Upgrade StorageFormat the dates depending on the frequency of publication
I need to cite some articles with full date (dd/mm/yyyy) and others with the sole mm/yyyy or even only year. It depends on the journal and its periodicity [edit: I meant "frequency of publication".]
I could remove in each items the unnecessary informations but I'd like to keep in zotero the full date form since it can be useful for timelines.
Is there a way to manage dates like that (I think it's too complex but....)?
A long-term solution would be a checkbox?
[I didn't find this question on the forum]
I could remove in each items the unnecessary informations but I'd like to keep in zotero the full date form since it can be useful for timelines.
Is there a way to manage dates like that (I think it's too complex but....)?
A long-term solution would be a checkbox?
[I didn't find this question on the forum]
<date variable="issued">
<date-part name="month" suffix=" "/>
<date-part name="day" suffix=", "/>
<date-part name="year"/>
</date>
where you can leave out and change the order of each of the date-part elements.
So the relevant question is if the different journals are different in a way that you can test for in csl:
-are they different item types (which doesn't appear to be the case, but just to clarify - it's easy, and there are styles, to give the date in a different format for e.g. newspapers than for journals.)
- or do the journals in question not have/have a certain variable - it would also be possible, for example, to have the date in full for journals that don't have an issue number.
Periodicity is not a word that is used outside of chemistry in English, so I don't know what you mean by that, unfortunately. If it's the date of appearance (i.e. full date for journals published post 2000) that's not possible.
A checkbox doesn't sound like a good solution for this, no, seems a bit ad hoc - maybe once we know what exactly determines the date format it's possible to come up with a systematic way of dealing with this.
Edit: I think I understand your use of periodicity now - it's how often something appears. No that wouldn't currently be possible, though depending on what it is you might be able to approximate it with the presence or absence of an issue number.
The problem is that:
-the journals are all "journalArticle" (same type)
-they have the same variable
By periodicity, I meant monthly/quarterly: "issuance"?
For a daily journal, I need dd/mm/yyyy; if it's a quarterly one; month-year or sometimes just month with the issue...
A solution would be to test the variable "publication"...but as far as I know one can only test the existence not the content of a variable.
If I understand the "periodicity" factor correctly, it has come up a number of times before.
[I, um, didn't understand correctly. Please disregard the comment below.]
A search for "journal continuous" will turn up a bunch of discussion threads.
The upshot of the threads is, well, what adamsmith said. There is no way to tell, from the cite data in isolation, whether a page number represents a position within an issue or an entire volume of the target journal. To add to the fun, and unlike a journal name abbreviation (which is a hornet's nest of a different color), the pagination method (periodicity) can't be treated as a simple property of the journal, since publications sometimes shift from one to the other midstream.
While there is no immediate solution to your date formatting issue, it would be useful to have a couple of sample citations on file to illustrate the difference you're after, plus a pointer to the style guide that requires differential treatment. You never know, someone might come up with a solution at some point down the road.
Gracile - if this is really about journals published daily, couldn't you just call them "Magazine Articles" - for me something that's published daily isn't really a journal anyway.
it's not exactly my problem but it's related as adamsmith said.
@adamsmith:
I can't multiply the itemTypes on this sole basis...or I'm afraid I'd need four or five types!
I'll try to explain later- must go offline now. Thank you very much!