Missing pages field and duplicate editors in @inproceedings

[moewew]

Consider

\documentclass[british]{article}
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage{babel}
\usepackage{csquotes}

\usepackage[style=apa, backend=biber]{biblatex}

\addbibresource{biblatex-examples.bib}

\begin{document}
\cite{moraux,salam}
\printbibliography
\end{document}

Moraux, P. (1979). Le De Anima dans la tradition grècque: Quelques aspects de l’interpretation du traité, de Theophraste à Themistius (G. E. R. Lloyd & G. E. L. Owen, Eds.). In G. E. R. Lloyd & G. E. L. Owen (Eds.), Aristotle on Mind and the Senses [Proceedings of the Seventh Symposium Aristotelicum]

Salam, A. (1968). Weak and electromagnetic interactions (N. Svartholm, Ed.). In N. Svartholm (Ed.), Elementary particle theory: Relativistic groups and analyticity [Proceedings of the Eighth Nobel Symposium], Aspenäsgarden, Lerum.

Note the duplicate editor and the absence of a pages field. The only @inproceedings in biblatex-apa-test-references.bib is

https://github.com/plk/biblatex-apa/blob/07224ffe6705c2b9d1d093ff560e1ea8e3bef382/bibtex/bib/biblatex-apa-test-references.bib#L1501-L1517

which has no pages and appears to be the entry for a session rather than a normal conference paper.

I presume the idea for conference papers that were published in a proceedings volume is that once can use @incollection instead, but that would have serious backwards compatibility implications for people who build their .bib files according to the biblatex standard data model.

[plk]

Yes, I think this entry shouldn't really be inproceedings and inproceedings should be fixed as you say. However, I'm not sure what entrytype applies here as conference is just a legacy alias to inproceedings. I can only really see that unpublished applies but this is too much of a catch-all for such structured entries?

[moewew]

We added conference data fields to @unpublished a while ago in the standard data model (https://github.com/plk/biblatex/issues/687), so this would have been my first thought. But in principle I share your concerns that @unpublished feels a bit meh here.

You could define a new type @conferencetalk/@conferencepresentation/@conferencesession/@conferencecontribution. It's a pity that @conference is taken.

[plk]

I have introduced a PRESENTATION entrytype and moved all PROCEEDINGS/INPROCEEDINGS to this is as they made little sense as they were. This frees up INPROCEEDINGS to include pages and remove duplicate editors.

[moewew]

Sounds like a good plan. I was wondering about the @proceedings entries as well: They didn't really fit the description of what @proceedings should be.