Add styled et al. mode in the displayed content settings

[mjthoraval]

I had mentionned this ealier, but I clarify the feature request here.

I would like to add another mode to display the authors: show all first N authors and then show et al.. So something similar to the Creator column, but with a bit more flexibility on the number of first authors to show.

Maybe the Displayed content settings could be simplified with a drop-down menu with the following 3 options:

• All
• Omit intermediate (show First N + ... + Last)
• et al. (show First N + et al.)

Then the First N authors parameter would be the same for the last 2 options (and obviously ignored for the first option).
You would just need to make sure that the Last author is still marked correctly in the 3rd option when it is in the First N authors.

[github-young]

added in v3.6.1

I implemented this but I think there is no need to add a popup menu. Please have a try before I close this issue. If it works well please close it.

[mjthoraval]

So here, the et al. would always replace the Last author?

And here, I ask to display 2 authors. But the entry with 2 author still gets the last author replaced by et al., thus displaying only 1 author:

Are these the expected behaviours?
I guess this could be considered as functional, if you explain what the Last author tick would do.
But I would still prefer the clear 3 display modes proposed in the first post of the issue.
And also for the reasons described here.

[mjthoraval]

In the new format, can I get only the last author with the last author indicator symbol?

[mjthoraval]

I am trying to clarify the problem here.
The settings that you have implemented are probably equivalent to the drop-down menu that I have suggested here.

The main confusion here is that the Last author can be included in the First authors. So the main thing to clarify is what happens in that case.
Whatever solution you choose, the most important thing would be to clarify this confusion.

[github-young]

In the new format, can I get only the last author with the last author indicator symbol?

OK. Will be fixed in next release.

[github-young]

And here, I ask to display 2 authors. But the entry with 2 author still gets the last author replaced by et al., thus displaying only 1 author:

Let me explain clearly to you: you asked to display 2 authors within the scope of first authors. In case of only 2 authors, there is only 1 author that is considered as the first authors. So the 2 you input cannot produce 2 authors among the whole author scope. Can this solve your issues?

[github-young]

I am trying to clarify the problem here. The settings that you have implemented are probably equivalent to the drop-down menu that I have suggested here.

What I wrote is "I think there is no need to", and that means "I understand your request, but I have no time/effort to implement this, and this change does not affect using". So, again, PRs are welcome.

[mjthoraval]

Thank you for the explanations.

[github-young]

So is it OK to close this issue?

FYI, usually, bugs are given the highest priority. Features are subject to time, ability, and necessity.

[mjthoraval]

Yes, this is solved.
I will test in more details, but I will post in a new issue for clarity, with the better understanding of the settings.
I will also try to clarify if I feel that it is a bug or a feature request.

Thanks!

[mjthoraval]

Let me explain clearly to you: you asked to display 2 authors within the scope of first authors. In case of only 2 authors, there is only 1 author that is considered as the first authors. So the 2 you input cannot produce 2 authors among the whole author scope. Can this solve your issues?

Just to clarify here, with the settings set to display 1 First author without displaying the Last author:

Following the logic you have explained, if there is only 1 author for an item, this means 0 First author and 1 Last author, right? So, since you do not display the Last author, and there is no First author to display, then you should not display anything, right?
This is not consistent with the current behaviour.

I am not saying that this is what you should do. Just that this logic probably does not work well.