Multiple citation with same author

When I make a multiple citation of the same author, but different works, only the page number for the first entry appears, but at the end.

I checked this out in 2 different documents with different authors.

I can edit the citation, put the page numbers in manually, and it works (it even survives a Refresh.

FF 3.0.1
Zotero 1.0.7
Word 2003 plugin
  • Could you post which style you are having trouble with as well as a example of what the citations should look like for that style and what actually look like?
  • Ooops...I knew I forgot something.

    I'm using APA, also, I'm using the set bibliography language to Spanish.

    The citation should be (Smith, 2006, pág. 1; Smith, 2005, pág. 2; Smith, 2004, pág. 3), but it ends up:
    (Smith, 2006; Smith, 2005, Smith, 2004, pág. 1)
  • I think there is a problem here, but before I create a ticket I want to make sure we have it properly diagnosed.

    (Smith, 2006; Smith, 2005, Smith, 2004, pág. 1) is clearly wrong. Right now the plugin is not displaying page numbers for the other two books.

    However, I am not sure that (Smith, 2006, pág. 1; Smith, 2005, pág. 2; Smith, 2004, pág. 3) is right either.

    If these are all the same Smith shouldn't it be. (Smith, 2006, pág. 1; 2005, pág. 2; 2004, pág. 3)?

    Can some APA folks confirm what exactly this should look like?
  • OK, I've got to stop posting when I'm on the road. I've been traveling for 3 weeks now, and making hurried posts. I apologize.

    So, to correct my post from yesterday, the citation is coming out as (Smith, 2006, 2005, 2004, pág. 1).

    I won't venture to say what it should be, except to say, I'd like the page numbers to be included.

    And just to confirm...yes they are all the SAME Smith (John Q. Smith).

    Thanks for your patience.

    There, I think that's right.

    Sorry for the confusion.
  • 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.
  • Does the official Spanish APA style actually differ from the English one in any way, including with regard to localized terms? Do other non-English versions?

    If they're all identical, one option would be to just hard-code those strings. The other option would be for users to just switch the bibliography locale to English (which will eventually be made easier in the UI and possibly be a document setting), which would only be useful if someone wanted, for example, a style similar to APA but with localized terms.
  • @marqui!

    Wow, thanks!

    Now, who do we contact to change the Spanish version?
  • @Dan Stillman

    Aside from particular words, like "En" instead of "In" or "trad." instead of "trans." for translator, there aren't any differences between the Spanish and English versions. I think the first option is a good one (hard-code the pagination string, for example). In this way we can use the Spanish locale without having to change those words. Thanks!!!!
  • OK, thanks. The problem with hard-coding a global style, if some terms are indeed localized, is that it seems unlikely that "p." and "pp." are universal, assuming APA is used in other languages. For example, is there any German use of APA, and, if so, does it use "S." instead of "p."?
  • edited November 13, 2008
    I've discovered another problem when citing the same author multiple times in one citation: When the first occurrence has no date (and the date field is blank), NONE of the dates show up.


    What should be (Yoder, n.d., 1908, 1916, 1930) shows up as (Yoder). The bibliography is OK.

    If I put n.d. in the date field, it shows up as (Yoder, , 1908, 1916, 1930). (I just discovered this as I was writing this post and checking different permutations. I can live with this for the time being since I can edit the entry and put in n.d.).

    The page numbering issue from the original post is still there.

    How is this ticket coming? can it be amended with this new anomaly?

    I'm in crunch time right now with two monographs due in a few days. It would be nice to have this working soon.

    FF 3.0.4
    Word plugin 1.0b3
    Zotero 1.0.7.r3709 (Can't wait till 1.5 is stable enough to use with real data!)
  • TJ, how is this ticket coming?

    I´m with a fellow student right now, and he is having the same problem, and he is encountering it a lot and it´s fairly problematic for him.

    Do you think this will be fixed soon? (I mean, it´s not like you have anything else to be doing.)
  • I'm still having trouble with this. Any idea when it will be addressed? Thanks!
  • A new citation formatter is planned for Zotero, which will address this problem. The processor itself is largely complete (apart from some work on dates, so your query is very timely). It's expected to hit the streets early next year.
  • The earlier the better! Thanks for the info! :)
  • Above, arggem wrote:
    What should be (Yoder, n.d., 1908, 1916, 1930) shows up as (Yoder). The bibliography is OK.
    I'm looking at dates again in the new processor, and I'm puzzling (again) over how to handle empty dates in a sort.

    Does anyone know the conventions on this? Is it acceptable to treat "n.d." as the equivalent of zero (which produces a sort such as that in arggem's example)? Or should undated items be placed last in a sorted list of dates always (which I have seen suggested for bibliographies)? Or do different rules apply in different contexts?

    Could use some guidance, if anyone out there has experience with this, or access to style guidelines that cover this.
  • fbennett,

    This is the answer I got when I posted the question on the APA Blog
    When you have a series of works by the same author, list them in order by date, then list any in-press works, and list the undated works last. This is true for both the in-text reference and the reference list.

    You might think of them as being listed in a hierarchy of decreasing existence (i.e., you have dates, prospective dates, and no dates).
  • Thanks for this info! The publication status toggle didn't make it into CSL 1.0, but there's a CSL 1.1 ticket for it. I'll make a note that the processor needs to be able to deliver a three-tiered sort like this for dates.
Sign In or Register to comment.