3

I could need some help figuring out how to properly enter and print working papers with biblatex-chicago?

I used to have entries like this (prior to switching to biblatex): 

@workingpaper{silverstein1981limits-awareness,
    Address = {Austin},
    Author = {Silverstein, Michael},
    Language = {en},
    Number = {84},
    Publisher = {Southwest Educational Development Laboratory},
    Series = {Sociolinguistic Working Paper},
    Title = {The Limits of Awareness},
    Year = {1981}}

some also with an url field.

But biblatex doesn't include @workingpaper anymore. According to the manual one should use the @unpublished category. However if I change it to unpublished it only prints:

Silverstein, Michael. 1981. “The Limits of Awareness.” Austin.

which is not enough information if one wants to follow Chicago. CMoS recommends treating working papers like theses/dissertations or lectures/presentations. This is the example from their website which I'd like to replicate (adapted for author-date format):

Dyer, Lee, and Jeff Ericksen. 1980. "Complexity-Based Agile Enterprises: Putting Self-Organizing Emergence to Work." CAHRS Working Paper 08-01, School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Center for Advanced Human Resource Studies, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cahrswp/473.

Thus for my example above I'd like to end up with (for author date):

Silverstein, Michael. 1981. "The Limits of Awareness." Sociolinguistic Working Paper 84, Southwest Educational Development Laboratory, Austin.

How do I get @unpublished to print that additional information about publisher, series, and number? Or how should I modify my entry to get what I want?

jan
  • 2,236

1 Answers1

3

I think you are looking for the @report entry type which is described as "A technical report, research report, or white paper published by a university or some other institution. [...] The sponsoring institution goes in the institution field." (p. 11 of the biblatex documentation).

The type or series of the report goes into the type field (with biblatex-chicago series would also be acceptable, but the standard styles only allow type here, so it seems to be a good idea to stick to type), the number of the report into number.

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\usepackage{lmodern}
\usepackage[english]{babel}
\usepackage[babel]{csquotes}
\usepackage[authordate, backend=biber]{biblatex-chicago}

\usepackage{filecontents}
\begin{filecontents*}{\jobname.bib}
@report{silverstein1981limits-awareness,
  author      = {Silverstein, Michael},
  title       = {The Limits of Awareness},
  year        = {1981},
  type        = {Sociolinguistic Working Paper},
  number      = {84},
  institution = {Southwest Educational Development Laboratory},
  address     = {Austin},
}
\end{filecontents*}
\addbibresource{\jobname.bib}

\begin{document}
\cite{silverstein1981limits-awareness}

\printbibliography
\end{document}

gives

Silverstein, Michael. 1981. *The Limits of Awareness.* Sociolinguistic Working Paper 84. Austin: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.

moewe
  • 175,683
  • Thanks for the quick reply. I guess that should do. The only way in which differs from the CMoS website is that it's printed in italics like a book title and CMoS wants it in quotation marks instead. Any way to change that? – jan Aug 21 '16 at 16:37
  • @jan Technically, yes, it is going to be a bit of a mess though, due to the code structure of biblatex-chicago. The author of biblatex-chicago notes that he finds the info on @reports in the CMS a bit sparse and so went for something similar to @book; if you have reasons to doubt that is correct you could give the author a shout so he can re-evaluate things. – moewe Aug 21 '16 at 16:39
  • In section "Unpublished and Informally Published Material" under 14.224, it reads: "Titles of unpublished works appear in quotation marks—not in italics." ––– Do you know if the author is on TEX.SX? Otherwise I'll write him an email. – jan Aug 21 '16 at 16:40
  • 1
    @jan I'm not sure, but he responds to mails quite quickly I believe. You might want to ponder though, if technically we have a work that is really unpublished here. (Normally, I'd argue @reports are very much published. You could argue it is informally published - but then what does that even mean?) – moewe Aug 21 '16 at 16:43
  • Yes, I also think that Chicago's guidelines are a bit odd here. I would consider a working paper "published" too, if it appears in a series. But they also have thesis/dissertation-titles in quotation marks. – jan Aug 21 '16 at 16:48
  • 1
    @jan Mhhh, they don't exactly seem to know what they want. I was wrong about it being complicated though, luckily, \DeclareFieldFormat[report]{title}{\mkbibquote{#1\isdot}} should be enough. – moewe Aug 21 '16 at 16:52
  • I need to come back once more to this thread, is there a way to change the comma after title into a dot, as it is with all the other entry types (which is actually how Chicago wants it)? – jan Aug 22 '16 at 09:46
  • @jan \usepackage{xpatch}\xpatchbibdriver{report}{\newcunit}{\newunit}{}{}. But that seems to be intentional, maybe you should give the type field. – moewe Aug 22 '16 at 09:53
  • Hmm, this gives "undefined control sequence" ... printfield{type}\newunit — What should be in the type field? The manual is not very explicit on this. – jan Aug 22 '16 at 10:03
  • @jan That was one of those weird copy and paste things (some invisible char seems to have sneaked into the \newunit), try \usepackage{xpatch}\xpatchbibdriver{report}{\newcunit}{\newunit}{}{} or copy it manually. The type field should hold the type of paper you are referring (whitepaper, ...). I would not mind leaving it out, but because the biblatex manual makes it mandatory, so does biblatex-chicago (I believe) and so the full stop is turned into a comma. – moewe Aug 22 '16 at 10:09
  • Oh, I saw it (it's still there btw, after the u of unit). But yes, now it works. It also works when Type is specified (then the type field gets the comma), but for a workingpaper I wouldn't need the type. So this way is better. Thanks a ton for helping out with all that biblatex stuff! – jan Aug 22 '16 at 10:20