Rename "Library Catalog" field to something like "Catalog or Database"

amandafrench

I've just participated in a discussion about how scholars never cite the databases they've used to retrieve online versions of print articles, which definitely seems true to me. Obviously, it's really the citation styles that need to be revised so as to encourage citing the database, but I've also noticed that Zotero puts the database name (Google Books, WorldCat, JSTOR, Wiley Online Library) into a field called "Library Catalog" (for item types Book and Journal Article, for instance) which seems slightly wrong. If that field were renamed something a bit broader, like "Catalog or Database," or maybe even "Catalog, Database, or Index," or maybe even just "Database" (after all, an online catalog is a database) it might help encourage people to cite their databases.

adamsmith

As an aisde: MLA style does cite the database and CSL can now use the Zotero field.
Personally, I'm quite opposed to citing databases, but I agree with Amanda that the "Library Catalog" field is misleading and should be renamed. Of the suggested titles I like "Catalog or Database" best, but I'm not 100% happy with the "or".

amandafrench

Good to know re MLA style, Adam! The only other name that occurred to me was "Source," but that's so vague as to be nearly useless. "Index" would be accurate but also confusing. I think I like plain "Database" best, myself. "Collection"? "Aggregation"?

adamsmith

"Source" is what we're calling this in CSL, which might be a plus for that option, even if it's a bit vague, so I think I'd tend towards that. I'm not so fond of "Database" alone, since I don't think that describes e.g. Library Catalogs.

It'd be great to hear from someone else on this - making the actual change is fairly trivial, but a pull request on the Zotero code is a rather lonely place to discuss labels (since only ~7 people look at those in an optimistic scenario...).

Gracile

"Source" is so vague. I'd prefer "Source/Catalog" if it is decided to rename it.

aurimas

I'm with Geacile. Source would be consistent with how we use this in web translators, but Catalog gives this field more context.

While we're on the topic of labels, I'd like to do something about Archive and Archive Location. TBH, I am still confused when this is used. The actual field labels might be correct, but I think we need to add little help pop-ups that would explain what these are for. Same for series, series title, series text (unless well phase them out entirely?)

fbennett

In legal research, newly released cases are often cited to an electronic service when they have not yet appeared in a proper reporter. In the MLZ legal styles, it looks like I used Archive for the service name, and Archive Loc. for the service ID (scroll down to the "US Electronic Service Report" item, the proofsheet itself is a PDF):

http://citationstylist.org/proofsheets/cases/

The content could be migrated to another field name, but this seems to serve pretty well for this category of content.

A similar case in academic publishing might be ArXiv -- how is that handled? I agree with adamsmith that it's not very sensible to cite aggregator databases. In that case the content is static and easily discoverable through various channels, and including the database in the cite doesn't amount to much more than publicity for the service.

fbennett

To respond to the actual topic under discussion ... how about "Service"?

adamsmith

I'm liking Source/Catalog - service, like source, may be to generic. Is there any acute antipathy against using the slash? I don't mind it and I think from a UX experience it's useful using the same label across item types.

adamsmith

(Also agree with Aurimas that we definitely need to do something about Series/Series Title and probably about archive/loc. in archive, but we should move that somewhere else).