The way to add extra fields is to store them in Extra. These fields are removed before generating citations, so you can put your annotations below “Original date: 1907” and it will all work out.
Hi, thanks for this discussion, which is exactly what I am looking for. I am using the style "Séminaire Saint-Sulpice - Ecole Théologie (French)", would it be possible to add a field "original date of publication" as well?
@LacXav Can you please start a new thread listing all of the changes you would like to this style (e.g., chapter number, original date, etc.), with examples for what you want them to look like?
5. John Van Seters, In Search of History: Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983; repr., Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997), 35.
Van Seters, John. In Search of History: Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983. Repr., Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997.
6.2.18 Reprint of a Title in the Public Domain
See CMS §§4.19–21. When a work is in the public domain, one may omit all except the most relevant information (in the following instance, the translator and original publication date) and supply information about the source from which the book is now available.
5. Gustav Adolf Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East: The New Testament Illustrated by Recently Discovered Texts of the Graeco-Roman World (trans. Lionel R. M. Strachan; 1927; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995), 55.
Deissmann, Gustav Adolf. Light from the Ancient East: The New Testament Illustrated by Recently Discovered Texts of the Graeco-Roman World. Translated by Lionel R. M. Strachan. 1927. Repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995.
That can actually be put into the "edition field" and will appear correctly:
Test output: John Van Seters, In Search of History: Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History, Reprinted from the Yale Univ. Press ed., 1983. (Winona Lake, Ind: Eisenbrauns, 1997).
With Chicago 17 full note style you can just add original-date: 1865 to the "extras field" and it will add the date and it will put all the necessary info in the right place.
Chicago Manual of Style 17th edition (full note)
David Benedict, Fifty Years among the Baptists (1865; repr., Paris, Arkansas: Baptist Standard Bearer, 2001). Benedict, David. Fifty Years among the Baptists. 1865. Reprint, Paris, Arkansas: Baptist Standard Bearer, 2001.
If you put it in the edition field you have to manually format it and the text needed is different for the note "1865; repr.," vs bibliography "1865. Repr.,"
Hi ! I'm sorry to dig an old subject. I'm trying to set this up using the two Tapuscrit styles, and I cannot figure out how to modify it in order to display original date in quotes and bibliography. Thank you for your help !
so it's not like you can't cite original dates. Field updates are closer, I think good chance an initial batch will make it into the Zotero 8 release (see pinned thread on field updates)
Sorry, but we really need this by default. Especially since it could include support for entering values in brackets in the date field. Not sure we should wait a Zotero 8 release for that.
I’ve been using the software since its inception and am a big propagandist. I pay for the lab subscription, etc. But generally speaking, I’m really starting to get annoyed by the slow pace at which certain fundamental improvements requested by many users are being introduced by Zotero.
I don't understand, for example, why Zotero hasn’t taken the initiative to improve the CSL data model and enrich the bibliographic types. Art historians are still waiting for a type for catalogs, for example, and everyone else for a citation model for conference proceedings. We are still relying on a plugin for citation keys, etc. You’ll tell me, of course, that we can work around it. But it's problematic to maintain hacks for over 15 years.
Upgrade Storage
Here is the information from the SBL Handbook:
6.2.17 Reprint of a Recent Title
5. John Van Seters, In Search of History: Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983; repr., Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997), 35.
Van Seters, John. In Search of History: Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983. Repr., Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997.
6.2.18 Reprint of a Title in the Public Domain
See CMS §§4.19–21. When a work is in the public domain, one may omit all except the most relevant information (in the following instance, the translator and original publication date) and supply information about the source from which the book is now available.
5. Gustav Adolf Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East: The New Testament Illustrated by Recently Discovered Texts of the Graeco-Roman World (trans. Lionel R. M. Strachan; 1927; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995), 55.
Deissmann, Gustav Adolf. Light from the Ancient East: The New Testament Illustrated by Recently Discovered Texts of the Graeco-Roman World. Translated by Lionel R. M. Strachan. 1927. Repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995.
That can actually be put into the "edition field" and will appear correctly:
Test output: John Van Seters, In Search of History: Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History, Reprinted from the Yale Univ. Press ed., 1983. (Winona Lake, Ind: Eisenbrauns, 1997).
Chicago Manual of Style 17th edition (full note)
David Benedict, Fifty Years among the Baptists (1865; repr., Paris, Arkansas: Baptist Standard Bearer, 2001).
Benedict, David. Fifty Years among the Baptists. 1865. Reprint, Paris, Arkansas: Baptist Standard Bearer, 2001.
If you put it in the edition field you have to manually format it and the text needed is different for the note "1865; repr.," vs bibliography "1865. Repr.,"
But it does not parse. Is there some extra step I need? A lot of my material is structured this way.
This is a fundamental requirement for any humanistic work.
so it's not like you can't cite original dates. Field updates are closer, I think good chance an initial batch will make it into the Zotero 8 release (see pinned thread on field updates)
I’ve been using the software since its inception and am a big propagandist. I pay for the lab subscription, etc. But generally speaking, I’m really starting to get annoyed by the slow pace at which certain fundamental improvements requested by many users are being introduced by Zotero.
I don't understand, for example, why Zotero hasn’t taken the initiative to improve the CSL data model and enrich the bibliographic types. Art historians are still waiting for a type for catalogs, for example, and everyone else for a citation model for conference proceedings. We are still relying on a plugin for citation keys, etc. You’ll tell me, of course, that we can work around it. But it's problematic to maintain hacks for over 15 years.