Well, it may look perfectly normal  to you, but to me, in the context of 
@book and @article entries which also  have a published date that is 
ignored in the rendering of the bibliography entry, it doesn't.  For now I 
switched to IEEE.csl which doesn't have this inconsistency and I will think 
if I really need to go back to the Chicago style later.  Thanks


Antonio

On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 12:23:29 PM UTC-7 Nick Bart wrote:

> I don't have a clear solution, but it looks like the root cause is that in 
> the absence of an author,  the title is moved to the beginning position 
> *and* the date consists only of the year.
>
> Adding a full date to the example from the initial post the result is
>
> “A DSL That Is Concise and Fun.” 2021. November 23, 2021.
> https://web.archive.org/web/20211216060806/https://twitter.com/scalding.
>
> ... and adding an author as well results in
>
> Scalding. 2021. “A DSL That Is Concise and Fun.” November 23, 2021.
> https://web.archive.org/web/20211216060806/https://twitter.com/scalding.
>
> Now, at least the latter results looks perfectly normal, so I don't think 
> this is a CSL style issue per se.
>
> I guess in principle, the mechanism that moves the title could be made to 
> also check whether this leaves years or a date and a year side by side.
>
> On the other hand, I'm not sure this is really worthwhile, since in 
> practice you should probably always include an organization field in the 
> biblatex data, which in turn ensures that the year and full date are 
> separate, even if there is no author and the title is moved.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pandoc-discuss" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pandoc-discuss+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pandoc-discuss/479b45ca-ec3a-4d0b-8dff-a2639548c6a5n%40googlegroups.com.