From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric S Fraga Subject: Re: Citations, continued Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2015 17:25:51 +0000 Message-ID: <87vbjix5y8.fsf@ucl.ac.uk> References: <87vbjmn6wy.fsf@berkeley.edu> <87sieokx8e.fsf@berkeley.edu> <87iofkdr6o.fsf@pank.eu> <87oapblpvc.fsf@berkeley.edu> <87iofjffkk.fsf@gmx.us> <87fvandx2x.fsf@pinto.chemeng.ucl.ac.uk> <878ugfklk4.fsf@berkeley.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47350) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YIhEe-0008HO-C8 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2015 12:26:01 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YIhEb-00057V-3x for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2015 12:26:00 -0500 Received: from mail-db3on0139.outbound.protection.outlook.com ([157.55.234.139]:6355 helo=emea01-db3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YIhEa-00057E-SE for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2015 12:25:57 -0500 In-Reply-To: <878ugfklk4.fsf@berkeley.edu> (Richard Lawrence's message of "Tue, 3 Feb 2015 08:27:07 -0800") List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Richard Lawrence Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org On Tuesday, 3 Feb 2015 at 08:27, Richard Lawrence wrote: [...] >> For me, any solution will likely do just fine as my use of citations is >> quite straightforward. I seldom, if ever, have pre or post text but I >> do use a couple of alternative citation types (author, year; year only). > > Just to clarify: these are only `alternative' citation types if you're > not using a citation style where they are the default types, like > Chicago, right? I assume you are using a numeric style, like ACM? It depends on the journal I am writing for. For those with numeric styles (Chicago), i.e. "blah blah [1]", there are no alternatives so I just use [[cite:blah]]; for journals expecting a Harvard (natbib) style (blah, 1999), I will use both citet "Blah et al. (1999)" and citep "(Blah et al, 1999)" as appropriate. I prefer numeric styles but it's not typically up to me. Harvard styles are a throwback to typewriters (and people using Word etc. without any automated reference software ;-). IMO, of course! So there needs to be some way to distinguish between styles, as already noted I think (although much of the discussion has been about how to include extra information...). -- : Eric S Fraga (0xFFFCF67D), Emacs 25.0.50.1, Org release_8.3beta-750-gb6fce5.dirty