Bibliographic Entry Descriptions Missing

English
#1

In a new entry the following terms are not explained:

  • Publication Type What are the differences from Type

  • Address: of what? Author/publisher/email/web page?

  • Edition: Does this apply to book, magazines, both? Magazines sometimes have a ‘Volume’, is this an Edition?

  • Volume: How does this differ from Edition? Are they mutually exclusive?

  • Organization/Institution/University: How are these related? Can a reference be in a University and an Organization within a University and an Institution within the Organization?

  • Type of Report/Publication Type/Type: How are these related and what are the descriptions for “type of Report” and “Publication Type”

  • Month: Does this relate to books, emailed comments and so on. What is the “Months” use?

At the end this seems to be a do-it-yourself document, in which someone can provide arbitrary meanings to the things that are unclear and then populate entries using these meanings.

I’ve looked at the help file and the only field defined is Short name. Type has a pull-down menu with duplicate and confusing entries, some of which appear to have an overlap with the above. So, I don’t know where to look to find any sort of definitions. Any help would be much appreciated.

#2

Bibliographic Entry Descriptions Missing

You should consider the database only as a sample that you can customize for your purposes.
But for this you must know yourself what exactly you want to use this database for.
Maybe this descriptions in Wikipedia will help you a bit:

Bibliography Wikipedia

Citation Wikipedia

Reference Wikipedia

#3

It is an example, and a starting point Quite useful for people not versed to create a database (Btw, it is a quite simple dBase-File.) For a lot of users, who only use this locally, this is all they need, and to be honest: Even, if there is a manual /documentation, a lot of users just use their own ideas anyway…
.
And as this is an “old” file, don’t expect modern ideas of citation. (In my time there every university/Institute seemed to have their own ideas to set this up. So no standard used or accepted.)

#4

Sigh; I don’t mean to step on anyone’s toes. LibreOffice is a sterling product. But in this case, even if everyone does their own thing, I still think that some changes may be in order,and, this was entered as a non-critical bug not a horrific one. So let me give the following foolhardy thoughts:

  • There should be a description of the output showing, at least, what input generates what output.

  • There should be a clear separation between those items which deal with an article and those items which deal with the book/journal/magazine the article is in. And this separation should allow the article items to be missing when only a book is described.

  • Even a superficial description of each item would help. In light of the above comment, there is a Type, Publication Type and no description. After some thought I decided that Type is the article type, and Publication Type is unknown. I have no idea what this is since Type seems to be fairly complete.

  • There is no description of what the output looks like when an item is blank.

  • As an enhancement, it might be nice to provide a means to input the bibliographic data from a text file. A csv spreadsheet would be ideal.

  • As a separate note, I have introduced a bug report about the Type. Several items in the pop-up are direct duplicates, and one or two seem to refer to the same thing (Thesis and Dissertation comes to mind). This should be fixed.

I would provide a write-up for LibreOffice as a contribution, but I don’t have any idea what some of the items mean. And as to customization, well, I don’t know what the output looks like so I don’t know how to customize. And, I currently have 52 items to input into the bibliography so simple changes are time consuming. As one of my professors used to say, counting from 1 to 10 is easy. Counting from 1 to 1,000,000 is no more difficult buts takes more time.

You are all doing a great job. Whether my comments have a resonance is immaterial, you are still doing a great job and have produced a great product.

thanks

#5

Welcome to ask LibreOffice. If you do want to make a bug report, this isn’t the place to do it, see How to Report Bugs in LibreOffice - The Document Foundation Wiki
If you do make a report please post report number back here in form of tdf#123456. Cheers, Al

BTW the Writer Guide has a little information on bibliography, download from English documentation | LibreOffice Documentation - LibreOffice User Guides

#6

No problem here. This is just not the place, where the development of the suite is done. Mostly you find on this site fellow users, helping others to find their way to solve problems with LibreOffice.
.

and developers read bugs (and requests for enhancements) at Bugzilla.
.
My impression is, most users use either external tools like Zotero or derive their own settings. “Mine” were done with BibTeX and I will not reuse this…

Impressum (Legal Info) | Datenschutzerklärung (Privacy Policy)   Content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 3.0 license.