Upgrade StorageDisambiguation enabled when not needed with date + original date
In my "Revue française de sociologie" style (available from the repository), I have enabled the display of the original publication date when it is defined via the Extra field (via "{:original-date: XXXX}"). But Zotero doesn't seem to notice that two entries with an identical publication date but a different original publication date are *not* ambiguous. Therefore, a letter is added to the date where it is not needed.
For example, with 1999 being the date and 1995 the original one, I get these citations:
(Castel, [1995a] 1999)
(Castel, 1999b)
and these bibliographic entries:
Castel R., [1995a] 1999, Les métamorphoses de la question sociale. Une chronique du salariat, Paris, Gallimard (Folio essais), 816 p.
Castel R., 1999b, « Pourquoi la classe ouvrière a-t-elle perdu la partie ? », Actuel Marx, 26, p. 15‑24.
I think I could customize the style so that the letter is always added to the second date, in order to get at least "[1995] 1999a" instead of the really weird "[1995a] 1999". But why does Zotero consider these two citations as ambiguous in the first place? Is there a way to make it take into account all the information provided in the citation?
Thanks
For example, with 1999 being the date and 1995 the original one, I get these citations:
(Castel, [1995a] 1999)
(Castel, 1999b)
and these bibliographic entries:
Castel R., [1995a] 1999, Les métamorphoses de la question sociale. Une chronique du salariat, Paris, Gallimard (Folio essais), 816 p.
Castel R., 1999b, « Pourquoi la classe ouvrière a-t-elle perdu la partie ? », Actuel Marx, 26, p. 15‑24.
I think I could customize the style so that the letter is always added to the second date, in order to get at least "[1995] 1999a" instead of the really weird "[1995a] 1999". But why does Zotero consider these two citations as ambiguous in the first place? Is there a way to make it take into account all the information provided in the citation?
Thanks
To get the year-suffix on the correct date, you will need to set it explicitly in the style. I suppose that the misplacement is a bug as well, but the explicit declaration of the suffix will do no harm.
If I read the CSL specification correctly, the placement of the suffix on the first date field isn't a bug, since it is exactly what is documented. In practice, it shouldn't matter once ambiguity is correctly detected: if both dates are the same, adding the suffix to either is fine.