# Using Chicago B

Should I drop natbib and use biblatex-chicago if I want to use Chicago B style referencing?

I'm using:

\documentclass[a4paper]{article}
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[english]{babel}
\usepackage{natbib}
\bibliographystyle{chicagoa}
\setcitestyle{authoryear,open={},close={}}


and then inline adding parentheses around my cites like (\cite{Stokes2019}) - which is a bit of hack and will probably trip me up at some point.

Update

The \setcitestyle used above can be dropped with biblatex and \citeparen used instead.

• What is Chicago B referencing? For full CMoS references I would probably look at biblatex-chicago or the slightly newer biblatex style windycity. I haven't tried your code example (because it is not a full MWE), but if you load natbib usually \citep{Stokes2019} should be the better alternative to (\cite{Stokes2019}) (with biblatex you would use \parencite). – moewe Aug 3 '19 at 4:53
• I know that there is an author-year reference style and a notes (basically full bibliography reference in a footnote) reference style in CMoS. So I assume one of them is A and the other is B. Confusingly, the chicagoa.bst from CTAN follows the CMoS B reference style (according to the code comments; maybe the a in chicagoa refers to the fact that the .bst supports the annotation field). – moewe Aug 3 '19 at 5:59
• Thanks @moewe Great pointers. I'm looking into using windycity – timbo Aug 3 '19 at 21:53

For a flexible Chicago reference I would definitely recommend one of the two available biblatex implementations.

biblatex-chicago is the established go-to CMoS style which has been around for quite some time. Due to the many edge cases in Chicago style the code is quite complex, so it can be tricky to modify, but there are many options to customise the output. Note that biblatex-chicago should be loaded via its wrapper package and not via \usepackage{biblatex}.

windycity is a more recent style (at least it appeared only recently on CTAN) and its code does not appear to be as complex as biblatex-chicago's.

For the most part the two styles produce extremely similar output, but there may well be details where the two differ. Both styles come with extensive documentation.

biblatex-chicago's authordate style

\documentclass[american]{article}
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage{babel}
\usepackage{csquotes}

\usepackage[authordate, backend=biber]{biblatex-chicago}

\begin{document}
Lorem \autocite{sigfridsson}
ipsum \autocite{nussbaum}
dolor \autocite{sigfridsson}
sit \autocite{worman}
amet \autocite{cicero}
dolor \autocite{companion}.

\printbibliography
\end{document}


windycity with reflist, autocite=inline,

\documentclass[american]{article}
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage{babel}
\usepackage{csquotes}

\usepackage[style=windycity, reflist, autocite=inline, backend=biber]{biblatex}

\begin{document}
Lorem \autocite{sigfridsson}
ipsum \autocite{nussbaum}
dolor \autocite{sigfridsson}
sit \autocite{worman}
amet \autocite{cicero}
dolor \autocite{companion}.

\printbibliography
\end{document}


• Thankyou for the excellent examples. – timbo Aug 5 '19 at 1:06