Novice question about modified reference types

mgrowhoski

I am a grad student in early modern history and recent convert from Endnote. I just read this

http://www.zotero.org/support/requesting_styles

but a few things are still unclear to me.

My problem is that early printing was an imprecise science, and we often find numerous different versions of the same title in a given year. For my work, then, I require a slight modification of the Chicago Style that would allow for the inclusion of the ISBN number (but really an identifying number taken from an academic index like the English Short Title Catalog) in the first footnote and bibliography. In Endnote, I was able to alter one of the existing reference types in Chicago, which I applied to all such books.

My footnotes look something like this (I frequently need author, editor, and translator, and sometimes also series editor):

First name Last Name, /Title/, ed. First Name Last Name, trans. First Name Last Name (City: Printer, Year, Bibliographic Number), pgs.

I could add the bibliographic number to the year field, in a pinch, I think, but it would diminish the utility of the year field in the database.

Being new to Zotero, I'm not exactly sure what I want: a new style, or a dependent style (and I'm not sure what that is)? I wouldn't mind tinkering with CSL, but where do my styles live? Could a new reference type (like "old book") live alongside the existing fields, or would I have I have to sacrifice one?

Thank you for any advice.

adamsmith

1.New reference type is not possible (i.e. not customizable)
2. A dependent style is not what you want - it is the exact same thing under a different name - e.g. if a Journal requests CMS people will stiff find the Journal's name in the style repository.
3. You do want a new style. You can either just have that locally safed (make sure to changed all the relevant information in the style header (esp. ID) so that it doesn't get overwritten or you can post it here and ask someone to upload it to the repository if you believe it has broader appeal.
4. I would not add the bib number to the year field - look at the CSL - maybe just using the extra field would work well? I'd not do ISBN, because many books automatically import the ISBN and then you'd have that all over your bibliographies.
5. My sense is that the best solution would be if you could treat old book just like a book. So what you'd want is a field that just exists in your old book entries that just gets included.

mgrowhoski

Thank you, Adam.

1. Darn.
3. Where can I learn more about how to locate and edit these files? I'm having trouble finding this information (note--you just answered this in another forum--thanks).
4. Adding it to the year actually doesn't work, for some reason. Only the year shows.
5. This is a reasonable suggestion, but won't work at all for me. First, I don't yet know enough to do it myself. I'm 3 days old, effectively, although anxious to learn. The second problem is that I still need to record modern ISBN numbers for other purposes, meaning there would be no visible difference between old and new books. I do a lot of serious bibliographical work, and I can't sacrifice any purposed field, really. I see one "extra" field: that's all I have to work with, I guess? I had other plans for that... I might not use "rights," but that kind of arbitrary reuse often leads to later confusion, from my experience with Endnote.

I'm new, but already my feeling is that not enough padding was included in the original template design. From the forums, I get the sense that having a few custom fields would be a great help to a great many people. Is this something that might happen in the future?

adamsmith

@3. there is a more extensive guide here:
http://www.condast.com/zotero/index.html

@4 the date is saved as a number (date) and so Zotero (or the style - not sure here - but currently not even original date of publication is supported, though it will be in the near future as I understand.) throws everything after the year away

@5 - what are the "other plans" for extra? - I'd recommend using notes for everything that you will not ever need to cite as part of a work.
I have no insights on custom fields, seems reasonable to me, no idea if its hard to do.
But current fields are not locked in and can/may be extended in the future - so the fact that something wasn't included from the start doesn't need to be a disaster downstreams.

mgrowhoski

That's all very helpful.

@5. Without boring you to tears: since these fields are also the list sorting options in the main library window, there is a lot you can do with them beyond citation. For example, project organization: I have noticed quite a few grad students explaining how they used Zotero (or similar) to study for qualifying exams. For that, or any other kind of project list, you might want to have a box that records whether you've read something or not, etc. A lawyer might use it for a similar purpose during discovery or document review, to give another possibility.

It's nice to know there is room for growth. Nobody can ever imagine all the uses their inventions might be put to by others.

adamsmith

true - except you can't sort by the extra field (imho an unexplicable fact, but at least currently a fact nonetheless).
To record if you've read something, for example, I think using a tag (and then filter by that tag) would be much preferable, same for most lawyerly uses I can imagine.

mgrowhoski

I see what you mean, but I'm sure you'll agree that preference is subjective? But please help me with your suggestion: I can't imagine how you could sort a hypothetical reading list on-screen using two tags, "read" and "unread."

adamsmith

well no, you can't on one screen - but you can - by using e.g. saved searches for the two tags - create two virtual collections with all the read and all the unread articles - which you can then order in a more useful way - e.g. by author, or filter by another tag - e.g. one of the prelim subfields.
I just don't see why a list sorted by a binary (i.e. read or unread) that's completely unordered (I don't know how long your prelim reading lists are, but I figure like ours there are going to be a couple of hundred items on them) would be a great thing to have.

Look - I'm not saying this shouldn't be possible, but I do think that it's not _that_ unreasonable that people - as long as something isn't feasible - look for alternative ways of doing things - and at least for the example you give I think there are perfectly good alternatives.
I can come up with examples where that isn't the case (and I have encountered them in the past) but I do think those are rare cases.

mgrowhoski

I see where you're coming from, and I'm satisfied that you see my side of things. I didn't mean to divert the entire discussion to a secondary justification for additional (and hopefully customizable) fields, but the reading list is only one example--and, I still think, a good one. Among other things, I would like to add an additional year field, to record the original date of publication for reprints--something that I often need to sort. But I digress. Lists are a time-honored method of organization that is easily and universally understood. We're talking about to do lists, really: sometimes, you just want to see an entire job in one glance, and get an instant idea of what is done, in progress, finished, etc. The whole point of sorting is to give order to the unordered, yes? Tagging can be very powerful, but it requires discipline and consistency to be effective. It's not the best answer for every problem or user. I don't think what I'm suggesting is unreasonable, or that it needs to be done ASAP, but it would be really nice.

adamsmith

I actually think these discussions serve a larger purpose - namely to think about ways Zotero can be used, to suggest possible usage strategies, etc.
As I've said, I don't think your request is unreasonable at all and I see potential uses for it.

As noted above - original data of publication is indeed a crucial feature of bibl. information and will be included in one way or the other in the feature (fbennet is working on that)

I remain completely unconvinced by your list sorting example - if I can add "read, in progress, unread" to the extra field of an item, i can add the respective tag (in fact, because I can drag it to multiple items I can do so more quickly and because of that it is also going to be exactly the same every time and I won't have any trouble with that. I actually think Tags, in this case, require a lot _less_ discipline and _less_ effort _and_ they allow you to create much more order.
Using a filter I can very quickly toggle the relevant items of and on - which, since I need to scroll through the list anyway - seems to me pretty much the same thing. The next step for me - which is something the dev team has expressed interest in - would be color coded tags, which would then actually allow you a "one screen" solution.

My larger point is this - I do think there are reasonable uses for customizable fields and I think it would be good to implement them (though I'd assume there are a whole bunch of design decisions connected to that issue, those things are never as easy as they look at first glance),
but I also think users will have a more pleasant medium to long term experience using Zotero if they make use of its best features - even if those may require small (!) changes in work routines (and by that I mean software work routines and not actual academic work routines) - People shall have their lists and everything, but there may be different ways of getting them. And if there is a "that's how I've always done it in Windows" way and a "If you take 3mins to learn you can do this twice as fast and in a more useful way" I'm not sure Zotero needs to indulge the former.

mgrowhoski

Again, I think we understand each other. I don't know what lists have to do with Windows, though! Thanks for listening.