16

There are a few fairly wide-spread extensions to the set of "standard" BibTeX entry types and fields: @webpage is fairly common, I think, and url and eprint are fairly common fields. In some cases (eg, url) it is obvious what should be in the field; in others (eg, eprint) there's more than one natural convention for what the value should be.

I maintain the urlbst package, and have contributed to the maintenance of a couple of other .bst styles, so I've a fairly clear interest in consistency, here.

I suspect that the answer is "no" (I can't find one now, and I've never in the last couple of decades become aware of such a thing), and to that end I've called for some consensus-building, but if such a repository or effort already exists, I'd rather join in rather than create something anew.

Improve this question
2
  • 2
    I don't think that such a repository exists. If it does, no one knows about it which would make it rather useless. But don't we already have a more or less accepted standard for extensions in the form of biblatex? I see that you mention biblatex on the linked page, and just to make myself clear: I don't suggest that you must switch to biblatex, but since it is used widely it makes sense to stick to the fields it has introduced.
    – Simifilm
    Mar 5, 2019 at 8:56
  • A local mapping step of the more commonly-occurring relevant ones just before your splicing step, plus a default catch-all, would be a long-term solution. Because the spec is open-ended (I've had to define new entry types and new fields, as well as parent-child inheritances, e.g., for legal materials, and for popular media, to get down to the relevant level of granularity to be useful), a master list will never be finished. But a gatekeeper function at your end, as to relevance and applicability of and for incoming material, will work, in a practical sense (and even be a de-facto standard).
    – Cicada
    Jan 19, 2020 at 9:50

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
0

As you suspected, there is no universal standard or repository for these extensions. However, there are some widely adopted conventions and practices within specific fields or communities, often determined by the referencing styles they follow. As the maintainer of the urlbst package and contributor to other .bst styles, you already have valuable experience in this area.

In the absence of a universally accepted standard, you could consider joining or contributing to open-source projects or communities focused on developing and maintaining .bst styles and related packages. By participating in these projects, you can help improve consistency and push for the adoption of widely-accepted conventions.

Building consensus is indeed a great way to move forward. It's an ongoing process. Contributing to existing efforts or initiating discussions in relevant forums can help develop a more standardized approach to BibTeX entry types and fields in the future.You can initiate discussions within relevant communities, such as mailing lists, forums, or platforms like GitHub, to bring together other experts and users with similar interests. By collaborating, you can create a more consistent set of guidelines for handling these extensions in BibTeX.

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .