Closed matteofg closed 11 months ago
Well, year/date
is a required field for articles ... (p. 9 of the manual) and running biber
with --validate-datamodel
will tell you this.
See also the second part of the discussion in https://github.com/plk/biblatex/issues/793.
I read the discussion #793. In my opinion, if PL had wanted to emphasize the mandatory nature of the year/date field, the output of authoryear could have simply been as follows:
Doe, Jane and John Due (). “Example title”. In: Topnotch Studies 4.1, pp. 1-13.
and not
Doe, Jane and John Due (n.d.). “Example title”. In: Topnotch Studies 4.1 (), pp. 1–13.
The presence of (n.d) implies that the exception of an undated bibliographic entry was expected.
However, I have seen that in the biblatex-ext
bundle, in the authortitle styles, the {issue+date}
macro has been redefined by adding the appropriate conditional. So, for consistency, in biblatex-ext
it would be desirable to do that for the authoryear styles as well (imho).
It may be more instructive to look at the output in a non-authoryear
style, because those don't have to have the citation label after the author name. (For one, early versions of biblatex
didn't have nodate
at all. It was added in later.)
What biblatex-ext
does is not immediately relevant for core biblatex
. Bugs for biblatex-ext
should be reported at https://github.com/moewew/biblatex-ext/issues.
What
biblatex-ext
does is not immediately relevant for corebiblatex
. Bugs forbiblatex-ext
should be reported at https://github.com/moewew/biblatex-ext/issues.
Of course -- it was my intention to do that as soon as this discussion was over.
In authoryear styles, if the
year/date
field is not entered, "spurious" parentheses remain.