[back] Fix journal article entries in bibliography#8165
Conversation
| \doccite{Fast linear algebra is stable}, | ||
| Numerische Mathematik 108 (59--91), 2007. | ||
| Fast linear algebra is stable, | ||
| \doccite{Numerische Mathematik}, Vol.\ 108, No.\ 1, pp.\ 59--91, 2007. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We seem to \doccite the title of the book / article elsewhere in this list, not (necessarily) the journal name.
Agreed with the rest of the adjustments.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
OK, will fix.
Just to be sure: is it okay to continue with the current "articles title in italic" style? In usual bibliographic styles, article titles are written in roman and journal names are written in italic. Examples (C.7.2) in ISO 690:2010 follow this convention as well.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, I was aware that we're not following the usual conventions here. (E.g. bibtex would do it right, but when we started we just had a very small set of items.) This is a nice improvement.
|
Please update the commit message to be a bit more specific. |
|
Actually, please split this up into the actual corrections (typos and missing page numbers), and separately the style changes. |
This change applies the following corrections. - Corrects misspelling of name to R. Clint Whaley. - Adds missing page numbers.
This change applies the following unifications. - Unifies article title format: roman style with sentence capitalization. - Unifies journal title format: italicized. - Unifies journal volume/issue format: "vol. X, no. Y".
morinmorin
force-pushed
the
fix_journal_article_list
branch
from
f1fc421 to
2a837a4
Compare
|
I split this into two commits. Please let me know if you'd like me to split this into two PRs. |
|
Thanks! I suppose what's somewhat unfortunate about the established style is that there's no recognizable distinction between the author list and the title. This has always irked me, and that's why I was fine with our existing style, even though it goes against some convention... |
|
Thanks for sharing your perspective! I can totally see how that lack of distinction could be annoying. |
|
I've applied the fixes for now, and we can maybe leave this one open for discussion for a while. |
tkoeppe
added
the
decision-required
wg21bot
added
the
needs rebase
|
Editorial meeting decision: we generally like the style we use, even though it differs from the academic style. We might even entertain the idea of also italicizing the titles of the three online references. |
tkoeppe
removed
the
decision-required
4 participants
This PR applies the following corrections and formatting unifications.