Upgrade Storageet-al-use-first do not works with single filed names
I have this definition of citation:
<citation et-al-min="3" et-al-use-first="1" disambiguate-add-year-suffix="true" disambiguate-add-names="true" cite-group-delimiter= "," collapse="year">
For an item, where are three or more "two fields" names I got a correct citation as: (Keller et al., 1996).
But if one of author has "one field" name then I got:
(Keller, Keller, Seckler, et al., 1996) for one cited document or (Keller, Keller, and Seckler, 1995; Keller, Keller, Seckler, et al., 1996; Heyns, 2004b) for more cited documents in one citation.
note: the institutional author is on the 4th place and it is this item: https://www.zotero.org/groups/water_alternatives_style/items/itemKey/APR8J7E6 .
<citation et-al-min="3" et-al-use-first="1" disambiguate-add-year-suffix="true" disambiguate-add-names="true" cite-group-delimiter= "," collapse="year">
For an item, where are three or more "two fields" names I got a correct citation as: (Keller et al., 1996).
But if one of author has "one field" name then I got:
(Keller, Keller, Seckler, et al., 1996) for one cited document or (Keller, Keller, and Seckler, 1995; Keller, Keller, Seckler, et al., 1996; Heyns, 2004b) for more cited documents in one citation.
note: the institutional author is on the 4th place and it is this item: https://www.zotero.org/groups/water_alternatives_style/items/itemKey/APR8J7E6 .
-
fbennettYou may be seeing cite disambiguation - when I render that item by itself, without other cites in the document, I get just "(Keller et al., 1996)."
-
LiborAYes, the "problem" is somewhere in the disambiguation. If I change year to different one, then I got correct citation. It seems, that combination of my testing items was very difficult.
-
fbennettIf the style is configured to add names for disambiguation, its rules probably require the extended form in the event of a clash. If that's the case, it's probably correct that way - although it can be alarming the first time you run across it.
This is an old discussion that has not been active in a long time. Before commenting here, you should strongly consider starting a new discussion instead. If you think the content of this discussion is still relevant, you can link to it from your new discussion.