[pmwiki-users] bibliographies revisited

[christian.ridderstrom at gmail.com]

On Wed, 27 Sep 2006, John Rankin wrote:

> On Wednesday, 27 September 2006 1:02 PM, Crisses <crisses at kinhost.org> 
wrote:
> >
> >On Sep 26, 2006, at 8:20 PM, John Rankin wrote:
> >>    our local discussions led us to the view that a page per
> >>    citation is the best wiki way to approach this problem,
> >>    but others may see issues with this approach that we
> >>    have missed
> >
> >I see a good thing - -discussing each reference, or anything else
> >that can be done with a singe wiki page.  :)  Comments.  Pagelists.
> >Ratings.
>
> Our thoughts exactly.

Being able to discuss a reference is good, but I fail to see how that 
pertains to having one or more bibliographic entries per page. The BibTeX 
format ignores things that aren't bibliographic entries, so we are free 
[1] to add comments as we please anyway.

> >> 2. what should the markup be to refer to a citation? options
> >>    (and my thoughts) include:
> >>
> >>    Cite:ref-id (behaves like a special intermap, but implies
> >>    [[Cite:ref-id | alternate text]] is allowed and IMO the
> >>    reference style should be standardised so alternate text
> >>    would at best be deprecated and may be disallowed)

FYI, in LaTeX you can do

        \cite[note]{keys}
                cite reference(s) keys with added note

where I've never used the 'note' myself, but I suspect it adds a note to
the citation in bibliography. In LaTeX you write something like

        \cite{key}(page 42)

in order to specify in more detail which page you are referring to. The
above might render as "Ridderström (2003) (page 42)" or "[3] (page 42)"
depending on the chosen style.

Also note that you can cite multiple keys with a single cite command.
That's quite useful when you have a citation style such as [1], because
you can then use packages that convert \cite{key1, key2, key3} into
something like "[1-2, 5]" automatically instead of getting ugly
things like "[1][2][5]".

> For avoidance of doubt: is it OK that references to citations will be
> different from references to equations, figures and tables?

I have no problem with that.

/Christian

-- 
Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44               http://www.md.kth.se/~chr