2

I am writing a thesis which requires a particular bibliographic style which I have not found supported directly by any packages. Specifically, I need a mostly Chicago style bibliography but with numeric citations. This question gets to the heart of my goal but leaves one piece unanswered for me. The answer does what the OP wanted, but doesn't quite solve my problem.
I need Chicago style author names: Last1, First1, First2 Last2, First3 Last3, etc. I also need a number of other smaller modifications that I've already figured out (comma inside quotes, uppercase names, journal volumes not italicized). But the solution in that answer, inserting numeric.bbx after the biblatex call, does not preserve the name order instead printing First Last for all authors.
enter image description here

I cannot figure out how to switch this naming for the numeric style. My current solution is the other answer from that post, but I am left with misaligned labels for each entry:

Misaligned Labels

My question is either: how can I change the naming order for only the first author if I use the numeric style (piucture 1) OR how can I adjust my inserted numeric labels to consistently align the text of my entries (picture 2)?

I am using a .bib file for my entries, and my BibLaTeX call is here:

% Produce modified CMS citations and bibliography using bastardized MLA 
\usepackage[
bibstyle=mla,       % mla as starting point
citestyle=numeric,  % force numeric inline citations
natbib=true,        % not sure whether this is required
backend=biber,      % compiling stuff
maxnames=7,         % DTM guideline is up to 10
minnames=7,         %   biblatex defaults to minnames when max is exceeded,         
                    %   but need 7 per DTM
showmedium=false,   % don't print publication medium 
sorting=nty,        % sort name, title, year
language=american   % proper comma inside quotation behavior
]{biblatex}
\addbibresource{thbib.bib}

\AtBeginBibliography{\renewcommand*{\mkbibnamefamily}[1]
{\MakeUppercase{#1}}} % force author names to be uppercase
\AtBeginBibliography{\renewcommand*{\mkbibnamegiven}[1]{\MakeUppercase{#1}}}     
\DeclareFieldFormat{journalvolume}{#1} % Remove italicized formatting from 
                                       % journal volumes
\DeclareFieldFormat{booktitle}{#1} % Remove italicized formatting from 
                                   %   book title per CMS
\defbibheading{bibliography}{      % Change "Works Cited" to "Bibliography"
    \section*{Bibliography}}

%% SOLUTION FROM ANSWER/PHOTO 1 (does not give correct naming)
%% add citation numbers to bibliography (simulate numeric citation)
%\makeatletter
%\input{numeric.bbx}
%\makeatother

%% SOLUTION FROM ANSWER/PHOTO 2 (does not give correct number alignment)
\AtEveryBibitem{[\printfield{labelnumber}]\addspace}% Numbers in the bib
  • Welcome to TeX.SX! Does Ulrike's answer get you what you want except for the misaligned labels? – gusbrs Apr 18 '18 at 22:43
  • By the way, moewe's comment on their answer also addresses the issue of the name order in their solution. – gusbrs Apr 18 '18 at 22:49
  • Ulrike's answer does get me what I want with my configuration aside from the misaligned labels. Moewe's comment doesn't fix my naming issue because I need Last1, First1, First2 Last2 (only the first author is last, first). Moewe's suggestion reverses all authors. – lloyd Apr 19 '18 at 1:38
0

I think the easiest (and soundest) here, would be to start from moewe's answer, and simply change the name format with:

 \DeclareNameAlias{default}{family-given/given-family}

In full:

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage[
    citestyle=numeric,
    bibstyle=authoryear,
    maxbibnames=99,
]{biblatex}

\makeatletter
\input{numeric.bbx}
\makeatother

\DeclareNameAlias{default}{family-given/given-family}

\addbibresource{biblatex-examples.bib}

\begin{document}
\cite{wilde,geer,worman,herrmann}
\printbibliography
\end{document}

enter image description here

However, I notice you are using mla as a base for the bibliography style, instead of authoryear as is done in both of those answers. The approach by moewe mobilizes bibstyle and citestyle somewhat closer. As the mla is not a standard style, perhaps the attitude of Ulrike Fisher's answer, keeping things more separate, could be wise. For that, a solution which handles the aligment in the bibliography would be:

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[citestyle=numeric,bibstyle=mla,maxbibnames=99]{biblatex}

\addbibresource{biblatex-examples.bib}

\defbibenvironment{bibliography}
  {\list
     {\printtext[labelnumberwidth]{%
        \printfield{labelprefix}%
        \printfield{labelnumber}}}
     {\setlength{\labelwidth}{\labelnumberwidth}%
      \setlength{\leftmargin}{\labelwidth}%
      \setlength{\labelsep}{\biblabelsep}%
      \addtolength{\leftmargin}{\labelsep}%
      \setlength{\itemsep}{\bibitemsep}%
      \setlength{\parsep}{\bibparsep}}%
      \renewcommand*{\makelabel}[1]{\hss##1}}
  {\endlist}
  {\item}

\DeclareFieldFormat{labelnumberwidth}{\mkbibbrackets{#1}}

\begin{document}

\cite{wilde,geer,worman,herrmann}

\printbibliography
\end{document}

enter image description here

  • Yes! That line is exactly what I needed. I found something along those lines here, but I didn't know enough to switch from "sortname" to "default". Thank you! – lloyd Apr 19 '18 at 2:10
  • As for the difference in style; it's not that important. MLA ends up similar to the strange hybrid between Chicago and my university's DTM, and I'm able to handle the differences through biblatex options and these other tweaks. Ultimately I think I just prefer the simplicity of your first answer, requiring fewer external modifications to get the right answer. – lloyd Apr 19 '18 at 2:19
  • @LloydStrohl, please see update. Though I suspect you may have been using mla because that offered you the names in the desired format. If that's the case, the first alternative with authoryear may be your best bet. – gusbrs Apr 19 '18 at 2:20
  • Oh, I see. I got your last comment after posting mine. You're in the right track then, I believe. – gusbrs Apr 19 '18 at 2:21

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.