Open Pseudomanifold opened 1 year ago
Not weird at all, a great call out, thanks Bastian!
I think it makes sense to change this if that's the underlying definition. But it would be good to try and think of negative effects first ... I'm not sure what they are or might be ...
Thanks a lot for the prompt response :-) One slight disadvantage of the field is apparently that it is treated like a literal, so it supports things like number = {S1}
as well. This could (in the worst case) cause issues with sorting, but since PMLR entries also contain a year and date information, I cannot really think of a case where this would be problematic. Moreover, if multiple papers from different PMLR proceedings are cited side-by-side, I would assume that sorting first goes by author information anyway.
The output behavior depends on the style file being used. Appendix B.2 of the LATEX book specifies that, for proceedings
and inproceedings
entry types, only one of volume
or number
is expected. If both fields are specified, then traditional .bst
style files give preference to volume
.
Since PMLR proceedings are formally released as "volumes" and the BibTeX uses proceedings
and inproceedings
, continuing to use volume
appears to be the correct approach here. One risk of using the number
field, for example, is that certain style files will render the output as `Proceedings of Machine Learning Research Number 196", which now generates an incorrect reference.
Thanks—you are raising a good point! I understand that the output depends on the style file and indeed, with BibTeX and plain
bibliography style, 'volume' and 'number' are directly part of the bibliographical entry. Hence, this problem appears to be largely related to the way BibLaTeX treats these fields. I wonder whether there is a way to find a good middle ground here.
Dear all,
Thanks for maintaining this awesome institution! I have one—maybe naive and nitpicky—question about the generated BibTeX output: it is my understanding that
number
should be used since we are dealing with a series. The official BibLaTeX manual on p. 24 mentions the following:Whereas for
volume
, the explanation is:My question is now whether it would be possible to change this.
Let's take a recent entry as a running example:
Example with
volume
If I use
volume
, I get the following output:Example with
number
If I use
number
, on the other hand, I get the following output:This output seems to be somehow cleaner and less clunky to me, but I admit it's
Example with
@article
Notice that this only pertains to the
@inproceedings
entries; everything looks different of course with journal articles:Summary
Sorry for this weird question—I would love to understand this phenomenon better; probably I am using
BibLaTeX
wrong... Feel free to close if this question makes no sense, of course!