2

I would need to have two bibliographies in my work and it seems this is rather tricky to do with natbib. Thus I thought I would move over to biblatex as printing two different bibliographies with it is very simple. But now I'm presented with the following three problems:

  1. I have urls in some of my "howpublished" fields. For example: 

    \@misc{aaa,
author = "Author 1",
title = {A website},
howpublished = "Available from: \url{www.website.com/%20/%20abc}",
}

In natbib this works fine but in biblatex the "%" symbol is interpreted as a commented an I receive errors. I know that the "url" field would work but this would not provide me with the desired bibliography format and flexibility I get with using the "howpublished" field. Is there a way I can have a % symbol in the bibliography entry?

  1. If I have understood correctly I can not use the trusted .bst file I have modified to my liking? If so I would need to find a style where the in text citations are in the format of "Author (2015)" and "(Author, 2015)". The bibliography should be in the format of "Grösche, P. & C. Schröder (2014). On the redistributive effects of Germany’s feed-in tariff. Empirical Economics 46(4), 1339–1383."

  2. Some long urls or titles go beyond the margins in the bibliography. In natbib this didn't happen and all my references fit within the margins. Is there an automated solution for this or do I need to manually edit the problematic entries?

If these issues could be solved I'd be happy to switch over to biblatex but I haven't been able to solve these on my own or by the resources I've found googling around.

| improve this question | | | | |
  • If I understand your objective correctly, you need to create a document that has two separate bibliographies. Have you looked into using the bibunits package? The package's user guide states that it is compatible with natbib. – Mico May 20 '15 at 2:14
  • Well I wouldn't need two bib files if I was able to use natbib as I could use the commands: \printbibliography[type=article] \printbibliography[type=misc This would yield my desired result and would be extremely easy. I'll need to look into bibunits and see if it can do what I want. I don't need bibliographies for chapters or anything like that, just need to separate online and non-online sources. – Cadbon May 20 '15 at 5:40
  • bibunits seems to designed for creating bibliographies from parts of the document. I want to have 2 bibliographies at the end of my document that are simply separated by style. Is bibunits suited for this? – Cadbon May 20 '15 at 5:59
  • For ways to create mutiple bibliographies, do check out the packages mentioned in the UK TeX FAQ entry Multiple bibliographies. – Mico May 20 '15 at 7:45
  • Thanks for the tip. Did I understand correctly that using the multibbl or multibib topics would mean I would need to define each cite on what bibliography they belong to? I have probably 400 different \citep or \citet commands on my work so defining everyone of these would be a massive chore. Thus it seems the biblatex way of doing things would be clearly superior... If I could only solve the 3 issues mentioned in my initial post. If I misunderstood the way the multibib and multibbl packages I apologise, I'm not well versed in latex or code in general. – Cadbon May 20 '15 at 8:07
1

The biblatex way to handle web sites and other electronic references is to use

@online{aaa,
  author = {Author 1},
  title = {A website},
  url = {www.website.com/%20/%20abc},
}

If one uses biber as backend, then it is possible to remap dynamically the entry types and fields.

| improve this answer | | | | |
  • Yes I know this is the way to handle it. My question was is there anyway to have a % symbol in any of the other fields without messing up the syntax. Like in my example I would like to have it on the "howpublished" field. – Cadbon May 20 '15 at 5:42

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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