2

How can I tweak biblatex-chicago to use the format "volume.number" instead of "volume, no. number"?

MWE:

\documentclass{article}

\usepackage[notes]{biblatex-chicago}

\begin{filecontents*}{\jobname.bib}
@article{grohmann1929paragraphos,
    Author = {Grohmann, Adolf},
    Journal = {Byzantinische Zeitschrift},
    Number = {1},
    Pages = {163--165},
    Title = {Zur Paragraphos},
    Volume = {30},
    Year = {1929}}
\end{filecontents*}
\addbibresource{\jobname.bib}

\pagestyle{empty}

\begin{document}

\cite{grohmann1929paragraphos}

\end{document}

Current output is:

Adolf Grohmann, "Zur Paragraphos," Byzantinische Zeitschrift 30, no. 1 (1929): 163–165.

I would like it to become:

Adolf Grohmann, "Zur Paragraphos," Byzantinische Zeitschrift 30.1 (1929): 163–165.

2
  • 2
    Alex, what is your field of study? The modifications you have asked for so far match the requirements of biblatex-sbl (which I maintain). SBL style is based on Chicago style, but with some modifications. biblatex-chicago is a lot more mature than biblatex-sbl though. So I'd only recommend you take a look if you are actually working in biblical studies. Commented Feb 8, 2019 at 0:56
  • Thanks for mentioning biblatex-sbl. I didn't know about it! I am in an adjacent field (Byzantine and Middle Eastern history), so it makes sense that some journals ask for tweaks to Chicago that bring it closer to SBL. Commented Feb 8, 2019 at 16:50

1 Answer 1

3

For removing the "no." before number, things are straightforward, as we can do this with a formatting directive:

\DeclareFieldFormat{journum}{#1}

The change in punctuation though requires we fiddle with the macro cjournal+ser+vol+num. I've chosen a patch for this, but you could also redefine it, changing the part of interest, it is not a long macro.

\xpatchbibmacro{cjournal+ser+vol+num}{% search
  \printfield[jourvol]{volume}%
  \setunit{\addcomma\addspace}}{% replace
  \printfield[jourvol]{volume}%
  \setunit{\adddot}}
  {}{}% <success> and <failure>

The usual advice is however due. If you are choosing biblatex-chicago because you must comply with the Chicago Manual of Style, you should not be doing such tweaks, as the package is set to comply with it.

In full:

\documentclass{article}

\usepackage[notes]{biblatex-chicago}

\begin{filecontents*}{\jobname.bib}
@article{grohmann1929paragraphos,
    Author = {Grohmann, Adolf},
    Journal = {Byzantinische Zeitschrift},
    Number = {1},
    Pages = {163--165},
    Title = {Zur Paragraphos},
    Volume = {30},
    Year = {1929}}
\end{filecontents*}
\addbibresource{\jobname.bib}

\DeclareFieldFormat{journum}{#1}

\usepackage{xpatch}

\xpatchbibmacro{cjournal+ser+vol+num}{% search
  \printfield[jourvol]{volume}%
  \setunit{\addcomma\addspace}}{% replace
  \printfield[jourvol]{volume}%
  \setunit{\adddot}}
  {}{}% <success> and <failure>

\begin{document}

\cite{grohmann1929paragraphos}

\printbibliography

\end{document}

enter image description here

5
  • Many thanks! And I appreciate the warning; it's just that some journals say they use Chicago but clearly (to judge from their examples and how citations appear in their articles) they in fact deviate in these minor ways from the Chicago style. Commented Feb 8, 2019 at 16:52
  • Occasionally, journals use issue numbers but not volumes. In those cases, the default biblatex-chicago format works well: it simply says Past and Present no. 100. But when using this answer, that case outputs "Past and Present.100"; is there a way to tweak this answer so that it says "Past and Present 100" (with no dot) instead? (Perhaps this should be a separate question, but I thought it might be a simple tweak to this one.) Commented Feb 11, 2019 at 21:11
  • 1
    @AlexRoberts Indeed, the Q&A format of the site works best for everyone if different requirements get their specific questions.
    – gusbrs
    Commented Feb 11, 2019 at 23:01
  • Great, thanks. I'll post this as a separate question. Commented Feb 12, 2019 at 4:03
  • I've posted it as a separate question here. Commented Feb 13, 2019 at 14:46

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .