ANF showing up twice in Bibliography

[folofjc]

I have looked through all the examples for 6.4.5 in both the manual and biblatex-sbl-examples and biblatex-sbl.bib. When I cite two different things from ANF, I get two entries in the bibliography. I don't know what I am doing wrong. is it something with the relatedoptions? Here is a MWE:

\documentclass[letterpaper,12pt]{book}
\usepackage{polyglossia}
\setmainlanguage[variant=us]{english}
\usepackage[english=american]{csquotes} 

\begin{filecontents}[overwrite]{customstyles.dbx}
  \DeclareDatamodelEntrytypes{tdict}
\end{filecontents}

\usepackage[style=sbl,citepages=omit,fullbibrefs=true,sblfootnotes=false,citereset=chapter]{biblatex}

\begin{filecontents}[overwrite]{temp.bib}
@mvcollection{ANF,
   title       = {The Ante-Nicene Fathers},
   subtitle    = {The Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325},
   shorthand   = {ANF},
   shorttitle  = {ANF},
   editor      = {Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson},
   publisher   = {Hendrickson Publishers},
   address     = {Peabody, MA},
   date        = {2004},
   origpublisher = {Christian Literature Publishing Company},
   origdate    = {1885/1887},
   volumes     = {10},
   origlocation= {Buffalo, NY},
   options     = {useeditor=false},
}

@classictext{ANF:Irenaeus:AH,
   entrysubtype = {churchfather},
   author       = {Irenaeus},
   title        = {Against Heresies},
   volume       = {1},
   crossref     = {ANF},
   related      = {ANF},
   relatedoptions = {useeditor=false,skipbiblist},
}

@classictext{ANF:Tertullian:OAW,
   entrysubtype = {churchfather},
   author       = {Tertullian},
   title        = {On the Apparel of Women},
   volume       = {4},
   crossref     = {ANF},
   related      = {ANF},
   relatedoptions = {useeditor=false,skipbiblist},
}


\end{filecontents}

\addbibresource{temp.bib}

\usepackage{xparse}

\begin{document}
\printbiblist{abbreviations}

\null\vfill

Irenaeus.\footcite[(4.4.30)524]{ANF:Irenaeus:AH} Tertullian.\footcite[(1.6)17]{ANF:Tertullian:OAW}
\printbibliography
\end{document}

What am I doing wrong?

[folofjc]

Okay, so it was because I was usingboth crossref and related, right? I am still confused as to when to use what. Based upon the biblatex handbook, crossref and xref are the same thing. But in biblatex-sbl they seem to do different things, right? So I use xref for types classictext that are not churchfather, and then I use related for classictext that are churchfather? Do I ever used crossref?

[dcpurton]

xref is similar, but not quite the same as crossref. crossref inherits fields, but xref doesn't. And they are also impacted independently by the minxrefs and mincrossrefs package options.

This is how I use them in biblatex-sbl:

• xref is generally used when you should cite one entry, but a different entry should appear in the bibliography (many @classictext types).
• related is generally used when a second entry should be included as part of the cited entry (many @ancienttext types and reprints).
• crossref is used when you want to inherit entry fields from another entry. (e.g., an @incollection might inherit from a @collection).

[dcpurton]

Part of the stupidity of my entrytype = {churchfather} is that in some ways this format was like my @ancienttext entry types and in other ways it was like my @classictext entry type. I couldn't really figure out the rules from the limited examples in the handbook, hence the entrysubtype hack. But this has created lots of problems for me :(.

In the new version, I'm just using @ancienttext with various options to control the output, since from the blog, there doesn't always seem to be just one way of doing things. I'm quite far into attempting all the various types, but there's an awful lot of inconsistency. I think this largely comes about because there are long standing conventions for citing standard texts and SBL has kept these. But then for less well known texts they do different things. It's a nightmare to try and code for :(.

[folofjc]

Ah, you are right, I just saw that in the biblatex document. I had missed the inheritance part.

[folofjc]

Ugh, yeah I can imagine. I noticed that they do inconsistent things. They even admit it with the abbreviations and when to italicize and when not. If there is a convention, they just keep it, even if it is inconsistent. Thanks for working through all these things!

[folofjc]

So in your examples biblatex-sbl-example.pdf, can you explain why in section 6.4.10.2 the miller:2001 needs both xref and crossref? I understand the crossref, to inherit. But I don't see the series showing up by itself in the bibliography, so what is the xref for?

[dcpurton]

SBLHS2 offers two different ways of formatting the bibliography entry for miller:2001. There's the abbreviated one which just has NIB in the bibliography and the version with full details of NIB. The crossref pulls in the details of NIB so the full details can be printed in the bibliography (activated with the fullbibrefs package option). From the SBL Blog, I don't think this is their preference now. They prefer to use the shorter option and include NIB in a list of abbreviations.

This means that the crossref field is unnecessary if you just want to use the shorter version.

[dcpurton]

This issue does expose a bug of sorts.

The reason you get the doubling of the bibliography entry is as follows:

• ANF gets inserted into the bibliography as a cloned entry because it is a related field in ANF:Irenaeus:AH.
• When ANF:Tertullian:OAW is cited, it triggers the actual entry of ANF to be added to the bibliography because mincrossrefs=2 is now true.
• But from the point of view of biber ANF and the clone of ANF are two different entries.
• So you get two entries in the bibliography.