grumbly maths LaTeX citation grumbles
Okay, I've spent a few hours looking into this previously and have absolutely no desire to do this again, but, you know, why the HELL does my subject's standard citation method not appear to be available in like any citation manager LaTeX stuff whatsoever.
By which I mean the following:
Say you are writing an academic paper. You will want to cite stuff. There are a variety of ways of doing this! For instance, your citations might look like [1] (and then in the bibliography an entry going [1] Jones, A., etc. etc. etc.). Or they might look like Jones, 2009. Or Jones (2009). Or. Whatever. Different journals have different standards! Different subject areas have different standards! You are expected to use these! As a result, if you use citation managing software like, say, BibTeX (which essentially functions as a giant bibliography library so you don't have to put in everything by hand), there exist LaTeX packages modules wtfever that allow you to pick the style you want when you're writing up your document. So, e.g., I would type something like \cite{Jones2009} or whatever key I'm using for that paper and it would output my citation in whatever style I've picked. Natbib seems to be the most common one.
Now.
Reading papers in my area, I have come to the realisation: we have a pretty standard citation style. The style is this: in square brackets you have the first initial of the surnames of the authors, plus possibly extra letters if there's ambiguity or if there's only one author, plus numbers if you're citing several papers by these authors.
So for instance, if I cite one paper by Jones, it's [Jo]. If I'm citing a paper by Jones and a paper by Johanssen, they're [Jon] and [Joh]. If I'm citing two papers by Jones, they're [Jo1] and [Jo2] (or possibly [J1] and [J2], haven't seen an example of several papers by only one author recently, most papers are by two or three it seems). If I'm citing a paper by Jones and Zhu, it's [JZ]. If I'm citing a paper by Jones and Zhu and one by Johannsen and Zhu, they're [JonZ] and [JohZ]. Et cetera. Easy. Right?
So WHY the HELL can I not find this style in natbib? Or in fact ANYTHING LIKE THAT I HAVE FOUND IN SEVERAL HOURS' GOOGLING?
*unhappy Kaz*
I mean, I'd just manually say what citation to use for what reference but O WAIT BibTeX.
PS if any of you recognise this and go 'o wow she has missed something really obvious' please tell me, the embarrassment will be better than the ANNOYANCE of trying to figure out how the hell to get this style to work.
ETA: let's get all the mathsiness out of the way at once - I am thinking of writing a post about Women In Mathematics/STEM, from the point of view of a female mathematician. This is mainly because I am annoyed at how the usual explanations completely ignore the gender disparity between maths and engineering and computer science (which is to say, that there are WAY more women in maths than in engineering and computer science at least at undergrad) and I want to talk about the leaky pipeline effect. Anyone interested?
By which I mean the following:
Say you are writing an academic paper. You will want to cite stuff. There are a variety of ways of doing this! For instance, your citations might look like [1] (and then in the bibliography an entry going [1] Jones, A., etc. etc. etc.). Or they might look like Jones, 2009. Or Jones (2009). Or. Whatever. Different journals have different standards! Different subject areas have different standards! You are expected to use these! As a result, if you use citation managing software like, say, BibTeX (which essentially functions as a giant bibliography library so you don't have to put in everything by hand), there exist LaTeX packages modules wtfever that allow you to pick the style you want when you're writing up your document. So, e.g., I would type something like \cite{Jones2009} or whatever key I'm using for that paper and it would output my citation in whatever style I've picked. Natbib seems to be the most common one.
Now.
Reading papers in my area, I have come to the realisation: we have a pretty standard citation style. The style is this: in square brackets you have the first initial of the surnames of the authors, plus possibly extra letters if there's ambiguity or if there's only one author, plus numbers if you're citing several papers by these authors.
So for instance, if I cite one paper by Jones, it's [Jo]. If I'm citing a paper by Jones and a paper by Johanssen, they're [Jon] and [Joh]. If I'm citing two papers by Jones, they're [Jo1] and [Jo2] (or possibly [J1] and [J2], haven't seen an example of several papers by only one author recently, most papers are by two or three it seems). If I'm citing a paper by Jones and Zhu, it's [JZ]. If I'm citing a paper by Jones and Zhu and one by Johannsen and Zhu, they're [JonZ] and [JohZ]. Et cetera. Easy. Right?
So WHY the HELL can I not find this style in natbib? Or in fact ANYTHING LIKE THAT I HAVE FOUND IN SEVERAL HOURS' GOOGLING?
*unhappy Kaz*
I mean, I'd just manually say what citation to use for what reference but O WAIT BibTeX.
PS if any of you recognise this and go 'o wow she has missed something really obvious' please tell me, the embarrassment will be better than the ANNOYANCE of trying to figure out how the hell to get this style to work.
ETA: let's get all the mathsiness out of the way at once - I am thinking of writing a post about Women In Mathematics/STEM, from the point of view of a female mathematician. This is mainly because I am annoyed at how the usual explanations completely ignore the gender disparity between maths and engineering and computer science (which is to say, that there are WAY more women in maths than in engineering and computer science at least at undergrad) and I want to talk about the leaky pipeline effect. Anyone interested?