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

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

On Sep 15, 2006, at 9:57 AM, Taco Hoekwater wrote:

> The problem with redefining \maybeyear is that it affects all
> citations equally: when you have three Knuth records with the
> same year and two Tuftes with the same year in the database, then
> if you use only one of Knuths but both Tuftes, you can no longer
> see which one of the Tuftes you were citing.
>
> I could add an interface setting, so that you would do not have to
> resort to using \def, but it would be much better if I could fix
> the problem internally. Needs some thinking, though
>
> Taco

Yes, I see the difficulty. I don't know enough about bibtex styles  
and habits in general, but I'm just wondering if \maybeyear should be  
used in a different way - in my discipline, I think it would.  
Consider this example:

Hoekwater, First article, journalA, vol. 5 (2006)

Hoekwater, Second article, journalB, vol. 10 (2006)

IMHO, bibtex should now generate keys such as Hoek2006a and Hoek2006b  
or authoryear references like Hoekwater (2006a) and Hoekwater  
(2006b), but it should not (!) append the "a" and "b" to the years in  
the bibliographic list itself. But I may be wrong here - what do you  
and other users say? Should the (2006) in the example above come out  
as "(2006a)" and "(2006b)"? And as I was suggesting: if you use  
numered references, I think it would be best to just switch maybeyear  
off completely, so my suggestion would be to have a switch "maybeyear  
= on/off" for  the \setuppublicationlist.

Best

Thomas