field, so I've thought it prudent to stay clear
+of those waters. I'm open to arguments on this score, and of course
+if you have other issues with particular sorts of citation I'm happy
+to take them on board. The \emph{Manual} covers an enormous range of
+materials, but if we exclude the legal citations --- the audio-visual
+ones mentioned above --- it seems to me that the available entry types
+could be pressed into service to address the vast majority of them.
+If this optimism proves misguided, please let me know.
+
+\mylittlespace This release fixes the formatting errors of which I am
+aware, though users writing in French should be aware of problems with
+the \cmd{partedit} command in section~\ref{sec:formatcommands} above.
+There also remain the larger issues I've discussed throughout this
+documentation, which mainly represent my inability to make all of
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago's} formatting functions transparent for the
+user, but thankfully Lehman's superb punctuation-tracking code has
+preemptively fixed a great many small errors, some of which I hadn't
+even noticed before I began testing the new functionality. That there
+are other micro-bugs seems certain --- if you report them I'll do my
+best to fix them.
+
+\mylittlespace I haven't looked closely at the standard
+\textsc{Bib}\TeX\ style by Glenn Paulley, contained in
+the \textsf{chicago} package on CTAN, which implements the
+author-date specification from the 13th edition of the \emph{Manual}.
+If anyone is still using the style, and requires some compatibility
+code for it, let me know, and I'll look into it.
+
+\mylittlespace On my 800 MHz PIII with 256 MB of RAM (running
+Slackware), it has to be admitted that \textsf{biblatex-chicago} makes
+\LaTeX\ run a bit slowly. The \textsf{bibtex8} run is swift enough,
+but the actual formatting of the document can lag. It may be that
+newer machines mostly eliminate this, or it may be that I need to pay
+more attention to the efficiency of the code, but in any case I
+thought I should warn you in advance.
+
+\section{Revision History}
+\label{sec:history}
+
+\textbf{0.9.5a: Released \today}
+\begin{itemize}
+\item Quick fix for an elementary and show-stopping mistake in
+ \textsf{biblatex-chica\-go.sty}, a mistake disguised if you load
+ \textsf{csquotes}, which I do in all my test files. Mea culpa.
+ Many thanks indeed to Israel Jacques and Emil Salim for pointing
+ this out to me.
+\end{itemize}
+
+\textbf{0.9.5: Released September 3, 2010}
+
+\mylittlespace \label{deprec:obsol} Obsolete and Deprecated Features:
+\begin{itemize}
+\item All the custom entry types --- \textbf{customa},
+ \textbf{customb}, and \textbf{customc} --- are now deprecated. They
+ will still work for the time being, but please be aware that in the
+ next major release they will no longer function, at least not as you
+ might be expecting. Please change your .bib files to use
+ \textbf{letter} (=\textbf{customa}), \textbf{bookinbook}
+ (=\textbf{customb}), and \textbf{suppbook} (=\textbf{customc})
+ instead.
+\item If by some chance anyone is still using the old \cmd{custpunctc}
+ macro, it is now obsolete. It really shouldn't be needed, but let
+ me know if I'm wrong.
+\end{itemize}
+
+\vspace{2\baselineskip}
+
+Other New Features:
+\begin{itemize}
+\item The Chicago author-date style is now implemented in the
+ package, and is fully documented in section~\ref{sec:authdate},
+ above.
+\item The default way of loading the style(s) has slightly changed.
+ You should put either \texttt{notes} or \texttt{authordate} in the
+ options to \textsf{biblatex-chicago}, e.g.:
+ \begin{quote}
+ \cmd{usepackage[authordate,more options%
+ \,\ldots]\{biblatex-chicago\}}
+ \end{quote}
+\item With the addition of the second Chicago style, I have thought it
+ appropriate to alter both the name of the package and the names of
+ the files it contains. The package is now \textsf{biblatex-chicago}
+ instead of \textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes-df}, and the following
+ files have been renamed:
+ \begin{itemize}
+ \item \textsf{chicago-notes-df.cbx} is now \textsf{chicago-notes.cbx}
+ \item \textsf{chicago-notes-df.bbx} is now \textsf{chicago-notes.bbx}
+ \item \textsf{sample.tex} is now \textsf{cms-notes-sample.tex}
+ \item \textsf{sample.pdf} is now \textsf{cms-notes-sample.pdf}
+ \item \textsf{chicago-test.bib} is now \textsf{notes-test.bib}
+ \item \textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes-df.pdf} (this file) is now
+ \textsf{biblatex-chicago.pdf}
+ \end{itemize}
+ The following files have been added:
+ \begin{itemize}
+ \item \textsf{chicago-authordate.cbx}
+ \item \textsf{chicago-authordate.bbx}
+ \item \textsf{cms-dates-sample.tex}
+ \item \textsf{cms-dates-sample.pdf}
+ \item \textsf{dates-test.bib}
+ \end{itemize}
+ The following files have retained their old names:
+ \begin{itemize}
+ \item \textsf{cms-american.lbx}
+ \item \textsf{cms-french.lbx}
+ \item \textsf{cms-german.lbx}
+ \item \textsf{cms-ngerman.lbx}
+ \item \textsf{biblatex-chicago.sty}
+ \end{itemize}
+\item I have implemented the \textsf{pubstate} field, slightly
+ differently yet compatibly in the two styles, to provide a simpler
+ mechanism for identifying a reprinted book. In the author-date
+ style, it is highly recommended you use it, as it sorts out some
+ complicated formatting questions automatically. In the notes \&\
+ bibliography style it isn't strictly necessary, but may be useful
+ anyway and easier to remember than the old system. See the
+ documentation under \textsf{pubstate} in
+ sections~\ref{sec:entryfields} and \ref{sec:fields:authdate}, above.
+\item Users of \textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes} no longer need a
+ \textsf{shortauthor} field in author-less \textsf{manual} entries,
+ or in author-less \textsf{article} or \textsf{review} entries with a
+ \texttt{maga\-zine} \textsf{entrysubtype}. The package will now
+ automatically take an author for short notes from the
+ \textsf{organization} field for \textsf{manual} entries and from the
+ \textsf{journaltitle} field for the others. You can still use a
+ \textsf{shortauthor} field if you want, but it's no longer
+ necessary. (This also holds for \textsf{chicago-authordate}.)
+\item Date presentation in the \textsf{misc} entry type (with
+ \textsf{entrysubtype}) has changed to fix an inaccuracy. You can
+ now use the \textsf{date} and \textsf{origdate} fields to
+ distinguish between two sorts of archival source: letters and
+ \enquote{letter-like} sources use \textsf{origdate}, interviews and
+ other non-letters use \textsf{date}. The only difference is in how
+ the date is printed, so current .bib entries will continue to work
+ fine, albeit with minor inaccuracies in the case of non-letter-like
+ sources. See the docs on \textbf{misc} in
+ sections~\ref{sec:entrytypes} and \ref{sec:types:authdate}, above.
+\item When only one date is presented in a \textsf{patent} entry ---
+ either in the \textsf{date} or \textsf{origdate} field --- this will
+ now always be used as the filing date. In
+ \textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes}, this makes a change from the
+ previous (incorrect) behavior.
+\item I have included the option \texttt{dateabbrev=false} in the
+ default settings for \textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes}. This ensures
+ that the long month names are printed, as otherwise recent releases
+ of \textsf{biblatex} print the abbreviated ones by default.
+\item The provision of punctuation in \textsf{entrysubtype}
+ \texttt{classical} entries has been improved, allowing the comma to
+ appear before certain kinds of location specifiers even when citing
+ works by their traditional divisions. See \emph{Manual} 17.253.
+ (This applies to both Chicago styles.)
+\item The \textsf{number} field in \textsf{article},
+ \textsf{periodical}, and \textsf{review} entries now allows you to
+ include a series or range of numbers in the field, with the style
+ automatically providing the correct bibstring (singular or plural).
+\item I have removed and altered bibstrings in the .lbx files to take
+ advantage of the new \cmd{bibsstring} and \cmd{biblstring} commands
+ in \textsf{biblatex}, and added one new string
+ (\texttt{origpubyear}) needed by
+ \textsf{biblatex-chicago-authordate}.
+\end{itemize}
+
+\textbf{0.9a: Released March 20, 2010}
+\begin{itemize}
+\item Quick fixes for compatibility with \textsf{biblatex} 0.9a.
+\end{itemize}
+
+\textbf{0.9: Released March 18, 2010}
+
+\mylittlespace Obsolete and Deprecated Features:
+\begin{itemize}
+\item The \textbf{userd} field is now obsolete. All information it
+ used to hold should be placed in the \textsf{edition} field.
+\item The \textbf{origyear} field is now obsolete in
+ \textsf{biblatex}. It has been replaced by \textbf{origdate}, and
+ because the latter allows a full date specification, I have been
+ able to make the operation of \textsf{customa} (=\,\textsf{letter}),
+ \textsf{misc} (with an \textsf{entrysubtype}), and \textsf{patent}
+ entries more intuitive. The RELEASE file contained in this package
+ gives the short instructions on how to update your .bib files, and
+ you can also consult the documentation of those entry types above.
+\item The modified \textsf{csquotes.cfg} file I provided in earlier
+ releases is now obsolete, and has been removed from the package.
+ Please upgrade to the latest version of \textsf{csquotes} and, if
+ you are still using my modified .cfg file, remove it from your \TeX\
+ search path, or at the very least excise the code I provided.
+\end{itemize}
+
+Other New Features:
+\begin{itemize}
+\item Added the files \textsf{cms-german.lbx} (with its clone
+ \textsf{cms-ngerman.lbx}) and \textsf{cms-french.lbx}, which allow
+ the creation of Chicago-like references in those languages. See
+ section \ref{sec:international} above for details on usage.
+\item Added the \texttt{annotation} package option to allow the
+ creation of annotated bibliographies. This code is still not
+ entirely polished yet, but it is usable. Please see page
+ \pageref{sec:annote} above for instructions and hints.
+\item Added \textsf{biblatex's} new \textbf{bookinbook} entry type,
+ which currently functions as an alias of the \textsf{customb} type.
+ As \textsf{biblatex} now provides standard equivalents for all of
+ the custom types I initially found it necessary to provide ---
+ \textsf{letter}~= \textsf{customa}, \textsf{bookinbook}~=
+ \textsf{customb}, and \textsf{suppbook} \& \textsf{suppcollection}~=
+ \textsf{customc} --- it may soon be time to prune out the custom
+ types to enhance compatibility with other \textsf{biblatex} styles.
+ I shall give plenty of warning before I do so.
+\item In line with the new system adopted in \textsf{biblatex} 0.9,
+ using the \textsf{editortype} field turns off the usual string
+ concatenation mechanisms of the Chicago style. See Lehman's RELEASE
+ file for a discussion of this.
+\item I have added support for the new \textsf{editor[a--c]} and
+ \textsf{editor[a--c]type} fields, and they work just as in standard
+ \textsf{biblatex}, though I'm uncertain how much use they'll get
+ from users of the Chicago style.
+\item I have added many bibstrings to the .lbx files to help with
+ internationalization. The new ones that you might want to use in
+ your .bib files include: \texttt{pseudonym}, \texttt{nodate},
+ \texttt{revisededition}, \texttt{numbers}, and \texttt{reviewof}.
+ Please see section~\ref{sec:international} for a fuller list.
+\end{itemize}
+
+\textbf{0.8.9d: Released February 17, 2010}
+\begin{itemize}
+\item Chris Sparks and Aaron Lambert both found formatting bugs in the
+ 0.8.9c code. I've fixed these bugs, and am releasing this version
+ now, the last in the 0.8.9 series. The next release of
+ \textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes-df}, due as soon as possible, will
+ contain many more significant changes, including those necessary for
+ it to function properly with the recently-released \textsf{biblatex}
+ version 0.9. In the meantime, at least version 0.8.9d should produce
+ more accurate output.
+\end{itemize}
+
+\textbf{0.8.9c: Released November 4, 2009}
+\begin{itemize}
+\item Emil Salim noticed that the \emph{ibidem} mechanism wasn't
+ working properly, printing the page number after \enquote{Ibid} even
+ when the page reference of the preceding citation was identical.
+ The fix for this involved setting \texttt{loccittracker=constrict}
+ in \textsf{biblatex-chicago.sty}, something you'll have to do
+ manually yourself if you're loading the package via a call to
+ \textsf{biblatex} rather than to \textsf{biblatex-chicago}.
+\item Several users have reported unwanted behavior when repeated
+ names in bibliographies are replaced with the \texttt{bibnamedash}.
+ This release should fix both when the \texttt{bibnamedash} appears
+ and what punctuation follows it.
+\end{itemize}
+
+\textbf{0.8.9b: Released September 9, 2009}
+\begin{itemize}
+\item Fixed a long-standing bug in formatting names in the
+ bibliography. The package now correctly places a comma after the
+ reversed name that begins the entry, using \textsf{biblatex's}
+ \cmd{revsdnamedelim} command. Many thanks to Johanna Pink for
+ catching my rather egregious error.
+\item While fixing some formatting errors that cropped up when using
+ the newest version of \textsf{biblatex} (0.8h at time of writing), I
+ also spotted some more venerable bugs in the code for using
+ shortened cross-references for citing multiple entries in a
+ collection of essays or letters. I believe this now works
+ correctly, but please let me know if you discover differently.
+\item Joseph Reagle noticed that endnote marks (produced using the
+ \textsf{endnotes} package) did not receive the
+ same treatment as footnote marks. I have rectified this, placing
+ the code in \textsf{biblatex-chicago.sty} so that you can turn it
+ off either by using the old package-loading system or by setting the
+ \texttt{footmarkoff} package option when loading
+ \textsf{biblatex-chicago}.
+\item Updates to Lehman's \textsf{csquotes} package have rendered my
+ modifications in \textsf{csquotes.cfg} obsolete. Please use the
+ latest version of \textsf{csquotes} (4.4a at time of writing) and
+ ignore my file, which will disappear in a later release.
+\item At the request of Will Small, I have included some code, still
+ in an alpha state, to allow you to specify, in the bibliography, the
+ original publication details of essays which you are citing from
+ later reprints (a \emph{Collected Essays} volume, for example). See
+ the documentation above under the \textsf{\mycolor{reprinttitle}}
+ field if you would like to test this functionality.
+\end{itemize}
+
+%\enlargethispage{-3\baselineskip}
+
+\textbf{0.8.9a: Released July 5, 2009}
+\begin{itemize}
+\item Slight changes for compatibility with \textsf{biblatex} 0.8e.
+ The package still works with 0.8c and 0.8d, as well.
+\end{itemize}
+
+\textbf{0.8.9: Released July 2, 2009}
+
+\mylittlespace Obsolete and Deprecated Features:
+\begin{itemize}
+\item The \textbf{single-letter bibstrings} (\cmd{bibstring\{a\}},
+ \cmd{bibstring\{b\}}, etc.) are now obsolete. You should replace
+ any still present in your .bib file with \cmd{autocap} commands ---
+ see §~3.8.4 of \textsf{biblatex.pdf}.
+\end{itemize}
+
+Other New Features:
+\begin{itemize}
+\item The default way of loading the package is now with
+
+ \cmd{usepackage[further-options]\{biblatex-chicago\}}
+
+ rather than
+
+ \cmd{usepackage[style=chicago-notes-df,further-options]\{biblatex\}}.
+
+ Please see section~\ref{sec:loading} above for details and hints.
+\item Package-specific bibstrings have been removed from the .cbx and
+ .bbx files and are now gathered in a new file,
+ \textbf{cms-american.lbx}, which changes the way the package
+ interacts with \textbf{babel}. It is now somewhat simpler if you
+ want the defaults, but somewhat more complex if you require
+ non-standard features. Please see section~\ref{sec:otherpacks}
+ above for more details.
+\item Two new entry types have been added: \textbf{artwork} for works
+ of visual art excluding photographs, and \textbf{image} for
+ photographs. See the documentation of \textsf{artwork} for how to
+ create .bib entries for both types.
+\item Added the new bibliography and entry option
+ \textbf{usecompiler}, set to \texttt{true} by default. This
+ streamlines the code that finds a name to head an entry
+ (\textbf{author -> editor [or namea] -> translator [or nameb] ->
+ compiler [namec] -> title}). The whole system should work more
+ consistently now, but do see the \textsf{author} and \textsf{namec}
+ documentation for improved notes on how to use it.
+\item Added the new bibliography option \textbf{footmarkoff}, to turn
+ off the optional in-line (as opposed to superscript) formatting of
+ the marks in foot- or endnotes. You only need this if you load the
+ package with the new default \cmd{usepackage\{biblatex-chicago\}};
+ users loading it the old way get default \LaTeX\ formatting.
+\item At Matthew Lundin's request, I have added the citation command
+ \textbf{\textbackslash head\-lesscite}, which works like
+ \cmd{headlessfullcite} but allows \textsf{biblatex} to decide
+ whether to print the full or the short note.
+\item Fully adopted \textsf{biblatex's} system for providing
+ end-of-entry punctuation, which should solve some of the bugs users
+ have been finding. See section~\ref{sec:otherhints}, above, and do
+ please let me know if inconsistencies remain.
+\item Added a modified \textbf{csquotes.cfg} file to address issues
+ users were having when using the \textbf{Xe\LaTeX} engine in
+ combination with \textsf{biblatex-chicago}. See
+ section~\ref{sec:otherpacks}, above.
+\item Added \texttt{natbib} option to allow users of the default setup
+ to continue to benefit from \textsf{biblatex's} \textsf{natbib}
+ compatibility code. Thanks to Bennett Helm for pointing out this
+ issue.
+\item Added a \textbf{shorthandibid} option to allow the printing of
+ \emph{ibid.}\ in consecutive references to an entry that contains a
+ \textsf{shorthand} field. Thanks to Chris Sparks for calling my
+ attention to this problem.
+\item While investigating the preceding, I noticed failures when
+ combining the \texttt{short} option with a \textsf{shorthand} field.
+ The package now actually does what it has always claimed to do under
+ \textbf{shorthand}.
+\item Many small bug fixes and improvements to the documentation.
+\end{itemize}
+
+To Do:
+
+\begin{itemize}
+\item The shorthand vs \emph{ibid.}\ question may need more careful
+ addressing in some cross references, and also in relation to the
+ \texttt{noibid} package option.
+\item Charles Schaum has quite rightly pointed out the inconsistency
+ in my naming conventions --- \textsf{biblatex-chicago.sty} as
+ opposed to \textsf{chicago-notes-df.cbx}, for example. I'm going to
+ delay a decision on which way to go with this until a later release.
+\end{itemize}
+
+\textbf{0.8.5a: Released June 14, 2009}
+
+\begin{itemize}
+\item Quick and dirty fixes to bibliography strings to allow
+ compatibility with \textsf{biblatex} version 0.8d. If you are still
+ using 0.8c, then I would wait for the next version of
+ \textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes-df}, which is due soon. See README.
+\end{itemize}
+
+\textbf{0.8.5: Released January 10, 2009}
+
+\mylittlespace Obsolete and Deprecated Features:
+
+ \begin{itemize}
+ \item The \textbf{\textbackslash custpunct} commands are now
+ deprecated --- Lehman's \enquote{American} punctuation tracking
+ facilities should handle quoted text automatically, assuming you
+ remember always to use \textbf{\textbackslash mkbibquote} in your
+ database. If you still need \cmd{custpunct}, please let me know,
+ as it may be an error in the style.
+ \item With \cmd{custpunct} no longer needed, the toggles activated
+ by placing \enquote{\texttt{plain}} in the \textbf{type} or
+ \textbf{userb} fields are also deprecated.
+ \end{itemize}
+
+Other New Features:
+
+\begin{itemize}
+\item At least \textbf{biblatex 0.8b} is now required --- 0.8c works
+ fine, as well.
+\item I now \emph{strongly recommend} that you use \textbf{babel} with
+ \enquote{\texttt{american}} as the main text language. See
+ section~\ref{sec:otherpacks} above for further details.
+\item The \textbf{customc} entry type has been revised, allowing you
+ to cite any sort of supplementary material using the \textbf{type}
+ field instead of relying on toggles in the \textsf{introduction},
+ \textsf{afterword}, and \textsf{foreword} fields, though these
+ latter still work. The two new entry types \textbf{suppbook} and
+ \textbf{suppcollection} are both aliased to \textsf{customc}, and
+ therefore work in exactly the same way.
+\item The new entry type \textbf{suppperiodical} is aliased to
+ \textbf{review}.
+\item The new entry type \textbf{letter} is aliased to
+ \textbf{customa}.
+\item In \textbf{inreference} entries the \textsf{postnote} field of
+ all \cmd{cite} commands is now treated like data in \textsf{lista},
+ that is, it will be placed within quotation marks and prefaced with
+ the appropriate string. The only difference is that you can only
+ put one such article name in \textsf{postnote}, as it isn't a list
+ field.
+\item I've set the new \textsf{biblatex} option \texttt{usetranslator}
+ to \texttt{true} by default, which means entries will automatically
+ be alphabetized by their \textsf{translator} in the absence of an
+ \textsf{author} or an \textsf{editor}.
+\item A host of small formatting errors were eliminated, nearly all of
+ them through adopting Lehman's punctuation tracker.
+\item In the main body of this documentation, I've added some
+ \mycolor{\textbf{color coding}} to help you more quickly to identify
+ entry types and fields that are either new or that have undergone
+ significant revision.
+\end{itemize}
+
+To Do:
+
+\begin{itemize}
+\item Separate out \enquote{options} from the basic citation
+ \enquote{style,} using a \LaTeX\ style file. This is an
+ architectural change recommended by Lehman.
+\end{itemize}
+
+\textbf{0.8.2.2: Released November 24, 2008}
+
+\begin{itemize}
+\item Fixed spurious commas appearing in some bibliography entries,
+ spotted by Nick Andrewes. While investigating this I noticed a more
+ general problem with punctuation after italicized titles ending with
+ question marks or exclamation points. This will be addressed in
+ forthcoming revisions both of \textsf{biblatex} and of this package.
+\item Nick also reported some problems with spurious punctuation in
+ the bibliography when using XeLaTeX. I haven't yet been able to pin
+ down the exact cause of these, but if you are using XeLaTeX and are
+ having (or have solved) similar problems I'd be interested to hear
+ from you.
+\end{itemize}
+
+\textbf{0.8.2: Released November 3, 2008}
+
+\begin{itemize}
+\item Fixed several formatting glitches between citations in multicite
+ commands (spotted by Joseph Reagle) and also after some prenotes.
+\end{itemize}
+
+\textbf{0.8.1: Released October 22, 2008}
+
+\mylittlespace Obsolete and Deprecated Features:
+
+\begin{itemize}
+\item The \textbf{origlocation} field is now obsolete, and has been
+ replaced by \textbf{lista}. Please update your .bib files
+ accordingly.
+\item The single-letter \textbf{\textbackslash bibstring} commands I
+ provided in version 0.7 are now deprecated. In most cases, you'll
+ be able to take advantage of the automatic contextual capitalization
+ facilities introduced in this release, but if you still need the
+ single-letter \cmd{bibstring} functionality then you should switch
+ to \cmd{autocap}, as I shall be removing the single-letter
+ \texttt{bibstrings} in a future release. See above under
+ \textbf{\textbackslash autocap} for all the details.
+\item The \textbf{userd} field is now deprecated, as \textsf{biblatex}
+ 0.8 allows all forms of data to be included in the \textsf{edition}
+ field. I shall be removing \textsf{userd} in a future release, so
+ please update your .bib files as soon as is convenient.
+\end{itemize}
+
+Other New Features:
+
+\begin{itemize}
+\item Updated the .bbx and .cbx files to work with \textsf{biblatex}
+ 0.8. This most recent version of \textsf{biblatex} is now required
+ for \textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes-df} to work.
+\item Added the \textbf{usera} field, which holds supplemental
+ information about a \textsf{journaltitle} in \textsf{article} and
+ \textsf{review} entries. See the documentation of the field for
+ details.
+\item Added the \textbf{\textbackslash citetitles} multicite command
+ to fix a problem with spurious punctuation when multiple titles were
+ listed.
+\item Added the \textbf{\textbackslash Citetitle} command to help with
+ automatic capitalization of titles when they occur at the beginning
+ of a note.
+\item Minor punctuation fixes in \textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes-df.bbx}.
+\end{itemize}
+
+To Do:
+
+\begin{itemize}
+\item Integrate \textsf{biblatex's} American punctuation facilities.
+\item Separate out \enquote{options} from the basic citation
+ \enquote{style,} using a \LaTeX\ style file. This is an
+ architectural change recommended by Lehman.
+\item Investigate and possibly integrate the new entry types provided
+ in \textsf{biblatex} 0.8.
+\end{itemize}
+
+\textbf{0.7: First public release, September 18, 2008}
+
+\end{document}