search

plk / biblatex-apa

APA style for BibLaTeX
90 stars 48 forks source link

Remove groupauthor field #144

Closed moewew closed 3 years ago

moewew commented 3 years ago

See #143.

The field groupauthor was only used to get the commas between names right. For all other intents and purposes it behaved exactly like author.

Since groupauthor is not a standard biblatex field and it feels unnatural to distinguish group authors and authors (plus, how would you treat "mixed" author lists of group authors and people?) I thought it would be useful to consolidate things back to author.

I couldn't properly do a diff over biblatex-apa-test because there were differences in the font metric that made comparison on that large a scale impossible.

plk commented 3 years ago

I updated the reference PDF to account for font metric changes and after the merge, there are some differences to the reference doc - some punctuation and the use of "In" in places (which, as I remember, the whole GROUPAUTHOR was in there to address). Are you able to do a PDF diff to see the differences?

moewew commented 3 years ago

Oh, I had thought the groupauthor test for the in was an artefact of some earlier more complicated code. I shall see if I can find the differences.

moewew commented 3 years ago

The font metric still seem to be different on my machine. In particular punctuation and parentheses seem to have slightly different sizes. I couldn't run a pdf-diff tool, but I looked at all entries from the .bib that were modified manually. I could only see a change for 10.3:47a and 10.3:47b (both now have an "In").

Unfortunately, I don't have the APA manual at hand, so I can't look up the rules, but to me it appears to be not very consistent to drop the "in" just because the author happens to be a 'corporate'/group author. The examples from the APA style website that are freely available (https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/references/examples/dictionary-entry-references) all seem to have "In" for similar examples, e.g.

American Psychological Association. (n.d.). Just-world hypothesis. In APA dictionary of psychology. Retrieved January 18, 2020, from https://dictionary.apa.org/just-world-hypothesis

The commas and other punctuation should stay the same and I could not find an instance where it changed, but due to the different font, I can't be sure that I'm not missing anything. So if you could point me to an instance of incorrect punctuation I might be able to find the culprit.

plk commented 3 years ago

It's a bit more than that - I'll mail the PDF diff output.

moewew commented 3 years ago

Thank you very much for the diffed PDF, I see the problems now.

I'll see what I can do, but I don't know if I can get to it properly before the weekend.

moewew commented 3 years ago

146 is an attempt to fix the third issue.

The "et al." thing is probably formally out of scope since APA does not use "et al." in the bibliography, but given that it should be "Hare, L. R., & O'Neill, K." (https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/references/examples/journal-article-references) and "et" is basically "&" it seems not too far fetched to go for "Olive, K. A., et al.".

I could look into the "In" issue again, but before I do that it would be great if you can confirm (with your printed version of the manual) that the "In" needs to be dropped in 10.3:47a etc. since at least to me that appears to be illogical and all examples I could find would suggest the "In" is wanted (see links above).

plk commented 3 years ago

The "In" is present in the manual in both 10.3:47 examples and is there in the reference PDF too and so that should be currently correct.

moewew commented 3 years ago

Argh. I got confused in the diff. Sorry for the confusion.

I didn't quite understand the test for groupauthor, but I think https://github.com/plk/biblatex-apa/pull/147 should fix things now. It actually reverses the logic.

Again it would be appreciated if you could run the diff, because on my machine the font metrics appear to be very different.