Thanks a lot for the answer bwiernik. When I said "I really can't uderstand why it cannot be implemented", I meant it. I really don't have a clue of the work it requires in coding it.
So please just keep the sugestion of using the feature invented for the name (giving the option to add more names and choose if they are editors, authors, etc to the date.
Thanks a lot
I'm skeptical of that because I wouldn't know how to handle this on the citation side. We already can deal with original date of publication and a date of publication in the citation styles -- is there any scenario where we'd really need more than those two?
As fbennett announced in this thread (24 May 2011), a workaround has been implemented in citeproc-js: Put "{:original-date: 1876}" in Zotero's "Extra" field, and this will be processed.
Apart from that it's only a matter of upgrading the existing CSL styles. My try for chicago-author-date.csl, adding support for both "original-date" and "status" can be found at https://gist.github.com/anonymous/d598db82b88c9747dfa2.
This still has a few issues, notably rendering "Miller , forthcoming", so maybe one of the resident CSL experts could have a closer look, and hopefully patch the official chicago-author-date.csl – and other styles, too.
Not only Zotero but also pandoc users (where all CSL variables are supported out of the box) would benefit a lot from this.
Does "implemented in citeproc-js" mean it is also available in Zotero stand-alone? Excuse my ignorance, I did look at the citeproc site, but couldn't work out what it is.
If not, what is the recommended way to include an original date of publication, so it can be accessed through a style?
citeproc-js is the processor Zotero uses to generate citations from item data. Both Zotero Standalone and Firefox use it (it's a central part of the program). To get original date of publication, enter it in the Extra field in this format:
{:original-date: 1876}
Then any styles that are programmed to use Original Date will be able to read it for the item.
well, kind of. You can put it into a citation style as <date variable="original-date" form="text"/> (or anything else available for a date variable) and that's valid CSL.
In Zotero, you have to implement the hack described above, i.e. "Put "{:original-date: 1876}" in Zotero's "Extra" field, and this will be processed." (that's without the quotation marks, of course)
I work in the field of theology, where I use many older and translated works that have been reprinted. Original publication dates are indispensable. As a new user of Zotero, I'm surprised this isn't an included feature, and join the chorus requesting it be added.
@theoburn: Using the workaround mentioned, {:original-date: 1903} in the extra field, the styles of the Università Pontificia Salesiana, used for the field of theology, are able to present the information of the variables: original-title, original-publisher-place, original-publisher and original-date. See: https://zotero.org/styles?q=sales
So glad to see this finally being implemented. So, for now there is a workaround, which involves putting {:original-date: 1876} in the Extra field.
I have numerous references where a fix is needed. Prior to going through my library implementing the workaround for each one, I wonder if someone who has better knowledge could help me understand what the future holds.
Will there be an "original date" field included in zotero soon - and if so, what does soon mean? Also will an effort be made to get CSL styles to incorporate original dates?
There will be such a field, but we were hoping it'd be up two years ago, so I'm not going to venture an ETA. All I can say is that API sync and with that then the long-awaited field updates are at the top of agenda.
I am, however, at this point quite confident that we would, as part of this update, automatically move the make-shift information entered into the extra field.
As for CSL styles, that's underway already. AAA has original date, I just added it to APA, I have Chicago author-date ready and will have that up shortly with the note and full note styles next (though those are trickier, given that Chicago is very flexible about how such info should be displayed).
Sorry to bring the up again, but it seems to me that an additional (original date) field may not be necessary. The workaround is easy enough for now.
Instead, this (admittedly serious) problem could be solved as part of a larger solution, which would allow linking of items. So, instead of "original date," "original publisher" "original place of publication," etc., all of which are required in some styles, could we add a "related to item" field with variables to return information from a separate item?
1) reprinted--for "book," etc., styles would return original publication info (short (only date) or long (full pub. info)); for articles, chapters, etc., would return full pub info for a chapter originally published elsewhere)
2) edition--could return first edition publication info for a book; for the forthcoming "classic" type, could return edition info for the first citation of the work, in either a "short" or "long" form: e.g. "[Menander (Rhetor)], “Περὶ ἐπιδεικτικῶν” (ed. D. A. Russell and N. G. Wilson, Menander Rhetor [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981]) or "[Menander (Rhetor)], “Περὶ ἐπιδεικτικῶν” (ed. Russell and Wilson)"
3) translation--similar to edition
4) part--used for preface, introduction, afterword, and the like. Could be used to define other relationships (e.g. chapter in a book, etc), though this would be a more major change.
This would allow more flexible citation. For instance, I may in one case cite an original edition, but other times want to cite a subsequent edition with or without reference to the original.
As a downside, this would require a gui element to "include related item[s]", though the style could cover most cases.
The workaround you mention only works in some citation formats. So an independent field remains critical.
This could perhaps be implemented via your suggestion of a "related to" field, but this sounds like it would require a fundamental overhaul of the citation engine, as this would have to enable one citation to reference the fields of another.
The workaround you mention only works in some citation formats. So an independent field remains critical.
that's a misunderstanding. Whether original-date (etc.) is used in a citation style and whether it has a proper field ind Zotero is unrelated. In terms of citation output, the {:original-date: } workaround is equivalent to a Zotero field.
I'm also skeptical of using item relations for this, that seems like a level of complexity that we probably don't want to introduce (not just at the GUI level, also in terms of data entry. When I cite, say, Adam Smith, I don't want to actually track down and add the first edition of the Wealth of Nations. I just want to add 1776 as the original date.)
First of all thank you for the helpful forum and thread. ;)
Is there a thread listing all the CSL-Styles that support the extra-field-workaround? Searching the repository for "original" didn't work for me. Any better ideas of finding those styles?
I am searching for in text citation looking like (Weber 1922/1972), so basically APA without the useless comma. ;) Any recommendations? (Should be available in German.)
This is a full list of the filenames of all styles with original-date implemented. The actual names of the styles will differ slightly, but should be obvious from the filename:
Sorry, May someone explain this a bit better to me? I can't see how it works. Just simply writing "{:original-date: 1876}" in the "extra" folder of zotero standalone (as well as in the web version) didn't change anything in my references. I guess I'm missing something.
Thanks a lot in advance
I'm using harvard-cranfield-university.csl and spanish-legal.csl, both from the list, refreshing a thousand times, but I never arrive to get a double date.
Sure it's only writing {:original-date: 1876} in the "extra" folder?
Nothing else I'm possibly missing?
Thanks again
YES!!! Thus works! Thank you!
Then, if I have to cite in a different style from these, I will have to create it by modifying one of these two, isn't it?
Thanks again and best
Version 4 is out, without a field for Original Date of Publication. It looks like the temporary workaround in the Extra field is likely to remain the permanent solution.
No, the situation is still exactly as above. This is still going to happen. Zotero is a small project. Things don't always go as quickly as we would all like
Upgrade Storage
So please just keep the sugestion of using the feature invented for the name (giving the option to add more names and choose if they are editors, authors, etc to the date.
Thanks a lot
Apart from that it's only a matter of upgrading the existing CSL styles. My try for chicago-author-date.csl, adding support for both "original-date" and "status" can be found at https://gist.github.com/anonymous/d598db82b88c9747dfa2.
This still has a few issues, notably rendering "Miller , forthcoming", so maybe one of the resident CSL experts could have a closer look, and hopefully patch the official chicago-author-date.csl – and other styles, too.
Not only Zotero but also pandoc users (where all CSL variables are supported out of the box) would benefit a lot from this.
If not, what is the recommended way to include an original date of publication, so it can be accessed through a style?
{:original-date: 1876}
Then any styles that are programmed to use Original Date will be able to read it for the item.
In Zotero, you have to implement the hack described above, i.e.
"Put "{:original-date: 1876}" in Zotero's "Extra" field, and this will be processed." (that's without the quotation marks, of course)
Using the workaround mentioned, {:original-date: 1903} in the extra field, the styles of the Università Pontificia Salesiana, used for the field of theology, are able to present the information of the variables: original-title, original-publisher-place, original-publisher and original-date.
See: https://zotero.org/styles?q=sales
I see, thanks. That is great. Will try it out.
I have numerous references where a fix is needed. Prior to going through my library implementing the workaround for each one, I wonder if someone who has better knowledge could help me understand what the future holds.
Will there be an "original date" field included in zotero soon - and if so, what does soon mean? Also will an effort be made to get CSL styles to incorporate original dates?
I am, however, at this point quite confident that we would, as part of this update, automatically move the make-shift information entered into the extra field.
As for CSL styles, that's underway already. AAA has original date, I just added it to APA, I have Chicago author-date ready and will have that up shortly with the note and full note styles next (though those are trickier, given that Chicago is very flexible about how such info should be displayed).
Instead, this (admittedly serious) problem could be solved as part of a larger solution, which would allow linking of items. So, instead of "original date," "original publisher" "original place of publication," etc., all of which are required in some styles, could we add a "related to item" field with variables to return information from a separate item?
1) reprinted--for "book," etc., styles would return original publication info (short (only date) or long (full pub. info)); for articles, chapters, etc., would return full pub info for a chapter originally published elsewhere)
2) edition--could return first edition publication info for a book; for the forthcoming "classic" type, could return edition info for the first citation of the work, in either a "short" or "long" form: e.g. "[Menander (Rhetor)], “Περὶ ἐπιδεικτικῶν” (ed. D. A. Russell and N. G. Wilson, Menander Rhetor [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981]) or "[Menander (Rhetor)], “Περὶ ἐπιδεικτικῶν” (ed. Russell and Wilson)"
3) translation--similar to edition
4) part--used for preface, introduction, afterword, and the like. Could be used to define other relationships (e.g. chapter in a book, etc), though this would be a more major change.
This would allow more flexible citation. For instance, I may in one case cite an original edition, but other times want to cite a subsequent edition with or without reference to the original.
As a downside, this would require a gui element to "include related item[s]", though the style could cover most cases.
This could perhaps be implemented via your suggestion of a "related to" field, but this sounds like it would require a fundamental overhaul of the citation engine, as this would have to enable one citation to reference the fields of another.
I'm also skeptical of using item relations for this, that seems like a level of complexity that we probably don't want to introduce (not just at the GUI level, also in terms of data entry. When I cite, say, Adam Smith, I don't want to actually track down and add the first edition of the Wealth of Nations. I just want to add 1776 as the original date.)
I think that the updated APA citation engine is reversing the order of the dates, however: the original date should appear first, I believe.
Is there a thread listing all the CSL-Styles that support the extra-field-workaround? Searching the repository for "original" didn't work for me. Any better ideas of finding those styles?
I am searching for in text citation looking like (Weber 1922/1972), so basically APA without the useless comma. ;) Any recommendations? (Should be available in German.)
Thanks in advance!
american-anthropological-association.csl
annual-reviews-author-date.csl
apa-annotated-bibliography.csl
apa.csl
apa-cv.csl
apa-no-ampersand.csl
apa-no-doi-no-issue.csl
apa-single-spaced.csl
beltz-padagogik.csl
bioarchaeology-of-the-near-east.csl
chicago-annotated-bibliography.csl
chicago-author-date.csl
chicago-fullnote-bibliography.csl
chicago-fullnote-bibliography-no-ibid.csl
chicago-library-list.csl
chicago-note-bibliography.csl
chicago-note-biblio-no-ibid.csl
economie-et-statistique.csl
escuela-nacional-de-antropologia-e-historia-author-date.csl
escuela-nacional-de-antropologia-e-historia-full-note.csl
escuela-nacional-de-antropologia-e-historia-short-note.csl
harvard-cranfield-university.csl
infoclio-de.csl
infoclio-fr-nocaps.csl
infoclio-fr-smallcaps.csl
ithaque.csl
leidraad-voor-juridische-auteurs.csl
leviathan.csl
philosophiques.csl
population.csl
revue-francaise-de-sociologie.csl
sist02.csl
spanish-legal.csl
universita-pontificia-salesiana.csl
universita-pontificia-salesiana-en.csl
universita-pontificia-salesiana-es.csl
universita-pontificia-salesiana-fr.csl
universita-pontificia-salesiana-it.csl
universita-pontificia-salesiana-pt-br.csl
universite-libre-de-bruxelles-histoire.csl
university-college-lillebaelt-harvard.csl
vienna-legal.csl
wiley-vch-books.csl
zeitschrift-fur-medienwissenschaft.csl
zeitschrift-fur-theologie-und-kirche.csl
(for those interested -- found using
grep -l original-date *.cslon the whole repository.)edit: oops, sorry Gracile, must have had the tab open since yesterday. Leaving this here for convenience.
Thanks a lot in advance
Try refreshing your bibliography.
Try changing the citation style for the document to something else and then switching back to your original style.
These may be ways to get your document to recognize the change in the record in your Zotero library. These are not risky or harmful.
Someone else may have a better way for the change to your Zotero record to be reflected in your document.
If the style you are using is not set to include original dates the only other option is to use a similar style that does.
Sure it's only writing {:original-date: 1876} in the "extra" folder?
Nothing else I'm possibly missing?
Thanks again
Then, if I have to cite in a different style from these, I will have to create it by modifying one of these two, isn't it?
Thanks again and best