I'm using Mendeley as a reference manager and Word plug-in and I need to change how it lists references in the bibliography that are cited at the same location in the text.
I've tried using the visual editing tool (https://editor.citationstyles.org/visualEditor/) but it's not going well. Thank you for your time!
Instead of individual references in the bibliography (i.e. reference (1), (2), and (3)) I want it to group anything cited at the some position in the text so I can simply cite "1" in-text and have the bibliography formatted as "(1)a,b,c".
I'm afraid CSL (and thus Mendeley) doesn't support these sort of "composite" styles, which is why even the styles for journals that allow this (like Angewandte Chemie) don't implement it.
Related
I am not sure if this question is suitable for superuser instead, but I'll ask anyway.
Currently I'm writing on my documentation for my final project. I must append several other LaTeX documents as enclosure. They must be mentioned in the first Table of Contents as alphabetical appendix. I tried the package subfiles, but the subsequent TOC´s are always empty exept in case of translating them alone.
Is there any other way to append multiple full documents with there own documentclass??
subfiles is a very simple package - it doesn't try to do anything other than manage the document-level macros. You will need to issue an \appendix cs before each inclusion of a subfile.
Beware of the different latex documents sharing auxiliary files: if they do this, then subfiles will basically not work - you will be better off using the pdfpages package that absz mentions.
Postscript If you want the subsidiary documents to have their own tables of contents, you have either to change their auxiliary files (at least, their .aux and .toc files), or switch to another mechanism. Maybe minitoc will fit better?
Couldn't you strip out the preamble of the other LaTeX documents and then use \include or \input depending on whether you want pagebreaks?
I'm using the MLA authoring style. I would like to print out a bibliography subdivided into different sections. I also want annotations on each source. Is this possible with BibLaTeX? Should I just do it manually?
Yes, I think you can do that with Biblatex, but I think you should still just do it manually.
Note, though, that you are probably wanting to craft your notes differently for each citation from one paper to the next, which leads to the question: why use Bibtex at all? You can generate a Bibtex file the usual way, until all the references are there, then cut&paste the .bbl file into place in your Latex file, and annotate and reformat away to your heart's content.
So I think that Bibtex makes sense as a standard repository of the basic facts about citations you might make again and again: in particular you can get it error-free; my experience as a scientific editor is that most authors are sure that their bibliographies are error-free, most have between 10% and 60% of entries having errors in them. Latex users tend to be better that Word users in this respect, and I think that it is because of Bibtex.
Caveat: you will need to mess about with the thebibliography environment to do this. But that is another question... Also, if there are errors in your Bibtex file, you will need to correct them in two places.
Why I don't like Biblatex: the Bibtex prepresentation is a standard, and is accepted by all kinds of other document processors. You shouldn't put special Latex formatting into your bibliographic database: that will reduce the utility of that database. For m in particular, I use both Latex and Context: both use Bibtex, but only Latex uses Biblatex.
I managed to write a quite nice MLA-style bibliography with bibtex and the style provided by the Reed College (which is based on Natbib), and BibUnits to subdivide the entries in sections (as discussed here)
(let me know if you have any tips with MLA styles, my paper is not finished yet)
EDIT: my answer was for standard bibtex, not biblatex, sorry
yes, you can do it easily with biblatexwith the headings:
For instance:
\defbibheading{general}{\section*{General Architecture}}
\defbibheading{european}{\section*{European Architecture}}
\printbibliography[heading=general,keyword=general]
\printbibliography[heading=european,keyword=european]
and add the relevant keywords={architecture} keywords={general} in your *.bib files
Here is a biblatex MLA-style, if you need biblatex-mla (and a related question, you may also face this problem)
IEEE conference publications in two-column format require authors to manually equalize the lengths of the columns on the last page of the final submission. I have typically done this by inserting a \newpage where necessary -- which usually ends up being somewhere amidst my (manually entered) references.
However, I have recently begun using BibTeX to manage references, and have now run into a problem: my last page contains only a few (generated) references, and I can't figure out how to manually equalize the columns.
The last page is the tail end of what is generated by:
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
\bibliography{IEEEabrv,library}
Any ideas on how I can equalize the columns while continuing to use BibTeX?
I have submitted to both ACM and IEEE conferences and the easiest thing for me has been using:
\usepackage{flushend}
I've heard it doesn't always work well, but it's been great for me
http://www.ctan.org/pkg/flushend
I went back to RTFM again, and it turns out this is addressed right in "How to Use the IEEEtran LaTeX Class" by Michael Shell (maintainer). Section XIV notes that IEEEtran helpfully provides the \IEEEtriggeratref{} command for just this purpose. By default, it fires a \newline at the given BibTeX reference number. You can even change the command to fire with \IEEEtriggercmd{}.
It can also be done by using the balance package. You simply include the balance package in the preamble (\usepackage{balance}) and insert \balance some place on the last page of your document (for instance right in front of the references). However, I'm not sure if it's working if the last page (both columns) is completely full of references...
IEEE requires authors to equalize the lengths of the columns on the last page.
ACM makes us do this too. I just wind up inserting \vfill\break by hand either in the main text or somewhere in the .bbl file, wherever it makes the columns balance. By the time camera-ready copy goes to ACM, they want the .bbl file inlined by hand anyway, so tinkering by hand does not present an additional hardship.
The reference-number trick might be nice except I never use numbered references :-)
The multicols environment works only if you're luck and your last page comes out exactly as bibliography.
It would be extremely good (and not so difficult) if some enterprising hacker would build the "balance the two columns in the last page" functionality straight into LateX's \output routine. The flexibility is there in the underlying engine, and it would make a lot of people happy.
Not sure if multicol conflicts with bibtex at all, and I don't have time to check, sorry. But try this:
use the multicol package:
\usepackage{multicol} in your preamble, then:
\begin{multicols}{2}
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
\bibliography{IEEEabrv,library}
\end{multicols}
Multicol automatically balances columns. I would recomend using it through out your document, instead of using the .cls or .sty's twocolumn option.
I have set tocdepth to a lower number, so that other subsections are not included in the list. But instead of just removing these items, LaTeX leaves a gap. How does it happen? How could it be prevented?
We need details, including the document class, the exact tocdepth number, and the set of section headings actually used in your document. Two hypotheses:
You have not run LaTeX enough times for the TOC to stablize—possible but unlikely.
You have set the tocdepth to 1, and the document class you are using deliberately puts extra space between level 1 headings (\sections)—slightly more likely.
The table of contents may include a stretchable space in between each of the entries. If the style allows it, put a \vfill after the \tableofcontents but before any \newpages, and see if that makes a difference.
Usually I recommend one of the titletoc or tocloft packages to format ToC entries.
I can heartily recommend the memoir document class, which I use for everything from poetry to business cards. I'm very, very happy with the investment I made to learn it, even though it wasn't negligible.
In particular, to tinker at your TOC entry formatting, search for \cftbeforeKskip in memman.pdf.
The final solution will probably look something like this:
\setlength{\cftbeforechapterskip}{0pt}
or
\setlength{\cftbeforesectionskip}{0pt}
etc... (depending on which level of entry you want to adjust)
My preferred bibtex style file cites via author's initials. However, there are various texts which should be cited differently (for example, Elements Geometrie Algebrique should always be cited as [EGA]). I know how to modify this in the .bbl file that bibtex outputs, but then I have to do this for every file. Is there a way to do this from my .bib file?
My preferred bibtex style file cites via author's initials. However, there are various texts which should be cited differently...
I hope I don't get flamed for this, but your preferred bibtex style file does not serve your readers very well. Part of my job is to review papers, and a jumble of initials like [GKS] is not nearly as helpful as a full author-date citation like [Guibas, Knuth, and Sharir 1990]. For a knowledgeable reader, the authors and date often make it unneccessary to refer to the bibliography. For a naïve reader, a group of names is much easier to remember then a group of letters, especially when one or more of the names may be familiar. These issues are discussed in detail by, e.g., the Chicago Manual of Style, which explains the proper way to cite from the professional literature.
I go on at such length because I believe you are solving the wrong problem. Although I believe your readers will quickly recognize [EGA], I would hope they would also recognize (Grothendieck 1960) or (Grothendieck and Dieudonné 1967).
Can I [modify the way a work is cited] by changing my .bib file?
Not if you want to use any of the standard BibTeX styles. BibTeX uses one of the world's worst programming languages, and the standard programs are very firm about using the author or editor of a work for form the citation key. If you really want to do this, I recommend the following procedure:
Clone and modify something like the plainnat.bst file. This will enable you to create a new "bibliography style."
Create a new type of BibTeX entry which will enable you to specify the citation key using a special field (key is a popular choice).
Alter the calc.label function to do the right thing with your new type of entry. If you're lucky, changing calc.label will be enough to be sure the thing is sorted properly.
Use your nonstandard type in your .bib file and use your nonstandard \bibliographystyle{...} in all your LaTeX documents.
The gods really don't want you to do this—and neither do your coauthors...
You can modify the .bst program so that it looks for an additional field, say shown-key, and if it is set uses that rather than the usual.
If you are willing to use a different bib style there is a way pointed out by this answer. Using the abstract style, the bibtex key is used as the cite key. Then, you edit each key in the bib file anyway you want it.
A straightforward disadvantage of this approach is that you will have to edit every item in your bib file, however I believe that it is a fair price to pay for such flexibility.
I've seen other possible solutions involving natbib or biblatex, but I wanted to avoid those packages as I sometimes get compilation problems when using them.