Reference Appears to Have a Duplicate, though it doesn't. Shows up as "2006a" instead of "2006."

bobbyjamieson
Hello,

I've searched the forums but haven't found my specific question answered. If there's a relevant discussion already I'd be happy for the link.

I'm using an author-date citation style that looks like this in footnotes: Gäbel 2006a:310–11.

My problem is that, as for instance with this book by Gäbel, Zotero is adding "a" to the year as though this were the first of multiple works by this author in this year. I *think* I may have accidentally had a duplicate of this item at one stage, but it has long since been deleted. As far as I can tell, in my entire Zotero library there is only one work by this author in this year. Yet still the "a" persists. I have double-checked my library and hit "Zotero refresh" in the document, but to no avail.

Is there some way to get the "a" out of all my references to this work? It's probably the most-cited secondary source in my entire thesis, so I'd hate to do a manual work-around. And this isn't the only work that this is happening to.

Very many thanks in advance,

Bobby
  • adamsmith
    For future reference, don't delete, merge duplicates to avoid this. Once deleted, this is a bit trickier to fix:
    1. Insert a new citation of that item -- as you search for it in the quick format bar (the one with the red border), you'll see it listed both under "Cited" and under "My Library". Insert the one under "My Library."
    2. Note which version of the cite that is -- 2006a or 2006b
    3. Let's assume it's 2006b for simplicity; otherwise just flip the labels below
    4. Now replace all instances of that item with 2006a in the same way: delete them, then re-insert, making sure to select the item from under "My Library".
    5. Once you're done with that, the a/b should disappear and you should be left with a single item.
  • bobbyjamieson
    Thanks, very helpful. Much appreciated.
  • bobbyjamieson
    Dear Adam,

    So I've elminated all the "2006b" entries by deleting them and re-entering the source from my library. Now, only "2006a" entries are left in the document. But it's still "2006a" when it should be "2006." Any help getting rid of that? I've hit Zotero refresh; no dice.

    Many thanks,

    Bobby
  • adamsmith
    How does the bibliography look?
  • bobbyjamieson
    The bibliography has both a 2006a entry and a 2006b entry. Seems what happened is that at some point I edited the original entry, changing one detail. (Series number, from 2 to II.)

  • adamsmith
    OK, then there's still a reference to 2006b somewhere in the text, possibly "invisible".
    Two things that might help you find this is showing field codes:
    https://www.zotero.org/support/kb/word_field_codes
    and switching to a numeric citation style like IEEE (because that'll let you pinpoint the relative location of that stray cite.)
  • bobbyjamieson
    I showed field codes, and then tried to switch to IEEE within Word 2010's References > Style panel, but it didn't appear to change anything. How do I get Word to switch all my references into IEEE, and what should I be seeing once it does?

    Just to be clear, after showing field codes (and switching to IEEE but inconclusively?), there are no 2006b references showing up. Many thanks for your help.
  • adamsmith
    So does that mean you're all set now or do you still see the ref showing up as 2006a? If so, switching to IEEE would be under set document preferences:
    https://www.zotero.org/support/word_processor_plugin_usage#document_preferences
  • bobbyjamieson
    Ref still showing up as 2006a, and there are two entries, one for 2006a and one for 2006b, still showing up in the bibliography.

    I've changed the doc prefs to IEEE, and have toggled field view. Now, the first entry shows up as item 4, and the second as item 131, but I can't seem to find a place where the work is actually cited in the version indicated by item 131. Does that make sense?
  • adamsmith
    yeah, so that's where the numeric style helps -- you can now look between 130 and 132, with field codes showing. I'd be pretty sure you'd find a stray field code somewhere in between the two and when you remove that, 132 will disappear from the library.
  • bobbyjamieson
    What do you mean "look between 130 and 132"? I've searched (via ctrl+F) for all instances of "131" in the document, but can't seem to find any in field codes that don't belong. I.e., I see no instances of "131" in the slot identifying a source.

    As to finding a stray field code, what exactly am I looking for?
  • adamsmith
    You're looking in the part of the document that's between citations [130] and [132]. That's why you're using IEEE -- so you can narrow down where to look.
    When you show field codes, you should see, for each citation, a bunch of Zotero code appearing, starting with ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION. You're looking for some of that type of code appearing where you're not seeing a citation.
  • bobbyjamieson
    Sorry to be so dense, but how do I find, e.g., citation [130]? When I search the citations in the text of the document, first, not all citations are numbered. Some footntoes still show up with references like this (Wevers 1997:249) in the midst of text. And, second, when I do see numbered references, like this [4, pp. 411–12 n. 349], they don't appear in strictly numbered order, but they seem to appear with the number of the work assigned, not the citation.

    In the bibliography I see 346 numbered entries. This seems to be the total number of works cited, not the total number of citations, since, e.g., work [4] shows up all over the place.
  • adamsmith
    Forget using a search function for a minute.
    The citations are numbered sequentially by the first time they appear. That means you can just scroll through your document and eyeball where you're in the 130s -- yes there are going to be some lower numbers mixed in (from items that are re-cited), but this really can't be hard to find.
    If you do want to use search, presumably, also searching for [13 will pretty quickly get you to the first hits in the 130s.
  • bobbyjamieson
    Problem solved. By showing field codes, I hunted down the actual bibliographic data that had changed from one version of the source to another, and re-wrote those footnotes from scratch. No more 2006a, b, etc. Thanks for all your help.
Sign In or Register to comment.