forums - separate category for practices

I'd like to see a separate forum category for discussion of how to use zotero. (I don't like the term "best practices" because that implies there is one, best practice.)

As it is such discussions tend to get muddled with problem reporting and feature requests. Having a separate category might encourage more discussion of practices apart from problems, and would be a nice feature for browsing.

If possible you could even move existing messages to the new category. I've got some candidates here. (Many of these are in the guise of feature requests, but they discuss zotero not as a bundle o' features but rather in relation to its purposes - how it can be used now, how it might be used if modified.)
  • I have a number of questions relating to the generation of citations. Some of them have to do with the problem of hierarchies. Let me describe my problem by giving two examples. (If I have posted in the wrong forum, please re-direct me so that I can repost elsewhere.)

    Example 1: I'm citing a critial edition of a medieval text. The text has internal divisions (in this case only “question” but similar books are divided in more complicated ways such as “question, article.”), editorial divisions (page, chapter, line). The best way to cite these in my feild is to divide the internal from the editorial visions and put the editorial divisions in parentheses.

    Ioannis Duns Scoti, Quaestiones super Praedicamenta, ed. R. Andrews et al., Opera Philosophica 1 (St. Bonaventure, NY: The Franciscan Institute, St. Bonaventure University, 1999)⁠⁠, q. 5 (OPh I:295-6, 10.18-11.2)⁠..

    Here “q. 5” is the internal division of the text, while (OPh I:295-6, 10.18-11.2) notes all the editorial divisions. Written out in full, this means “Opera Philosopica” Volume 1: pages 295-296, paragraph 10, line 18 through paragraph 11, line 2.”

    Of course, Zotero's “page number” function is not really equipped to handle these kinds of citations. I have been typing q. 5 (OPh I:295-6, 10.18-11.2)⁠. as a page number, which seems to work ok. But this more or less defeats the purpose of having a citations manager. I only use zotero in these instances so that I can use it for all my footnotes (that way, my ibid.'s and other things don't get distorted).

    N.B. “Opera Philosophica” in the full citation has to be italized by hand, and is an example of the problem of hierarchical relationships see: .

    Example 2: I'm citing a critical edition of a medieval translation of an ancient work.

    Aristotle, Categoriae vel Praedicamenta, ed. Lorenzo Minio Paluello, Aristoteles Latinus (Leiden: Brill, 1996), (I2 47; c 1, 1a 6-8)

    Similar problems apply. The added complication here is that there are more hierarchical relationships that have to be delt with. Of course, Aristoteles Latinus must be italicized. Additionally, I2 must have a superscript “2” because this volume of the Latin Aristotle reproduces 5 (I think its 5, but the exact number is unimportant) versions of the Latin text. The five versions were used at different times by different authors. Because they are all printed in a single volume, schoalrs use a superscript number to denote which version is being cited. (I2 47; c 1, 1a 6-8).
    Also, the standard divisions of the classical text (in this case the Bekker numbers for Aristotle) must also be included. (here: 1a 6-8). If I were to be using a standard translation based on either the classical Greek or the medieval Latin text, I would also have to put the page numbers of the translation in my citation. It would look something like:

    (I2 47; c 1, 1a 6-8; 254) or (I2 47; c 1, 1a 6-8; TranslatorName,254).

    In these instances, some variation in form is allowed, but all the information must be there. To make matters worse, every author has different internal divisions, and many editors use different editorial divisions. Usually someone citing these editions must explain his system of citation at the beginning of every publication.

    I hope this helps as an example of tough cases.
  • Just an addendum to my previous post:
    I forgot that superscript wouldn't show up. All the things that have a Roman numeral followed by an Arabic number without a space should have the Arabic number superscripted. So in I2, "2" should be superscripted.

    Also, there are occasions where some of the internal divisions of texts are unusual. For example, in
    Super librum Elenchorum, qq. 12-3 (OPh II:323.25-324.10)⁠.

    two questions are combined by the author. (Questions 12 and 13 are combined: he lays out a series of objections in 12, lays out another series in 13, and then responds to both questions at once at the end of 13).

    This would also be hard to accommodate!
Sign In or Register to comment.