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 biblatex for my references.

Normally, if I use \cite{source1, source2, source3}, I get a citation like

[3, 45, 98]

If I now want to give a page number for one of them, it looks confusing imho, as I should get (did not try it out up to now, honestly)

[3, 45, 78, p. 23f, 98]

So imho it would make sense to change one of the separator from a comma to e. g. a semicolon like:

[3; 45; 78, p. 23f; 98]

Question 1: Does that make sense, or are there other conventions for citing sources with and without page numbers together?

(Up to now I collected the citations without page number in one cite command and added singular \cite[][p. xy]{} commands for those with page numbers., so I'd get:

 [3, 45, 98][78, p. 23f]


the \cites[]{}[]{}[]{} could also do that, but it also uses the same separators for entries and postnotes.

Question 2: How could I change the separator globally for those number-citations from comma to semicolon in biblatex?

share|improve this question
add comment

1 Answer

up vote 8 down vote accepted

It makes sense indeed; the documentation of biblatex says that the default action of \multicitedelim is to add a semicolon followed by a space, but it appears not to be so. Write


in your preamble, after having loaded biblatex.

share|improve this answer
The documentation is imprecise: \multicitedelim is defined as \addsemicolon\space in biblatex.def, but this is changed to \addcomma\space in the numeric citation style (which is biblatexs default style). –  lockstep Sep 21 '11 at 15:10
add comment

Your Answer


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.