Help with et al in italics

asplundj

I've made a 0.8 style for Fungal Ecology posted at git://gist.github.com/827269.git

I wonder if someone could help me converting it to csl 1.0 and make et al in italics and then upload it to http://www.zotero.org/styles


Thanks in advance

fbennett

Here is the style in CSL 1.0, with et-al set in italics. I haven't run it, but the style validates and should do what you want.

https://gist.github.com/827316

asplundj

Thank you it seems to work

asplundj

I've made some changes to the style an uploaded it to git://gist.github.com/1647686.git

Could someone please add this to the www.zotero.org/styles. Also these canges also applies to the fungal biology style which should be dependent on this the fungal ecology style

adamsmith

Ok, done on both. I added some detail (a default locale, an ISBN), and fixed a small problem with the style (you can collapse on year-suffix, not on year-suffix-delimiter)

asplundj

Thanks

Can you fix the collapse string to behave like this?
(Allan 1996a, 1996b, 1999; Allan and Jones 1995)

That was what I got when I tried year-suffix-delimiter but I guess there's a more proper way to do it.


Johan

asplundj

Could someone help with with this issue?

Rintze

This should do it: https://github.com/citation-style-language/styles/commit/00338dc9390833232369a0736d03074c79627467

See also http://citationstyles.org/downloads/specification.html#citation-collapsing

asplundj

please also change the citation sort order so that issued is before author

fbennett

Unless a bug has crept into the works, by design that wouldn't have any effect in this case. When sorted by date, [with or without an author key]<--(this is incorrect: see below), citations are meant to be grouped by author, sorted by year within each author group, and then sorted (as grouped units) by the first-occurring date in each group. A detailed discussion prompted by Bruce D'Arcus led to that arrangement. It means that cites will sort like this:

(Smith 1996, 2000a, 2000b; Jones 1998, 2010)

If sorts aren't working that way, it's a bug.

If the date were recognized as a primary sort key in citations without grouping, the result would be less concise:

(Smith 1996; Jones 1998; Smith 2000a, 2000b; Jones 2010)

We were unable to identify any styles that require such a sort order. If there is one that does, we'll have to have a rethink, but that's where the design stands at present.

asplundj

Currently it is set to sort by author but it supposed to sort by date. I don't care if there's author key or not

fbennett

Is it actually sorting incorrectly? The grouped sorting is implicit, so it's a question about the actual output you're seeing, not about the CSL coding.

fbennett

I take that back in part. The grouping is implicit, but whether the grouped cites are sorted by year or by author does indeed depend on the key. Sorry for the initial mix-up.

The revised style should be available now. I've removed the author key from the sort completely as it's not necessary.

asplundj

Yes it was but I changed it in my personal copy and want it to be changed in the repository

(Swift et al. 1979; De Oliveira et al. 2010)

was sorted as

(De Oliveira et al. 2010; Swift et al. 1979)

I changed
<citation .... ...>
<sort>
<key variable="author"/>
<key variable="issued"/>
</sort>

to
<sort>
<key variable="issued"/>
<key variable="author"/>
</sort>

This is the change I want

fbennett

The file in the repository will do the right thing. My explanation above was correct, apart from the part that I've marked as in error: the cites will be grouped by author, with groups sorted by first-occurring date, and cites within each author group also sorted by date. Putting an author key after the date key does no harm, but it has no effect on sorting behavior.

asplundj

Thanks