Is there a easy way to put bibliography in a table?
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
I would like to know if there exist a bibliography style or if there is a easy way to generate a bibliography that looks like:
tables bibliographies
New contributor
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
I would like to know if there exist a bibliography style or if there is a easy way to generate a bibliography that looks like:
tables bibliographies
New contributor
1
Bibliographies like the one shown are certainly very rare (almost non-existent) in scholarly works. For starters, the table does not contain the usual minimal information for a bibliography (which would also include year and at least one of publisher and location; for@article
s you would definitely the journal and volume etc.) Secondly, most bibliographies in TeX don't use tables, instead they use lists.
– moewe
6 hours ago
1
Welcome to TeX.SE! Start from this: tex.stackexchange.com/questions/332710/… and edit your post adding a minimal working example with bibliography (MWEB).
– CarLaTeX
6 hours ago
5
My personal advice: don't do it. It is very ugly.
– Johannes_B
6 hours ago
1
@Johannes_B and moewe: I don't like that kind of bibliography style either, but it is a requirement. Sincerely I would done it in another way too.
– pin_ftv
5 hours ago
@CarLaTeX I didn't find any minimal working example while googling so I thought it makes no sense to add a working example of some other bibliography style that doesn't match at all that what I need. Instead I tried to put a graphic so that it will be clearer. Thank you all!
– pin_ftv
5 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
I would like to know if there exist a bibliography style or if there is a easy way to generate a bibliography that looks like:
tables bibliographies
New contributor
I would like to know if there exist a bibliography style or if there is a easy way to generate a bibliography that looks like:
tables bibliographies
tables bibliographies
New contributor
New contributor
New contributor
asked 6 hours ago
pin_ftv
434
434
New contributor
New contributor
1
Bibliographies like the one shown are certainly very rare (almost non-existent) in scholarly works. For starters, the table does not contain the usual minimal information for a bibliography (which would also include year and at least one of publisher and location; for@article
s you would definitely the journal and volume etc.) Secondly, most bibliographies in TeX don't use tables, instead they use lists.
– moewe
6 hours ago
1
Welcome to TeX.SE! Start from this: tex.stackexchange.com/questions/332710/… and edit your post adding a minimal working example with bibliography (MWEB).
– CarLaTeX
6 hours ago
5
My personal advice: don't do it. It is very ugly.
– Johannes_B
6 hours ago
1
@Johannes_B and moewe: I don't like that kind of bibliography style either, but it is a requirement. Sincerely I would done it in another way too.
– pin_ftv
5 hours ago
@CarLaTeX I didn't find any minimal working example while googling so I thought it makes no sense to add a working example of some other bibliography style that doesn't match at all that what I need. Instead I tried to put a graphic so that it will be clearer. Thank you all!
– pin_ftv
5 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
1
Bibliographies like the one shown are certainly very rare (almost non-existent) in scholarly works. For starters, the table does not contain the usual minimal information for a bibliography (which would also include year and at least one of publisher and location; for@article
s you would definitely the journal and volume etc.) Secondly, most bibliographies in TeX don't use tables, instead they use lists.
– moewe
6 hours ago
1
Welcome to TeX.SE! Start from this: tex.stackexchange.com/questions/332710/… and edit your post adding a minimal working example with bibliography (MWEB).
– CarLaTeX
6 hours ago
5
My personal advice: don't do it. It is very ugly.
– Johannes_B
6 hours ago
1
@Johannes_B and moewe: I don't like that kind of bibliography style either, but it is a requirement. Sincerely I would done it in another way too.
– pin_ftv
5 hours ago
@CarLaTeX I didn't find any minimal working example while googling so I thought it makes no sense to add a working example of some other bibliography style that doesn't match at all that what I need. Instead I tried to put a graphic so that it will be clearer. Thank you all!
– pin_ftv
5 hours ago
1
1
Bibliographies like the one shown are certainly very rare (almost non-existent) in scholarly works. For starters, the table does not contain the usual minimal information for a bibliography (which would also include year and at least one of publisher and location; for
@article
s you would definitely the journal and volume etc.) Secondly, most bibliographies in TeX don't use tables, instead they use lists.– moewe
6 hours ago
Bibliographies like the one shown are certainly very rare (almost non-existent) in scholarly works. For starters, the table does not contain the usual minimal information for a bibliography (which would also include year and at least one of publisher and location; for
@article
s you would definitely the journal and volume etc.) Secondly, most bibliographies in TeX don't use tables, instead they use lists.– moewe
6 hours ago
1
1
Welcome to TeX.SE! Start from this: tex.stackexchange.com/questions/332710/… and edit your post adding a minimal working example with bibliography (MWEB).
– CarLaTeX
6 hours ago
Welcome to TeX.SE! Start from this: tex.stackexchange.com/questions/332710/… and edit your post adding a minimal working example with bibliography (MWEB).
– CarLaTeX
6 hours ago
5
5
My personal advice: don't do it. It is very ugly.
– Johannes_B
6 hours ago
My personal advice: don't do it. It is very ugly.
– Johannes_B
6 hours ago
1
1
@Johannes_B and moewe: I don't like that kind of bibliography style either, but it is a requirement. Sincerely I would done it in another way too.
– pin_ftv
5 hours ago
@Johannes_B and moewe: I don't like that kind of bibliography style either, but it is a requirement. Sincerely I would done it in another way too.
– pin_ftv
5 hours ago
@CarLaTeX I didn't find any minimal working example while googling so I thought it makes no sense to add a working example of some other bibliography style that doesn't match at all that what I need. Instead I tried to put a graphic so that it will be clearer. Thank you all!
– pin_ftv
5 hours ago
@CarLaTeX I didn't find any minimal working example while googling so I thought it makes no sense to add a working example of some other bibliography style that doesn't match at all that what I need. Instead I tried to put a graphic so that it will be clearer. Thank you all!
– pin_ftv
5 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
12
down vote
accepted
With biblatex-ext
's package biblatex-ext-tabular
you can create tabular bibliographies like the ones in tabular bibliography with biblatex, in fact the code is largely inspired by Audrey's work in that question. You will need at least version 0.5 of biblatex-ext
and you can read more about tabular bibliographies in §6 Tabular Bibliographies of its documentation.
For a simple three-column set-up with label, title and author you don't need a lot of code. But you should be aware of the fact that this information alone is not always enough to properly identify a work. @collection
s don't have authors, they have editors. Even @books
usually have more information in the bibliography than just the title and author: the year of publication is present in almost all styles and at least one of publisher or location is very common. @article
s would generally need at least a journal
and a publication date. The situation is worse for other contained works like @incollection
which may be next to impossible to find without knowing the enclosing work.
Not only does this not look very pretty, it is almost certainly not enough information for a proper bibliography. – Don't do this.
documentclass[british]{article}
usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
usepackage{babel}
usepackage{csquotes}
usepackage[style=numeric, backend=biber]{biblatex}
usepackage{biblatex-ext-tabular}
usepackage{longtable}
usepackage{array}
usepackage{booktabs}
newcolumntype{L}[1]{%
>{raggedrightletnewline\arraybackslashhspace{0pt}}p{#1}}
newcolumntype{C}[1]{%
>{centeringletnewline\arraybackslashhspace{0pt}}p{#1}}
defbibtabular{bibtabular}
{setlength{LTpre}{0pt}%
setlength{LTpost}{0pt}%
renewcommand*{arraystretch}{2}%
begin{longtable}{%
@{}
C{dimexpr0.08textwidth-tabcolseprelax}
L{dimexpr0.6textwidth-2tabcolseprelax}
L{dimexpr0.3textwidth-tabcolseprelax}
@{}}
toprule
textbf{Ref.} & textbf{Title} & textbf{Author}\
midrule}
{bottomrule
end{longtable}}
{anchorlang{%
printtext[labelnumberwidth]{%
printfield{labelprefix}%
printfield{labelnumber}}}
& plainlang{usebibmacro{title}}
& plainlang{printnames{author}} \}
addbibresource{biblatex-examples.bib}
begin{document}
cite{worman,geer,nussbaum,companion}
printbibtabular
end{document}
Compare this with the usual output of a numeric bibliography. If you want to put additional emphasis on the author name, you can make it bold.
documentclass[british]{article}
usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
usepackage{babel}
usepackage{csquotes}
usepackage[style=numeric, backend=biber]{biblatex}
addbibresource{biblatex-examples.bib}
DeclareNameWrapperAlias{author}{sortname}
DeclareNameWrapperAlias{editor}{sortname}
DeclareNameWrapperAlias{translator}{sortname}
DeclareNameWrapperFormat{sortname}{mkbibbold{#1}}
begin{document}
cite{worman,geer,nussbaum,companion}
printbibliography
end{document}
thank you!! that's what I was looking for but unfortunately I couldn't find any reference to that package while googling.
– pin_ftv
5 hours ago
1
@pin_ftv It is still fairly new.
– moewe
5 hours ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
12
down vote
accepted
With biblatex-ext
's package biblatex-ext-tabular
you can create tabular bibliographies like the ones in tabular bibliography with biblatex, in fact the code is largely inspired by Audrey's work in that question. You will need at least version 0.5 of biblatex-ext
and you can read more about tabular bibliographies in §6 Tabular Bibliographies of its documentation.
For a simple three-column set-up with label, title and author you don't need a lot of code. But you should be aware of the fact that this information alone is not always enough to properly identify a work. @collection
s don't have authors, they have editors. Even @books
usually have more information in the bibliography than just the title and author: the year of publication is present in almost all styles and at least one of publisher or location is very common. @article
s would generally need at least a journal
and a publication date. The situation is worse for other contained works like @incollection
which may be next to impossible to find without knowing the enclosing work.
Not only does this not look very pretty, it is almost certainly not enough information for a proper bibliography. – Don't do this.
documentclass[british]{article}
usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
usepackage{babel}
usepackage{csquotes}
usepackage[style=numeric, backend=biber]{biblatex}
usepackage{biblatex-ext-tabular}
usepackage{longtable}
usepackage{array}
usepackage{booktabs}
newcolumntype{L}[1]{%
>{raggedrightletnewline\arraybackslashhspace{0pt}}p{#1}}
newcolumntype{C}[1]{%
>{centeringletnewline\arraybackslashhspace{0pt}}p{#1}}
defbibtabular{bibtabular}
{setlength{LTpre}{0pt}%
setlength{LTpost}{0pt}%
renewcommand*{arraystretch}{2}%
begin{longtable}{%
@{}
C{dimexpr0.08textwidth-tabcolseprelax}
L{dimexpr0.6textwidth-2tabcolseprelax}
L{dimexpr0.3textwidth-tabcolseprelax}
@{}}
toprule
textbf{Ref.} & textbf{Title} & textbf{Author}\
midrule}
{bottomrule
end{longtable}}
{anchorlang{%
printtext[labelnumberwidth]{%
printfield{labelprefix}%
printfield{labelnumber}}}
& plainlang{usebibmacro{title}}
& plainlang{printnames{author}} \}
addbibresource{biblatex-examples.bib}
begin{document}
cite{worman,geer,nussbaum,companion}
printbibtabular
end{document}
Compare this with the usual output of a numeric bibliography. If you want to put additional emphasis on the author name, you can make it bold.
documentclass[british]{article}
usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
usepackage{babel}
usepackage{csquotes}
usepackage[style=numeric, backend=biber]{biblatex}
addbibresource{biblatex-examples.bib}
DeclareNameWrapperAlias{author}{sortname}
DeclareNameWrapperAlias{editor}{sortname}
DeclareNameWrapperAlias{translator}{sortname}
DeclareNameWrapperFormat{sortname}{mkbibbold{#1}}
begin{document}
cite{worman,geer,nussbaum,companion}
printbibliography
end{document}
thank you!! that's what I was looking for but unfortunately I couldn't find any reference to that package while googling.
– pin_ftv
5 hours ago
1
@pin_ftv It is still fairly new.
– moewe
5 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
12
down vote
accepted
With biblatex-ext
's package biblatex-ext-tabular
you can create tabular bibliographies like the ones in tabular bibliography with biblatex, in fact the code is largely inspired by Audrey's work in that question. You will need at least version 0.5 of biblatex-ext
and you can read more about tabular bibliographies in §6 Tabular Bibliographies of its documentation.
For a simple three-column set-up with label, title and author you don't need a lot of code. But you should be aware of the fact that this information alone is not always enough to properly identify a work. @collection
s don't have authors, they have editors. Even @books
usually have more information in the bibliography than just the title and author: the year of publication is present in almost all styles and at least one of publisher or location is very common. @article
s would generally need at least a journal
and a publication date. The situation is worse for other contained works like @incollection
which may be next to impossible to find without knowing the enclosing work.
Not only does this not look very pretty, it is almost certainly not enough information for a proper bibliography. – Don't do this.
documentclass[british]{article}
usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
usepackage{babel}
usepackage{csquotes}
usepackage[style=numeric, backend=biber]{biblatex}
usepackage{biblatex-ext-tabular}
usepackage{longtable}
usepackage{array}
usepackage{booktabs}
newcolumntype{L}[1]{%
>{raggedrightletnewline\arraybackslashhspace{0pt}}p{#1}}
newcolumntype{C}[1]{%
>{centeringletnewline\arraybackslashhspace{0pt}}p{#1}}
defbibtabular{bibtabular}
{setlength{LTpre}{0pt}%
setlength{LTpost}{0pt}%
renewcommand*{arraystretch}{2}%
begin{longtable}{%
@{}
C{dimexpr0.08textwidth-tabcolseprelax}
L{dimexpr0.6textwidth-2tabcolseprelax}
L{dimexpr0.3textwidth-tabcolseprelax}
@{}}
toprule
textbf{Ref.} & textbf{Title} & textbf{Author}\
midrule}
{bottomrule
end{longtable}}
{anchorlang{%
printtext[labelnumberwidth]{%
printfield{labelprefix}%
printfield{labelnumber}}}
& plainlang{usebibmacro{title}}
& plainlang{printnames{author}} \}
addbibresource{biblatex-examples.bib}
begin{document}
cite{worman,geer,nussbaum,companion}
printbibtabular
end{document}
Compare this with the usual output of a numeric bibliography. If you want to put additional emphasis on the author name, you can make it bold.
documentclass[british]{article}
usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
usepackage{babel}
usepackage{csquotes}
usepackage[style=numeric, backend=biber]{biblatex}
addbibresource{biblatex-examples.bib}
DeclareNameWrapperAlias{author}{sortname}
DeclareNameWrapperAlias{editor}{sortname}
DeclareNameWrapperAlias{translator}{sortname}
DeclareNameWrapperFormat{sortname}{mkbibbold{#1}}
begin{document}
cite{worman,geer,nussbaum,companion}
printbibliography
end{document}
thank you!! that's what I was looking for but unfortunately I couldn't find any reference to that package while googling.
– pin_ftv
5 hours ago
1
@pin_ftv It is still fairly new.
– moewe
5 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
12
down vote
accepted
up vote
12
down vote
accepted
With biblatex-ext
's package biblatex-ext-tabular
you can create tabular bibliographies like the ones in tabular bibliography with biblatex, in fact the code is largely inspired by Audrey's work in that question. You will need at least version 0.5 of biblatex-ext
and you can read more about tabular bibliographies in §6 Tabular Bibliographies of its documentation.
For a simple three-column set-up with label, title and author you don't need a lot of code. But you should be aware of the fact that this information alone is not always enough to properly identify a work. @collection
s don't have authors, they have editors. Even @books
usually have more information in the bibliography than just the title and author: the year of publication is present in almost all styles and at least one of publisher or location is very common. @article
s would generally need at least a journal
and a publication date. The situation is worse for other contained works like @incollection
which may be next to impossible to find without knowing the enclosing work.
Not only does this not look very pretty, it is almost certainly not enough information for a proper bibliography. – Don't do this.
documentclass[british]{article}
usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
usepackage{babel}
usepackage{csquotes}
usepackage[style=numeric, backend=biber]{biblatex}
usepackage{biblatex-ext-tabular}
usepackage{longtable}
usepackage{array}
usepackage{booktabs}
newcolumntype{L}[1]{%
>{raggedrightletnewline\arraybackslashhspace{0pt}}p{#1}}
newcolumntype{C}[1]{%
>{centeringletnewline\arraybackslashhspace{0pt}}p{#1}}
defbibtabular{bibtabular}
{setlength{LTpre}{0pt}%
setlength{LTpost}{0pt}%
renewcommand*{arraystretch}{2}%
begin{longtable}{%
@{}
C{dimexpr0.08textwidth-tabcolseprelax}
L{dimexpr0.6textwidth-2tabcolseprelax}
L{dimexpr0.3textwidth-tabcolseprelax}
@{}}
toprule
textbf{Ref.} & textbf{Title} & textbf{Author}\
midrule}
{bottomrule
end{longtable}}
{anchorlang{%
printtext[labelnumberwidth]{%
printfield{labelprefix}%
printfield{labelnumber}}}
& plainlang{usebibmacro{title}}
& plainlang{printnames{author}} \}
addbibresource{biblatex-examples.bib}
begin{document}
cite{worman,geer,nussbaum,companion}
printbibtabular
end{document}
Compare this with the usual output of a numeric bibliography. If you want to put additional emphasis on the author name, you can make it bold.
documentclass[british]{article}
usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
usepackage{babel}
usepackage{csquotes}
usepackage[style=numeric, backend=biber]{biblatex}
addbibresource{biblatex-examples.bib}
DeclareNameWrapperAlias{author}{sortname}
DeclareNameWrapperAlias{editor}{sortname}
DeclareNameWrapperAlias{translator}{sortname}
DeclareNameWrapperFormat{sortname}{mkbibbold{#1}}
begin{document}
cite{worman,geer,nussbaum,companion}
printbibliography
end{document}
With biblatex-ext
's package biblatex-ext-tabular
you can create tabular bibliographies like the ones in tabular bibliography with biblatex, in fact the code is largely inspired by Audrey's work in that question. You will need at least version 0.5 of biblatex-ext
and you can read more about tabular bibliographies in §6 Tabular Bibliographies of its documentation.
For a simple three-column set-up with label, title and author you don't need a lot of code. But you should be aware of the fact that this information alone is not always enough to properly identify a work. @collection
s don't have authors, they have editors. Even @books
usually have more information in the bibliography than just the title and author: the year of publication is present in almost all styles and at least one of publisher or location is very common. @article
s would generally need at least a journal
and a publication date. The situation is worse for other contained works like @incollection
which may be next to impossible to find without knowing the enclosing work.
Not only does this not look very pretty, it is almost certainly not enough information for a proper bibliography. – Don't do this.
documentclass[british]{article}
usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
usepackage{babel}
usepackage{csquotes}
usepackage[style=numeric, backend=biber]{biblatex}
usepackage{biblatex-ext-tabular}
usepackage{longtable}
usepackage{array}
usepackage{booktabs}
newcolumntype{L}[1]{%
>{raggedrightletnewline\arraybackslashhspace{0pt}}p{#1}}
newcolumntype{C}[1]{%
>{centeringletnewline\arraybackslashhspace{0pt}}p{#1}}
defbibtabular{bibtabular}
{setlength{LTpre}{0pt}%
setlength{LTpost}{0pt}%
renewcommand*{arraystretch}{2}%
begin{longtable}{%
@{}
C{dimexpr0.08textwidth-tabcolseprelax}
L{dimexpr0.6textwidth-2tabcolseprelax}
L{dimexpr0.3textwidth-tabcolseprelax}
@{}}
toprule
textbf{Ref.} & textbf{Title} & textbf{Author}\
midrule}
{bottomrule
end{longtable}}
{anchorlang{%
printtext[labelnumberwidth]{%
printfield{labelprefix}%
printfield{labelnumber}}}
& plainlang{usebibmacro{title}}
& plainlang{printnames{author}} \}
addbibresource{biblatex-examples.bib}
begin{document}
cite{worman,geer,nussbaum,companion}
printbibtabular
end{document}
Compare this with the usual output of a numeric bibliography. If you want to put additional emphasis on the author name, you can make it bold.
documentclass[british]{article}
usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
usepackage{babel}
usepackage{csquotes}
usepackage[style=numeric, backend=biber]{biblatex}
addbibresource{biblatex-examples.bib}
DeclareNameWrapperAlias{author}{sortname}
DeclareNameWrapperAlias{editor}{sortname}
DeclareNameWrapperAlias{translator}{sortname}
DeclareNameWrapperFormat{sortname}{mkbibbold{#1}}
begin{document}
cite{worman,geer,nussbaum,companion}
printbibliography
end{document}
edited 5 hours ago
answered 5 hours ago
moewe
82.4k7103315
82.4k7103315
thank you!! that's what I was looking for but unfortunately I couldn't find any reference to that package while googling.
– pin_ftv
5 hours ago
1
@pin_ftv It is still fairly new.
– moewe
5 hours ago
add a comment |
thank you!! that's what I was looking for but unfortunately I couldn't find any reference to that package while googling.
– pin_ftv
5 hours ago
1
@pin_ftv It is still fairly new.
– moewe
5 hours ago
thank you!! that's what I was looking for but unfortunately I couldn't find any reference to that package while googling.
– pin_ftv
5 hours ago
thank you!! that's what I was looking for but unfortunately I couldn't find any reference to that package while googling.
– pin_ftv
5 hours ago
1
1
@pin_ftv It is still fairly new.
– moewe
5 hours ago
@pin_ftv It is still fairly new.
– moewe
5 hours ago
add a comment |
pin_ftv is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
pin_ftv is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
pin_ftv is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
pin_ftv is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2ftex.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f460245%2fis-there-a-easy-way-to-put-bibliography-in-a-table%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
Bibliographies like the one shown are certainly very rare (almost non-existent) in scholarly works. For starters, the table does not contain the usual minimal information for a bibliography (which would also include year and at least one of publisher and location; for
@article
s you would definitely the journal and volume etc.) Secondly, most bibliographies in TeX don't use tables, instead they use lists.– moewe
6 hours ago
1
Welcome to TeX.SE! Start from this: tex.stackexchange.com/questions/332710/… and edit your post adding a minimal working example with bibliography (MWEB).
– CarLaTeX
6 hours ago
5
My personal advice: don't do it. It is very ugly.
– Johannes_B
6 hours ago
1
@Johannes_B and moewe: I don't like that kind of bibliography style either, but it is a requirement. Sincerely I would done it in another way too.
– pin_ftv
5 hours ago
@CarLaTeX I didn't find any minimal working example while googling so I thought it makes no sense to add a working example of some other bibliography style that doesn't match at all that what I need. Instead I tried to put a graphic so that it will be clearer. Thank you all!
– pin_ftv
5 hours ago