Adding New Creator Type

sarcanon
Might anyone be able to tell me to whom I may direct a request to add a new type value to the list of Item Creators (https://www.zotero.org/support/kb/item_types_and_fields#item_creators)?

I would like to propose adding a value of "Revisor", a role I see not infrequently in the bibliographies I work on. Neither 'Contributor' nor 'Editor' are adequate as descriptions.

Thank you.
  • adamsmith
    Here is the right place to request this type of thing. We'd want to see a couple of example citations as well as a description of what a revisor is and, ideally some reference to it in a reasonably widespread style guide.
  • sarcanon
    Hmm. The only style guide I have immediate access to is Chicago MoS (14th ed.) and revisor is not specifically mentioned.

    To me, revisor implies a more specific role than merely editing, involving substantial revision to the texts, but where, whether the contribution was not deemed large enough, or perhaps due to modesty on the part of the revisor, credit as a co-author was not warranted.

    Here are some examples:

    Furneaux, H. 1922. Cornelii Taciti De vita Agricolae. 2nd ed., largely rewritten by J. G. C. Anderson. With contributions by the late Professor F. Haverfield. Oxford: Clarendon Press. http://dcc.dickinson.edu/tacitus-agricola/biblio

    Robertson, A. S., revised by Keppie, L., The Antonine Wall (Glasgow, 2001) https://www.antoninewall.org/research-resources/bibliography

    A. von Domaszewski, Die Rangordnung des römischen. Heeres (second edition, revised by B. Dobson, 1967) https://www.jstor.org/stable/41216407?seq=1

    Kühner, R. and Stegmann, C. (1955), Ausführliche Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache: Satzlehre, 3rd edn revised by A. Thierfelder, 2 vols. (Leverkusen). https://books.google.com/books?id=UIMHDgAAQBAJ&pg=PT958&lpg=PT958
  • adamsmith
    Currently I'd be quite skeptical about including this given the specificity and also the fact that the way it is displayed can vary.
    My suggestions would be to include this type of information into the edition field. The above citations would 1, 2,4 would come out correctly that way.

This is an old discussion that has not been active in a long time. Before commenting here, you should strongly consider starting a new discussion instead. If you think the content of this discussion is still relevant, you can link to it from your new discussion.

Sign In or Register to comment.