Upgrade Storagecollection-editor, editor and the center pane
In historical studies, the distinction between sources and literature is crucial. In many German bibliographical references, a distinction is therefore made between the editor of a source and the editor of an anthology (Sammelband):
- Gerhohi praepositi Reichersbergensis libelli selecti, ed. Ernst Sackur (MGH Ldl 3), Hannover 1897.
vs
- Rom und die Regionen. Studien zur Homogenisierung der lateinischen Kirche, hg. von Jochen Johrendt/Harald Müller (Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen. Philologisch-Historische Klasse 19), Berlin u.a. 2012.
As allready proposed some time ago (https://forums.zotero.org/discussion/comment/120253/#Comment_120253) you could use 'editor' to refer to someone who has edited a source, and 'collection-editor' to refer to someone who has edited a collection of articles.
The German translation for 'collection-editor' in Zotro is 'Hrsg. der Reihe', a role that certainly exists, but is (as far as I know) rarely cited; I would prefere somthing like 'Hrsg. des Sammelwerks' or the more general 'Hrsg. der Sammlung', but it's fine if some of the variable names don't exactly correspond to how you would use them.
The problem is that Zotero doesn't handle 'collection-editor' well:
1) In the centre pane, 'collection-editors' are not integrated into the 'creator' column and therefore also not taken into account when sorting.
2) The advanced search allows specific searches for roles like 'author' and 'editor', but not for 'collection-editor'.
A 'Title, Year, Creator'-Quick Search and a 'creator'-Advanced Search seem to find 'collection-editors' though.
It would be of great help if 'collection-editor' could also be treated as 'creator' - or at least a specific search for each existing role (including for example also 'contributor') could be set up in the Advanced Search.
- Gerhohi praepositi Reichersbergensis libelli selecti, ed. Ernst Sackur (MGH Ldl 3), Hannover 1897.
vs
- Rom und die Regionen. Studien zur Homogenisierung der lateinischen Kirche, hg. von Jochen Johrendt/Harald Müller (Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen. Philologisch-Historische Klasse 19), Berlin u.a. 2012.
As allready proposed some time ago (https://forums.zotero.org/discussion/comment/120253/#Comment_120253) you could use 'editor' to refer to someone who has edited a source, and 'collection-editor' to refer to someone who has edited a collection of articles.
The German translation for 'collection-editor' in Zotro is 'Hrsg. der Reihe', a role that certainly exists, but is (as far as I know) rarely cited; I would prefere somthing like 'Hrsg. des Sammelwerks' or the more general 'Hrsg. der Sammlung', but it's fine if some of the variable names don't exactly correspond to how you would use them.
The problem is that Zotero doesn't handle 'collection-editor' well:
1) In the centre pane, 'collection-editors' are not integrated into the 'creator' column and therefore also not taken into account when sorting.
2) The advanced search allows specific searches for roles like 'author' and 'editor', but not for 'collection-editor'.
A 'Title, Year, Creator'-Quick Search and a 'creator'-Advanced Search seem to find 'collection-editors' though.
It would be of great help if 'collection-editor' could also be treated as 'creator' - or at least a specific search for each existing role (including for example also 'contributor') could be set up in the Advanced Search.
collection-editorvariable: it is rather designed to take a multivolume series editor:https://docs.citationstyles.org/en/stable/specification.html#name-variables
For examples of how this role is cited in multivolume works, see MHRA or the Chicago Manual of Style.
CSL definitely needs a separate name type for critical editors of literary texts. The best workaround I can find is to use the 'classic' type, but that doesn't always work.
editor would then be the person who edits someone else's work, such as for a critical edition.
For a whole number of reason (not least the fact that English just doesn't distinguish these roles -- they're both editors), that distinction never made it into styles outside a small number of French ones.
That said, I don't think German makes a distinction here either. I see both roles consistently cited as "Herausgeber*in", never with any addition like "der Sammlung/des Sammelbands".
It is true that in many German styles both the critical editors and the editors of collected works are indicated as ‘Herausgeber’ - but some, such as the ‘Deutsches Archiv’, which is very important for Medieval Studies, do make a distinction, see https://www.mgh.de/storage/app/media/DA-info/DA_Hinweise_Beitraege_25-02.pdf
Using a dedicated document type would have the advantage of making it easier to also get a grouped bibliography that separates sources from literature. But the ‘classics’ document type doesn't seem to be supported in Zotero yet - or am I missing something?
Would it be considered semantically incorrect to use the collection-editor as editor? I am myself not really happy with using a different role for an normally unambiguous case, as the source editor is actually the special case and would need its own role.
In addition to the question of the correct name, the difficulty of systematically searching for specific roles via the Zotero interface remains, which makes it difficult to standardise large bibliographies. I can understand why the obscure collection-editor should not be included in the creator field, but I would still like to be able to search all the roles supported by Zotero individually, at least via the advanced search.
type: classicfully supported, both for the ease to properly save (and cite!) corresponding items and to have separated bibliographies for sources and literature.Since "editorial-director" seems to be the role meant in most fields of study (i.e. everything except historical sciences like history, archeology, philology etc.) when speaking of an "editor", I think it's unlikely that anyone (but french people) actually update their styles to replace "editor" with "editorial-director" (which would be the "logical" way to reflect the meaning of both in the current situation).
I therefore also agree with H.S.G. when saying that a separate role would be more suited for the source editor than for the "Directeur de publication". Indeed, both Germans and French actually have the same need, the french "éditeur" and the english "editor" beeing "faux-amis", i.e. sounding similar but having different meanings. The French would only need to remap the
<term name="editor">from "éd." to "dir." where needed, and use the new name variable (editor-source?) for "éd.". That way, the meaning of the name variableeditorwould stay consistent across fields of study@H.S.G. regarding the document type
classic, I think the best workaround for now is to save items as book and to addtype: classicin the "Extra" field, as https://forums.zotero.org/discussion/122637/workaround-for-classic-sources/p1As a medievalist, I fear that if classics is implemented, there might be too much focus on the very specific ways in which ancient works are cited. The editions of many medieval texts are very specific too, but at the same time a certain flexibility is needed to allow the reproduction of some very strange title constructions.
An 'editor-source' would make many things much easier.