sorting problem in bibliography [solved]

Hi, I have an odd problem. Sometimes, when I enter more than one citation from an author, sorting doesn't work correctly. So for example, I have this in my bibliography:
Africa News, 2006. Burkina Faso: Journalist Case Puts Spotlight On Justice System. Africa News.
Africa News, 2010. Niger: Who Really Ousted Tandja, And Why? Africa News.
Africa News, 2007. Uganda; Police Protect Besigye Rally. Africa News.
Africa News, 2006. Uganda: UK, US Deploy Observers. Africa News.

As you can see, this isn't sorted correctly. And on top of that, my citations aren't numbered. So it gives me:
Some text (Africa News, 2006) Some other text (Africa News, 2006)

Although it should be:
Some text (Africa News, 2006a) Some other text (Africa News, 2006b)

And the bibliography should then be:
Africa News, 2006a. Burkina Faso: Journalist Case Puts Spotlight On Justice System. Africa News.
Africa News, 2006b. Uganda: UK, US Deploy Observers. Africa News.
Africa News, 2007. Uganda; Police Protect Besigye Rally. Africa News.
Africa News, 2010. Niger: Who Really Ousted Tandja, And Why? Africa News.

I'm using OpenOffice. Do you have any idea how to solve this problem? Thanks in advance.
  • Which style?
  • Thanks for your answer. It was the "Harvard (autor-date) format 1" style. By installing and using the "Harvard (Author-Date) European Archaeology" style, it solved the problem. Anyway, is this a bug in the "Harvard (autor-date) format 1" style?
  • edited July 3, 2010
    Harvard1 apparently sorts by author and title only, so the sequence you got was correct for that style. It is supposed to provide year-suffixes, however, so that seems to be an error.

    The current CSL processor is due to be phased out later this year, and is no longer actively supported. Just to be sure, I set up a test of the references in your example for the new processor slated for Zotero 2.1, and it does do the right thing -- same sort order that you got from the harvard1 style, but with 2006a and 2006b.

This is an old discussion that has not been active in a long time. Instead of commenting here, you should start a new discussion. If you think the content of this discussion is still relevant, you can link to it from your new discussion.