Help talk:Bibliographic naming conventions: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
[[User:Pblue|Pieter Blue]] has suggested that preprints be numbered with year of release and capital letter, e.g. "Au-p" becomes "Au2006A", "Au2006B", etc. [[User:Tao|Terry]] 00:28, 4 August 2006 (EDT) | [[User:Pblue|Pieter Blue]] has suggested that preprints be numbered with year of release and capital letter, e.g. "Au-p" becomes "Au2006A", "Au2006B", etc. [[User:Tao|Terry]] 00:28, 4 August 2006 (EDT) | ||
How about "Au-p2006", "Au-p2006b" etc? I think it is convenient to subcategorize the category Bibliography into Articles, Books, Preprints etc. Then for example it will be easier to just go to Preprints subcategory and check anything there already published (if published, update). Also, if one uses template for handling bibliography that would be more convenient. I don't know how to make templates but when I have time I will try somethihg. [[User:Tumur|Tumur]] 01:12, 19 August 2008 (EDT) | |||
Revision as of 05:12, 19 August 2008
The legacy conventions are a little ad hoc (especially the assigning of codes to authors), and the need to accomodate preprints is a little ugly. Anyone have any suggestions for improvements? Terry 14:25, 30 July 2006 (EDT)
Pieter Blue has suggested that preprints be numbered with year of release and capital letter, e.g. "Au-p" becomes "Au2006A", "Au2006B", etc. Terry 00:28, 4 August 2006 (EDT)
How about "Au-p2006", "Au-p2006b" etc? I think it is convenient to subcategorize the category Bibliography into Articles, Books, Preprints etc. Then for example it will be easier to just go to Preprints subcategory and check anything there already published (if published, update). Also, if one uses template for handling bibliography that would be more convenient. I don't know how to make templates but when I have time I will try somethihg. Tumur 01:12, 19 August 2008 (EDT)
