Timeline for Formatting a citation to a MathOverflow answer
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
20 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 8, 2020 at 15:08 | comment | added | Martin Sleziak | TeX - LaTeX: What should an BibTeX entry for a Stack Exchange post look like? | |
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:58 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://mathoverflow.net/ with https://mathoverflow.net/
|
|
| Apr 23, 2014 at 1:36 | vote | accept | Bjørn Kjos-Hanssen | ||
| Apr 22, 2014 at 13:16 | answer | added | François G. DoraisMod | timeline score: 14 | |
| Apr 19, 2014 at 12:23 | answer | added | François G. DoraisMod | timeline score: 6 | |
| Apr 19, 2014 at 11:50 | comment | added | François G. Dorais Mod |
@JoelDavidHamkins: The main issue is with bibtex itself. The most viable option would be to recommend that users switch to biblatex and outputting an @online entry instead of a bibtex @misc entry.
|
|
| Apr 18, 2014 at 14:33 | comment | added | Joel David Hamkins | Perhaps someone can create a bibtex style @MathOverflow{ etc.} that we can add to our bibtex set-up in such a way that it will be set automatically in a nice way using the bibtex field data that is provided under the "share" button? Right now, the bibtex bbl output I get is not very satisfactory without modification. | |
| Apr 17, 2014 at 21:11 | answer | added | Gerhard Paseman | timeline score: 2 | |
| Apr 17, 2014 at 19:45 | comment | added | François G. Dorais Mod | @Bjørn Be careful with the author field in BiBTeX. See the comment by Emil in this discussion: meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/1002/… | |
| Apr 17, 2014 at 15:59 | comment | added | Bjørn Kjos-Hanssen | Thanks @MartinSleziak for the tea discussion, which includes BiBTeX ideas. | |
| Apr 17, 2014 at 15:58 | comment | added | Bjørn Kjos-Hanssen | Thanks @quid for the timezone and revisions info. | |
| Apr 17, 2014 at 6:03 | comment | added | Martin Sleziak | I have tried to search for older discussions on tea. If found this and this. | |
| Apr 17, 2014 at 0:46 | history | edited | François G. DoraisMod |
edited tags
|
|
| Apr 17, 2014 at 0:45 | comment | added | François G. Dorais Mod | By the way, Stefan and quid, this one of the important issues the discussion - meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/800/… - is trying to solve. | |
| Apr 16, 2014 at 23:30 | comment | added | user9072 | @StefanKohl yes, I agree that the current form is a bit surprising and possibly misleading and not what is really meant. Still I felt that the analogy to journals was not a valid analogy. | |
| Apr 16, 2014 at 23:28 | comment | added | user9072 | I would include a link to the answer too. And possibly to the exact revision if you want to be precise. Like mathoverflow.net/revisions/162826/1 links to what you say (though it is surprising) but mathoverflow.net/revisions/162826/5 is what is the current answer to the question. // Regarding the timezone: the time displayed is UTC, no local timezones are taken into account. | |
| Apr 16, 2014 at 23:26 | comment | added | Stefan Kohl Mod | @quid: In this case I'd just specify the version number, rather than the time. | |
| Apr 16, 2014 at 23:24 | comment | added | user9072 | I disagree @StefanKohl. The point is to be clear which version of the answere is referenced. However, the example is a bit peculiar as it seems surprising that OP would actually want to quote the first revision as opposed to the current one. | |
| Apr 16, 2014 at 23:21 | comment | added | Stefan Kohl Mod | I think including the exact time in the reference is completely unnecessary -- note that in references to journal articles, usually only the year is given (and not even the month, let alone the precise day or even time). | |
| Apr 16, 2014 at 18:50 | history | asked | Bjørn Kjos-Hanssen | CC BY-SA 3.0 |