2

I am currently trying to figure out how to replace the dot by a colon after volume if * the bibliography entry is a book AND * the volume nr is directly followed by series So instead of

Bd. 10.

I'd like it to be

Bd. 10:

In case the entry holds no series, it should still show the dot instead of a colon (like it is currently).

In case of articles it should stay as it is (see Hijiya-Kirschnereit). enter image description here MWE

\documentclass{scrreprt}
\usepackage[onehalfspacing]{setspace}
\usepackage[main=ngerman, english]{babel}
%----------------------------------------------------------------------------
%   BIB
%----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  \usepackage[
    backend=biber,
    style=authoryear,
    sorting=nyvt
  ]{biblatex}
\renewcommand{\mkbibnamefamily}[1]{\textsc{#1}}
\renewcommand{\labelnamepunct}{\addcolon\space}
\DeclareFieldFormat{postnote}{#1}
\DeclareFieldFormat{multipostnote}{#1}
\renewcommand\postnotedelim{\addcolon\addspace}
\DeclareFieldFormat
  [article,inbook,incollection,inproceedings,patent,thesis,unpublished]
  {title}{#1\isdot}
% sets Volume, Number, Id
\newcommand*{\volnumdelim}{\addcomma\space}
\renewbibmacro*{volume+number+eid}{%
  \printfield{volume}%
  \setunit*{\volnumdelim}%
  \printfield{number}%
  \setunit{\addcomma\space}%
  \printfield{eid}}
\renewcommand\postnotedelim{\addcolon\space}
\DeclareFieldFormat{postnote}{#1}
\DeclareFieldFormat{multipostnote}{#1}
\usepackage{url}
\urlstyle{same}

% italic series
\DeclareFieldFormat[book,inbook,incollection,collection]{series}{\mkbibemph{#1}}
\renewbibmacro*{series+number}{%
  \ifboolexpr{not test {\iffieldundef{series}} and not test {\iffieldundef{number}}}
    {\printtext[parens]{%
      \printtext{=\addspace}%
      \printfield{series}%
      \setunit*{\addcomma\space}%
      \printfield{number}%
      \printtext{\addperiod}}
      \nopunct}
    {\printfield{series}%
     \setunit*{\addcomma\space}%
     \printfield{number}
     \newunit}}

\begin{filecontents*}{\jobname.bib}

@book{Doi.1978,
    author = {Doi, Yutaka and Sano, Tetsuji and Tanaka, Itsuo},
    year = {1978},
    title = {Senkyo seido},
    titleaddon = {Das Wahlsystem},
    keywords = {Election law;Local elections},
    volume = {10},
    publisher = {Gy{\^o}sei},
    location = {T{\^o}ky{\^o}},
    series = {Gendai chih{\^o} jichi zensh{\^u}},
    abstract = {},
}

@article{HijiyaKirschnereit.2009,
 author = {Hijiya-Kirschnereit, Irmela},
 year = {2009},
 title = {Rezension: Reading Food in Modern Japanese Literature.},
 journaltitle= {Monumenta Nipponica},
 pages = {415--418},
 pagination = {page},
 volume = {64},
 subtitle = {By Tomoko Aoyama},
 number = {2},
 abstract = {},
}   

@book{Ito.1978,
    author = {Itō, Masami},
    year = {1978},
    title = {Broadcasting in Japan},
    keywords = {Broadcasting   Japan},
    volume = {7},
    publisher = {{Routledge and Kegan Paul [for] the International Institute of Communications}},
    location = {London},
    series = {Case studies on broadcasting systems},
    abstract = {}
}

\end{filecontents*}
\addbibresource{\jobname.bib}
%----------------------------------------------------------------------------
%   MAIN
%----------------------------------------------------------------------------
\begin{document}
\nocite{*}
\printbibliography[heading=bibintoc,title={Literaturverzeichnis}]

\end{document}

Hope someone might have an idea :) Best!

8
  • Did you have a look at my answer to tex.stackexchange.com/q/457598/35864? I would argue that a combination of volume+series is bound to give you undesirable output. You either want maintitle+volume or series+number.
    – moewe
    Commented Nov 9, 2018 at 7:57
  • FWIW a Google search leads me to think that for Ito.1978 series+number would be more appropriate. Apparently there was a loose series called Case studies on broadcasting systems with works by several different authors (cf. opac.sub.uni-goettingen.de/FAM?PPN=130051578)
    – moewe
    Commented Nov 9, 2018 at 8:02
  • thank you for the quick reply - so just, to find out if I understood everything correctly: i should not use title + volume + series, but maintitle + volume + title OR series + number + title? Why would I use number here instead of volume? And wouldn't that omit the displaying of "Bd." ? The maintitle + volume + title absolutely sense though - I have put it in a wrong order - I think I should change that in Citavi then too! However, if I changed it to maintitle + volume + title, I would still need the volume to end with a colon instead of a dot IF there is a title following
    – user168390
    Commented Nov 9, 2018 at 10:54
  • Yes, you should normally not use title + series + volume. You should either use maintitle + volume + title if we are talking about a multi-volume book (usually written by the same set of authors) or title + series + number if we are talking about a loose series (Schriftenreihe). The why can only be answered with: Because that is how biblatex handles these things: The instalment/part/'volume' of a series belongs into the number field, not volume. If I use maintitle+volume+title I get a colon in your example.
    – moewe
    Commented Nov 9, 2018 at 10:59
  • maintitle+volume+title corresponds to 10.2.10 Mehrbändiges Werk, series+number to 10.2.16 Angaben zu Schriftenreihen in ioa.uni-bonn.de/de/studium/materialien/formalregeln_ioa.pdf
    – moewe
    Commented Nov 9, 2018 at 11:01

0

Browse other questions tagged .