A simple way of doing it in BibTeX is with a @misc
entry:
@misc{WinNT,
title = {{MS Windows NT} Kernel Description},
howpublished = {\url{http://web.archive.org/web/20080207010024/http://www.808multimedia.com/winnt/kernel.htm}},
note = {Accessed: 2010-09-30}
}
You should also perhaps include an author if you know it. And remember to load a package such as hyperref
or url
.
If you are using BibLaTeX there is an @online
entry type:
@online{WinNT,
author = {MultiMedia LLC},
title = {{MS Windows NT} Kernel Description},
year = 1999,
url = {http://web.archive.org/web/20080207010024/http://www.808multimedia.com/winnt/kernel.htm},
urldate = {2010-09-30}
}
(This is a compilation of some of the comments I provided when the query was first posted.)
Since you're using the plain
bibliography style, you could use either the @unpublished
entry type or the catch-all @misc
entry type for the paper at hand. With either of these two entry types, I suggest you use the note
field to provide URL and similar information. Incidentally, based on the description you've provided, I would not use the entry type @techreport
for this paper. The @techreport
entry type should be used primarily for items issued as part of a working paper series, discussion paper series, or similarly numbered series of papers. That's why the @techreport
entry type has fields such as institution
(required) and type
and number
(optional).
Aside: which bibliography style you should -- or must -- use depends importantly on the style guidelines of the journal or outfit you intend to submit your paper to. One of the main advantages of using BibTeX (or, say, biblatex
) for generating bibliographies and citation call-outs is that it's straightforward to switch between (pre-defined) bibliography styles.
Regarding your first follow-up question,
Can I always trust the entry generated by google scohlar? Occasionally I found typos there.
As a general rule, you should always double-check the correctness of all entries you've obtained online. In my experience, even bibliographic information derived from the publishers' own websites isn't 100 percent reliable.
You also asked,
I found this description: @Unpublished
: A document having an author and title, but not formally published. Required fields: author
, title
, note
. Optional fields: month
, year
. What is the required field "note"? ... It says that a note is "Any additional information that can help the reader." Then why it is required instead of optional? ... if I write "note={preprint on webpage at math.rochester.edu/people/faculty/cohf}
", is it considered enough and suitable?
For entries of type @unpublished
, the note
field generally contains information about the author's institutional affiliation (if known), a web address, and any other pieces of information which may be important and helpful to the reader and which do not belong in any of the other fields.
If you've loaded the url
and/or hyperref
packages, you could (should, actually...) encase any URL strings inside note
fields in a \url{...}
directive. E.g., you might write
note={preprint on webpage at \url{math.rochester.edu/people/faculty/cohf}},
This will help LaTeX find a decent line break in the URL string, should It be necessary to do so.
Best Answer
You mention that you use BibTeX and the
plainnat
bibliography style. Unfortunately, this bibliography style does not recognize an@electronic
entry type. However, the@misc
entry type is sufficiently general to meet your needs. Try the following form of the entry, which assumes that you're also loading theurl
LaTeX package:The curly braces around "From ... Resource" are there to keep BibTeX/plainnat from converting any uppercase letters inside the group into lowercase. Encasing the URL in an explicit
\url{...}
macro serves to let LaTeX find, if needed, convenient line break points. (By default, long URL strings will not be broken up across lines, potentially leading to seriously overfull or underfull lines.)(Shameless self-promotion alert!) For more information on this subject, see also the answers to the questions Customizing Bibliography alpha and urldate in BibTeX gets ignored.