Need 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.
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.
It doesn't seem that this was ever fully answered or addressed.
  • there haven't been any changes to item types in the last two years. I've added a link to this to the github ticket & we'll take it under consideration.
  • Genealogists are starting to use this service, and as a rule, they aren't ones to complain. For the most part, if they don't find what they're looking for they move on.

    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.
  • It's not so much that it's hard - although we'd have to add it both in Zotero and in the Citation Style Language so it wouldn't be super quick, either. It's more a question of where to draw the line: "Compiler" is an exceedingly rare author type, that I've never come across in years of reading history and social science - so the question is exactly what Rintze asks on that ticket - is it worth it? I'm not saying it necessarily isn't and we appreciate your input, but adding too many fields and options does have a price in terms of usability.
  • There is a use for "compiler" outside genealogy. Some sort story anthologies are said to have a compiler (not an editor because nothing was altered from the originals). A compiler sometimes adds a sentence or two of comments before or after each story.

    I have used "editor" in the past for this without giving it a thought.
  • that would be the crux, right? How important is it to distinguish a compiler from an editor?
  • It is not important to me.
  • "Compiler" might not appear too often in the wild, still it is one of the three editorial roles besides editor and translator frequently mentioned together in the Chicago Manual (14.64, 14.67, 14.69, 14.87, 14.88, 14.89), and I think this fact plus the requests in this forum justify its inclusion.

    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.
  • This is quite unexpected and a bit humorous. The fact that it is not important to you does not mean it is not important to me, the user.

    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.
  • edited February 11, 2013
    @JimWalton: Before this turns into a flame war, I'll just step in here to point out that you may be misreading the narrative.

    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 apologies.

    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.
  • edited February 11, 2013
    To clarify the issue: I have no doubts that "compiler" is important to you and other genealogists. But so are about 70 item types with a gazillion different fields outlined in Evidence Explained and as I say we need to draw the line somewhere lest general usability suffers.
    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.
  • edited February 11, 2013
    To clarify my remarks. I provided a use case outside of genealogy. I have no objections to including the compiler as a creator type. I understand that users of MLA and ESM styles would appreciate the type. I probably shouldn't have replied to adamsmith's rhetorical question as though it had been directed to me. 40+ years ago, when I was an undergrad, I was required to use "compiler" when writing papers for a short story literature course. I understand the compiler use case.
  • I've just seen that the last comment on this topic was written more than a year ago. I wonder if there's any chance of compiler being added as an author type; it would be really useful.
  • Now, five years later, can I renew the appeal for a compiler option? It's a different type of book creation, long accepted as such, and the creator options seem oddly incomplete without it.
  • edited November 4, 2020
    Two years later after the request by DonnaCoxBaker to renew appeal for a compiler option to be made available, it isn't considered. I think zotero would gain more appreciation from the users if the "compiler" feature is added in the next updates. Thanks for providing a useful and beautiful software.
  • Compiler has been included into the latest CSL release, which has just come out. It will still take some time for that release to be reflected in citation styles and likely still a bit longer for the variable to show up in Zotero, but it's getting there.
  • That's good news! Thanks adamsmith. Hope to see it shown in zotero asap.
  • Almost four years after the last post, is this an option yet? I keep feeling like I'm just missing something, but I can't find anywhere "Compiler" can be selected. I've been using "Contributor" as a stand-in, but that's not actually true for the book I'm referencing.
Sign In or Register to comment.