{"action":"created","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/retorquere/zotero-better-bibtex/issues/925","repository_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/retorquere/zotero-better-bibtex","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/retorquere/zotero-better-bibtex/issues/925/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/retorquere/zotero-better-bibtex/issues/925/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/retorquere/zotero-better-bibtex/issues/925/events","html_url":"https://github.com/retorquere/zotero-better-bibtex/issues/925","id":302606692,"number":925,"title":"Exporting the reference of a journal's double issues","user":{"login":"laspic","id":3339204,"avatar_url":"https://avatars2.githubusercontent.com/u/3339204?v=4","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/laspic","html_url":"https://github.com/laspic","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/laspic/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/laspic/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/laspic/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/laspic/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/laspic/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/laspic/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/laspic/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/laspic/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/laspic/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[{"id":57237790,"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/retorquere/zotero-better-bibtex/labels/awaiting-user-feedback","name":"awaiting-user-feedback","color":"b60205","default":false},{"id":231666162,"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/retorquere/zotero-better-bibtex/labels/question","name":"question","color":"006b75","default":true}],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"assignees":[],"milestone":null,"comments":21,"created_at":"2018-03-06T08:30:50Z","updated_at":"2018-03-11T19:08:47Z","closed_at":null,"author_association":"NONE","body":"- [x] I have verified that I am on the latest release of BBT (https://github.com/retorquere/zotero-better-bibtex/releases/latest) and Zotero\r\n- [x] I am posting a single question, bug or feature request\r\n- [x] I have included a descriptive subject of the problem\r\n- [x] I am available for follow-up questions and testing\r\n\r\n## Exporting references\r\nI noticed something strange when exporting the reference of a journal's double issue. \r\n\r\nHere is two slightly different references:\r\n- Bob Bob, « A Very Nice Title », Annual Review of Nothing 10, **nᵒ 2** (1996)\r\n- John John, « A Nice Title », Annual Review of Something 10, **nᵒ 2‑3** (1996).\r\n\r\nHere is what ZBB gives when exporting them in .bib file, using Better BibLaTeX format:\r\n```\r\n@article{Bob1996,\r\n  title = {A {{Very Nice Title}}},\r\n  volume = {10},\r\n  number = {2},\r\n  journaltitle = {Annual Review of Nothing},\r\n  date = {1996},\r\n  author = {Bob, Bob}\r\n}\r\n\r\n@article{John1996,\r\n  title = {A {{Nice Title}}},\r\n  volume = {10},\r\n  issue = {2-3},\r\n  journaltitle = {Annual Review of Something},\r\n  date = {1996},\r\n  author = {John, John}\r\n}\r\n\r\n```\r\n\r\nWhy does the field name 'number' turns into 'issue' when its content is not a specifically numerical value? Is it a bug or a feature ?\r\nWhen you customize a biblatex style, dealing with that causes some headaches ! :-)\r\n\r\nReport ID : 4DCD7RZU\r\n\r\n\r\n"},"comment":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/retorquere/zotero-better-bibtex/issues/comments/372140428","html_url":"https://github.com/retorquere/zotero-better-bibtex/issues/925#issuecomment-372140428","issue_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/retorquere/zotero-better-bibtex/issues/925","id":372140428,"user":{"login":"moewew","id":6755835,"avatar_url":"https://avatars3.githubusercontent.com/u/6755835?v=4","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/moewew","html_url":"https://github.com/moewew","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/moewew/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/moewew/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/moewew/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/moewew/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/moewew/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/moewew/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/moewew/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/moewew/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/moewew/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"created_at":"2018-03-11T19:08:47Z","updated_at":"2018-03-11T19:08:47Z","author_association":"NONE","body":"OK. I think I have already said all I could say. There is no simple way to decide between `number` and `issue`.  And I think that whatever algorithmic solution one can come up with, there is always a way to find a pathological case that does the wrong thing (whether that case is actually useful is another question ...).\r\n\r\nMy preferred solution would be to only put divisions of the year (seasons, arbitrary term divisions, ... what have you) in `issue` and everything else in `number` (hopefully only integer ranges and a few special keywords like \"S\", \"Suppl.\" etc., etc. - if an input doesn't match any of the two criteria it is *probably* garbage and needs to be reworked). But of course there is no exhaustive list of these divisions of the year to test for, so that is not workable..."}}
{"actor":{"display_login":"moewew"}}