1

This question already has an answer here:

I'm trying to use biblatex-dw and the crossref functionality to make my bibliography more structured and easier to edit. I'm using the mvcollection, collection, and incollection types for the inheritance/tree structure. My problem is that when I define things as in the MWE below, the footnote comes out wrong.

What I want to achieve -- but only for the archival document types -- is to organize the data into a hierarchy, starting with the most detailed (i.e. the specific document) and ending with the leaste detailed (i.e. the archive institution where the archive is situated):

document - volume - archive - archive institution

Therefore, the date would look strange at the end of the line as it refers to the document and not the archive institution. I think it looks much better if the data is clustered. But for normal references like books and articles, I agree the default biblatex ordering is great.

See image example below.

Update: I also tried this with biblatex-chicago and the same thing happens there.

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage[backend=biber,citestyle=verbose-ibid,style=footnote-dw,autocite=footnote,idembibformat=dash,idemtracker=false,pageref=true,xref=true, date=iso8601]{biblatex}

\begin{filecontents*}{refs.bib}
@mvcollection{MA,
    title = {Museum archives},
}

@collection{ClockExhib,
    crossref = {MA},
    title = { Clocks Project},
}

@incollection{foo,
    crossref = {ClockExhib},
    author = {Committee},
    title = {Meeting notes},
    volume = 1,
    date = {1979-11-19},
}

\end{filecontents*}
\bibliography{refs}

\begin{document}

This is a document.\autocites{foo}

\end{document}

I want to change the order of the details (and as a bonus also learn how to change the field separators...commas, dots, or whatever).

Any ideas would be much appreciated. By the way, I really want to stick to biblatex-dw.

Actual output of footer: ugly output

Desired output: nicer output

marked as duplicate by Andrew Swann, user31729, Malipivo, egreg, Jesse Jun 5 '14 at 14:14

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

  • Have you had a look at tex.stackexchange.com/q/12806/15925 ? I am not convinced that your desired output is helpful to the reader. The ordering biblatex provides seems more logical to me, with the possible exception of the placing of the date in this particular case. – Andrew Swann Jun 5 '14 at 7:45
  • Basically, what I want to achieve - but only for the archival document types - is to organize the data into a hierarchy, starting with the most detailed (i.e. what document) and ending with the leaste detailed (i.e. the archive institution where the archive is housed): document - volume - archive - archive institution. Therefore, the date would look strange at the end of the line as it refers to the document. I think it looks much better if the data is clustered. But for normal references like books and articles, I agree the default biblatex ordering is great. – Lauren Jun 5 '14 at 11:14
  • @AndrewSwann thanks for the link on how to customize biblatex. I manage to solve this by editing standard-dw.bbx, the part which begins with "\DeclareBibliographyDriver{collection}{%" and moving the date section up. It's looking good now, but I'm sure it's not an ideal solution. – Lauren Jun 5 '14 at 11:19
  • You can put that definition in your preamble, rather modifying the standard style file. – Andrew Swann Jun 5 '14 at 12:14
  • @AndrewSwann Ah, okay, I didn't know that. Thanks! :-) So unless someone else has something to add, I consider this solved. – Lauren Jun 5 '14 at 13:14