Using inline-citation (i.e. Harvard): When citing a source, you add an emphasis ("emphasis added") or modify a translation ("translation modified") etc. This is usually pointed out directly in the reference.

Something along those lines:

And this "was very important" (Author, year, p. 133, emphasis added) to me.

This is the current setup:




If I use


I get: (Author, Date, p. 144), which is fine.

But if I use something like

\autocite[133, emphasis added]{citekey}

I get: (Author, Date, 144, emphasis added). Note that it is lacking the "p.", it does no longer seem to read the 144 as a page number.

Is there any way to do this other than adding the p. by hand in all these cases?

New contributor
Scharlatan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering. Check out our Code of Conduct.

With an up-to-date biblatex (I use v3.16 to test the example, some things may also work in older versions), you have the following options


\usepackage[backend=biber, style=authoryear-ibid, ibidpage]{biblatex}



Lorem \autocite[380]{sigfridsson}

ipsum \autocite[380]{sigfridsson}

Lorem \autocite[\pno~381, emphasis added]{sigfridsson}

ipsum \autocite[\pno~381, emphasis added]{sigfridsson}

Lorem \autocite[\pnfmt{382}, emphasis added]{sigfridsson}

ipsum \autocite[\pnfmt{382}, emphasis added]{sigfridsson}

Lorem \autocite[383\passifpages{, emphasis added}]{sigfridsson}

ipsum \autocite[383\passifpages{, emphasis added}]{sigfridsson}


Lorem (Sigfridsson and Ryde 1998, p. 380)//ipsum (ibid.)////Lorem (Sigfridsson and Ryde 1998, p. 381, emphasis added)//ipsum (ibid., p. 381, emphasis added)////Lorem (Sigfridsson and Ryde 1998, p. 382, emphasis added)//ipsum (ibid., p. 382, emphasis added)////Lorem (Sigfridsson and Ryde 1998, p. 383, emphasis added)//ipsum (ibid.)

  • \pno just prints the page prefix (you'd use \ppno for "pages").
  • \pnfmt applies the usual field format only to its argument, which in this case creates the "p." prefix.
  • \passifpages hides its argument from the page and number tests, which also means that we get to see the "p." prefix here. Essentially the argument of \passifpages becomes invisible to biblatex's formatting and tracking features.

Often the difference between \pnfmt and \passifpages does not matter, but there is a difference with the ibidpage with your style, because for that option it matters whether or not the argument passes the \ifpages test (which \pnfmt does not necessarily allow for, but \passifpages does).

  • Thank you! Especially the \pnfmt and the \passifpages seem perfect - if I understand correctly (sorry, newbie here) the \pno would print the prefix always. So if I later want to change to (Author, Year: 56) it would end up giving me (Author, Year: p. 56) (at least when I just tried it). Is there a reason to prefer \pnfmt over \passifpages or the other way round? Anything to consider? – Scharlatan May 4 at 16:34
  • @Scharlatan Yes, \pno literally just prints "p." (or whatever the page prefix comes out as in your chosen localisation). If you later change your field format to generally omit the "p.", postnotes with \pno will look out of place, since they will retain the "p.". I'll edit the answer in a sec with an example showing how the \pnfmt and \passifpages approaches differ. (I personally think the \pnfmt approach looks nicer in the code, but \passifpages sometimes gets closer to what people actually want.) – moewe May 4 at 19:01
  • @moewe, I reckon it would be nice to have a robust \ifbegnumeral macro (and variants for ranges and pages) that could be switched in to \makepageprefix if desired to, for example, test if a postnote begins with a page or page range. – David Purton May 5 at 5:36
  • @DavidPurton Yeah. The whole business is a bit tricky as it involves several different tests (\ifnumeral, \ifnumerals, \ifpages) at several different levels ("p." vs "pp." as well as just plain \ifpages for ibidpage and friends). I guess best would be a clean interface that separates an optional textual note from the pages note (e.g. as discussed in github.com/plk/biblatex/issues/918#issuecomment-635789954), but I don't think we can pull that off in a backwards compatible way. ... – moewe May 5 at 15:42

Your Answer

Scharlatan is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.

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.