Re: In text authors' list with numerical referencing style

L|0 wrote:
Hi Alan,

thank you for these pointers. So, I checked this "\citeauthor"
command, and it made its debut in "named.sty" back in 1992. In all
honnesty, one should avoid using "named.sty" and "\citeauthor".
Fortunately, "\citeauthor" is also present in natbib - that I did not
know!

Yes, I was suggesting the \citeauthor command from natbib. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Despite the claims mentioned in the IEEETranS.pdf using the
"\citeauthor" command with the IEEETranS style does not work well at
all. The name of the authors is replaced by a white space. As far as I
can tell this command works wonder with Author-Date styles such as
apalike where the string "author et al." is returned. This could be
explained by the manner in which the AUX file is built. Indeed, with
Author-date styles this file contains at least 3 fields for each
entry. Apparently, these fields are, from a Natbib point of view, the
strings that must be returned when the \cite, \citet, and \citep
commands are used respectively. Now, is this a suprise to see that
when numerical styles are used only the first field is populated?

It is possible to create a natbib-compatible bibliographic style that will work with both author-date and numerical citation formats. I've done it via custombib -- as I recall, you simply create an author-date style that is compatible with natbib, but instruct natbib in your preamble to use a numerical citation format. You can verify using one of the author-date styles that comes with natbib -- the references won't look right for a numerical citation style, but you'll at least see how it works mechanically.

Thus far I haven't had time to investigate custombib, however I did
have a go at biblatex. Getting started was really difficult. The
documentation is so large that it is difficult to figure out whether
or not the package corresponds to one's need.

It would probably have been faster to check out custombib first -- it's really quite straightforward -- but I suspect biblatex will give you a lot more flexibility in the long run. Just keep in mind that it's still a beta and the author is still reserving the right to make changes that aren't backward-compatible.

[quote]
Bruschi et al., in [1], argue that the combination of always-on
broadband Internet and multitude of networked devices around the home
is potentially risky. [...] Bruschi et al. [1] underline that a
network can be endangered by only a handful of hosts, thus they take
the approach of lowering the harming capabilities of networked
devices.
[/quote]

Ideally I would want the authors list alone however I can feel that I
am close :D

As I recall, biblatex has a \citeauthor command analogous to that of natbib (i.e., it will give you the authors' names without printing a reference label). I think you'll find it a page or two past \textcite in the biblatex docs.

With regards to the citation keys, indeed, it is whatever works for
me. However, I could not accept such baseless criticism I am perfectly
able to remember where I read item X or Y, and for key publications I
gradually learnt the authors, titles, year and so on. In addition, the
reference database, with all the necessary notes, is never far. When I
began using LaTeX I remember testing this "\cite{authorYY}" or
"\cite{author:YY}" and it did not work for me. My typing was very much
prone to error, and hence rectifying entries became too tedious for
me. It seems I am better with numbers.

Not to keep harping on this, but that latter bit seems like an excellent argument *against* using numerical citation keys. If you mistype an author's name, BibTeX will complain (as you clearly know) unless the misspelling just happens to match another citation key. However, if all of your references are numbered in serial fashion (as you seem to be doing) and you type "\cite{34}" when you mean "\cite{35}", BibTeX won't know the difference and will happily insert the wrong reference. The only way you'll ever know is to carefully read the output and make certain that each citation matches up to the intended reference -- a far more tedious task, IMO, than correcting the occasional mistyped key. Not trying to change your mind, really, but I do think it's important that you bear that in mind, particularly if you're an error-prone typist.

FWIW, most LaTeX-aware editors will search your .bib files for you based on a keyword or two and allow you to select the reference(s) you want inserted in your \cite command. Aside from keeping you from mistyping your keys (numerical or otherwise), it also helps you find references quickly without having to refer to your notes or manually search your ..bib files.

Alan
.

Relevant Pages