Timeline for Is there any guidance on how to properly cite when using the alphabetic style from BiBLaTeX?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 16, 2018 at 7:54 | comment | added | user2768 | @conste I generally favour omitting the year | |
| Nov 16, 2018 at 7:53 | comment | added | user2768 | @FedericoPoloni Six authors is easier than three or four (depending on your style guide), because you can use et al | |
| Nov 16, 2018 at 1:55 | comment | added | conste | Would you consider it bad form when using (2) but without the year in text? Like: [...] was already shown by Johnson et al. to demonstrate the specific deployment [JHS98]. | |
| Nov 15, 2018 at 20:03 | comment | added | Federico Poloni | Until there are six authors with very long names... | |
| Nov 15, 2018 at 18:23 | comment | added | user2768 | by a similar argument posed by <authors> [1, Thm 2] or by a similar argument posed by <authors> [1, Proof of Thm 2] | |
| Nov 15, 2018 at 18:09 | comment | added | Tobias Kildetoft | I don't see how to do that without making the sentence a lot harder to read. | |
| Nov 15, 2018 at 17:46 | comment | added | user2768 | But, you can rephrase your example without losing any precision. | |
| Nov 15, 2018 at 17:41 | comment | added | Tobias Kildetoft | I don't see why I should consider it abuse. It is similar to the use of placeholders for other types of objects like theorems or equations, which definitely need to be able to take an active part in a sentence to make things flow properly. Similarly, one can much more easily refer to the precise way in which a reference is used when allowing it to take part, like "by an argument similar to the proof of [1, Thm. 2]." | |
| Nov 15, 2018 at 17:38 | comment | added | user2768 | @TobiasKildetoft Do you never consider such examples abuse? (I certainly concede that rules should be broken, e.g., using "e.g., [1,2,3]" or "By [1], we have..." But, I believe it's a good rule in general.) | |
| Nov 15, 2018 at 17:34 | comment | added | Tobias Kildetoft | I have heard that many times, but at the same time I work in a field where this is definitely not the rule, so I am trying to understand why citations are considered so different from any other part of the sentence in many (if not most) fields. | |
| Nov 15, 2018 at 17:31 | comment | added | user2768 | @TobiasKildetoft It doesn't, in general. It should for the case of a citation; I was trying to introduce a heuristic. Put another way, "by [JHS98]" is an abuse. | |
| Nov 15, 2018 at 17:11 | comment | added | Tobias Kildetoft | Why is it bad if a sentence stops making sense after a part of it has been removed? | |
| Nov 15, 2018 at 16:47 | history | answered | user2768 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |