14.241 Examples of bibliography entries for manuscript collectionsThe style of the first six examples below is appropriate if more than one item from a collection is cited in the text or notes. In the second and third examples, commas are added after the initials to avoid misreading. See also 14.233.Egmont Manuscripts. Phillipps Collection. University of Georgia Library.House, Edward M., Papers. Yale University Library.Merriam, Charles E., Papers. University of Chicago Library.Pennsylvania Society for the Abolition of Slavery. Papers. Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Strother, French, and Edward Lowry. Undated correspondence. Herbert Hoover Presidential Library, West Branch, IA.Women’s Organization for National Prohibition Reform. Papers. Alice Belin du Pont files, Pierre S. du Pont Papers. Eleutherian Mills Historical Library, Wilmington, DE.If only one item from a collection has been mentioned in text or in a note and is considered important enough to include in a bibliography, the entry will begin with the item.Dinkel, Joseph. Description of Louis Agassiz written at the request of Elizabeth Cary Agassiz. Agassiz Papers. Houghton Library, Harvard University.
Please read the first post on the first page of this thread.Use report for Working Paper and White Paper.
Is there any possibility that it could be called "Loc. in Collection?" That might be more transparent.
In the new version, upgrade migration and the jiggery-pokery needed to preserve and extend sync functionality are controlled by a small set of mapping tables. This has lightened things considerably, and I'm open to making further modifications to the schema before the release, if there are specific requests. As a magnet for feedback, I've churned out a set of item type/field tables for the current MLZ dev version with a little help (well, a lot of help) from aurimas' excellent CSL mapping plugin:
Looking forward to the next major Zotero cycle, the core developers might welcome a concrete set of migration and CSL mappings to use as a starting point. So if there is something high on your wish list, feel free to take a look at the tables and ask for changes; I'll be happy to stir in anything specific for which there is rough concensus.
Is this still the way to install MLZ?
Will try it on a Firefox Portable Version.
(Edit: Note that the client and styles will change significantly when the next version goes live. It's a speed bump on the road to stability, but a bump nonetheless.)
If so, I'd be willing to try to help you compile a list - any thoughts on what format would be most useful?
It would be really good to get a condensed picture of the consensus on next-version field assignments. Apart from anything else, it help me avoid conflicts with my current back-of-the-envelope additions.
Just a simple list of CSL types/varname pairs will be fine for a start. It would be good to have a proposed label for the Zotero UI for each one, too, as that may affect variable names in the Zotero DB.
Style requirements for "Manuscript collections" are provided by CMS 16th, 14.232-242, as well as the US National Archives (NARA) guide "Citing Records in the National Archives of the United States" (http://www.archives.gov/publications/general-info-leaflets/17-citing-records.pdf).
In brief, what is needed according to CMS is
- name of author of the material collected or name of the group of documents
- title of a specific item (if required)
- name of collection
- name of series
- name of depository (archive)
- place (location of depository)
To this I would suggest adding:
- date range covered by the material (hopefully Z3.1 will be able to handle date ranges!)
NARA has more detailed hierarchies, including file numbers and microfilm numbers, etc.
Here are examples provided by CMS: Note especially that quotation marks are not used for generic names in citing archival documents – something which cannot be achieved using the current Document or Manuscript item types.
Also, the previous discussion linked above raised the issues surrounding listing archival collections in a separate section of the bibliography. A longer time line in resolving this more complex issue should not preclude at least being able to correctly list archival collections in the first place.
I'd say this is pretty likely to get included.
Neither field updates nor date ranges will make it into 3.1, which will be released on or before April 2nd, but Dan seemed optimistic about having a beta for 4.0 (with field updates) out pretty quickly after the 3.1 release, though it's going to be in beta for a while. Just to reiterate, this is not because field upgrades aren't considered a priority, but because they require major and potentially quite disruptive changes in the sync architecture (much of which is in place now).
Use report for Working Paper and White Paper.
How to cite a newsletter article depends on how it's published, but I doubt it can't be accommodated by one of the existing item types.
Those paper that are available around the web not published or drafts of something published. IMO don't fit any of the existing types...
If Report is a general thing, then I wonder why not to use just "Document" instead.
Is there any "dictionary" which explains what each type refers to?
The link there which leads to a whiteboard seems not to be that although new proposed types are somehow explained.
In that comment it is mentioned that "remember that item types in Zotero are best understood as a set of fields and a set of ways they tend to be styled"
IMO that is a view limited by the "designer" instead of by the user.
If the user (or agreed version) sees "Whitepaper" different from "Working paper" then I would provide both entries, if the fact is that Zotero uses the same fields-template for both is an internal thing. This is both, easier to understand for a user, and scalable (and transparent) if in the future they split.
We have talked about creating some instructions with more on item types and what to use them for. That needs to happen, but doing it well is a ton of work.
In my opinion these recommendations are a bit over the top; from my experience in film studies you rarely see filmographies which are so fine grained (for example, most of the time, you don't give type or duration which are both mandatory here). But I guess these guidelines are quite useful as an orientation. Once Zotero is able to implement these guidelines, most situations/styles should be covered for audio-visual material.
Here are the different types, the elements in italics are mandatory (for explanations of the element see the guidelines)
Given Title or ‘Clip Title’, Film Title [type, format] Production credit. Production Company/Sponsor/Private, Country of production, year of release. Duration. Start-end timings of extract. [release information, e.g. production company, catalogue number, date of specific edition] or point of access, e.g. archive collection, archive reference, or name of private collection, or original web URL (date of access).
Given Title or ‘Episode/Clip Title’, Main Programme/Series Title, Series No. [type, format] Production credit. ] Production Company/Sponsor/Private, Country of production, transmission time if known, transmission date, transmission channel. Duration. Start-end timings of extract. [release information, e.g. production company, catalogue number, date of specific edition] or point of access if applicable, e.g. archive collection, archive reference, or name of private collection, or original web URL (date of access).
Given Title or ‘Episode/Clip Title’, Main Programme/Series Title [type, format] Production credit. ] Production Company/Sponsor/Private, Country of production, transmission time if known, transmission date, transmission channel. Duration. Start-end timings of extract. [release information, e.g. production company, catalogue number, date of specific edition] or point of access, e.g. archive collection, archive reference, or name of private collection, or original web URL (date of access).
Given Title or ‘Track title’, Main Title [type, format] Production credit. Production Company/Sponsor/Private, Country of production, date of recording if known. Duration. Start-end timings of extract. [release information, e.g. production company, catalogue number, date of specific edition] or point of access, e.g. archive collection, archive reference, or name of private collection, or original web URL (date of access).
Given Title or ‘Track title’, Main Title [type, format] Production credit. Production Company/ Sponsor/Private, Country of production, date created/uploaded/published. Duration. Start-end timings of extract. [release information, e.g. production company, catalogue number, date of specific edition] or point of access, e.g. original web URL (date of access).
A solution would be a new field. In Edition field I would put only edition number, in this new field I would write all foreword/introductions/preface/afterword: "Introduction by John Doe". Even if John Doe won't be in the fields of authors, the citation and bibliography will be perfect.
And couldn't we rename a field ? I would need a field that shows my evaluation for the publication, though this can also be done by a tag.
We're quite interested in improving/cleaning up the display, so that might happen, though not super soon. It will likely take the form of moving unused fields to the bottom or so.
One question: Would it be possible to add a field for folder number? Many of our collections have thousands of folders.
Thank you very much.
edit: oh sorry Amanda, I realize you know this already. So why folder and not, e.g. "box"? etc?
Now that you say this, I do know this already! I'm sorry, I forgot. The reason I was excited about the folder level was that our finding aids have a new feature: component level IDs. You can pull the metadata from the finding aid at the folder level and then re-purpose it. I thought of Zotero. I'll investigate to see if this also works at the box level.
In all honesty, it's probably best if the researcher can capture both the box and the folder number. The more information the better in terms of allowing future researchers to trace back to the document. The "Loc. in Archive" field is good for this - I'll just have to remind folks to use it for this purpose. Is there any possibility that it could be called "Loc. in Collection?" That might be more transparent.
Right now the status of collections within a larger archives is really quite awkward - you either treat each of the collections as a separate archive (i.e. enter them into the archive field) or you treat the collection as part of the Loc. in Archive (i.e. include them into to Loc. in Archive field) - in either case "Loc. in Collection" doesn't make much sense
A live performance item type is almost certainly going to be added: