* Default association for {Other} field in A.S.

[Gary_G]

Nick;
Most fields in my templates are automatically associated with the corresponding A.S. field, as I've named them in accordance with the table you supplied. Oddly; the {Other} field in A.S. is not in the table. Is it just missing from the table or does it not have a default association? If not; would it be possible to put it on your possible enhancements?

It's definitely not a major issue. But; it would be handy to have the various fields auto-associate, if the template designer has designed the template to utilize fields available in A.S. It avoids one overlooking explicitly setting up the association.

[NickWalker]

The default values are set for the standard 'Essential' templates that most users will use. As 'other' doesn't have any standard use (people use it however they wish), I don't really know what it would associate with. Do you mean you've created a field in your source template called Other? It does literally only take a few seconds to add {OTHER} to your template and then you never have to do it again so I can't really see why me doing this in AS would be a particular time saver, particularly as I can't imagine anyone else having a template field called Other!

[Gary_G]

It's definitely not a major issue. But; it would be handy to have the various fields auto-associate, if the template designer has designed the template to utilize fields available in A.S. It avoids one overlooking explicitly setting up the association.

As noted above; it's a "nice to have".
The field is defined in A.S. and it would be convenient to have it auto-associate just as with the other fields.

[fhtess65]

I do, as a matter of fact... And I have added {OTHER} in my A.S. template.

<SNIP> It does literally only take a few seconds to add {OTHER} to your template and then you never have to do it again so I can't really see why me doing this in AS would be a particular time saver, particularly as I can't imagine anyone else having a template field called Other!

[NickWalker]

I stand corrected!

[Gary_G]

Nick;
I think you'll find that those who use templates tend to be writing more complex citations and make full use of both the {REF} and {OTHER} field to hold all the required information.

[NickWalker]

I know that, I just didn't expect people to also use an FH source template field called Other!

[Gary_G]

Just trying to work with A.S., rather than against it.
I think you'll find that people chose {OTHER} for the same reason you did.
When one has only two fields to enter data and one is for references and the other one is for everything else, then {OTHER} makes sense.