Take the 2-minute tour ×
TeX - LaTeX Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for users of TeX, LaTeX, ConTeXt, and related typesetting systems. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I'm using chicago bibliography style (\bibliographystyle{chicago}) and the references appear like:

Leibowitz, A. (1974). Education and home production. The American Economic Review 64(2), 243-250

What I need is to remove the parentheses from the year. It should be like this:

Leibowitz, A. 1974. Education and home production. The American Economic Review 64(2), 243-250.

How can I get this?

share|improve this question
2  
Welcome to TeX.sx! Usually, we don't put a greeting or a “thank you” in our posts. While this might seem strange at first, it is not a sign of lack of politeness, but rather part of our trying to keep everything very concise. Accepting and upvoting answers is the preferred way here to say “thank you” to users who helped you. –  Peter Jansson Apr 15 '13 at 16:11
    
Welcome to TeX.sx! Please add a minimal working example (MWE) that illustrates your problem. It will be much easier for us to reproduce your situation and find out what the issue is when we see compilable code, starting with \documentclass{...} and ending with \end{document}. In particular, your question doesn't specify which of BibTeX, BibLaTeX, or something else you use. –  Jubobs Apr 15 '13 at 16:24

2 Answers 2

copy the file chicago.bst to mychicago.bst. Then search for

FUNCTION {output.year.check}
{ year empty$
     { "empty year in " cite$ * warning$ }
     { write$
        " (" year * extra.label *
       month empty$
          { ")" * }
          { ", " * month * ")" * }
       if$
       mid.sentence 'output.state :=
     }
  if$
}

and change it to

FUNCTION {output.year.check}
{ year empty$
     { "empty year in " cite$ * warning$ }
     { write$
%        " (" year * extra.label *
         " " year * extra.label *
       month empty$
%          { ")" * }
%          { ", " * month * ")" * }
          {}
          { ", " * month * }
       if$
       mid.sentence 'output.state :=
     }
  if$
}

if you are not familiar with the TeX directory structure then put the file into your documents folder and, of course, use

\bibliographystyle{mychicago}
share|improve this answer
    
Ummm, if I apply your modification, I twice get the following error message when trying to use the (modified) chicago bibliography style: "You can't pop an empty literal stack for entry leibowitz:1974 while executing---line 1648 of file mychicago.bst". To fix these issues, just replace "(" and ")" with empty strings. –  Mico Apr 15 '13 at 16:58
    
@Mico: you are right! I'll correct my answer. "" cannot be used for the open parenthesis, we need at least a space. –  Herbert Apr 15 '13 at 17:37

If your need is for an an up-to-date and correct implementation of the Chicago Manual of Style, you should use biblatex-chicago (and biber if you need the 'author-date' style). You have the option of using the 15th or 16th edition --- and there were significant changes in the author-date specification in the 16th edition. Then your file should look like this:

\documentclass{article}
% \listfiles
\usepackage{filecontents}
\begin{filecontents}{\jobname.bib}
@Article{smith2000,
  author =   {Smith, John},
  title =    {Some Article Title for a Journal},
  journal =      {Journal of Tests},
  date =     2000,
  volume =   33,
  number =   2,
  pages =    {100--150}}

@Book{smith3000,
  author =   {Smith, John},
  title =    {A Book Title},
  location = {Somewhere},
  publisher = {Publishers, Inc.},
  date =      3000}
\end{filecontents}

\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}%
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}%
\usepackage{lmodern}

\usepackage[strict=true, style=american]{csquotes}%
\usepackage[english]{babel}%

\usepackage[%
% notes, %
authordate,
firstinits=true,
backend=biber,
]{biblatex-chicago}%
% \usepackage[style=authoryear, backend=biber]{biblatex}
\addbibresource{\jobname.bib}%

\begin{document}

\cite{smith2000}\par
\cite{smith3000}

\printbibliography
\end{document}

If, for some reason, you need a Chicago style from 1992, which corresponds to the 12th edition (I think), then chicago.bst is probably the way to go.

Note also that biblatex is for the most part much easier to change, so if there are going to be more changes required to get from 'chicago1992' to what you actually need, consider switching to biblatex sooner rather than later.

share|improve this answer
    
Your proposed method doesn't actually generate the output format the OP is looking for. E.g., using your proposed method, the author's first name is not abbreviated, quotation marks are unnecessarily placed around the article's title, the journal's issue number is written as no. 2 rather than as (2), and the divider between the issue number and the page range is : rather than ,. –  Mico Apr 15 '13 at 17:53
    
True; and all of these are easily fixed. But my real point is that if he needs to use the Chicago 'authordate' style, the specification has changed, and the features you describe are no longer current. (And some for a really long time!) If he needs to use the Chicago style from circa 1992 (= 12th edition, I think; current edition is 16th), then he should not use biblatex-chicago. But I was also thinking of future readers of this question. –  jon Apr 15 '13 at 17:58
    
We don't know for sure what the OP really needs -- the "current" or the "vintage 1992" Chicago style for typesetting bibliographic entries. However, given that the OP has actually expressed certain guidelines for the output he/she wants, I think it would be helpful to include the required tweaks to the "biblatex-chicago" output in the answer. –  Mico Apr 15 '13 at 18:07
    
Well, without a useful specification, I'm not about to embark on it at this point. So far all we have is a very uncomplicated journal article; I suspect there are a lot of other issues that would need to be resolved. (It is not even clear that what the citation style is for this article: all we have is how the bibliography should look....) If you prefer, I'll delete my answer. –  jon Apr 15 '13 at 18:36
    
Definitely no need to delete your answer! However, it might be useful to point out explicitly that the output of your MWE represents "current Chicago" rather than "vintage 1992 Chicago" typesetting style for bib entries. –  Mico Apr 15 '13 at 18:50

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.