biblatex - Consistent numbering in split bibliographies
I have a document in which the bibliography is splitted via categories. I would like to reference to the elements by numbers [1]. Inside each bibliography, the entries should be sorted by year-name-title (ynt), but the numbers in the first bibliography should be smaller than the numbers in the second one.
MWE:
documentclass{article}
usepackage[sorting = ynt,bibstyle=numeric]{biblatex}
usepackage{filecontents}
begin{filecontents}{jobname.bib}
@book{a,
author = "I",
year = "1973"
}
@book{a2,
author = "I",
year = "1923"
}
@book{b,
author = "You",
year = "1959"
}
end{filecontents}
addbibresource{jobname.bib}
DeclareBibliographyCategory{own}
begin{document}
nocite{a,a2}
addtocategory{own}{a,a2}
nocite{b}
printbibliography[category=own,title={A}]
printbibliography[notcategory=own,title={B}]
end{document}
Now, the order of the numbers in the bibliography is "[1],[3]" in the first list, and "[2]" in the second list. This looks odd and if there are more items, one has to search through both lists in order to find a reference. I would like to have "[1],[2]" in the first list and "[3]" in the second list.
An option is to add a "presort" key to the corresponding entries in the bib-file, but I would like to not touch the bib-file. Is there, e.g., any possibility to add the "presort" key afterwards in the tex-file? Or can biblatex sort by category (I searched the manual but did not found any clue)?
biblatex
add a comment |
I have a document in which the bibliography is splitted via categories. I would like to reference to the elements by numbers [1]. Inside each bibliography, the entries should be sorted by year-name-title (ynt), but the numbers in the first bibliography should be smaller than the numbers in the second one.
MWE:
documentclass{article}
usepackage[sorting = ynt,bibstyle=numeric]{biblatex}
usepackage{filecontents}
begin{filecontents}{jobname.bib}
@book{a,
author = "I",
year = "1973"
}
@book{a2,
author = "I",
year = "1923"
}
@book{b,
author = "You",
year = "1959"
}
end{filecontents}
addbibresource{jobname.bib}
DeclareBibliographyCategory{own}
begin{document}
nocite{a,a2}
addtocategory{own}{a,a2}
nocite{b}
printbibliography[category=own,title={A}]
printbibliography[notcategory=own,title={B}]
end{document}
Now, the order of the numbers in the bibliography is "[1],[3]" in the first list, and "[2]" in the second list. This looks odd and if there are more items, one has to search through both lists in order to find a reference. I would like to have "[1],[2]" in the first list and "[3]" in the second list.
An option is to add a "presort" key to the corresponding entries in the bib-file, but I would like to not touch the bib-file. Is there, e.g., any possibility to add the "presort" key afterwards in the tex-file? Or can biblatex sort by category (I searched the manual but did not found any clue)?
biblatex
It might be cheating, but what about usingdefernumbers=true
? This is evenbiblatex
's recommendation as you can see in the.log
file:Package biblatex Warning: Setting 'defernumbers=true' recommended.
– moewe
Oct 8 '15 at 8:17
Rather than cheating, this looks like the intended solution. The manual says (§3.12.5) "When using a numeric citation scheme, however, this will most likely lead to discontinuous numbering in split bibliographies. Use the defernumbers package option to avoid this problem." Please post it as an answer.
– gerw
Oct 8 '15 at 8:55
When I said cheating, I was referring to the fact that we weren't actually sorting by thecategory
which is, I think, not possible out of the box (AFAIK Biber does not get to see the categories). So I was at least cheating in answering the title question.
– moewe
Oct 8 '15 at 9:13
But, it was not my main concern to get the entries sorted via the category, but to get a consistent numbering. So you answered the question I intended to ask ;) I will change the question accordingly.
– gerw
Oct 8 '15 at 9:19
add a comment |
I have a document in which the bibliography is splitted via categories. I would like to reference to the elements by numbers [1]. Inside each bibliography, the entries should be sorted by year-name-title (ynt), but the numbers in the first bibliography should be smaller than the numbers in the second one.
MWE:
documentclass{article}
usepackage[sorting = ynt,bibstyle=numeric]{biblatex}
usepackage{filecontents}
begin{filecontents}{jobname.bib}
@book{a,
author = "I",
year = "1973"
}
@book{a2,
author = "I",
year = "1923"
}
@book{b,
author = "You",
year = "1959"
}
end{filecontents}
addbibresource{jobname.bib}
DeclareBibliographyCategory{own}
begin{document}
nocite{a,a2}
addtocategory{own}{a,a2}
nocite{b}
printbibliography[category=own,title={A}]
printbibliography[notcategory=own,title={B}]
end{document}
Now, the order of the numbers in the bibliography is "[1],[3]" in the first list, and "[2]" in the second list. This looks odd and if there are more items, one has to search through both lists in order to find a reference. I would like to have "[1],[2]" in the first list and "[3]" in the second list.
An option is to add a "presort" key to the corresponding entries in the bib-file, but I would like to not touch the bib-file. Is there, e.g., any possibility to add the "presort" key afterwards in the tex-file? Or can biblatex sort by category (I searched the manual but did not found any clue)?
biblatex
I have a document in which the bibliography is splitted via categories. I would like to reference to the elements by numbers [1]. Inside each bibliography, the entries should be sorted by year-name-title (ynt), but the numbers in the first bibliography should be smaller than the numbers in the second one.
MWE:
documentclass{article}
usepackage[sorting = ynt,bibstyle=numeric]{biblatex}
usepackage{filecontents}
begin{filecontents}{jobname.bib}
@book{a,
author = "I",
year = "1973"
}
@book{a2,
author = "I",
year = "1923"
}
@book{b,
author = "You",
year = "1959"
}
end{filecontents}
addbibresource{jobname.bib}
DeclareBibliographyCategory{own}
begin{document}
nocite{a,a2}
addtocategory{own}{a,a2}
nocite{b}
printbibliography[category=own,title={A}]
printbibliography[notcategory=own,title={B}]
end{document}
Now, the order of the numbers in the bibliography is "[1],[3]" in the first list, and "[2]" in the second list. This looks odd and if there are more items, one has to search through both lists in order to find a reference. I would like to have "[1],[2]" in the first list and "[3]" in the second list.
An option is to add a "presort" key to the corresponding entries in the bib-file, but I would like to not touch the bib-file. Is there, e.g., any possibility to add the "presort" key afterwards in the tex-file? Or can biblatex sort by category (I searched the manual but did not found any clue)?
biblatex
biblatex
edited Dec 14 '16 at 20:20
Arzigoglu
1,3051517
1,3051517
asked Oct 8 '15 at 7:51
gerwgerw
361110
361110
It might be cheating, but what about usingdefernumbers=true
? This is evenbiblatex
's recommendation as you can see in the.log
file:Package biblatex Warning: Setting 'defernumbers=true' recommended.
– moewe
Oct 8 '15 at 8:17
Rather than cheating, this looks like the intended solution. The manual says (§3.12.5) "When using a numeric citation scheme, however, this will most likely lead to discontinuous numbering in split bibliographies. Use the defernumbers package option to avoid this problem." Please post it as an answer.
– gerw
Oct 8 '15 at 8:55
When I said cheating, I was referring to the fact that we weren't actually sorting by thecategory
which is, I think, not possible out of the box (AFAIK Biber does not get to see the categories). So I was at least cheating in answering the title question.
– moewe
Oct 8 '15 at 9:13
But, it was not my main concern to get the entries sorted via the category, but to get a consistent numbering. So you answered the question I intended to ask ;) I will change the question accordingly.
– gerw
Oct 8 '15 at 9:19
add a comment |
It might be cheating, but what about usingdefernumbers=true
? This is evenbiblatex
's recommendation as you can see in the.log
file:Package biblatex Warning: Setting 'defernumbers=true' recommended.
– moewe
Oct 8 '15 at 8:17
Rather than cheating, this looks like the intended solution. The manual says (§3.12.5) "When using a numeric citation scheme, however, this will most likely lead to discontinuous numbering in split bibliographies. Use the defernumbers package option to avoid this problem." Please post it as an answer.
– gerw
Oct 8 '15 at 8:55
When I said cheating, I was referring to the fact that we weren't actually sorting by thecategory
which is, I think, not possible out of the box (AFAIK Biber does not get to see the categories). So I was at least cheating in answering the title question.
– moewe
Oct 8 '15 at 9:13
But, it was not my main concern to get the entries sorted via the category, but to get a consistent numbering. So you answered the question I intended to ask ;) I will change the question accordingly.
– gerw
Oct 8 '15 at 9:19
It might be cheating, but what about using
defernumbers=true
? This is even biblatex
's recommendation as you can see in the .log
file: Package biblatex Warning: Setting 'defernumbers=true' recommended.
– moewe
Oct 8 '15 at 8:17
It might be cheating, but what about using
defernumbers=true
? This is even biblatex
's recommendation as you can see in the .log
file: Package biblatex Warning: Setting 'defernumbers=true' recommended.
– moewe
Oct 8 '15 at 8:17
Rather than cheating, this looks like the intended solution. The manual says (§3.12.5) "When using a numeric citation scheme, however, this will most likely lead to discontinuous numbering in split bibliographies. Use the defernumbers package option to avoid this problem." Please post it as an answer.
– gerw
Oct 8 '15 at 8:55
Rather than cheating, this looks like the intended solution. The manual says (§3.12.5) "When using a numeric citation scheme, however, this will most likely lead to discontinuous numbering in split bibliographies. Use the defernumbers package option to avoid this problem." Please post it as an answer.
– gerw
Oct 8 '15 at 8:55
When I said cheating, I was referring to the fact that we weren't actually sorting by the
category
which is, I think, not possible out of the box (AFAIK Biber does not get to see the categories). So I was at least cheating in answering the title question.– moewe
Oct 8 '15 at 9:13
When I said cheating, I was referring to the fact that we weren't actually sorting by the
category
which is, I think, not possible out of the box (AFAIK Biber does not get to see the categories). So I was at least cheating in answering the title question.– moewe
Oct 8 '15 at 9:13
But, it was not my main concern to get the entries sorted via the category, but to get a consistent numbering. So you answered the question I intended to ask ;) I will change the question accordingly.
– gerw
Oct 8 '15 at 9:19
But, it was not my main concern to get the entries sorted via the category, but to get a consistent numbering. So you answered the question I intended to ask ;) I will change the question accordingly.
– gerw
Oct 8 '15 at 9:19
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
Follow biblatex
's advice in the .log
file
Package biblatex Warning: Setting 'defernumbers=true' recommended.
and use defernumbers=true
.
edit: Newer versions of biblatex
do not recommend defernumbers
in the .log
file any more following https://github.com/plk/biblatex/issues/493. In most cases it is still a very good idea to use defernumbers
with split numeric bibliographies.
The biblatex
documentation explains on p. 53
In contrast to standard LaTeX, the numeric labels generated by this
package are normally assigned to the full list of references at the
beginning of the document body. If this option is enabled, numeric
labels [...] are assigned the first time an entry is printed in any
bibliography.
and notes in §3.12.5 Bibliography Filters and Citation Labels, p. 121, that
The citation labels generated by this package are assigned to the full
list of references before it is split up by any bibliography filters.
They are guaranteed to be unique across the entire document (or a
refsection
environment), no matter how many bibliography filters you
are using. When using a numeric citation scheme, however, this will
most likely lead to discontinuous numbering in split bibliographies.
Use thedefernumbers
package option to avoid this problem. If this
option is enabled, numeric labels are assigned the first time an entry
is printed in any bibliography.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "85"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2ftex.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f271751%2fbiblatex-consistent-numbering-in-split-bibliographies%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Follow biblatex
's advice in the .log
file
Package biblatex Warning: Setting 'defernumbers=true' recommended.
and use defernumbers=true
.
edit: Newer versions of biblatex
do not recommend defernumbers
in the .log
file any more following https://github.com/plk/biblatex/issues/493. In most cases it is still a very good idea to use defernumbers
with split numeric bibliographies.
The biblatex
documentation explains on p. 53
In contrast to standard LaTeX, the numeric labels generated by this
package are normally assigned to the full list of references at the
beginning of the document body. If this option is enabled, numeric
labels [...] are assigned the first time an entry is printed in any
bibliography.
and notes in §3.12.5 Bibliography Filters and Citation Labels, p. 121, that
The citation labels generated by this package are assigned to the full
list of references before it is split up by any bibliography filters.
They are guaranteed to be unique across the entire document (or a
refsection
environment), no matter how many bibliography filters you
are using. When using a numeric citation scheme, however, this will
most likely lead to discontinuous numbering in split bibliographies.
Use thedefernumbers
package option to avoid this problem. If this
option is enabled, numeric labels are assigned the first time an entry
is printed in any bibliography.
add a comment |
Follow biblatex
's advice in the .log
file
Package biblatex Warning: Setting 'defernumbers=true' recommended.
and use defernumbers=true
.
edit: Newer versions of biblatex
do not recommend defernumbers
in the .log
file any more following https://github.com/plk/biblatex/issues/493. In most cases it is still a very good idea to use defernumbers
with split numeric bibliographies.
The biblatex
documentation explains on p. 53
In contrast to standard LaTeX, the numeric labels generated by this
package are normally assigned to the full list of references at the
beginning of the document body. If this option is enabled, numeric
labels [...] are assigned the first time an entry is printed in any
bibliography.
and notes in §3.12.5 Bibliography Filters and Citation Labels, p. 121, that
The citation labels generated by this package are assigned to the full
list of references before it is split up by any bibliography filters.
They are guaranteed to be unique across the entire document (or a
refsection
environment), no matter how many bibliography filters you
are using. When using a numeric citation scheme, however, this will
most likely lead to discontinuous numbering in split bibliographies.
Use thedefernumbers
package option to avoid this problem. If this
option is enabled, numeric labels are assigned the first time an entry
is printed in any bibliography.
add a comment |
Follow biblatex
's advice in the .log
file
Package biblatex Warning: Setting 'defernumbers=true' recommended.
and use defernumbers=true
.
edit: Newer versions of biblatex
do not recommend defernumbers
in the .log
file any more following https://github.com/plk/biblatex/issues/493. In most cases it is still a very good idea to use defernumbers
with split numeric bibliographies.
The biblatex
documentation explains on p. 53
In contrast to standard LaTeX, the numeric labels generated by this
package are normally assigned to the full list of references at the
beginning of the document body. If this option is enabled, numeric
labels [...] are assigned the first time an entry is printed in any
bibliography.
and notes in §3.12.5 Bibliography Filters and Citation Labels, p. 121, that
The citation labels generated by this package are assigned to the full
list of references before it is split up by any bibliography filters.
They are guaranteed to be unique across the entire document (or a
refsection
environment), no matter how many bibliography filters you
are using. When using a numeric citation scheme, however, this will
most likely lead to discontinuous numbering in split bibliographies.
Use thedefernumbers
package option to avoid this problem. If this
option is enabled, numeric labels are assigned the first time an entry
is printed in any bibliography.
Follow biblatex
's advice in the .log
file
Package biblatex Warning: Setting 'defernumbers=true' recommended.
and use defernumbers=true
.
edit: Newer versions of biblatex
do not recommend defernumbers
in the .log
file any more following https://github.com/plk/biblatex/issues/493. In most cases it is still a very good idea to use defernumbers
with split numeric bibliographies.
The biblatex
documentation explains on p. 53
In contrast to standard LaTeX, the numeric labels generated by this
package are normally assigned to the full list of references at the
beginning of the document body. If this option is enabled, numeric
labels [...] are assigned the first time an entry is printed in any
bibliography.
and notes in §3.12.5 Bibliography Filters and Citation Labels, p. 121, that
The citation labels generated by this package are assigned to the full
list of references before it is split up by any bibliography filters.
They are guaranteed to be unique across the entire document (or a
refsection
environment), no matter how many bibliography filters you
are using. When using a numeric citation scheme, however, this will
most likely lead to discontinuous numbering in split bibliographies.
Use thedefernumbers
package option to avoid this problem. If this
option is enabled, numeric labels are assigned the first time an entry
is printed in any bibliography.
edited Mar 16 at 13:47
answered Oct 8 '15 at 9:18
moewemoewe
94.9k10115358
94.9k10115358
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to TeX - LaTeX Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2ftex.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f271751%2fbiblatex-consistent-numbering-in-split-bibliographies%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
It might be cheating, but what about using
defernumbers=true
? This is evenbiblatex
's recommendation as you can see in the.log
file:Package biblatex Warning: Setting 'defernumbers=true' recommended.
– moewe
Oct 8 '15 at 8:17
Rather than cheating, this looks like the intended solution. The manual says (§3.12.5) "When using a numeric citation scheme, however, this will most likely lead to discontinuous numbering in split bibliographies. Use the defernumbers package option to avoid this problem." Please post it as an answer.
– gerw
Oct 8 '15 at 8:55
When I said cheating, I was referring to the fact that we weren't actually sorting by the
category
which is, I think, not possible out of the box (AFAIK Biber does not get to see the categories). So I was at least cheating in answering the title question.– moewe
Oct 8 '15 at 9:13
But, it was not my main concern to get the entries sorted via the category, but to get a consistent numbering. So you answered the question I intended to ask ;) I will change the question accordingly.
– gerw
Oct 8 '15 at 9:19