3

I would like to make several modifications to the oscola citation style, but have little experience with modifying biblatex styles. I'm hoping these are not difficult modifications and that someone can assist.

Here is a minimum working example:

\documentclass[11pt, letterpaper]{article}
\usepackage[style=oscola, ibidstyle=uc, backend=biber]{biblatex}
\usepackage[style=british]{csquotes}
\bibliography{example.bib}

\begin{document}
Example\footcite{housen2002}, another\footcite[3]{housen2002}, one more\footcite{crestonmoly2014}, again\footcite[45]{housen2002}, and again\footcite[45]{housen2002}.
\end{document}

The example.bib contains:

@jurisdiction{crestonmoly2014,
title = {Creston Moly Corp. v. Sattva Capital Corp.},
shorttitle = {Creston Moly},
number = {2014 SCC 53},
volume = {373},
reporter = {D.L.R.},
series = {4th},
pages = {393},
date = {2014},
pagination = {paragraph},
keywords = {ca},
}

@jurisdiction{housen2002,
title = {Housen v. Nikolaisen},
shorttitle = {Housen},
number = {2002 SCC 33},
volume = {[2002] 2},
reporter = {S.C.R.},
pages = {235},
date = {2002},
pagination = {paragraph},
keywords = {ca},
}

This produces:

Text Footnotes

My required modifications, by footnote number, are:

  1. Footnote: A comma following the name of the case (Housen v Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33...)
  2. Footnote: Ibid set in italics, with no comma following ibid, and "at" preceding the pinpoint (Ibid at para 3.)
  3. Footnote: Pinpoint following the first cited reporter, with "at" preceding the pinpoint (Creston Moly Corp v Sattva Capital Corp, 2014 SCC 53 at para 100, 373 DLR...)
  4. Footnote: Instead of (n 1), this: Housen, supra note 1 at para 45.
  5. Footnote: Since the pinpoint is the same as in footnote 4, it should be omitted (Ibid.)
  • 1
    You need to at least provide the caselaw bibliography. – jon Mar 18 '15 at 16:43
  • Sorry! Caselaw bibliography sample added to the original post. – Mark Coombes Mar 19 '15 at 1:54
  • 1
    Also: are you hoping to get McGill Guide compliant output? (I hope to look into this during the summer. No time now. Shouldn't even be on this site!!!) Hopefully someone can offer some fixes for these issues, but I think McGill-compliance calls for complete overhaul, or possibly something rebuilt from the ground up.... – jon Mar 19 '15 at 2:27
  • Yes @jon McGill Guide compliance is what I'm after. I agree that a McGill-specific project would be best and would make it easiest to incorporate formatting changes in new versions of the guide. That said, oscola already incorporates a number of the functions that are required by McGill (e.g. ibid tracking, supra ability). Most of the changes required to make oscola more McGill-like seem to me (while noting that I am a biblatex n00b) to be mostly cosmetic instead of functional. If you start a project during the summer, please let me know, as I will be happy to contribute. – Mark Coombes Mar 19 '15 at 3:15
  • 1
    It is not impossible to make these changes to oscola, but it is very tedious due to the structure of the package. To make sure that everything is cited as intended the packages has to go quite some length and introduce a lot of logic and we have to change things in lots of places. To achieve your first request alone there are at least six places to change each of them with 10 - 20 lines of code resulting in 107 lines of code. – moewe Mar 19 '15 at 10:49

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.