Upgrade StorageNeed Compiler as author type
This was discussed in August 2011, (Standalone: Needs Expanded Author Types - started Aug 12th, 2011), but it is still not on the list as of version 3.0.13. I'm not sure how often this is used in other fields, but in genealogy, we use a lot of books that are compilations and there is no editor or author, just a compiler.
The following reference was provided in issue #43 at github.
The following reference was provided in issue #43 at github.
It doesn't seem that this was ever fully answered or addressed.http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/16/ch14/ch14_sec088.html
The edited, compiled, or translated work of one author is normally listed with the author’s name appearing first and the name(s) of the editor(s), compiler(s), or translator(s) appearing after the title, preceded by edited by or ed., compiled by or comp., or translated by or trans.
I would like to recommend Zotero to my associates, but this is a major failing. It can't really be that difficult. As a retired programmer, I know it is more than just adding the name to the list, but there aren't that many places where the changes would need to be made. The fact that it isn't there in the first place is what I find puzzling.
Anyway, thanks for looking at it again.
I have used "editor" in the past for this without giving it a thought.
In fact I feel Zotero could gain much if it tried to fully support the requirements of the major style guides, such as Chicago, instead of subsets only.
Historians look for events and trends. Lawyers look for preponderance of evidence. Genealogists look for the provable facts. When a historian wrote about my 10th great grandfather and said his wife was Alice Hilton, to him it really doesn't matter who she was because that was 17th century. Who cares? The lawyer would say there are hundreds of genealogies that list her as the wife, and only a few that don't, so the evidence says she was the wife. The fact is that somebody made an unfounded suggestion in a book that everybody seems to have picked up on, but the evidence indicates it probably isn't true. But only the genealogist really cares.
The issue is that genealogists are anal about the details. The fact that my mother said I was born on July 28, 1941 does not make it so. When I found the entry in her diary on that date, that makes it more believable, but there is also the possibility that my mother was writing on the wrong page, or she could have been lying. My birth certificate is the evidence that proves my birth date. (I'm working on a genealogy where a woman celebrated the wrong birth date for over 50 years until she found her birth certificate.)
Annals of Oxford, Maine is a history of Oxford, compiled from early records and notes. It was compiled, not edited, by Marquis Fayette King. A historian may be comfortable listing him as an editor, but that is not correct, he is a compiler of historical and genealogical facts. If he were the editor, I could blame him for any errors I find. As a compiler, he is merely citing sources that I need to check, and they get the blame if they are wrong. Genealogists actually do look at citations, and we look up the sources. We're weird, I know.
I'm not asking for something unusual, or something that is not in the style manuals. It's there, it is a valid author type, and it should be on the list, whether it is important to you or not.
Just the thoughts of an old man who has had this same type of discussion with programming students in the past. LOL. Sorry for the diatribe.
If you took the query by adamsmith, writing above, as purely rhetorical, that would be a misreading. Feedback is how these issues get settled, and your mild diatribe counts for that. In future, though, it might be an idea to think a little more carefully of your audience. It would be better rhetorical strategy to avoid characterising the contributors here as "programming students", for example. Most have careers of one sort and another, many as librarians, or as full-time academics in a variety of disciplines.
It's also a safe bet that anyone who bothers to read these forums is likewise anal about the details. :-)
My intention was not to characterize or demean anybody, and certainly not to start a flame war. I was just stating a thought that popped into my head. I was wrong to mention it.
My comments were based on what both adamsmith and DWL-SDCA said.
There is nothing left now but to wait and see what happens.
I think together with what @adalbon says and the fact the "compiler" is also mentioned in the MLA guide (e.g. http://lynn.libguides.com/content.php?pid=58823&sid=447644 ) it looks like it should probably be included. As I say, though, since this involves two independent projects (Zotero and CSL, the latter serving multiple reference managers) it won't happen quickly even if everyone agrees.