Upgrade StorageApproximate original-date
I'm including original dates for classic texts (i.e. so that it puts the original dates in brackets before the edition date: "Aquinas [1268] 1981"). I know the way to do this is to put "original-date: xxxx" in the Extra field. But for some works, the date needs to be approximate, since historians don't always have the exact date for a text.
I've seen other threads here suggest "ca." (i.e. "original-date: ca. xxxx") or "?" (i.e. "original-date: xxxx?"), but neither of those work consistently. I've also tried "~" (i.e. "original-date: ~xxxx"). In all cases, Zotero *often* just ignores whichever of these I've included, ending up with just "Aquinas [1970] 1981" rather than "Aquinas [ca. 1970] 1981" or "Aquinas [1970?] 1981".
I say *often* because, every now and then, it'll include the "ca." or whatever. Dunno what makes the difference between when it includes it and when it ignores it. But it also does some other things inconsistently, like randomly add an "AD" after the date for some early dates but not others or ignore a BC or AD that include on some dates but not ignore it in others. So, it seems there is some bugginess here anyway.
How do I consistently accomplish what I'm trying to do and why does it already work on some cases and not others?
I'm using the Chicago author-date in footnotes CSL I got here: https://forums.zotero.org/discussion/69408/chicago-author-date-in-footnotes
I've seen other threads here suggest "ca." (i.e. "original-date: ca. xxxx") or "?" (i.e. "original-date: xxxx?"), but neither of those work consistently. I've also tried "~" (i.e. "original-date: ~xxxx"). In all cases, Zotero *often* just ignores whichever of these I've included, ending up with just "Aquinas [1970] 1981" rather than "Aquinas [ca. 1970] 1981" or "Aquinas [1970?] 1981".
I say *often* because, every now and then, it'll include the "ca." or whatever. Dunno what makes the difference between when it includes it and when it ignores it. But it also does some other things inconsistently, like randomly add an "AD" after the date for some early dates but not others or ignore a BC or AD that include on some dates but not ignore it in others. So, it seems there is some bugginess here anyway.
How do I consistently accomplish what I'm trying to do and why does it already work on some cases and not others?
I'm using the Chicago author-date in footnotes CSL I got here: https://forums.zotero.org/discussion/69408/chicago-author-date-in-footnotes
a) original date should be available as a field, no need to add it in extra
b) _however_ you _will_ need to use the Extra field for any unusual date formatting such as uncertain dates, specifically
original-date: ~1268This does need to be explicitly addressed in citation styles, so the custom style you're using just doesn't have it. You can test in the default Chicago author-date to see how it looks.
a) Yes, I'm updated so it does have the Original Date field. I tried using it and it did something else funky and since the original-date function in the Extra field was still working, I opted for that consistently.
b) Is "?" the only way I can do approximate dates? I saw that "?" does work in the default author-date CSL, but "ca." did not. It does look like CMoS does allow "ca.": 14.44, 14.127.
Are there any guides on here about how to change myself?