Referencing a single publication comprising of two (differently dated) translated works

ChrisNWalker
I have need to reference a collected work which republished in a single English book two works that were originally published in French. I use APA, so as best as I can tell this means I need to reference in-text either as 1969 & 1971/1972 or 1969/1971/1972 (neither seem quite right, but I lean towards the former).

My issue, though, is that I can't get Zotero to recognise both of the original publication dates. I can wrangle a workaround for the parenthetical reference by ticking 'omit author' and adding a prefix of the usual plus omitted content, but the reference list entry remains incorrect:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/zotero.org/images/forums/u11708689/uwbhstvnicfhtw4n38y7.png

There was a discussion about something similar to this issue some years ago now, and it seems in my reading that the upshot of which was that I might be able to code my way around this issue if I have the relevant skills, yet I unfortunately do not. Given that much time has since passed, though, I am hopeful that there might have been some changes to Zotero in the interim that would make for a more straightforward solution?


Related discussion: https://forums.zotero.org/discussion/17873/multiple-dates-and-multi-year-publications
  • aborel
    Perhaps you can use 2 citations and some explicit narrative form like "[ref. 1] reproduced in [ref. 2]" ?
  • ChrisNWalker
    Thanks @aborel, I was thinking along similar lines and about to just give in to that when I stumbled upon the solution I was hoping for:

    Turns out that using a / in the original date field outputs an em-dash in the parenthetical, and there's a 'references:' field we can also use to entirely override the bibliographic annotation. Taken together, putting these in extra:

    original-date: 1969/1971
    references: Original works published 1969 and 1971

    Outputs:
    (Foucault, 1969–1971/1972)

    Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge; and, The discourse on language (A. M. S. Smith, Trans.). Pantheon Books. (Original works published 1969 and 1971)


    Which in all honesty is still not quite perfect (I'd rather an ampersand than em-dash), but I suspect that's actually on the APA rather than Zotero. And it is, in any case, certainly good enough for what I need right now (and I can always override the parenthetical, anyway).

    Hope this info is helpful to anybody else that might need it.
  • dmichon
    Dear Chris,

    I have long been trying to solve for the multiple-year and original date issue. I tried your / for multiple year, but when I put "1950/1955" into the Date field, it still outputs just "1950". Not "1950–1955".

    Perhaps I am not understanding where to put this data.

    I don't see "original–date" field nor a "references" field when I am creating a Zotero entry. I see "Date" and "Extra" etc.

    What am I missing here?

    Thanks for any insight.

    Dan
  • damnation
    This needs to go into the extra field at the bottom of the right pane.
  • dmichon
    Thanks damnation,

    Ah, so I have to be in Chicago 18 for this to work. That was one thing.

    Alright, do you have advice on how to get a range of dates to show in the Date field?

    When I type "2010-2011", it only shows as 2010. If I use the /, it doesn't work either.

    Suggestions on how to get a range of dates to show in the output?

    Thanks for this, super appreciate it

    d
  • adamsmith
    issued:2010/2011
    in the extra field. You can't current do it in the date field
  • ChrisNWalker
    Hi Dan,

    It is a bit confusing but you essentially create those extra fields by writing them into the 'extra' box; they need to be on separate lines and formatted correctly, but do work outside of Chicago (although I imagine it'll still depend whether your style recognises it - I can tell you with certainty that APA does though).

    Here's a screenshot of where I put mine, and what it output.

    https://s3.amazonaws.com/zotero.org/images/forums/u11708689/24rjaenpyofutesfkm44.jpg

    In this case, original-date: 1969/1971 outputs 1969-1971 (which I guess is how apa like it?) for original date, and /1972 generates from the ('normal') date field.

    The references: thingy was to override the bracketed bit in the bibliographic entry. It seems to lose the final full stop, unfortunately, but corrects some grammatical oddities that I could have lived with but didn't want to!

    I hope this helps
Sign In or Register to comment.