# Equivalent of \nocite{} for \mcite{} in biblatex?

What is the \mcite{} equivalent for \nocite{} in biblatex?

# Background

I am trying to reproduce a set of reference in another document using biblatex. The other document uses the equivalent of \mcite{} in several places, concatenating reference. My current solution is to reproduce the reference structure with something like:

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage[backend=biber, bibstyle=numeric, mcite, ]{biblatex}

\begin{document}
\mcite{set1, *Ref1:2008, *Ref2:2009}  % What is the \nocite{} equivalence?
\nocite{Ref3:2013}
\section*{References}
\end{document}


(here is the bibliography file tst.bib)

@Article{Ref1:2008,
author =       {Author A},
title =        {Title A},
journal =      {A Journal},
year =         {2008},
}
@Article{Ref2:2009,
author =       {Author B},
title =        {Title B},
journal =      {A Journal},
year =         {2009},
}
@Article{Ref3:2013,
author =       {Author D},
title =        {Title D},
journal =      {A Journal},
year =         {20013},
}


I can of course hack this so all the citations appear on the first page and then chop that off, but there seems to be an asymmetry and that a \nomcite command should exist.

• Sorry but I don't really understand what \nomcite would do? Why can't you just use \nocite if you want the references in the list of references without anything appearing in the text itself? I guess I'm not clear what aspect of \nocite you want to combine with what aspect of \mcite. – cfr Nov 5 '14 at 23:27
• @cfr The aspect of \mcite I want is to have a group of papers combined into a single bibliographic reference, but without a citation in the text. \nocite would add each reference as a separate citation. – mforbes Feb 24 '15 at 18:06

In biblatex you can group references using @set in a bib file or you can dynamically create an entry set with \definebibentryset. Thus you can obtain the desired effect by

\defbibentryset{set1}{Ref1:2008,Ref2:2009}


Adding the above line to the provided MWE produces:

• This seems almost like the right answer, but the \nocite{set1} is not required (\defbibentryset{} implicitly behaves as a \nocite). However, it does beg the question: what is the purpose of the \mcite command then? Is it just a shortcut for this with a similar signature to aid backward compatibility, or is there some other advantage to using it? – mforbes Nov 6 '14 at 6:16
• Reading the docs a bit more closely it indeed says that \mcite{} is essentially equivalent to a compact form of \defbibentryset{} so it seems best to use the latter in general as it is more explicit and allows one to emulate the desired \nomcite{} behaviour. – mforbes Nov 6 '14 at 6:22
• @mforbes If you use BibTeX, you have to pre-define everything as at present the code is not set up to do this 'dynamically': \defbibentryset only works with Biber. – Joseph Wright Nov 6 '14 at 7:44
• @JosephWright The \mcite{} command seems to also have the Biber-only limitation, so I guess this is still the best answer. – mforbes Nov 6 '14 at 8:05

You can place multiple identifiers in the \nocite command.

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{filecontents}
\begin{filecontents}{\jobname.bib}
@Article{Ref1:2008,
author =       {Author A},
title =        {Title A},
journal =      {A Journal},
year =         {2008},
}
@Article{Ref2:2009,
author =       {Author B},
title =        {Title B},
journal =      {A Journal},
year =         {2009},
}
@Article{Ref3:2013,
author =       {Author D},
title =        {Title D},
journal =      {A Journal},
year =         {20013},
}
\end{filecontents}
\usepackage[backend=biber, bibstyle=numeric, mcite, ]{biblatex}

• I need to keep the numbering the same as in the original document, so the two references need to be grouped under a single number which is what \mcite{} does. Using \nocite{} combines the two entries at the point of citation, but not in the reference section where two seperate numbers are issues. – mforbes Nov 6 '14 at 6:10