New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Suppress andothers/"et al." #861
Comments
agree, “Biber's disambiguations take no acount of "et al." ”, would be needed sometimes. |
I also haven't thought all the way through this, but my first impression, expressed mildly in the linked answer, is that the outright omission of "et al." leaves the citations/references strictly incomplete. I dare say, wrong. Some indication that the list has been shortened should remain. There is always one way to achieve this result without breaking In sum, would it be really the case of, receiving a correct input, biblatex delivers a questionable output? |
I agree that this is not best practice and I personally wouldn't do it and would advise against it. But I would not go as far as saying that things would come out wrong; as long as it is possible to find the matching entry in the bibliography list more or less easily the citation has done its job. I believe that
would kind of work - even more so if you add the citation label in front of the entries again. It is not a lot worse than, say
That said it is probably not worth spending a lot of time and resources on this, but if there is a simple or straightforward thing Biber could do to make this work, why not include it? |
This seems to suggest that this is a cosmetic change and we could just make |
We can already suppress the output with
in citations and not as
when we simply suppress the "et al." |
@moewew You do have a point. Though I still think On a lighter note. Future archaeologists of biblatex will look at this issue and say: "And thus was born |
@gusbrs I thought you might say that and I believe you are right. Of course
|
some times we may need |
use the following code
I get the how can i get : Elk, Anne 1972a. A Theory on Brontosauruses. in the bibliography, like the label in citation?? |
is it possible to add a new choice for uniquelist option to ignore etal when dealing ambiguity? |
I was thinking about both explicit |
I realised that just after I asked it and deleted the comment ...this is essentially about how the name hashes are constructed as this is what determines things like |
Naively I would have expected that we would just have to tell Biber to discard its knowledge that the list was truncated. Something like dropping the |
Yes, I was thinking the same thing - it may be as simple as having an option for that. I will add something to test shortly. |
Try biblatex/biber 3.13/2.13 dev versions. There is now a new global biblatex option
Adding
I haven't comprehensively tested this with other uniqueness settings and it's a fairly isolated change and won't for example, change |
Tested with the version from SourceForge and everything works great so far. I haven't investigated in more depth what this means for other It is no great loss that so maybe that is worth thinking about to make it feel more complete. I'd like to look into a possibility of getting a rudimentary version of |
Pushed. It's no problem to do this with labelalpha too, as you say, I'd just like to get a sense of a use-case first ... |
Thank you. I guess it is a question of aesthetics whether or not one thinks Given that the name of the option is |
I'm open to changing the option name and generalising it to labelalpha if you think it would be useful. |
I really don't know. I'll have a look at the BibTeX side of things and will think about that tonight. If anyone else has an opinion or use cases, I'd love to hear about it. |
Maybe it would make sense to extend the option (or add a new option?) to ignore the "et al." for sorting purposes.
comes out as
but it might be more desirable to sort "et al." and non-"et al." works as the same to obtain
This becomes even more apparent if we suppress the "et al." bibstring. |
Since this is basically a modification of what |
Works well so far. It seems to be possible to get this going with BibTeX as well, so I might commit something for that a bit later. Before I do that there are two things
|
I agree about the names, they are fairly awful. I will change them and make them both booleans, which is natural here. I also thought a bit about making them more granular, will look at it. |
Actually, I think a unified option like |
I thought about unifying the options as well, but the issue there is that the number of option value grows exponentially if we want to add a new "aspect". |
True but this is relatively limited as there are only limited places where name list truncation impacts |
Fair enough. I'd have thought that several options with a unified naming scheme and similar workings would not have been much worse, but if there is no huge risk that we might have to add another 'aspect', the four-valued option might be cleaner. |
I have implemented this - see what you think. I haven't looked at further granularity yet. I uncovered a rather well-hidden bug doing this and as a result, stopped using integers for Option is now 'namestrunchandling` and is in the biblatex doc with examples. |
Write the auxiliary -blx.bib file with .bcf version and not .bbl version. That probably does not matter a lot, but since the -blx.bib file has a role similar to the .bcf file and implements a subset of its features, that version seemed more relevant that that of the .bbl. To get things absolutely right we would need a new version ID, because the .bcf is more flexible than the -blx.bib. We shall see...
9151350 implements |
How about we have three booleans, the same for bibtex/biber:
where default for all is "false"? |
Yes, I guess I'd prefer something like that.
|
The label variant was for labels but I just realised that there is already
? |
For me the options would be slightly easier to parse if
|
Since, as you mentioned, there are already |
Looks very good. BibTeX implementation is at cac7375. MWE
|
From time to time there are requests to suppress the "et al." from citation labels (and possibly independently also from the bibliography?). See for example https://tex.stackexchange.com/q/471541/35864, https://tex.stackexchange.com/q/464317/35864, https://tex.stackexchange.com/q/262612/35864
Currently it is not possible to suppress "et al." without possibly destroying
unique...
/extra...
features because Biber's disambiguations take "et al." into account. Would it be possible to add a functionality that allows for the "et al." to be ignored?I haven't thought through all implications of what that would mean, but it seems sort of conceivable that Biber could just discard the
andothers
marker forextradate
calculations.Test case
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: