Follow-up of this question.
The question and answer explain how to add ibit
to a numeric style in biblatex.
But that solution is indeed likely longer than citing the number twice, because it cites a sentence like this:
They say, “LaTeX is powerful“[96, p. 3], but state on the same page “WordTEX may be better”[96, p. 3]. On then next page, they talk about “trains driving backwards”[96, p. 4].
With the “ibit patch” applied, it is shown as this:
They say, “LaTeX is powerful“[96, p. 3], but state on the same page “WordTEX may be better”[ibid., p. 3]. On then next page, they talk about “trains driving backwards”[ibid., p. 4].
However, obviously this still makes the text longer. I however, want that it also compares the postnote there… (i.e. the 3
in \cite[3]{wildenhain2018}
)
Basically this question calls for the same, but they use a different citation style.
As such, ibidpage
is used and likely modified there – while I need to use ibidtracker=constrict
as explained in the first question.
So simply combining these solutions does not work.
In the end, I'd like a result like this:
They say, “LaTeX is powerful“[96, p. 3], but state on the same page “WordTEX may be better”[ibid.]. On then next page, they talk about “trains driving backwards”[ibid., p. 4].
If possible easily, maybe also explain how I could only print ibid
if such a “complete matching” entry is found so it basically never increases the size of the citation. In the example, this would lead to this:
They say, “LaTeX is powerful“[96, p. 3], but state on the same page “WordTEX may be better”[ibid.]. On then next page, they talk about “trains driving backwards”[96., p. 4].
How can this be achieved?
Note it also should be able to compare arbitrary data in the postnote. (as biblatex does not automatically prepend non-only-numeric arguments there, so one has to use \cite[p. 3~ff.]{wildenhain2018}
or similar sometimes)
\cite[3\psqq]{wildenhain2018}
instead of *\cite[p. 3~ff.]{wildenhain2018}
andbiblatex
will treat your postnote as purely numeric.