I'm trying to get a anti-chronological bibliography, that means I just want to appear the newest items at the top. After reading the the answer for this question I assumed, that the usage the sorting scheme ydnt and of sortyear (in the format 2012-1, 2012-2 and so on, where 2012-1 is older than 2012-2) should do that.
But it does not, it seems that only the first four digits of sortyear or the entry in year are used (which are in fact the same).
So, why that? And how could I get a new-to-old sorted bibliography without declaring a new sorting scheme? (Doing that I get the desired result.)
\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{filecontents}
\usepackage[english]{babel}
\usepackage[backend=biber,sorting=ydnt]{biblatex}
\begin{filecontents}{refs.bib}
@MISC{2012_1,
author = {Me},
title = {A Oldest, should be below},
year = {2012},
sortyear = {2012-1},
}
@MISC{2012_2,
author = {Me},
title = {C Second oldest, should be in middle},
year = {2012},
sortyear = {2012-2},
}
@MISC{2012_3,
author = {Me},
title = {B Newest, should be above},
year = {2012},
sortyear = {2012-3},
}
}\end{filecontents}
\addbibresource{refs.bib}
\begin{document}
\nocite{*}
\printbibliography
\end{document}
biblatex
only uses the first four digits for thesortyear
. Why? I assume it's because bibliographies never(?) need to such fine-grained detail. If I publish two articles in 2012, they only need to be sorted before 2011: no one cares if one was written in March and the other in September. However, if I absolutely needed to do this --- say for my own CV and I really want to do it ---, then why not simply use as sortyears the last four of your digits:0121; 0122; 0123
? They'll still show up as 2012 when printed.... – jon Oct 25 '13 at 5:46.bib
file as Jon suggests. That will work, but it's bad practice. – Paul Stanley Oct 25 '13 at 9:40