pickettj: The date issue is a known one, but it's particularly difficult to address, and probably won't be fixed in the foreseeable future. It affects me too, and it's a known but low-priority limitation of CSL.
I found a non-coding way to enter original date for use in MLA, and a similar process may work for the other styles. There are relatively few items that I need the "# of volumes" field, so I entered the original date there. Then in my Works Cited list I did a replace for " vols" with the replacement field blank. That takes " vols" out whenever it occurs and moves the period to the end of the original date. Then both the original and publication dates appear just as they should for the MLA style.
The presence of a volume number in a citation should trigger me to manually enter the number of volumes in the one or two places it might be needed. Also, MLA is so flexible that might be left out.
Hate to bug you, but the last estimated time of arrival for this feature was 3.1, so I got curious when it will make its way into Zotero. Any time soon perhaps?
+1 for this feature request. For historians (and not only for them, I hope), Kant (1972) is just horrible... Or: There was a renewed interest in nationalism studies in the early 1980s, following the publication of Anderson (2006)., etc. Please allow for Kant [1795] (1972).
This shouldn't be so hard, given all the incredible work that went into Zotero...
Zotero is developed under the auspices of historians. No one disagrees that this is needed, but adding fields requires surprisingly significant behind the scenes changes (related mainly to syncing). Hence the delay in implementing this. 4.2 is pretty much guaranteed, though.
This is wonderful news! From a non-specialist point of view, I just seemed like such a small thing. I will keep fingers crossed. Zotero is a wonderful tool, combined with LibreOffice on my mac, it's by fare the most stable and convenient writing setup I have ever had. So it's a "happy problem", but a problem non the less.
No one disagrees that this is needed, but adding fields requires surprisingly significant behind the scenes changes (related mainly to syncing). Hence the delay in implementing this.
I have developed my own workaround -- a Zotero CSL stylesheet that expands APA 6th edition format to recognize the location in archive field as the year of original publication. (This field is rarely, if ever, used by the standard citation engines, as far as I can tell.)
Both the in-line citation and the bibliography are properly formatted to include original date of publication.
Once downloaded, you would need to drag the file onto an open Firefox window to install it as a Zotero style. Then, when the Zotero Word Plug-in asks what style citations to use, select "American Psychological Association 6th edition with original date of publication".
Of course, if you don't use APA, this is not much help, though perhaps it will inspire others to do the same for other formats. (I generated it using the Visual CSL Editor.)
Given the complexities of changes to the data base, I wonder if this couldn't be implemented through a user switch. A Zotero option could be "use {field x} as original date of publication". The text "original date of publication" could then replace the displayed name of the appropriate field in the entry form (e.g. on the Zotero pane of Firefox), without any changes in the actual database structure.
The above stylesheet implements this for the "Loc. in Archive" field; all that is missing is the switch in Zotero to display that field's name as "original date of publication"
but original date of publication is by far not the only field that people have been requesting - starting to hack around with this is just going to make things even more complicated when they're properly being implemented. I'm sorry it's taking so long, but people will have to wait.
I work in multiple formats: sometimes MLA, sometimes Chicago, etc. This has just become a serious issue as I've shifted to historiographical work. Is there any progress on this issue?
Thanks hgilbert - this is a great help. Luckily I do not use Loc. in Archive. For me this is my number one need ( I currently edit all these manually). This has been my number one desire from Zotero since when I started using it. Glad it sorted in 4.2 soon out.
In the context of a book chapter, the original date of publication [odp] can refer to: -the odp of the chapter (if the book is a collection of already published essays) : John Doe, "My Life" [1953], in id., Collected Essays, London : Routledge, 1982. -the odp of the book itself : Paulette Durand, "Ma jeunesse", in id, Ma vie, Paris : Gallimard, 2014 [1982].
It's rare, but not impossible, that both odp need to appear in the citation/bibliography (eg. reprint of a collection of translated articles ?) A paper is published in a journal as an article (in, say, 1953) and then as a book chapter of some collected essays (e.g. in 1982). The book is then republished (e.g. in 2014).
Actually, I think that the odp in the case of a book chapter should refer to the chapter and not the book. In practice, that's probably the most important information. But, just to be sure, what do you think of that ? Otherwise the "book chapter" item has two original dates and should have two fields to store them. (btw the advantage of hierarchical data model is obvious there).
I don't know. But my main point was that one single odp field is ambiguous even if you don’t need two odp at the same time. Indeed, you can’t (automatically) format correctly both citations above if you’ve just one field. You'll have to choose the reference of the odp field (e.g. the chapter) and use a workaround for the other one (e.g. the book).
We might be in the land of trade-offs, though. I'm not really seeing any feasible solution: 2 odp fields are both overkill and quite likely more confusing than having one ambiguous for the user (who commonly has a good idea which is the most relevant odp). Better data display along the lines of Gracile's old proposal for this would help with that, but we'd still have the two date fields which we'd then have to deal with at every corner of the way--export, CSL, etc.
It would take a bit to convince me that this is a common enough issue to justify the substantial burden it poses in implementation.
Not exactly what you are looking for but maybe still interesting the style for ZThK:
p. 4, for books if the original date is given then in the form (1971) 21982
p. 5, for chapters see "Beiträge in Aufsatzsammlungen eines Autors, die nicht nach der Erstpublikation, sondern nach dem Abdruck in dieser Sammlung zitiert werden" where the original-date refers indeed to the chapter and not the book, e.g. K.BARTH, Biblische Fragen, Einsichten und Ausblicke (1920; in: DERS., Das Wort Gottes und die Theologie. Gesammelte Vorträge, 1924, 70–98), 82. The book itself was published 1924, 1925, and 1929.
Personally, I could accept here a little ambiguity: How the data is stored is mostly controlled by the user and how the data is displayed is describe in the used style. However, a default/standard assumption (what the original publication date for book section normally refers to) might be helpful.
great, so we'll leave it at one field. If (hopefully: when) a more clearly structured info pane for chapters and the like ever gets added, we can help clarify this by positioning the odp with the chapter, not the book, info.
This dating feature is so Important, I really can't uderstand why it cannot be implemented. The option used for the authors - where we can add more names and choose if they are translators, authors, editors, etc, - should be applied to dating. It's just ridiculous to have Aristoteles, 2011, or Meggs 2014 and he passed away in 2002.
I like to put the original edition date in every publication because using only the publishing date means you can make a 2014 only bibliography (a very updated state of the art) with 50's texts.
This thread started in 2008 and 6 years later this is still unresolved...
No one is arguing that the feature is not important. As has been said multiple times in this thread, the delay is that any changes to the fields available for items requires substantial changes to the underlying database structure that powers Zotero. Steady progress has been made on those changes, but it has still required a lot of time to make those massive portions of the Zotero code.
Upgrade Storage
Worth noting, though, that a tentative decision was made to have CSL use the EDTF datetime standard in the future: http://www.loc.gov/standards/datetime/spec.html
That standard allows for the specification of calendar systems, so specification of calendar systems for output in CSL may come some day too.
The presence of a volume number in a citation should trigger me to manually enter the number of volumes in the one or two places it might be needed. Also, MLA is so flexible that might be left out.
It's at http://www.franklynam.com/blog.aspx?id=65
This shouldn't be so hard, given all the incredible work that went into Zotero...
Otherwise, Zotero rocks.
Both the in-line citation and the bibliography are properly formatted to include original date of publication.
If anyone wants to use this CSL stylesheet, you can find it at:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0rMtYOElLfcS3gxT0ZQbDR5cHc/edit?usp=sharing
Once downloaded, you would need to drag the file onto an open Firefox window to install it as a Zotero style. Then, when the Zotero Word Plug-in asks what style citations to use, select "American Psychological Association 6th edition with original date of publication".
Of course, if you don't use APA, this is not much help, though perhaps it will inspire others to do the same for other formats. (I generated it using the Visual CSL Editor.)
Does anyone know when the scheduled release date for 4.2 is? Looking on the dev forums I couldn't find anything very specific.
The above stylesheet implements this for the "Loc. in Archive" field; all that is missing is the switch in Zotero to display that field's name as "original date of publication"
In the context of a book chapter, the original date of publication [odp] can refer to:
-the odp of the chapter (if the book is a collection of already published essays) :
John Doe, "My Life" [1953], in id., Collected Essays, London : Routledge, 1982.
-the odp of the book itself :
Paulette Durand, "Ma jeunesse", in id, Ma vie, Paris : Gallimard, 2014 [1982].
It's rare, but not impossible, that both odp need to appear in the citation/bibliography (eg. reprint of a collection of translated articles ?)
A paper is published in a journal as an article (in, say, 1953) and then as a book chapter of some collected essays (e.g. in 1982). The book is then republished (e.g. in 2014).
Actually, I think that the odp in the case of a book chapter should refer to the chapter and not the book. In practice, that's probably the most important information. But, just to be sure, what do you think of that ?
Otherwise the "book chapter" item has two original dates and should have two fields to store them. (btw the advantage of hierarchical data model is obvious there).
Is that a requirement of any citation guide?
Better data display along the lines of Gracile's old proposal for this would help with that, but we'd still have the two date fields which we'd then have to deal with at every corner of the way--export, CSL, etc.
It would take a bit to convince me that this is a common enough issue to justify the substantial burden it poses in implementation.
- p. 4, for books if the original date is given then in the form (1971) 21982
- p. 5, for chapters see "Beiträge in Aufsatzsammlungen eines Autors, die nicht nach der Erstpublikation, sondern nach dem Abdruck in dieser Sammlung zitiert werden" where the original-date refers indeed to the chapter and not the book, e.g. K.BARTH, Biblische Fragen, Einsichten und Ausblicke (1920; in: DERS., Das Wort Gottes und die Theologie. Gesammelte Vorträge, 1924, 70–98), 82. The book itself was published 1924, 1925, and 1929.
Personally, I could accept here a little ambiguity: How the data is stored is mostly controlled by the user and how the data is displayed is describe in the used style. However, a default/standard assumption (what the original publication date for book section normally refers to) might be helpful.I like to put the original edition date in every publication because using only the publishing date means you can make a 2014 only bibliography (a very updated state of the art) with 50's texts.
This thread started in 2008 and 6 years later this is still unresolved...