1

Is it possible to get hyperref hyperlinks on a 2nd bibliography with the multibib package and the amsplain BibTeX style?

Example:

\documentclass[12pt]{article}

\usepackage{multibib}
\newcites{two}{More Information}

\usepackage{hyperref}
\hypersetup{hyperindex,colorlinks, citecolor=red} 

\begin{filecontents}{main.bib}
@article{Archimedes200,author = {Archimedes},title = {Pi's the limit },
journal = {Rome J. Gastronomical Math.}, year = {200BCE},volume = {10},pages={\textsc{CCCXV}--\textsc{CCCXIV}}}

@article{EulerE1776,Author = {Euler, Leonhard},Title = {All about E},
Journal = {Popular Math.},Year = {1776},Volume = {4},pages={1--2718}}
\end{filecontents}

\begin{filecontents}{second.bib}
@book{BourbakiSets1970,Author={Bourbaki, Nicolas},Title={Th{\'e}orie des ensembles},
Year={1970},Publisher={Hermann},Location={Paris}}
\end{filecontents}

\makeindex

\begin{document}

Archimedes~\cite{Archimedes200} and Euler~\cite{EulerE1776} studied the constants, $\pi$ and $e$, respectively.

Bourbaki~\citetwo{BourbakiSets1970} treats set theory axiomatically.

\bibliographystyle{amsplain}
\bibliography{main}
\bibliographystyletwo{amsplain}
\bibliographytwo{second}

\end{document}

Missing hyperlink to 2nd bibliography

Other posts propose solving this either by using natbib (e.g., multibib - hyperref doesn't work for my second bibliography) or biblatex (e.g., Problem in combining hyperref with multibib).

However, I am wedded to the amsplain bibtex style, which does not seem to be available with either natbib or biblatex.

Is there some workaround? Even hacks to hyperref or multibib would be OK (although, of course, not preferable).

Partial solution

Following the helpful suggestions by @jon, the following modified source does use biblatex to create two bibliographies, with hyperlinks to each from hyperref. The two bibliographies are independent, as I want; and no mods are needed in the source .bib files. I have not yet tackled the issue of modifying the bib style so as to resemble amsplain.

However, the 2nd printed bibliography resets the counter at 1, despite my attempt to manually reset it.

Is there a way to continue numbering in the 2nd bibliography after where the numbering in the 1st bibliography ends?

\documentclass[12pt]{memoir}

\usepackage[style=numeric,backend=bibtex]{biblatex}

\usepackage{hyperref}
\hypersetup{hyperindex,colorlinks, citecolor=red} 

\begin{filecontents}{main.bib}
@article{Archimedes200,author = {Archimedes},title = {Pi's the limit },
journal = {Syracuse J. Gastronom.\ Math.}, year = {200BCE},volume = {10},pages={\textsc{CCCXV}--\textsc{CCCXIV}}}

@article{EulerE1776,Author = {Euler, Leonhard},Title = {All about E},
Journal = {Math.\ Psychol.},Year = {1776},Volume = {4},pages={1--2718}}
\end{filecontents}

\begin{filecontents}{two.bib}
@book{BourbakiSets1970,Author={Bourbaki, Nicolas},Title={Th{\'e}orie des ensembles},
Year={1970},Publisher={Hermann},place={Paris}}
\end{filecontents}

\addbibresource{main.bib}
\addbibresource{two.bib}

\begin{document}

Archimedes~\cite{Archimedes200} and Euler~\cite{EulerE1776} studied the constants, $\pi$ and $e$,  respectively.

\printbibliography % main

\newrefsection
\defbibnote{readprenote}{Here are some suggested readings.}
\printbibliography[title={Additional Readings},resetnumbers=3,prenote=readprenote] % two 

Bourbaki~\cite{BourbakiSets1970} treats set theory axiomatically.

\end{document}

Misnumbered 2nd bibliography

Fix for 2nd bibliography numbering

Using the refsegment environment from biblatex, instead of \newrefsection, and adding the defernumbers=true option when loading biblatex, seems to fix the numbering problem: by default, numbering of the 2nd bibliography resumes with the next number after the last number in the 1st bibliography.

Here's the complete source again but with that modification:

\documentclass[12pt]{memoir}

\usepackage[style=numeric,backend=bibtex,defernumbers=true]{biblatex}    
\usepackage{hyperref}
\hypersetup{hyperindex,colorlinks, citecolor=red} 

\begin{filecontents}{main.bib}
@article{Archimedes200,author = {Archimedes},title = {Pi's the limit },
journal = {Syracuse J. Gastronom.\ Math.}, year = {200BCE},volume = {10},pages={\textsc{CCCXV}--\textsc{CCCXIV}}}

@article{EulerE1776,Author = {Euler, Leonhard},Title = {All about E},
Journal = {Math.\ Psychol.},Year = {1776},Volume = {4},pages={1--2718}}
\end{filecontents}

\begin{filecontents}{two.bib}
@book{BourbakiSets1970,Author={Bourbaki, Nicolas},Title={Th{\'e}orie des ensembles},
Year={1970},Publisher={Hermann},place={Paris}}
\end{filecontents}

\addbibresource{main.bib}
\addbibresource{two.bib}

\begin{document}

\begin{refsegment} 

Archimedes~\cite{Archimedes200} and Euler~\cite{EulerE1776} studied the constants, $\pi$ and $e$,  respectively.

\end{refsegment}

\printbibliography[segment=1] % main

\defbibnote{readprenote}{Here are some suggested readings.}
\printbibliography[title={Additional Readings},prenote=readprenote,segment=2]

\begin{refsegment}

Bourbaki~\cite{BourbakiSets1970} treats set theory axiomatically.

\end{refsegment}

\end{document}

Notice that this works even though the citations to the 2nd bibliography appear after it is printed.

  • Wouldn't multibib be what you needed to hack? What else would you hope happen? (And I'm not saying it's easy -- especially for first-timers -- to build or mimic a citation/bibliography style for biblatex, but it is designed so that people can do this.) – jon Oct 11 '16 at 2:44
  • But answer to tex.stackexchange.com/questions/329431/… suggests that imitating amsplain bib style would be difficult. – murray Oct 11 '16 at 13:50
  • The answer talks about how to customize, and says that it is ("arguably") easier to customize. I agree. Making a minor tweak to a .bst is not easier than creating a whole .bbx/.cbx, but I'm not sure that hacking multibib's \newcite's mechanism for hyperref support will be particularly easy. My guess is that it would be hard. There is the standard biblatex style numeric, which shouldn't be too hard to modify to match amsplain since the numeric style is a near analogue of BibTeX's plain style (I believe). – jon Oct 11 '16 at 17:45
  • biblatex seems to be quite difficult to use, given that: I have two different .bib files, and my workflow, which is totally automated by TeXShop's pdflatexmk engine (and no direct command-line work). At least with multibib there was no processing issue there -- although of course the hyperref links were missing to the 2nd bibliography. – murray Oct 11 '16 at 19:17
  • After examining biblatex.pdf I still don't understand how to create the two bibliographies such as shown in my sample document -- without modifying my preexisting .bib files (which for the real document, not the minimal sample I posted here) are lengthy. – murray Oct 11 '16 at 19:19

Your Answer

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

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.