Upgrade StorageAuthors with no given name
This is an old discussion that has not been active in a long time. Before commenting here, you should strongly consider starting a new discussion instead. If you think the content of this discussion is still relevant, you can link to it from your new discussion.
Thanks
<< [Gérard] >> << [de] [la] [Martinière] [III] >>
<< [la] [Martinière] >>, << [Gérard] [de] >>, [III]
<< [Martinière] >> , << [Gérard] [de] [la] >>, [III]
<< [la] [Martinière] >>
<< 毛 >> << 泽东 >>
<< 毛 >>
l2lafitte? Gracile?
Using just parentheses, these examples would look like:
(Gérard) (de la Martinière III)
(la Martinière), (Gérard de), III
(Martinière), (Gérard de la), III
I must confess I don't understand the way things are explained.
It might be because of my poor english or because I don't see clearly the link between what is written in
http://citationstyles.org/downloads/specification.html#name-part-order
and what is entered in the Zotero panel.
In the Zotero panel, there are just 2 fields: family-name and given name, there are no special fields to enter dropping-article, non-dropping article and suffix.
Without knowing what part of the data entered is considered as family name, given name, dropping-article, non-dropping article ans suffix, it seems difficult to me to understand what these explanations mean.
For example, from what I read, I don't see how I would have known that to obtain:
La Bruyère, Jean de
I have to enter "La Bruyère" (with quotes) in the family name, and "Jean de" (without quotes" in the given name
For the moment, I just can say that F. Bennett's modifications suit my needs
Sorry for that poor contribution !
D'après Rintze, le suffixe (III) doit être inclus dans les parenthèses du nom de famille quand le suffixe (III) suit le nom de famille (premier exemple); Mais il ne doit pas être inclus dans les parenthèses du prénom quand le format est inversé (Nom, Prénom: deuxième et troisième exemple)
@Rintze: Thanks for the explanation. I had not understood in your first message that you were focusing on suffixes. However I don't have any opinion on this question: suffixes like this one are very rare for me. I'll try to think about that.
Thanks for your help
+ @Rintze, @fbennett
when I enter :
family-name : Aubignac
given name : François Hédelin, abbé d'
in bibliography (name-as-sort -order="all"), it is displayed:
AUBIGNAC, François Hédelin, abbé d’
in notes (without name-as-sort-order), it is displayed:
François Hédelin, abbé d’Aubignac
Is "abbé" considered as a suffix? "d' " as a dropping-particle?
If so, it doesn't seem to match any of the three
(Gérard) (de la Martinière III)
(la Martinière), (Gérard de), III
(Martinière), (Gérard de la), III
The treatment of "abbé d" is special, crafted in response to your own feedback. The way it is handled (with a comma always) is outside of -- or to put it more strongly, it violates -- the strict terms of the CSL specification. That means that (as I wrote before) I can't absolutely guarantee that it will always be handled this way. However, it also means that we have some freedom. I've tested "abbé d" as an ordinary dropping-particle, apart from the persistent comma. The comma is "shy" however, if there is an explicit suffix that would clash with it:
(François Hédelin) (abbé d’Aubignac)
(Aubignac), (François Hédelin, abbé d’)
Does that look alright?
Again, I don't understand how you distinguish what is a dropping particle and what is a suffix.
I agree that the "d'Aubignac" case might seem a little odd. In fact, it is more complex than I previously explained.
"abbé d'XXX"or "abbé de XXX" is a title, as would be "duke of York"
1/ This man's family name is "Hédelin",
2/ his given name is "François",
3/ "abbé" is a title
4/ "Aubignac" is the name of the abbey he was at the head of, that's why there is a
5/ particle "d'".
By chance, his family name is not "de Hédelin"
For his writings, in an alphabetical list of bibliography, he must appear at AUBIGNAC, not at HÉDELIN,because he is known as AUBIGNAC.
In citation, since we just cite him, its title can appear after the given name, family name, but separated from them with a comma.
As you can see, to obtain it I had to "cheat" too.
I entered Hédelin as a second given name, so it cannot be put in small-caps or ...
Maybe somebody could propose a better solution for this kind of names ?
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/42412/Francois-Hedelin-abbe-dAubignac
Sorry for the trouble
The fact that the family name in this case, properly speaking, is Hédelin will be an issue if that must be reflected in typography. With a two-field entry system, I think we're just stuck at that point; some touch-up of the final manuscript may be required. It's a case we should keep in mind, though, in case opportunities arise for treating it with greater precision.
Thank you for your cooperation and patience !
[No use case for me - and I'm not even sure how this has to be cited.]
Unfortunately for us, American names, even those with european origin, don't behave the same way french names do. I don't think, american names ever refer to a "fief" as a patronymic.
France's history covers large periods where quite a few noble men and women were authors, and we have to do with that heritage!
So please maintain the actual way of handling these names, we really need it.
Sincerely