I've tended to include the collector's name in the title. DACS 2.3.21, though optional/flexible, has some examples with this construction.
If I had to articulate my reasoning, I'd say it's to avoid the very confusion you mention regarding the creator sorting. Also, since I've found these types of collections to often be things like memorabilia, clippings, etc., I think, or at least hope, it sends a message in the title that it may not contain a lot of primary material.
Hope this helps,
Deena Schwimmer, Archivist
Yeshiva University Archives
mail: 500 W. 185th St., New York, NY 10033 / interoffice: MGL 207
email: [log in to unmask] / phone: (212) 960-5451 / fax: (212) 960-0066
From: Encoded Archival Description List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Michele R Combs
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2011 2:56 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Creator vs donor in collection name
[Posting this to both EAD and A&A -- apologies for duplication]
Is there a rule of thumb on when to include the creator's name in the title of a collection of stuff about a third party? For example, say Mary Smith amassed a huge collection of John Wayne material that she donates to us. Does one call it the John Wayne Collection (and list the creator as Mary Smith), or would you call it the Mary Smith Collection Relating to John Wayne? Or is it just local practice?
APPM simply says to do so "if appropriate" which is flexible (good) but also vague (bad).
This is of more than academic interest with automated sorting and list generation, because if the collection title appears as "The John Wayne Collection" but it's in a list of collections sorted by creator, it will be listed under S for Smith, which may puzzle the researcher expecting to find it under "W" for Wayne.
I guess maybe that answers my question -- always include it in the title?
(be green - don't print this email!)
Special Collections Research Center
Syracuse University Libraries
222 Waverly Ave.
Syracuse, NY 13244
[log in to unmask]