[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: BibTeX file from debian/upstream data (Was: New Debian Science metapackages)

On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 12:47:36PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> Right, I have normalized the author data to "A. First, B. Second and
> C. D. Third" for the obsolete metadata in the task meta-packages.
> http://wiki.debian.org/UpstreamMetadata says "please use full names" in
> the template which I think will make the author information too verbose,
> especially for articles with lots of authors (as can be the case for
> general-purpose software-description articles).

The wording I have choosen might be a questionable abbreviation of:
"Please do not unnecessarily use a shorter spelling of the names as you
can find in the publication data."  The motivation to use the long form
of the names was that BibTeX styles are clever enough to handle name
shortcuts reasonably if you give it the "full" data.  You simply can
not expect BibTeX to invent the missing full name if it wants to print
it - so it is better to have the data if available.

> If it the web sentinel
> (or other places where the information is displayed) will shorten the
> first name to the initial due to some processing, that would be fine as
> well.

I do not think that I can be motivated to implement a name abbreviation
/ normalisation algorithm (patches welcome for sure).  I have no
problems if people derive from my "please use full names" if they do not
like those overlong citation strings.  I guess a grain of salt / common
sense might also help (or simply a better wording in the Wiki - just try
enhancing it - it is a Wiki).

> However, I think requiring the full first names might be too
> harsh, as it can be quite cumbersome to research them if they are not
> provided in the citation (one needs usually at least check the
> publication url, or even the full PDF).

I do explicitely NOT want to make people name researches!!!  I just
think we should not artifically shorten them.
> So I think we should not scramble to normalize the data, but if we do,
> we should agree on some form.

Some kind of agreement would help for sure.

Kind regards



Reply to: