Re: YABQ (yet another bib question...)

["Thomas A. Schmitz" <thomas.schmitz@uni-bonn.de>]

On Sep 15, 2006, at 2:34 PM, Sanjoy Mahajan wrote:

> At first I was sure that (2006a) and (2006b) are the right answer for
> the list.  Othewise how else could the user know which entry to look
> up when they see, say, Hoekwater (2006b) in the text?  But I just
> figured out the answer to that question: Users count 'a', 'b',
> ... starting with the first 2006 entry.  However, I still don't think
> it's a good idea to make them do that.  Let's not ask users to do what
> computers do very well (counting)!
>
> Let me know whether I'm understanding it correctly.  If you have a
> numbered reference list, then the year can still end up with a letter
> tag, e.g.
>
> 1. Taco Hoekwater.  JournalA.  2006a
> 2. Taco Hoekwater.  JournalB.  2006b
>
> Ah, I hadn't thought of that problem.  You're right, there shouldn't
> be a maybeyear in this case since the list number disambiguates the
> reference completely.
>
Sanjoy,

yes, I agree completely: let the computer do the counting and  
bookkeeping! And you've hit the nail on the head: what I meant was,  
in cases where the form of  the list makes the reference completely  
unambiguous (because it is numbered or because keys/authoryear tags  
are prefixed), adding another number in the bibliographic entry is  
superfluous and somewhat ugly.

So question to Taco: maybe we need three options for maybeyear?

1. off [always]

2. on [always]

3. on for tags and authoryear etc., off for the date entry in the  
list itself.

Am I making sense? Are we working you to the bones? ;-)

Best

Thomas