Errors in Spanish bibliographyLocale

I'm using the Spanish "extensions.zotero.export.bibliographyLocale".

There are a couple of translation errors in this locale. One is mentioned here.
This is not related to your question, but as it is established in the "Manual de estilo de publicaciones de la American Psychological Association", the "official" Spanish translation of the APA style, the citation should be (Smith, 2006, p. 1) and not (Smith, 2006, pág. 1). This rule also applied to the references list: p. or pp. instead of pág. or págs.
The second relates to "n.d." it should be "s.f" (currently it is rendered "s.d."). This is confirmed here, at least for APA. I'm reasonable certain, though, that that would be the normal translation for any style that uses it.

Edit: Obviously, the context of this post is APA. I don't don't know how the locale relates to other styles.
  • OK - my intuition would be to solve that through the terms section of the style -
    <locale xml:lang="es">
    <term name="no-date" form="short">s.f.</term>
    <term name="pages" form="short">

    that's only the rought idea, I don't know the exact term names and formats off the top of my head, but generally this would work. My question is more generic - should that be included in the general APA style on the webpage? The pro is that it makes the style more widely usable. The con is that it would seem like we can't do this for every language? But then again, how many languages do actually have official APA translations?
  • I don't know about the technical portion of your comment, but I did find this out in: APA blog post:
    it is noted in the Foreword that the manual is now available “in Spanish, Portuguese, Korean, Chinese, and many other languages.”
    Is that bad news?
  • Bad news is exaggerated - we just need to think through how to deal with it.

    Bruce, Frank, Rintze, (and anyone else who has an opinion) what do you think, what's the way to go on this?
  • I obviously know nothing about the technicalities of all this (I just use zotero!)...but I thought it would be just a matter of tweaking the locale. The Spanish locale was erroneously coded so that n.d. was translated, s.d. Wouldn't it be just a matter of going back into the locale and changing s.d. to s.f.?

    And the same with pág. It was simply mistranslated. change it back to p. (pp.) and you are done...Or is there something that I'm [quite possible] missing?
  • edited January 29, 2010
    well, but was it mistranslated? The locale works across all styles, not just for APA - and I'm sure that whoever translated this knew of some cases where sin fecha/s.f. página/pág. is used in Spanish.
    And if I am right and this applies only to APA-Spanish, then I think it needs to be coded into the style.

    Btw. for those joining the discussion - as discussed in the thread arggem links to, APA-Spanish is actually a mix of the English and Spanish terms - e.g. it does use "En" instead of "In", "trad." instead of "trans." etc.
  • I'm happy to report CSL 1.0 will allow for the redefinition of terms for all locales using a single locale element. This can be achieved by simple not using the xml:lang attribute on the locale element.
    N.B. when the same term is redefined in a locale element with a xml:lang attribute (set to a locale code) and in a locale element without the attribute, the value in the locale element with the xml:lang attribute will be used.

    More info (jargon alert):
  • adamsmith,

    In the case of the translation for "n.d" I think it is "s.d" is clearly a mistake. It's like it only got half-translated.

    "s.f." I think would be a universal [Spanish] translation of "n.d."

    "Pág." on the other hand, could go either way. It's a legitimate rendering of "page," and even "p." That might need to go into the style. Does anyone know how the other styles render "p." and "pp." in Spanish?
  • OK - thanks for the update - you guys have really thought through a lot of things for 1.0, I'm continuously impressed.
    arggem: that means that for the time being we'll leave things as they are and then correct them once CSL 1.0 is implemented.
    If you need a correct APA-Spanish let me know and I'll post a patched style for you.
  • arggem - oh you're right, of course n.d. should be s.f. and not s.d. (what does that even stand for?) I'll see if and how that an be corrected in Babelzilla.
  • adamsmith!

    Great! Yes, I do need a patched APA style. I need to get my prospectus done soon! Thanks!

    I think s.d. means sin date ... it's part of a new spanglish style!
  • ok - so the only two things that need to be changed are pages and no date?
  • As far as I know right now.

    Other than this problem:, but I don't know where that problem lies.

    If I run across anything else, I'll let you know.

    Thanks for your help!!
  • I've posted the s.f. error here:
    lets see if something happens.

    For your patched style, go here:
    Download using the Raw link on the top right, install by dragging to an open FF window.
    It will be called American Psychological Association - Spanish.
    This should work, let me know if you have any problems.
  • I don't have enough knowledge about this. Please take help of some other person.

    Acai Optimum
  • adamsmith!

    YOU ROCK! It works great in a NEW doc.

    However, in an old doc the s.d. -> s.f. conversion works fine, but the pág(s). -> p(p). doesn't update, even after refreshing.

    It does, however, behave correctly when I insert a new citation into the old doc.

    Am I doing something wrong?

    Thanks again for your help!
  • weird - I wouldn't know what's going on. I can have a look, but suspect I won't be able to say much.

    Do you have a citation that had both s.d. and pag.? And one updates and the other one doesn't? Or could it be that by some accident the Zotero link to the citations with pag. is just broken? Did you maybe change them with "show editor"?
  • Weird is an understatement.

    1. No, I didn't have an s.d. and pág. together.

    2. No, I don't think the links were broken...the problem is with [nearly!] all of them. And they still link to the DB.

    3. Some were changed with "show editor," but not all.

    Here's where it gets really weird (IMHO).

    In my document, some of the pág. DID change to p. Which ones DIDN'T?

    It turns out that this document is a continuing work in progress. It is my dissertation proposal that I have been working on for several years (since 2006--Pre-Zotero if I recall correctly) and has undergone several Zotero db upgrades.

    The older sections did NOT update.

    Sections that I have recently added (since the last upgrade) DID refresh correctly!

    I tested this on another older document. When I changed the style to APA-Spanish, it forced an db upgrade...and NOTHING updated. I didn't have any s.d.s in that document.

    So, bottom line, there appears to be some issue with docs that have had their db upgraded.

    I probably won't have much need to change my previous documents. They were just monographs for classes.

    As for the proposal, at least new additions will be correct. And when (IF??) I ever finish the proposal, I can just flatten, and find/replace.

    So, I don't know if it's important or not from Z's perspective to figure out why this is an issue...but I'm happy!

  • OK thanks for reporting back - that seems like a plausible scenario, though obviously it shouldn't happen.
    Just as a note, though - you are aware that using the "Show Editor' function on a citation will prevent any future updating of that citation, right? It will still appear as a Zotero citation, but it won't reflect changes in either the style or the database.
  • Hmm,

    I thought that was the point of using the "Show Editor," that it would retain all of it's citation features. So, no, I wasn't aware of that. Thanks for the heads up.

    Is there hope that someday this will be "fixed"? Or is that just the nature of the beast?

    Again, THANKS!
  • nature of the beast - once you start fiddling with the content of a citation, there is no way Zotero can tell what should and what shouldn't be updated.
    We need a better warning for that, though, it confuses almost everyone.
  • Yeah. I probably use it a little too freely, then.

    What's the best way to handle "See also...", "Cf. etc.? I use the "Show Editor" function quite liberally for those.

    So, it also means that if I modify the reference (say, I had the wrong date of publication), these citations won't refresh?


  • use prefix and suffix for cf. and the like. They do update. Note that you can use them for individual items in multiple source citations - i.e. it is possible to write
    "(cf. Meyer 2001, see also Smith 1776 for an earlier statement of the same point")
    using just prefix and suffix.

    And yes, unfortunately, to your second question.
  • RE: prefix and suffix....GREAT! I just confirmed that it works...Not that I didn't trust you. :)

    Thanks for the heads up!

    I also just discovered that when switching from single to multiple sources, the plugin remembers the data from the singular entry! Sweet!

    Ok, back to work.
  • adamsmith!

    APA-Spanish is working well. But I did find another error.

    In this citation:
    American Psychological Association. (2002). Manual de estilo de publicaciones de la American Psychological Association (2nd ed.). México: El Manual Moderno.

    (2nd ed.) should be (2a. ed.)

    Unlike in English, all of these will have "a." I.e. (na. ed.)

    If you can change that, that would be great!

    I'm currently in a class with about 20 Ph.D. students getting them turned on to Zotero (Spanish of course), so if you could make this change in the next day or so I can distribute the style while I'm here.


    Now, a [not so] theoretical question. When the "&" appears in multiple authors (before et al. kicks in), that might need to be changed to "y".

    HOWEVER, it might need to stay "&" if the work cited is in English, but changed to "y" if the work cited is in Spanish!

    Is that possible? (Coding the work would be the language field or something).

    Stay tuned...the university is still arguing over some of these trivialities. :) I'll let you know.
    Thanks again!
  • sorry, localized ordinal numbers aren't possible, so nothing I can do about that.
    Although, remind me, in Spanish all ordinal numbers end with "a" right?
    1a, 2a, 3a, 15a, right? That could be done with a suffix then, although it's not elegant it will work. (In English, of course, it's 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th - so you actually need a function for ordinal numbers.).

    Different languages for different language citations aren't as of yet possible, no. There has been some talk about that, but it's very difficult to implement cleanly.
  • in Spanish all ordinal numbers end with "a" right?
    Not quite. It depends on what your are "ordinaling". In this case it is modifying edición (a feminine noun), so yes, in this context they all end in "a". But if you modify a masculine noun, that series will all end in "o".

    When you say say it "could be done with a suffix" you don't me the suffix in the add/edit citation window, do you? I'm assuming it's something in the style itself that needs to be changed? If so, are you able to do that? (If so... MUCHAS GRACIAS!)
    Different languages for different language citations aren't as of yet possible, no. There has been some talk about that, but it's very difficult to implement cleanly.
    That doesn't surprise me. I cringed when I read about that maybe being a requirement.
  • yes, that's what I meant - both with expect to Spanish ordinal numbers and suffix.
    Should work now:
    This won't put the suffix in superscript - is that a problem? It might be possible to do that, but I'd rather not - the superscripting from Zotero is a little buggy.
  • This won't put the suffix in superscript - is that a problem? It might be possible to do that, but I'd rather not - the superscripting from Zotero is a little buggy.
    If it is possible, that would be great. I suspect it is a problem with the Word plugin but I didn't get any sure answer on this (from the devs).
  • The manual doesn't show it superscripted, so that shouldn't be a problem.

    Thanks! (an hour from request to fix!--- you rock!)
  • Hey, me again. The manual calls for a period after the "a" as in (2a. ed.) Could I impose on your for this small point? (Yeah, pun intended) Sorry.
Sign In or Register to comment.