summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/Master/texmf-dist/doc/latex/apacite/apacite.tex
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'Master/texmf-dist/doc/latex/apacite/apacite.tex')
-rw-r--r--Master/texmf-dist/doc/latex/apacite/apacite.tex4082
1 files changed, 4082 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/Master/texmf-dist/doc/latex/apacite/apacite.tex b/Master/texmf-dist/doc/latex/apacite/apacite.tex
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..5f7c318f3d9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Master/texmf-dist/doc/latex/apacite/apacite.tex
@@ -0,0 +1,4082 @@
+% \iffalse meta-comment
+%
+% This is file `apacite.tex'.
+%
+% Copyright 1994-2005 Erik Meijer and any individual authors listed
+% elsewhere in this file. All rights reserved.
+%
+% This file is part of the `apacite' package.
+% -------------------------------------------
+%
+% It may be distributed and/or modified under the
+% conditions of the LaTeX Project Public License, either version 1.3
+% of this license or (at your option) any later version.
+% The latest version of this license is in
+% http://www.latex-project.org/lppl.txt
+% and version 1.3 or later is part of all distributions of LaTeX
+% version 2003/12/01 or later.
+%
+% The list of all files belonging to the `apacite' package, with a
+% short description, is given in the file `manifest.txt'.
+%
+% \fi
+
+%% apacite.tex : User's manual and test of the apacite package
+%% Written by Erik Meijer <e.meijer@eco.rug.nl>
+%% This version: [2005/06/08]
+%%
+%% See the README file for instructions how to process this file.
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+%%% BASIC DOCUMENTCLASS AND LOADING OF PACKAGES
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+\documentclass{article}
+
+%%% The following line can be uncommented to test compatibility with TeX4ht.
+%\usepackage{tex4ht}
+
+%%% The following line is used for references to internet sources.
+%%% It is not generally necessary for apacite, but used in the examples.
+\usepackage{url}
+
+%%% The following lines can be uncommented to test compatibility with
+%%% the mentioned other packages and test the language support of
+%%% apacite.
+%\usepackage[dvips,pagebackref]{hyperref}% citations are not links here
+%\usepackage[english]{babel}% babel must be loaded before apacite
+%\usepackage{german}
+
+%%% Loading apacite with (or without) author index option.
+%\usepackage[tocindex,hyper]{apacite}
+\usepackage[tocindex]{apacite}
+%\usepackage{apacite}
+
+%%% More compatibility tests with other packages.
+%\usepackage{backref}% the order of backref vs. apacite seems irrelevant
+%\usepackage[dvips,pagebackref]{hyperref} % 1991a does not work here
+
+%%% Explicitly check loading of backref. This information
+%%% is used at the end of the document to change a few settings in order
+%%% to prevent some errors. This explicit check is more convenient than
+%%% simply defining the corresponding \if..., because the \usepackage's
+%%% above can now be commented or uncommented without having to worry
+%%% about these side-effects.
+\makeatletter
+\newif\ifbackrefloaded
+\AtBeginDocument{%
+ \@ifpackageloaded{backref}{\backrefloadedtrue}{\backrefloadedfalse}%
+}
+\makeatother
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+%%% DOCUMENT-SPECIFIC DEFINITIONS THAT MAY BE USEFUL FOR WIDER USE.
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+% Corporate author
+\newcommand{\bibcorporate}[1]{#1}
+
+% Echo argument literally. Can be used to define a certain author type
+% (``Producer'') in a place where \BibTeX{} expects a first name.
+% Using this command between a pair of braces makes sure that the text
+% is not abbreviated into an initial.
+\newcommand{\bibliteral}[1]{#1}
+
+% If the argument is a period (`.'), \BibTeX{} puts no period after it.
+\newcommand{\bibnodot}[1]{}
+
+% For ``On cdtitle [CD]'' etc., to be used instead of ``In''.
+\newcommand{\BOn}{On}
+
+% Reverse order. Can be used for various reasons.
+\newcommand{\SwapArgs}[2]{#2#1}
+
+% The following macro is esp. useful if the year field must be different
+% in text and in reference list. E.g., if 1992/1993 in text and 1992
+% in reference list. Then year can be defined as \bibreftext{1992}{1992/1993}.
+% The definition below displays only the second argument (``text'').
+% Just before the reference list, this can then be changed to
+% display only the first argument (``ref'').
+\newcommand{\bibreftext}[2]{#2}
+
+% The same command, but now intended for Dutch-style ``von'' parts.
+\newcommand{\Dutchvon}[2]{#2}
+
+% The following macro changes the definitions of the macros \BED and \BEDS
+% to the argument and then immediately changes the definitions back to their
+% old definitions. So it makes a one-time change. Can be used to use
+% ``Producer'' instead of ``Ed.'' etc.
+\newcommand{\bibeditortype}[1]{\relax}%
+\def\renewbibeditortype{%
+ \def\oldBED{}%
+ \def\oldBEDS{}%
+ \def\bibeditortype##1{%
+ \global\let\oldBED\BED
+ \global\let\oldBEDS\BEDS
+ \global\def\BED{##1\global\let\BED\oldBED \global\let\BEDS\oldBEDS}%
+ \global\def\BEDS{##1\global\let\BED\oldBED \global\let\BEDS\oldBEDS}%
+ }%
+}
+
+% The following macro changes the definition of the macro \BIn to the
+% argument and then immediately changes the definition back to the old
+% definition. So it makes a one-time change. Can be used to use ``On''
+% instead of ``In'' for a CD-track.
+\newcommand{\bibInstring}[1]{%
+ \global\let\oldBIn\BIn
+ \global\def\BIn{#1\global\let\BIn\oldBIn}%
+}
+
+% The \bibskipbracenodot macro suppresses the period after a following closing
+% brace. It does not work entirely well at the moment. In particular, it
+% works differently in an \AX macro in text and an \AX macro in the
+% reference list. This has something to do with robust vs. fragile macros
+% and/or expansion of the macro. I have experimented a lot with many
+% variations, but don't seem to get it right. I don't understand these
+% issues well yet.
+\makeatletter
+\def\swallownext#1{\relax}
+\def\swallowdot{%
+ \@ifnextchar.%
+ {\swallownext}%
+ {\relax}%
+}
+
+% When the above does not work, \bibskipbracenodot should reduce to nothing.
+% This is the current definition. Just before the bibliography, it is
+% redefined.
+\def\bibskipbracenodot{\noexpand\bibskipbracenodot}
+
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+%%% CITATIONS TO THE BIBLE
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+% The APA manual gives some rules how the Bible and other classic
+% works should be cited. These rules are not implemented in standard
+% apacite, so I provide a workaround here.
+
+%%% To define which Bible version you used.
+\def\bibleversion#1{\gdef\@bibleversion{#1}}
+\def\@bibleversion{Revised Standard Version}
+
+\def\bibleciteA#1{%
+ % If this is the first citation, add bible version.
+ {\@ifundefined{flag@bible}%
+ {\fullbibleciteA{#1}}%
+ {\shortbibleciteA{#1}}%
+ }%
+}
+
+\def\fullbibleciteA#1{%
+ % Insert relevant chapter and verse.
+ {#1}%
+ { \BBOP\@bibleversion\BBCP}%
+ % Flag that bible has been cited.
+ {\global\expandafter\def\csname flag@bible\endcsname{DUMMY}}%
+}
+
+\def\shortbibleciteA#1{%
+ % Insert relevant chapter and verse.
+ {#1}%
+ % Flag that bible has been cited (is this appropriate?).
+ {\global\expandafter\def\csname flag@bible\endcsname{DUMMY}}%
+}
+
+\def\biblecite#1{%
+ % If this is the first citation, add bible version.
+ {\@ifundefined{flag@bible}%
+ {\fullbiblecite{#1}}%
+ {\shortbiblecite{#1}}%
+ }%
+}
+
+\def\fullbiblecite#1{%
+ % Open parenthesis.
+ {\BBOP}%
+ % Insert relevant chapter and verse.
+ {#1}%
+ % Add bible version.
+ {\BBAY{} \@bibleversion}%
+ % Close parenthesis.
+ {\BBCP}%
+ % Flag that bible has been cited.
+ {\global\expandafter\def\csname flag@bible\endcsname{DUMMY}}%
+}
+
+\def\shortbiblecite#1{%
+ % Open parenthesis.
+ {\BBOP}%
+ % Insert relevant chapter and verse.
+ {#1}%
+ % Close parenthesis.
+ {\BBCP}%
+ % Flag that bible has been cited (is this appropriate?).
+ {\global\expandafter\def\csname flag@bible\endcsname{DUMMY}}%
+}
+
+\def\bibleciteNP#1{%
+ % If this is the first citation, add bible version.
+ {\@ifundefined{flag@bible}%
+ {\fullbibleciteNP{#1}}%
+ {\shortbibleciteNP{#1}}%
+ }%
+}
+
+\def\fullbibleciteNP#1{%
+ % Insert relevant chapter and verse.
+ {#1}%
+ % Add bible version.
+ {\BBAY{} \@bibleversion}%
+ % Flag that bible has been cited.
+ {\global\expandafter\def\csname flag@bible\endcsname{DUMMY}}%
+}
+
+\def\shortbibleciteNP#1{%
+ % Insert relevant chapter and verse.
+ {#1}%
+ % Flag that bible has been cited (is this appropriate?).
+ {\global\expandafter\def\csname flag@bible\endcsname{DUMMY}}%
+}
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+%%% COMMANDS TO CITE SONGS.
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+% The APA manual gives some rules how songs should be cited. These
+% rules require some tweaking of standard apacite. This is done here.
+
+\newcommand{\bibsong}[4]{}
+
+\newcommand{\citeAsong}[1]{%
+ \def\bibsong##1##2##3##4{%
+ \APACciteatitle{##3} {\BBOP}{##1}{\BBAY}{##2}{\BBN}{##4}{\BBCP}%
+ }%
+ \citeauthor{#1}%
+ \def\bibsong##1##2##3##4{}%
+}
+
+\newcommand{\fullciteAsong}[1]{%
+ \def\bibsong##1##2##3##4{%
+ \APACciteatitle{##3} {\BBOP}{##1}{\BBAY}{##2}{\BBN}{##4}{\BBCP}%
+ }%
+ \fullciteauthor{#1}%
+ \def\bibsong##1##2##3##4{}%
+}
+
+\newcommand{\shortciteAsong}[1]{%
+ \def\bibsong##1##2##3##4{%
+ \APACciteatitle{##3} {\BBOP}{##1}{\BBAY}{##2}{\BBN}{##4}{\BBCP}%
+ }%
+ \shortciteauthor{#1}%
+ \def\bibsong##1##2##3##4{}%
+}
+
+\newcommand{\citesong}[1]{%
+ \def\bibsong##1##2##3##4{%
+ {\BBOP}\APACciteatitle{##3},{\BAP}{##1}{\BBAY}{##2}{\BBN}{##4}{\BBCP}%
+ }%
+ \citeauthor{#1}%
+ \def\bibsong##1##2##3##4{}%
+}
+
+\newcommand{\fullcitesong}[1]{%
+ \def\bibsong##1##2##3##4{%
+ {\BBOP}\APACciteatitle{##3},{\BAP}{##1}{\BBAY}{##2}{\BBN}{##4}{\BBCP}%
+ }%
+ \fullciteauthor{#1}%
+ \def\bibsong##1##2##3##4{}%
+}
+
+\newcommand{\shortcitesong}[1]{%
+ \def\bibsong##1##2##3##4{%
+ {\BBOP}\APACciteatitle{##3},{\BAP}{##1}{\BBAY}{##2}{\BBN}{##4}{\BBCP}%
+ }%
+ \shortciteauthor{#1}%
+ \def\bibsong##1##2##3##4{}%
+}
+
+\newcommand{\citesongNP}[1]{%
+ \def\bibsong##1##2##3##4{%
+ \APACciteatitle{##3},{\BAP}{##1}{\BBAY}{##2}{\BBN}{##4}%
+ }%
+ \citeauthor{#1}%
+ \def\bibsong##1##2##3##4{}%
+}
+
+\newcommand{\fullcitesongNP}[1]{%
+ \def\bibsong##1##2##3##4{%
+ \APACciteatitle{##3},{\BAP}{##1}{\BBAY}{##2}{\BBN}{##4}%
+ }%
+ \fullciteauthor{#1}%
+ \def\bibsong##1##2##3##4{}%
+}
+
+\newcommand{\shortcitesongNP}[1]{%
+ \def\bibsong##1##2##3##4{%
+ \APACciteatitle{##3},{\BAP}{##1}{\BBAY}{##2}{\BBN}{##4}%
+ }%
+ \shortciteauthor{#1}%
+ \def\bibsong##1##2##3##4{}%
+}
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+%%% COMMANDS TO CITE DSM.
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+% The APA manual gives some rules how the DSM should be cited, which
+% is a bit different from ordinary citations. These rules are not
+% implemented in standard apacite, so I provide a workaround here.
+
+\newcommand{\DSMciteA}[1]{%
+ \@for\@citec:=#1\do{%
+ % Check whether citation is defined.
+ \@ifundefined{flag@\@citec\@extra@b@citeb}%
+ {\citeA{\@citec}}%
+ {\citeauthor{\@citec}}%
+ }%
+}
+
+\newcommand{\DSMfullciteA}[1]{%
+ \fullciteA{#1}%
+}
+
+\newcommand{\DSMshortciteA}[1]{%
+ \shortciteauthor{#1}%
+}
+
+\newcommand{\DSMcite}[1]{%
+ {\BBOP}%
+ \@for\@citec:=#1\do{%
+ % Check whether citation is defined.
+ \@ifundefined{flag@\@citec\@extra@b@citeb}%
+ {\citeNP{\@citec}}%
+ {\citeauthor{\@citec}}%
+ }%
+ {\BBCP}%
+}
+
+\newcommand{\DSMfullcite}[1]{%
+ \fullcite{#1}%
+}
+
+\newcommand{\DSMshortcite}[1]{%
+ {\BBOP}\shortciteauthor{#1}{\BBCP}%
+}
+
+\newcommand{\DSMciteNP}[1]{%
+ \@for\@citec:=#1\do{%
+ % Check whether citation is defined.
+ \@ifundefined{flag@\@citec\@extra@b@citeb}%
+ {\citeNP{\@citec}}%
+ {\citeauthor{\@citec}}%
+ }
+}
+
+\newcommand{\DSMfullciteNP}[1]{%
+ \fullciteNP{#1}%
+}
+
+\newcommand{\DSMshortciteNP}[1]{%
+ \shortciteauthor{#1}%
+}
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+%%% DOCUMENT-SPECIFIC DEFINITIONS
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+% These are some commands that are used in this document, but are
+% presumably not especially relevant for users.
+
+\def\BibTeX{{\rm B\kern-.05em{\sc i\kern-.025em b}\kern-.08em
+ T\kern-.1667em\lower.7ex\hbox{E}\kern-.125emX}}% copied from bibtex.web
+\newcommand{\MakeIndex}{\textit{MakeIndex}}
+\newcommand{\latextohtml}{\textup{\LaTeX2\texttt{HTML}}}% from html.sty
+\newcommand{\LaTeXrtf}{\textup{\LaTeX2RTF}}%
+\newcommand{\TeXht}{\textup{\TeX4ht}}%
+\newcommand{\Perl}{\textsl{Perl}}%
+
+% My comments accompanying the examples.
+\newcommand{\EM}{\ensuremath{\triangleright\quad}}
+
+% The date of a version of apacite. Makes it easy to search the document
+% for these dates. The \relax is a safety measure (probably not needed),
+% which ensures that the square brackets are never interpreted as an
+% optional argument.
+\newcommand{\APACversiondate}[1]{\relax [#1]}
+
+\newcommand{\LC}{\mbox{${}^{\dag}$}}% \LaTeX{} Companion
+\newcommand{\X}{\ensuremath{\times}}% for one table
+\newcommand{\Y}{\ensuremath{c}}% for one table
+
+\newcommand{\pkg}[1]{\textsf{#1}}% package name
+\newcommand{\fname}[1]{\texttt{#1}}% file name
+\newcommand{\fieldname}[1]{\texttt{#1}}% field name
+\newcommand{\entryname}[1]{\texttt{#1}}% entry type name
+\newcommand{\pkgoption}[1]{\texttt{#1}}% package option
+\newcommand{\cmd}[1]{\texttt{\string#1}}% command, incl. `\'
+
+% Some trickery with backslashes and @ signs.
+\newcommand{\bs}{{\ttfamily \@backslashchar}}% backslash
+\newcommand{\opt}[1]{$\langle${\itshape #1}$\rangle$}% generic text
+
+% For \nocite{keys}:
+\newcommand{\cmdtwo}[2]{{\mdseries\bs\texttt{#1\{}\opt{#2}%
+ \texttt{\}}}}%
+% For \cite[post]{keys}:
+\newcommand{\cmdthree}[3]{{\mdseries\bs\texttt{#1[}\opt{#2}%
+ \texttt{]\{}\opt{#3}%
+ \texttt{\}}}}%
+% For \cite<pre>{keys}:
+\newcommand{\cmdthreepre}[3]{{\mdseries\bs\texttt{#1<}\opt{#2}%
+ \texttt{>\{}\opt{#3}%
+ \texttt{\}}}}%
+% For \usepackage[options]{apacite}:
+\newcommand{\cmdthreealt}[3]{{\mdseries\bs\texttt{#1[}\opt{#2}%
+ \texttt{]\{#3\}}}}%
+% For all \cite<pre>[post]{keys} variants:
+\newcommand{\cmdfour}[4]{{\mdseries\bs\texttt{#1<}\opt{#2}%
+ \texttt{>[}\opt{#3}%
+ \texttt{]\{}\opt{#4}%
+ \texttt{\}}}}%
+
+% It is not clear where and how the \flqq command is defined, so provide
+% an escape if it is not available.
+\AtBeginDocument{%
+ \@ifundefined{flqq}{%
+ \newcommand{\flqq}{\raisebox{2pt}{\ensuremath{{\scriptscriptstyle\ll}}}}%
+ \newcommand{\frqq}{\raisebox{2pt}{\ensuremath{{\scriptscriptstyle\gg}}}}%
+ }{}}%
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+\makeatother
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+%%% START OF ``NORMAL'' PART OF DOCUMENT
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+\title{The \pkg{apacite} package\vspace{0.3\baselineskip}\\
+ \large Citation and reference list with \LaTeX{} and \BibTeX{}
+ according to the rules of the American Psychological Association}
+\author{Erik Meijer\\
+ \normalsize\itshape
+ Department of Econometrics,
+ University of Groningen\\
+ \normalsize\itshape
+ PO Box 800,
+ 9700 AV Groningen,
+ The Netherlands\\
+ \normalsize
+ E-Mail: \textsf{e.meijer@eco.rug.nl}
+}
+\date{June 8, 2005}
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+\begin{document}
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+\maketitle
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+\begin{abstract}
+ \noindent
+ This document describes and tests the \pkg{apacite} package
+ \APACversiondate{2005/06/08}. This is a package that can be used with
+ \LaTeX{} and \BibTeX{} to generate citations and a reference list,
+ formatted according to the rules of the American Psychological Association.
+ Furthermore, \pkg{apacite} contains an option to (almost) automatically
+ generate an author index as well. The package can be customized in many
+ ways.
+\end{abstract}
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+\tableofcontents
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+\section{Introduction}
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+The American Psychological Association (APA) is very strict about the style in
+which manuscripts submitted to its journals are written and formatted. The
+requirements of the APA are described in the \emph{Publication Manual of the
+American Psychological Association}, the latest version of which is the 5th
+edition \cite{APAManual}. In the sequel, this is simply called the \emph{APA
+manual}.
+
+The APA manual discusses how candidate authors should write their manuscripts:
+writing style, parts of a manuscript and their order, presentation of the
+results in the form of tables and figures, and so forth. Candidate authors
+should study this and adhere to this.
+
+The APA manual also gives specific rules about the formatting of a manuscript.
+This includes double spacing, a running head, the typographic style of section
+headings, the placement of tables and figures on separate pages at the end of
+the document, and so forth. \LaTeX{} users will recognize these as ``style''
+elements that should be defined in a package (\fname{.sty} file) or class
+(\fname{.cls} file). Their specific documents (\fname{.tex} file) should be
+largely style-independent. This idea of separating content and logical
+structure from specific formatting is one of the basic elements of \LaTeX{}
+\cite[p.~7]{LaTeXbook}.
+
+An implementation of the formatting rules of the APA manual for use with
+\LaTeX{} is the \pkg{apa} class of Athanassios Protopapas. This handles all
+kinds of issues about general document formatting, title page, section
+headings, figures and tables, and so forth. Therefore, if you intend to submit
+a manuscript to an APA journal, I strongly recommend using the \pkg{apa}
+class.
+
+An important part of the APA style is the way citations and the reference list
+should be formatted. This takes 75 pages in the APA manual (pp.~207--281,
+excluding the references to legal materials). This part is not handled by the
+\pkg{apa} class, but by the \pkg{apacite} package. The \pkg{apa} class
+requires the \pkg{apacite} package, but \pkg{apacite} can be used without
+\pkg{apa}. The current document, for example, does not use the \pkg{apa}
+class, because I find it desirable that possible users can study the
+\pkg{apacite} package and its documentation without having to install several
+other classes and packages first. Therefore, the current document uses
+standard \LaTeX{} as much as possible.
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+\subsection*{Some history}
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+Before the advent of the first version of \pkg{apacite} in 1994, several
+authors have written \TeX{} and \LaTeX{} packages (\fname{.sty}) and \BibTeX{}
+style files (\fname{.bst}) with suggestive names as \pkg{apalike},
+\pkg{newapa}, and \pkg{theapa} to try to capture some of the requirements of
+the APA manual. A severe problem with the APA citations is that, if the number
+of authors is between three and five, inclusive, the first citation must
+include all authors, whereas subsequent citations should refer to the first
+author ``et al.''. This problem had been solved by the \pkg{newapa} and
+\pkg{theapa} packages.
+
+A lot of APA peculiarities, however, were not covered by these citation
+styles. Examples are:
+\begin{itemize}
+ \item In the reference list, authors should be formatted with
+ their initials after their surnames. Editors, however,
+ should be formatted with their initials \emph{before} their
+ surnames if they are not in the author position.
+ \item If the work referred to is a non-English-language source,
+ the English translation of the title should be given in
+ brackets after the title.
+ \item Edition and volume of a book and the pages of an article
+ in that book should be gathered between a single pair
+ of parentheses.
+ \item The publisher of a book and its address should be given as
+ ``address: publisher'', and not as ``publisher, address''.
+ \item When the work used is a reprint or translation of an
+ earlier work, this should be mentioned in the reference
+ list. In text, the year must be given in the form
+ ``1923/1961''.
+ \item There are several ``tricky'' things with brackets and
+ parentheses, for example, with the type of an article
+ (e.g., ``Letter to the editor'',
+ ``Review of the book \emph{The social life of information}'',
+ ``Abstract'', ``Special issue''). Furthermore, magazine and
+ newspaper articles are treated differently than journal
+ articles; papers presented at meetings must be treated
+ differently; translators of articles and books and chairs
+ of symposia must be introduced; an article can have editors
+ instead of authors (e.g., with a special issue); a PhD thesis
+ can be abstracted in \emph{Dissertation Abstracts International};
+ a (technical) report of some institution can be an (edited)
+ collection of articles.
+\end{itemize}
+The \pkg{apacite} package is devised to get (much) closer to the APA rules
+than the abovementioned other packages and styles.
+
+The original version of the \fname{apacite.sty} \LaTeX{} package consisted for
+a large part of the citation part of \fname{theapa.sty}. The current version,
+however, has been changed and extended in many ways and can therefore not be
+considered a straightforward adaptation of \fname{theapa.sty} anymore,
+although it provides largely the same commands, such as \cmd{\citeA}, and
+peculiarities in the command definitions, such as the use of \verb+<...>+ for
+a prefix note and \verb+[...]+ for a postfix note.
+
+Although the \fname{apacite.bst} \BibTeX{} style started out as a slightly
+adapted version of \fname{theapa.bst}, the number of changes became so large
+and things became so unmanageable that I decided to write a completely new
+bibstyle, although using some small parts of the original. The
+\fname{apacite.bst} file can therefore not anymore be seen as an adaptation of
+\fname{theapa.bst}. Due to the complex rules of the APA manual, it has become
+a large file. In the original process of writing (back in 1994), the error
+\begin{verbatim}
+You've exceeded BibTeX's wizard-defined function space
+\end{verbatim}
+was very hard to overcome. It appears that later versions of \BibTeX{} allowed
+much more space, because I have not received this message anymore in recent
+years, although the bibstyle has been expanded considerably. However, if you
+run an old \BibTeX{}, you may encounter this (and similar) error messages.
+
+In the ``dark years'' between 1994 and 2003, in which there was no official
+new version of \pkg{apacite}, I have been fixing small bugs, discovered either
+by me or by users who sent in their bug reports, and adding some small options
+that were easy to incorporate and that I found useful or that were requested
+by a user. Furthermore, in 1998, I spent considerable effort in adding an
+(almost) automatic author indexing option, first used for my PhD thesis
+\cite{meijer1998}.
+
+In the first few months of 2003, I fixed a number of problems with the
+compatibility between \pkg{apacite} and some other important packages.
+Although I had been planning (or wishing, rather) to release a proper official
+update of \pkg{apacite} for some time, I had not done so, mainly because I had
+not yet taken the time to update the documentation. The compatibility issues
+were so severe, however, that I decided in March 2003 to release an
+intermediate update, which thus became the first official release since the
+original version. This version contained a lot of files with compatibility
+patches and tests. The main shortcomings of that version were the lack of
+up-to-date documentation and the lack of agreement with the latest version of
+the APA manual (5th ed., 2001).
+
+In September 2003, I finally released a complete, fully updated and
+significantly extended version of \pkg{apacite}, including extensive
+documentation. However, that version still was not able to format some
+citations correctly. The \APACversiondate{2004/07/01} version was a small
+improvement of the \APACversiondate{2003/09/05} version, but fixed the
+important inadequacies of previous versions.
+
+The current version is also a relatively minor update, but it may be important
+for some users. The main difference with previous versions is that it offers
+support of non-English languages, although this is still limited. Moreover,
+this is clearly a non-APA direction, because all APA publications are in
+English. However, many journals, universities, etc.\ in non-English speaking
+countries base their rules on the APA rules, and thus it may be useful to have
+the possibility to use \pkg{apacite} in combination with documents in
+non-English languages as well. See section~\ref{sec:compat-babel} for a
+description of the implementation of this feature.
+
+Apart from this language support and the facilities for customization, the
+current version of \pkg{apacite} is aimed at conforming with the 5th edition
+of the APA manual. It remains, however, imperfect, although the instances of
+wrongly formatted cases will be rare. Many problems can be solved by
+``tricking'' the style (e.g., by defining the \fieldname{number} field as
+``\verb+2, Serial No. 186+'' if the issue number and serial number of a
+journal are both important), but this makes the \fname{.bib} file less
+compatible with other styles. In the test examples in section~\ref{sec:xmpl}
+below, many tricks are used and discussed. Remaining problems, omissions, and
+things-to-be-done can be found in section~\ref{sec:todo}.
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+\subsection*{Philosophy of \pkg{apacite}}
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+As can be deduced from the discussion thus far, the first priority of
+\pkg{apacite} is to implement the rules of the APA manual with regard to
+citation and reference list as closely as possible. However, just like its
+predecessors, \pkg{apacite} offers some possibilities for customization as
+well. Many details of \pkg{apacite}, particularly punctuation and some fixed
+texts (e.g., ``Tech.\ Rep.'') can be changed easily by the user by redefining
+some commands in \LaTeX{}. Furthermore, \pkg{apacite} also offers several
+proper options to change some of its settings.
+
+Whether certain options or customizable aspects are implemented depends on two
+criteria: (1) Is it possible, easy (enough), and convenient to implement them
+without compromising the ability to adhere to the APA rules, and (2) Do I (EM)
+consider them important or useful enough to spend time to implement them.
+Actually, the decision process is the reverse of this: First, I decide whether
+I find it a relevant or useful option. If not, I will not implement it. If so,
+I will think about if and how I can implement it. If I have an idea for a
+solution that is practically feasible, I will pursue it. If I don't see a
+solution, if I think it will take me too much time, or if I think a solution
+will be inconvenient to other users, then I will not pursue it.
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+\subsection*{Changes since the \APACversiondate{2004/07/01} version}
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+The changes since the \APACversiondate{2004/07/01} version are:
+\begin{itemize}
+\item Addition of the \cmd{\BBYY} command (see page~\pageref{cmd:BBYY}).
+\item Limited language support (see section~\ref{sec:compat-babel}).
+\item Resolved some compatibility problems between \pkg{apacite} and
+ \pkg{natbib} (see section~\ref{sec:compat-natbib}).
+\item Fixed a bug that caused a compatibility problem when \pkg{apacite}
+ was used without one of the author indexing options, but other
+ indexes were requested in the document.
+\item Updated the manual (the current document); rewrote some sections.
+\item Improved some of the ``dirty tricks'' in \fname{apacite.tex}
+ (see section~\ref{sec:xmpl}).
+\item Some minor changes that most users will not notice.
+\end{itemize}
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+\section{Basic usage and options}
+\label{sec:usage}
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+The current \pkg{apacite} distribution consists of the following files:
+\begin{description}
+\item[\fname{apacite.sty}] The \LaTeX{} citation package. This must
+ be placed in a directory where \TeX{} can find it;
+\item[\fname{apacite.bst}] The \BibTeX{} reference list style. This
+ must be placed in a directory where \BibTeX{} can find it;
+\item[\fname{apacitex.bst}] The \BibTeX{} reference list style with
+ added author index support. This must also be placed in a directory
+ where \BibTeX{} can find it;
+\item[\fname{apacite.tex}] Extensive user's manual and test of the
+ \pkg{apacite} package;
+\item[\fname{apacite.pdf}] The processed version of \fname{apacite.tex}
+ so you can read the manual without having to install the package first;
+\item[\fname{apa5ex.bib}] The file with bibliographic information
+ about the references in \fname{apacite.tex};
+\item[\fname{manifest.txt}] The list of files belonging to the \pkg{apacite}
+ package, with a short description;
+\item[\fname{README}] A brief description of the package;
+\item[\fname{lang/}] A directory containing language-specific files
+ (see section~\ref{sec:compat-babel}).
+\end{description}
+The \fname{apacite.sty} \LaTeX{} package is loaded by putting
+\mbox{}\vspace{0.7\baselineskip}\\
+\cmdthreealt{usepackage}{options}{apacite}
+\mbox{}\vspace{0.7\baselineskip}\\
+somewhere in your document between \verb+\documentclass+ and
+\verb+\begin{document}+, or putting
+\mbox{}\vspace{0.7\baselineskip}\\
+\cmdthreealt{RequirePackage}{options}{apacite}
+\mbox{}\vspace{0.7\baselineskip}\\
+in your own personal \LaTeX{} package (say, \fname{mysettings.sty})
+that is loaded by your document.
+
+The following options are recognized by \pkg{apacite}:
+\begin{description}
+\item[\pkgoption{BCAY}] \mbox{}\\
+ This is a technical option for backwards compatibility with old versions
+ (pre-\APACversiondate{2003/09/05}) of \pkg{apacite}. In those versions of
+ \pkg{apacite}, the \cmd{\BCAY} construction was used to pass relevant
+ citation information from the \fname{.bbl} file (\BibTeX{}'s output) to
+ \LaTeX{}. This was taken over from its immediate predecessor, Young U. Ryu's
+ \pkg{theapa}. However, \pkg{natbib} does not recognize the \cmd{\BCAY}
+ construction, but it does recognize the analogous \cmd{\citeauthoryear}
+ construction, which was also used by an earlier predecessor of
+ \pkg{apacite}, \pkg{newapa}. Therefore, \pkg{apacite} has reverted to
+ \cmd{\citeauthoryear} as well. This makes different versions of
+ \pkg{apacite} incompatible with each other, because it is not possible to
+ support both constructions at the same time. This option is used to fix
+ that: In the (unlikely) event that you \emph{must} use a \fname{.bbl} file
+ that is generated by an old version of \pkg{apacite}, you can turn this
+ option on.
+
+\item[\pkgoption{accentfix}] \mbox{}\\
+ A cedilla accent (`\c{c}': \verb+\c{c}+) in an author name used to lead to
+ errors, only due to the check whether subsequent authors in the same
+ citation are equivalent. The same problem is anticipated with the
+ \verb+\b{...}+ (`\b{o}') accent, the \verb+\d{...}+ (`\d{o}') accent, and
+ the \verb+\copyright+ (\copyright) symbol (Will the latter ever turn up in
+ an author name?), due to the same use of \cmd{\crcr}, cf.\
+ \citeA[p.~356]{TeXbook}.
+
+ This fix therefore redefines these to sensible alternatives, only for
+ comparison of authors, not for any real formatting. Therefore, the user
+ should not notice this, apart from the lack of error messages, of course.
+ Therefore, it is also a default option. However, because I am not entirely
+ sure that there are no possible adverse effects, I give the user the option
+ to turn it off (\pkgoption{noaccentfix}). The user is then responsible for
+ fixing any error messages generated by such characters.
+
+\item[\pkgoption{noaccentfix}] \mbox{}\\
+ Turns \pkgoption{accentfix} off.
+
+\item[\pkgoption{index}]
+\item[\pkgoption{stdindex}]
+\item[\pkgoption{tocindex}]
+\item[\pkgoption{emindex}] \mbox{}\\
+ These four options turn author indexing on, but differ in the way the index
+ is formatted. See section~\ref{sec:autindex} for a discussion of the author
+ indexing facility. These should be used with the \fname{apacitex.bst}
+ \BibTeX{} style, see below, although they also work with
+ \fname{apacite.bst}, but that does not give author index entries, so these
+ options then typically do not have any effect (and an undesirable effect if
+ they do).
+
+\item[\pkgoption{noindex}] \mbox{}\\
+ Turns author indexing off (the default). Typically used with
+ \fname{apacite.bst}, but can also be used with \fname{apacitex.bst}. In the
+ latter case, the author indexing commands are simply ignored. Therefore,
+ \fname{apacite.bst} is actually superfluous, but because author indexing
+ will be used rarely and it is more likely to lead to errors or
+ incompatibilities, a ``clean'' (no author indexing) version,
+ \fname{apacite.bst}, is provided as well.
+
+\item[\pkgoption{numberedbib}] \mbox{}\\
+ This option implies that the bibliography (reference list) is a numbered
+ section or chapter, e.g., ``6.~References'', instead of just ``References''.
+
+\item[\pkgoption{unnumberedbib}] \mbox{}\\
+ The reverse of \pkgoption{numberedbib}: The bibliography is an unnumbered
+ section or chapter. This is the default. However, it is possible that when
+ using the \pkg{apa} document class, then \pkgoption{numberedbib} works
+ better, because that class turns section numbering off anyway and it may be
+ that \pkg{apa}'s page headings work well if the reference list is a
+ \cmd{\section} and not if it is a \cmd{\section*}. I have not experimented
+ with this (yet), however.
+
+\item[\pkgoption{sectionbib}] \mbox{}\\
+ With this option, the bibliography is a section and not a chapter. Mainly
+ useful in combination with the \pkg{chapterbib} package. Therefore, it will
+ be discussed in more detail in section~\ref{sec:compat-chapterbib}.
+
+\item[\pkgoption{nosectionbib}] \mbox{}\\
+ With this option, the bibliography is a chapter, if the \cmd{\chapter}
+ command is defined. Otherwise, it is always a section. Again, see
+ section~\ref{sec:compat-chapterbib}.
+
+\item[\pkgoption{tocbib}] \mbox{}\\
+ This puts the bibliography in the table of contents, even if it is
+ unnumbered, provided of course that a table of contents is requested in the
+ document (by \cmd{\tableofcontents}). This is the default.
+
+\item[\pkgoption{notocbib}] \mbox{}\\
+ This does not put the bibliography in the table of contents if it is an
+ unnumbered section or chapter. If it's numbered, it is always in the table
+ of contents.
+
+\item[\pkgoption{bibnewpage}] \mbox{}\\
+ The bibliography is started on a new page. This is required by some journal
+ styles, including the APA manual. The \pkg{apa} class already contained this
+ in its \pkgoption{man} option, but now it has been made available directly
+ in \pkg{apacite}.
+
+\item[\pkgoption{nobibnewpage}] \mbox{}\\
+ The bibliography is not explicitly started on a new page, although if the
+ bibliography is a chapter, it will be started on a new page anyway, because
+ chapters are started on a new page. This is the default in \pkg{apacite} and
+ thus is the only time a non-APA setting is used as default instead of an
+ available APA setting. Therefore, to satisfy the APA rules, you have to
+ request the \pkgoption{bibnewpage} option explicitly.
+
+\item[\pkgoption{hyper}] \mbox{}\\
+ This switches on some code provided by Ross Moore that makes \pkg{apacite}
+ and \pkg{hyperref} compatible to some extent. However, this also violates
+ the APA manual rules somewhat, so it is not a default option. See
+ section~\ref{sec:compat-hyper} for a more detailed description.
+
+\item[\pkgoption{nohyper}] \mbox{}\\
+ This switches off the code of the \pkgoption{hyper} option mentioned above.
+ This is the default.
+\end{description}
+%
+To load the \fname{apacite.bst} or \fname{apacitex.bst} bibliography style in
+\BibTeX{}, put
+\mbox{}\vspace{0.7\baselineskip}\\
+\verb+\bibliographystyle{apacite}+
+\mbox{}\vspace{0.7\baselineskip}\\
+or
+\mbox{}\vspace{0.7\baselineskip}\\
+\verb+\bibliographystyle{apacitex}+
+\mbox{}\vspace{0.7\baselineskip}\\
+respectively, in your document before the \cmd{\bibliography} command. The
+position of the bibliography (reference list) is determined by the line
+\mbox{}\vspace{0.7\baselineskip}\\
+\cmdtwo{bibliography}{bibfiles}
+\mbox{}\vspace{0.7\baselineskip}\\
+where \opt{bibfiles} is a list of filenames with \fname{.bib} extension, which
+contain the bibliographic information that is used by \BibTeX{} to construct
+the reference list. Usually, the \cmd{\bibliographystyle} and
+\cmd{\bibliography} are kept together (immediately follow each other) in the
+document, although when you are using the \pkg{apa} document class,
+\pkg{apacite} is used by definition and you are not supposed to use the
+\cmd{\bibliographystyle} command yourself. See the documentation of the
+\pkg{apa} documentclass for details about this.
+
+If you use one of the author indexing options, the author index is put in
+the \LaTeX{} output by the line
+\begin{verbatim}
+\printindex[autx]
+\end{verbatim}
+If you put this line in your document, but use the \pkgoption{noindex} option
+(either explicitly or implicitly by requesting no other index option), it will
+be ignored. For more on author indexing, see section~\ref{sec:autindex}.
+
+To get all parts in the final output, the following sequence of runs should
+typically be taken (when starting from scratch): (1) \LaTeX{}, (2) \BibTeX{},
+(3) \LaTeX{}, (4) \LaTeX{}, and, when author indexing is on, (5) \MakeIndex{},
+(6) \LaTeX{}, and (7) \LaTeX{}. The last one is to get the index in the table
+of contents. If the table of contents is on a regular page, i.e., an
+arabic-numbered page instead of a roman-numbered page in the front matter, it
+may even be necessary to run \MakeIndex{} another time, followed by \LaTeX{}
+once or twice. Occasionally, somewhere in the process, \LaTeX{} may complain
+about labels that may have changed, which requires even more additional
+\LaTeX{} runs at that stage. So the number of runs that are necessary to get
+everything right may become large.
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+\section{The citation commands}
+\label{sec:cite}
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+In this section, the commands are described that can be used to cite a work.
+Their default behavior will be explained. In section~\ref{sec:custom},
+customization of this behavior will be discussed. Extensive examples are given
+in section~\ref{sec:xmpl}.
+
+If the \pkg{apacite} package is loaded, the following citation commands can be
+used.
+\begin{description}
+ \item[\cmdfour{cite}{prefix}{postfix}{keys}]
+ \item[\cmdfour{fullcite}{prefix}{postfix}{keys}]
+ \item[\cmdfour{shortcite}{prefix}{postfix}{keys}] \mbox{}\\
+ These three commands produce parenthetical citations of the
+ following form:
+ ``(\opt{prefix} \opt{Authors1}, \opt{Year1};
+ \opt{Authors2}, \opt{Year2}; \ldots; \opt{AuthorsN}, \opt{YearN},
+ \opt{postfix})''.
+ The command \cmd{\fullcite} uses the ``full'' author list, and
+ the \cmd{\shortcite} command uses the abbreviated author list.
+ The \cmd{\cite} command uses the ``full'' list the first time
+ a work is referenced and the ``short'' list the second and
+ subsequent times. In accordance with the APA manual, the
+ ``full'' list consists of all authors if their number is five
+ or less, and the first author suffixed with ``et al.{}''
+ if their number is six or more. Similarly, the ``short'' list
+ consists of all authors if their number is two or less and the
+ first author with ``et al.{}'' if their number is three or more.
+ There are some nuances for complicated situations. These will
+ be discussed in section~\ref{sec:xmpl}.
+
+ If the (full) author lists of subsequent citations within the
+ same citation command are the same, they are not repeated; only
+ the years of the later citations are given.
+ This holds for all analogous cases as well.
+
+ The prefix and postfix are optional. Thus, e.g.,
+ \cmdtwo{cite}{keys}, \cmdthree{cite}{postfix}{keys},
+ and \cmdthreepre{cite}{prefix}{keys} are also allowed.
+ This holds for all analogous cases as well.
+
+ \item[\cmdfour{citeA}{prefix}{postfix}{keys}]
+ \item[\cmdfour{fullciteA}{prefix}{postfix}{keys}]
+ \item[\cmdfour{shortciteA}{prefix}{postfix}{keys}] \mbox{}\\
+ These commands are similar to the commands without the
+ ``\verb+A+'' suffix. They produce in-text citations of the form
+ ``\opt{prefix} \opt{Authors1} (\opt{Year1}),
+ \opt{Authors2} (\opt{Year2}), \ldots,
+ \opt{AuthorsN} (\opt{YearN}, \opt{postfix})''.
+ Typically, the \opt{prefix} will be empty, because it is
+ part of the main text, and there typically will only be
+ one citation in \opt{keys} (unless the authors of
+ multiple citations are the same), because the authors'
+ names are also part of the main text. But it was easy
+ to provide the additional options, and this enhances
+ the similarity with the other citation commands, which
+ I found desirable.
+
+ \item[\cmdfour{citeauthor}{prefix}{postfix}{keys}]
+ \item[\cmdfour{fullciteauthor}{prefix}{postfix}{keys}]
+ \item[\cmdfour{shortciteauthor}{prefix}{postfix}{keys}] \mbox{}\\
+ These commands are similar to their \cmd{\cite}-type
+ counterparts, except that they produce citations of the form
+ ``\opt{prefix} \opt{Authors1}, \opt{Authors2}, \ldots,
+ \opt{AuthorsN}, \opt{postfix}''
+ (the years and parentheses are left out).
+ This is typically used in a paragraph when a proper
+ citation (incl.\ year) to the same work has already been
+ given in the paragraph.%
+ \footnote{Note that a paragraph is not
+ a section. Nor does it need to be declared as a
+ \cmd{\paragraph}. A reminder for Dutch readers:
+ ``section'' = ``paragraaf'' and ``paragraph'' = ``alinea''.}
+ In such a case, according to the APA manual, the year must not be
+ repeated for repeated references to the same work in the same
+ paragraph.
+
+ A second important application of these commands is
+ when some complex citations must be constructed, like
+ ``\citeauthor{4.05-1}'s \citeyear{4.05-1} theory'',
+ which makes combined use of \cmd{\citeauthor} and
+ \cmd{\citeyear}, see below.
+
+ Normally, I would expect only one citation per
+ \cmd{\citeauthor}-type command, and no \opt{prefix}
+ or \opt{postfix}.
+
+ \item[\cmdfour{citeyear}{prefix}{postfix}{keys}] \mbox{}\\
+ Produces citations of the form
+ ``(\opt{prefix} \opt{Year1}, \opt{Year2}, \ldots, \opt{YearN},
+ \opt{postfix})''.
+ See the discussion of \cmd{\citeauthor} above. Typically,
+ the \opt{prefix} would be empty and multiple citations
+ would only be used if they have the same authors.
+
+ \item[\cmdfour{citeyearNP}{prefix}{postfix}{keys}] \mbox{}\\
+ A ``no parentheses'' version of \cmd{\citeyear}.
+ Produces citations of the form
+ ``\opt{prefix} \opt{Year1}, \opt{Year2}, \ldots, \opt{YearN},
+ \opt{postfix}''. Can be used for complex citations within
+ parenthetical material, like
+ ``the work of \citeauthor{3.99-15} (\citeyearNP{3.99-15};
+ but see also \citeNP{3.99-16,3.99-17})'',
+ which also uses the \cmd{\citeNP} command, see below.
+
+ \item[\cmdfour{citeNP}{prefix}{postfix}{keys}]
+ \item[\cmdfour{fullciteNP}{prefix}{postfix}{keys}]
+ \item[\cmdfour{shortciteNP}{prefix}{postfix}{keys}] \mbox{}\\
+ ``No parentheses'' versions of \cmd{\cite}, \cmd{\fullcite},
+ and \cmd{\shortcite}. They produce citations of the form
+ ``\opt{prefix} \opt{Authors1}, \opt{Year1};
+ \opt{Authors2}, \opt{Year2}; \ldots; \opt{AuthorsN}, \opt{YearN},
+ \opt{postfix}''. Can be used for complex citations within
+ parenthetical material, see the discussion of
+ \cmd{\citeyearNP} above.
+
+ \item[\cmdtwo{nocite}{keys}] \mbox{}\\
+ The entries are included in the bibliography without
+ being cited in text. This is standard \LaTeX.
+ Note that the APA manual normally does not allow this.
+ The only exception concerns works that are studied in a
+ meta-analysis, but for these the \cmd{\nocitemeta}
+ command should be used.
+
+ \item[\cmdtwo{nocitemeta}{keys}] \mbox{}\\
+ This is similar to \cmd{\nocite}. It is used to get the
+ list of works included in a meta-analysis in the
+ bibliography. This command has the additional effect that
+ the corresponding items in the bibliography are preceded
+ by an asterisk ($\star$) and a remark explaining this
+ is inserted just before the bibliography, as required
+ by the APA manual.
+\end{description}
+In order to format the examples from the APA manual correctly in
+section~\ref{sec:xmpl}, I have also defined the following additional citation
+commands: \cmd{\DSMcite}, \cmd{\biblecite}, and \cmd{\citesong}, and obvious
+variations with \verb+full+, \verb+short+, \verb+A+, and \verb+NP+. However, I
+have decided not to include these in \fname{apacite.sty}. The most important
+reason for this is that I find it unattractive to introduce different types of
+citation commands for different types of citations. This also makes it more
+difficult to use the same document with another citation package. I hope to be
+able to provide, in a future version of \pkg{apacite}, more elegant solutions
+to the problems for which these commands were defined.
+
+Nevertheless, I used these commands for the examples in section~\ref{sec:xmpl}
+and therefore included their definitions at the top of the file
+\fname{apacite.tex}. Thus, if you want to use them, you can copy their
+definitions to the top of your own document or personal style file (say,
+\fname{mysettings.sty}, do not change \fname{apacite.sty}), you can study
+their behavior, and perhaps improve them.
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+\section{Contents of the \fname{.bib} file}
+\label{sec:bib}
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+The information that is used by \LaTeX/\BibTeX{} to generate
+the citations and reference list must be stored by the user in one
+or more files with the \fname{.bib} extension.
+A detailed overview of the contents of the \fname{.bib} file is
+given in \citeA[section~13.5]{LaTeXcomp}. Roughly speaking, the
+\fname{.bib} file consists of a collection of \emph{entries}
+of the form
+\mbox{}\vspace{0.7\baselineskip}\\
+\verb+@+\opt{entryname}\verb+{+\opt{contents}\verb+}+
+\mbox{}\vspace{0.7\baselineskip}\\
+Most entries describe a work that may be referenced, e.g., a book
+or article. There are, however, two exceptions: a \entryname{preamble}
+entry (with \opt{entryname} = \verb+preamble+) and a \entryname{string}
+entry (with \opt{entryname} = \verb+string+). There is typically
+at most one \entryname{preamble} entry. Its \opt{contents} consist of a
+string---according to \BibTeX, i.e., between double quotes (\verb+"+)
+or an additional pair of braces (\verb+{+ and \verb+}+). This
+string, which typically consists of \LaTeX{} commands like
+\verb+\newcommand{\SortNoop}[1]{}+, is literally included
+in the document before the bibliography. It can therefore be used
+to define commands that are used in the (other) entries of the
+\fname{.bib} file and that are not standard \LaTeX{}.
+
+A \entryname{string} entry is similar, but the contents are now not
+included in the document. Instead, the string is assigned to a kind of
+``variable'', the name of which may contain characters
+not usually associated with variable names, like colons and
+hyphens, see \citeA[pp.~402--403]{LaTeXcomp}. An example of a
+\entryname{string} entry is
+\begin{verbatim}
+@string{ JPSP = {Journal of Personality and Social Psychology} }
+\end{verbatim}
+Then, if in a later entry, the journal is
+\emph{Journal of Personality and Social Psychology}, you can format this
+as
+\begin{verbatim}
+ journal = JPSP,
+\end{verbatim}
+instead of the usual
+\begin{verbatim}
+ journal = {Journal of Personality and Social Psychology},
+\end{verbatim}
+This is not only convenient because it saves typing of common
+long journal names, but it can also be used to define
+style-specific variations. For example, some styles abbreviate
+journal names, such as
+\emph{J. Pers. Soc. Psych.} instead of
+\emph{Journal of Personality and Social Psychology}.
+You could then put the definitions of all full journal names
+in one \fname{.bib} file (\fname{fulljou.bib}, say) and the definitions
+of the abbreviated journal names in another (\fname{abbrjou.bib}, say).
+Suppose that the information about the referenced works is stored in a
+third file, say, \fname{myrefs.bib}, and that the ``NotAPA''
+style rules, implemented in the \fname{notapa.bst} \BibTeX{} style file,
+require the abbreviated journal names. Then you can use
+\begin{verbatim}
+\bibliographystyle{notapa}
+\bibliography{abbrjou,myrefs}
+\end{verbatim}
+to obtain a reference list complying with the ``NotAPA'' rules. If
+you change your mind and decide to switch to using the rules of the
+APA manual, you only need to change the two lines above into
+\begin{verbatim}
+\bibliographystyle{apacite}
+\bibliography{fulljou,myrefs}
+\end{verbatim}
+(and additionally load the \fname{apacite.sty} \LaTeX{} package
+through \cmd{\usepackage}).
+
+In the accompanying \fname{.bib} file, I have used the
+\entryname{string} entry
+to put some comments in the file:
+\begin{verbatim}
+@string{ comment = {
+\end{verbatim}
+$\mbox{}\qquad$\opt{comment text}
+\begin{verbatim}
+}}
+\end{verbatim}
+This is useful because \BibTeX{} does not have a comment character, e.g., the
+percent sign does not work. If you put text between entries, this is ignored,
+so you may not need a comment character, but I wanted to put my e-mail address
+in the comments at the top of the file, and the \verb+@+ sign of an e-mail
+address is interpreted as the start of a new entry by \BibTeX{}, unless it is
+put into a string.
+
+The remaining entry types are types that correspond with the
+type of a referenced work, e.g., \entryname{book} or
+\entryname{article}. These entry types (reference types) are
+discussed in section~\ref{subsec:types} below.
+Such entries have the following structure:
+\mbox{}\vspace{0.7\baselineskip}\\
+\verb+@+\opt{entryname}\verb+{+\opt{key}\verb+,+\\
+$\mbox{}\qquad$\opt{fieldname1}\verb+ = +\opt{value1}\verb+,+\\
+$\mbox{}\qquad$\opt{fieldname2}\verb+ = +\opt{value2}\verb+,+\\
+$\mbox{}\qquad\qquad\vdots$\\
+$\mbox{}\qquad$\opt{fieldnameN}\verb+ = +\opt{valueN}\\
+\verb+}+
+\mbox{}\vspace{0.7\baselineskip}\\
+where \opt{key} corresponds to the key used in the citation
+commands and matches the entry with the citation (and should
+therefore be unique). The fieldnames are \verb+author+, \verb+year+,
+etc., which are described in section~\ref{subsec:fields} below.
+The values are strings, either defined previously by a
+\entryname{string} entry or explicitly indicated as such here
+by putting the relevant information between double quotes
+(\verb+"+) or a pair of braces (\verb+{+ and \verb+}+).
+
+To be able to obey the rules of the APA manual, \pkg{apacite}
+provides several fields and reference types that are not
+described in the standard \BibTeX{} documentation
+\cite<e.g.,>[chap.~13]{LaTeXcomp}. Furthermore,
+the meaning and usage of many fields and reference types that
+\emph{are} described there have been altered somewhat. Therefore,
+a complete description is given here.
+The symbol \LC{} will be used to indicate that the field or
+reference type is also described in \citeA[Appendix~B]{LaTeXbook}
+or \citeA[chapter~13]{LaTeXcomp}, although, as mentioned above, the
+specific meaning of the item may have been changed.
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+\subsection{Types of references}
+\label{subsec:types}
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+In this section, the list of reference types that are recognized by
+\pkg{apacite} is given. An overview of which fields can be used for which
+reference type is given in Table~\ref{tab:fieldref}. If fields are not
+relevant, but you use them anyway in your \fname{.bib} file, they are ignored.
+The fields and their use are described in more detail in
+section~\ref{subsec:fields}, but here some specific issues will already be
+mentioned.
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+\begin{table}[p]
+\begin{center}
+\caption{List of fields that are used by the various reference types
+ (blank = not used; \X{} = used;
+ \Y{} = used, but only for citations).}
+\label{tab:fieldref}
+\small
+\makebox[0pt]{% some manipulation to squeeze the table onto the page
+\newlength{\oldtabcolsep}
+\setlength{\oldtabcolsep}{\tabcolsep}
+\setlength{\tabcolsep}{2pt}
+\begin{tabular}{@{}lcccccccccc@{}}
+\hline
+ & \multicolumn{10}{c}{Reference type}\\
+ \cline{2-11}
+%
+% Normally, I would use the sideways environment of the rotating
+% package to format this nicely, but I do not want to require
+% other packages to format this document, so I choose an uglier
+% solution here.
+%
+ & article\\
+ & magazine & & & & &
+ & phdthesis\\
+Field
+ & newspaper & book & incollection & techreport & intechreport & lecture
+ & mastersthesis
+ & unpublished
+ & misc
+ & literal\\
+\hline
+address & &\X&\X&\X&\X& &\X&\X&\X& \\
+annote & & & & & & & & & & \\
+author &\X&\X&\X&\X&\X&\X&\X&\X&\X& \\
+booktitle & & &\X& &\X& & & & & \\
+chair & & & & & &\X& & & & \\
+chapter & & &\X& & & & & & & \\
+day &\X& &\X&\X&\X&\X& &\X&\X& \\
+edition & &\X&\X&\X&\X& &\X& & & \\
+editor &\X&\X&\X&\X&\X& & &\X&\X& \\
+englishtitle &\X&\X&\X&\X&\X&\X&\X&\X&\X& \\
+firstkey &\Y&\Y&\Y&\Y&\Y&\Y&\Y&\Y&\Y&\Y\\
+howpublished &\X& &\X&\X&\X&\X&\X&\X&\X& \\
+institution & & & &\X&\X& & & & & \\
+journal &\X& & & & & &\X& & & \\
+key &\Y&\Y&\Y&\Y&\Y&\Y&\Y&\Y&\Y&\Y\\
+month &\X& &\X&\X&\X&\X& &\X&\X& \\
+note &\X&\X&\X&\X&\X&\X&\X&\X&\X& \\
+number &\X&\X& &\X&\X& &\X&\X&\X& \\
+organization & & & & & & & &\X& & \\
+originaladdress &\X&\X&\X& &\X& & & & & \\
+originalbooktitle &\X&\X&\X& &\X& & & & & \\
+originaledition &\X&\X&\X& &\X& & & & & \\
+originaleditor &\X&\X&\X& &\X& & & & & \\
+originaljournal &\X&\X&\X& &\X& & & & & \\
+originalnumber &\X&\X&\X& &\X& & & & & \\
+originalpages &\X&\X&\X& &\X& & & & & \\
+originalpublisher &\X&\X&\X& &\X& & & & & \\
+originalvolume &\X&\X&\X& &\X& & & & & \\
+originalyear &\X&\X&\X&\Y&\X&\Y&\X&\Y&\Y&\Y\\
+pages &\X& &\X& &\X& &\X& & & \\
+publisher & &\X&\X& & & & & &\X& \\
+school & & & & & & &\X& & & \\
+series & & & & & & & & & & \\
+symposium & & & & & &\X& & & & \\
+text & & & & & & & & & &\X\\
+title &\X&\X&\X&\X&\X&\X&\X&\X&\X& \\
+translator &\X&\X&\X&\Y&\X&\Y&\Y&\Y&\Y&\Y\\
+type &\X&\X&\X&\X&\X&\X&\X&\X&\X& \\
+volume &\X&\X&\X&\X&\X& &\X& & & \\
+year &\X&\X&\X&\X&\X&\X&\X&\X&\X&\Y\\
+\hline
+\end{tabular}%
+\setlength{\tabcolsep}{\oldtabcolsep}
+}
+\end{center}
+%
+\end{table}
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+
+The following entry types (reference types) are defined in \pkg{apacite}:
+\begin{description}
+ \item[\entryname{article}\LC] \mbox{}\\
+ A journal article or comparable. If the
+ ``article'' referenced to is a special issue of a journal or
+ something else that has editors instead of authors, the
+ \fieldname{author} field should be empty and the \fieldname{editor}
+ field should be used for the editors. If the journal paginates
+ by issue instead of by volume, or when you are referring to a
+ whole special issue, the issue number should be given
+ in the \fieldname{number} field. In all other cases (including
+ referring to an article within a special issue), the
+ \fieldname{number} field must not be used. The \fieldname{type}
+ field can be used to denote the type of article, for example,
+ ``\verb+Letter to the editor+'', or
+ ``\verb+Review of the book \emph{Life in the middle}+''.
+
+ \item[\entryname{magazine}] \mbox{}\\
+ A magazine article. Unlike in previous versions of \pkg{apacite},
+ this is now equivalent to \entryname{article}. However, with
+ an \entryname{article}, the \fieldname{month} and \fieldname{day}
+ fields should generally not be used, unless there is a compelling
+ reason to use them. For a magazine, the \fieldname{month}, and
+ \fieldname{day} (for weeklies) fields are commonly used.
+
+ \item[\entryname{newspaper}] \mbox{}\\
+ A newspaper article. This is similar to \entryname{article} and
+ \fieldname{magazine}, except that the pages are formatted a little
+ different, with ``pp. 23--49'' instead of just ``23--49''.
+
+ \item[\entryname{book}\LC] \mbox{}\\
+ An entire book. The \fieldname{type} field can now be used
+ to denote a specific type of item (so generally not strictly
+ a book), e.g., ``\verb+Brochure+''. Similarly, the
+ \fieldname{number} field can be used if this is considered
+ useful. (It is used in example 24 in the APA manual, see
+ below.) This seems quite rare to me, however. It should
+ certainly \emph{not} be used for ISBN numbers and the like.
+
+ \item[\entryname{incollection}\LC] \mbox{}\\
+ An article in a (usually edited) book, or other kind of larger
+ work, except a report, for which the \entryname{intechreport}
+ entry is used. The \fieldname{booktitle} field contains the
+ title of the whole collection (book). The \fieldname{type}
+ field is currently used to denote the type of article, as
+ with the \entryname{article} reference type, although in some
+ cases, it may be more naturally to let the \fieldname{type}
+ field contain the type of the whole work (e.g., CD). Therefore,
+ I may change this somewhat in future versions of \pkg{apacite}.
+
+ \item[\entryname{techreport}\LC] \mbox{}\\
+ A report. This may be a ``technical'' report such as published
+ by universities, or a report from government organizations or
+ private companies. The \fieldname{type} field can be used to
+ indicate what kind of report it is, e.g.,
+ ``\verb+College Board Rep.+'' or ``\verb+{DHHS} Publication+''.
+ If the \fieldname{type} field is missing, the default type
+ ``\verb+Tech.\ Rep.{}+'' is used. If no type description should
+ be given, \verb+\bibnotype+ should be used as the contents of
+ the \fieldname{type} field. The \fieldname{number} field can
+ be used to give the report number. The organization that
+ published the report should be given in the \fieldname{institution}
+ field.
+
+ \item[\entryname{intechreport}] \mbox{}\\
+ An article in a (usually edited) report. This is more or less
+ a combination of \entryname{incollection} and
+ \entryname{techreport}. It uses the same fields as the former
+ to describe the article itself, except \fieldname{type}, e.g.,
+ \fieldname{booktitle}, which is in this case the title of the
+ entire report,
+ and the same fields as the latter to describe the report.
+ In particular, the \fieldname{type}, \fieldname{number},
+ and \fieldname{institution} fields are used for the report.
+
+ \item[\entryname{lecture}] \mbox{}\\
+ A paper presented at a meeting. According to the APA manual,
+ the year and month should be given, but \pkg{apacite} also
+ uses the \fieldname{day} field when available.
+ The \fieldname{symposium} field can be used for the
+ name of the symposium and the \fieldname{chair} field for the chair of
+ the meeting. The \fieldname{howpublished} field should be used to
+ indicate the occasion at which the paper was presented if the
+ \fieldname{symposium} field is empty, e.g.,
+ ``\texttt{Paper presented at the meeting of the American
+ Professional Society on the Abuse of Children,
+ San Diego, CA}''.
+ It can also be used to give additional information about
+ the symposium if the \fieldname{symposium} field is not empty.
+
+ \item[\entryname{phdthesis}\LC] \mbox{}\\
+ A doctoral dissertation. The \fieldname{school} field is used
+ to denote the university for which the thesis was written.
+ The \fieldname{type} field can be used for the thesis type,
+ e.g., ``\verb+PhD thesis+''. If it is empty, the default type
+ is used, which is ``\verb+Unpublished doctoral dissertation+''
+ or ``\verb+Doctoral dissertation+'', depending on whether
+ the \fieldname{journal} field is empty or not.
+
+ If the thesis is abstracted in \emph{Dissertation Abstracts
+ International} or similar, then the \fieldname{journal},
+ \fieldname{volume}, \fieldname{number}, and \fieldname{pages} fields
+ can be used as with journal articles. The \fieldname{year} field
+ should denote the year of the ``journal''.
+ The \fieldname{originalyear} field should be used to denote the year
+ of the original thesis, even if it is the same as the year of the
+ abstract, provided that the original thesis is used, and not
+ the abstract. Then, the \fieldname{school} field should also
+ be used, and optionally the \fieldname{type} field. If only
+ the abstract is used, it should presumably be treated as a
+ journal article.
+
+
+ \item[\entryname{mastersthesis}\LC] \mbox{}\\
+ This is equivalent to the \entryname{phdthesis} type, except that
+ the default ``unpublished'' and ``published'' \fieldname{type}s are
+ ``\verb+Unpublished master's thesis+'' and
+ ``\verb+Master's thesis+''.
+
+ \item[\entryname{unpublished}\LC] \mbox{}\\
+ For unpublished manuscripts and similarly ``obscure'' material.
+ The \fieldname{howpublished} field will typically be used to
+ indicate what kind of work is referred to (e.g.,
+ ``\verb+Unpublished manuscript+''). The \fieldname{organization}
+ field can be used to denote the organization in which the document
+ was produced, e.g., ``\texttt{Johns Hopkins University, Center
+ for Social Organization of Schools}''. Note that the larger
+ organization should be given first and the department after that.
+ The address (city and state, etc., see the discussion of the
+ \fieldname{address} field in section~\ref{subsec:fields} below)
+ of the organization should be given in the \fieldname{address}
+ field, unless it is already mentioned in the name of the
+ organization. Presumably, if the organization is
+ ``\verb+University of Groningen+'', the city name ``Groningen''
+ should not be given in the \fieldname{address} field, but
+ the country ``The Netherlands'' should. When both the
+ \fieldname{organization} and the \fieldname{address} field
+ are available, \pkg{apacite} formats these as
+ ``organization, address''. This is different from the
+ usual ``address: publisher'' form. This behavior cannot
+ explicitly be deduced from the 5th edition, nor from the
+ 4th edition, of the APA manual, but the 3rd edition
+ \cite{APAManual3} gives an explicit example (example 53,
+ p.~131): \citeA{APA-3rd-ed-ex53}.
+
+ \item[\entryname{misc}\LC] \mbox{}\\
+ For works that do not fit into the other categories, such as
+ motion pictures, cassette recordings, computer software, etc.
+ The \fieldname{type} field can be used to indicate the type
+ of work, and \pkg{apacite} recognizes a few specific types
+ that should be formatted a little differently, see the discussion
+ of the \fieldname{type} field below. If the \fieldname{address}
+ and \fieldname{publisher} fields are available, the address and
+ publisher part is formatted as with books. The \entryname{unpublished}
+ and \entryname{misc} types are very similar, but there are some
+ differences. For example, \entryname{unpublished} uses the
+ \entryname{organization} field and \entryname{misc} uses the
+ \fieldname{publisher} field, and this part is formatted differently.
+ Further, the \entryname{unpublished} type requires
+ \fieldname{author}, \fieldname{editor}, \fieldname{title}, or
+ \fieldname{type}, whereas with \fieldname{misc},
+ \fieldname{howpublished} takes the first position if these fields
+ are all empty. Finally, as briefly indicated above and discussed
+ in more detail below, \entryname{misc} recognizes some special
+ types in the \fieldname{type} field.
+
+ \item[\entryname{literal}] \mbox{}\\
+ If the other categories do not format the item correctly, this
+ category can be used. The \fieldname{text} field is copied literally
+ to the bibliography. The \fieldname{firstkey}, \fieldname{key},
+ \fieldname{year}, and possibly \fieldname{originalyear} and
+ \fieldname{translator} fields are necessary to get correct
+ in-text citations. However, I have never needed to use this
+ entry type and I think that \entryname{misc} should also
+ be able to format the entry correctly. Furthermore, the
+ correct placement of \entryname{literal} references in the
+ reference list (alphabetizing, sorting), may be problematic.
+
+ \item[\entryname{booklet}\LC]
+ \item[\entryname{inbook}\LC]
+ \item[\entryname{inproceedings}\LC]
+ \item[\entryname{manual}\LC]
+ \item[\entryname{proceedings}\LC] \mbox{}\\
+ These categories are defined by all standard citation styles. They
+ are, however, not needed for the examples in the APA manual. For
+ compatibility, however, they are included and defined as follows:
+ \entryname{booklet} = \entryname{manual} = \entryname{proceedings} =
+ \entryname{misc}; \entryname{inbook} = \entryname{inproceedings} =
+ \entryname{incollection}.
+\end{description}
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+\subsection{Fields}
+\label{subsec:fields}
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+The following fields can be used to describe a reference in the
+\fname{.bib} file:
+\begin{description}
+
+ \item[\fieldname{address}\LC] \mbox{}\\%
+ The address (usually the city and state or country) of the
+ publisher, school, institution, or organization that published
+ the item or at which the item was produced. The APA manual
+ requires that the state or territory of a U.S.-city must be given
+ in the official two-letter U.S. Postal Services form. Only for
+ a specific list of 17 specific cities that are ``well known
+ for publishing'' can (must) the state and/or country
+ description be omitted.
+
+ \item[\fieldname{annote}\LC] \mbox{}\\
+ This is used in some annotated bibliography
+ styles. It is not used by \pkg{apacite}, but no warning
+ is given either. It is thus simply ignored.
+
+ \item[\fieldname{author}\LC] \mbox{}\\
+ The author(s) of the work. This may also be a corporate
+ author when applicable, but some specific measures must
+ then be taken to prevent the corporate name from being
+ interpreted as a first name and last name
+ (such as ``Association, A. P.''), see the examples.
+
+ As discussed in the standard \BibTeX{} documentation,
+ multiple authors must be separated by the word \verb+and+,
+ and each author's name can either be given in the form
+ ``\opt{firstnames}\verb+ +\opt{lastnames}'' or
+ ``\opt{lastnames}\verb+, +\opt{firstnames}''. However,
+ ``von'' parts and ``junior'' parts complicate issues
+ a bit. See the examples and the discussion of them.
+
+ I would generally give the full first name(s) in the \fname{.bib}
+ file, even though the APA manual only requires initials,
+ because other styles require full first name(s) and
+ \pkg{apacite} abbreviates to initials automatically.
+ I have done this only occasionally with the examples,
+ because the APA manual only gives the initials.
+ Therefore, I have only provided first names with a few
+ examples for which I knew the authors' first names.
+
+ If there are more than 6 authors, the APA manual requires
+ that the first 6 should be named in the reference list,
+ followed by ``et al.''. Therefore, \pkg{apacite} uses
+ only the names of the first 6 authors, and inserts an
+ ``et al.'' when applicable. Therefore, in the \fname{.bib}
+ file, the first 6 (or more) authors may be given (separated by
+ ``\verb+and+''), followed by ``\verb+and others+''. This phrase
+ is recognized by \pkg{apacite}.
+ It is, however, better to give all authors in
+ the \fname{.bib} file, so that each style can select its
+ own truncation number.
+
+ \item[\fieldname{booktitle}\LC] \mbox{}\\
+ The title of the larger work, typically book, but sometimes
+ something else, like a report, in which the referenced item
+ (article) was published.
+
+ \item[\fieldname{chair}] \mbox{}\\
+ The chair(s) of a symposium or meeting. Used for lectures.
+ It is formatted the same way as editors.
+
+ \item[\fieldname{chapter}\LC] \mbox{}\\
+ The chapter number if the referenced item is a chapter in
+ a larger collection. Typically used if the referenced work
+ is a chapter in an internet document. If the collection is
+ a book, page numbers (in the \fieldname{pages} field)
+ should be used instead according to the APA rules.
+
+ \item[\fieldname{crossref}\LC] \mbox{}\\
+ The \pkg{apacite} package does not recognize this field,
+ because the APA manual does not discuss explicit
+ cross-referencing. If the referenced work is a chapter
+ (article) in an edited book, all relevant information
+ should be given in the reference list as part of the
+ information about the referenced chapter, not as, e.g.,
+ ``In Wainrib (1992)''. If several chapters from the
+ book edited by Wainrib are referenced, the same information
+ about this book is given with each referenced chapter,
+ and the work itself is not a separate entry in the reference
+ list (unless it is explicitly referred to).
+
+ However, the \fieldname{crossref} field
+ \emph{can} be used, as part of standard \BibTeX{} usage.
+ Missing fields for the referenced work are then copied from
+ the cross-referenced entry, which must come \emph{after}
+ the referring entry in the \fname{.bib} file. If you use
+ this, remember to put the title of the book (also) in the
+ \fieldname{booktitle} field, because the \fieldname{title}
+ field of the referring entry is not empty (it contains
+ the chapter title).
+
+ I have not tested cross-referencing in detail, so I do not
+ know if it behaves well (i.e., complies with the implicit
+ or explicit APA rules) under various circumstances.
+ Therefore, I do not recommend using it without thorough
+ testing.
+
+ \item[\fieldname{day}] \mbox{}\\
+ The day of the month on which the referenced item was published,
+ produced, or presented. Mainly used for articles in daily or
+ weekly magazines or newspapers, for lectures (although the
+ APA manual only specifies the month), and electronic documents.
+
+ \item[\fieldname{edition}\LC] \mbox{}\\
+ The edition of the book or report. This must be of the form 1st, 2nd,
+ 3rd, etc., or ``Rev.'' for a revised edition. Future work may provide
+ routines to handle numbers only (1, 2, 3, etc.), so that
+ language-specific texts are avoided.
+
+ \item[\fieldname{editor}\LC] \mbox{}\\
+ The editor(s) of a book, report, or special issue of a journal.
+ In the examples, this field is also ``misused'' for the
+ producer of a television series.
+
+ \item[\fieldname{englishtitle}] \mbox{}\\
+ The English translation of the title of an item with a non-English
+ title. The APA manual requires that if the referenced work has a
+ non-English title, an English translation should be given as well. For
+ an article in a journal with a non-English name or in a book with a
+ non-English title, the journal name or book title should not be
+ translated or put in this field, only the title of the referenced work
+ itself must be translated. Because, as of version
+ \APACversiondate{2005/06/01}, \pkg{apacite} contains some support of
+ other languages for the main document (see
+ section~\ref{sec:compat-babel}), this field needs rethinking, which
+ will be deferred to a future version.
+
+ \item[\fieldname{firstkey}] \mbox{}\\
+ The \fieldname{firstkey} field, if not empty, is used as
+ ``author'' for the first citation to an item. Subsequent citations
+ then use the \fieldname{key} field. This can be used if there is
+ no author or editor field that can be used for citations, or in
+ certain cases with corporate authors, where the citation in the
+ text uses an abbreviation of the author's name for second and
+ subsequent citations, where the abbreviation is introduced in the
+ first citation. It can also be used to ``trick'' the system
+ in difficult cases. See also \fieldname{key}.
+
+ \item[\fieldname{howpublished}\LC] \mbox{}\\
+ A description of how something was published. For example,
+ ``Unpublished manuscript'' or ``Paper presented at the meeting
+ of the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children,
+ San Diego, CA''. Also used for retrieval information about
+ electronic documents, e.g., ``Retrieved October 13, 2001, from
+ \url{http://jbr.org/articles.html}\bibnodot{.}''. See also
+ the \fieldname{note} field.
+
+ \item[\fieldname{institution}\LC] \mbox{}\\
+ The institution, university, or company that published a
+ (technical) report.
+
+ \item[\fieldname{journal}\LC] \mbox{}\\
+ The journal, magazine, newspaper, etc.{} in which an
+ article, a review, or an abstract of a thesis was published.
+
+ \item[\fieldname{key}\LC] \mbox{}\\
+ See \fieldname{firstkey}. The \fieldname{key} field, if not
+ empty, is used for second and subsequent citations, or all citations
+ if \fieldname{firstkey} is missing. If \fieldname{author} is
+ empty and \fieldname{editor} is empty or can not be used as
+ author (e.g., in \entryname{incollection}), the \fieldname{key}
+ field may be necessary to obtain a useful citation. This is
+ so, because the APA manual requires an abbreviation of the
+ title as in-text citation, and the abbreviation must be
+ sensible. In the current version, \pkg{apacite} uses the
+ whole title if \fieldname{firstkey} and \fieldname{key} are missing.
+ Therefore, if the title is considered too long to use in citations,
+ the user must provide an abbreviation in the \fieldname{key} field.
+ Furthermore, the user must then also define the formatting:
+ If the key is used for a difficult kind of author (e.g.,
+ corporate author), it should be formatted as an author,
+ i.e., in plain text, with names capitalized.
+ If the key is used for an abbreviation of an article
+ title, it should be in plain text, with major words capitalized
+ (unlike in the reference list), and between double quotes
+ (`` and ''; also unlike in the reference list).
+ If the key is used for an abbreviation of a book title, it
+ should be emphasized, with major words capitalized
+ (unlike in the reference list), but not between quotes.
+
+ In a field in the \fname{.bib} file that is also
+ used for the citations, such as the \fieldname{key} field,
+ formatting through, e.g.,
+\begin{verbatim}
+ key = {{\itshape Text}},
+ key = {{\em Text\/}},
+\end{verbatim}
+ can be done (note the extra pair of braces!), but the
+ seemingly more logical variations
+\begin{verbatim}
+ key = {\textit{Text}},
+ key = {{\textit{Text}}},
+ key = {\emph{Text}},
+ key = {{\emph{Text}}},
+\end{verbatim}
+ do not work.
+ However, it is generally preferable to use as less explicit
+ formatting in the \fname{.bib} files as possible, because this
+ decreases the possibilities of successfully using the
+ same \fname{.bib} file with other styles. The following works
+ excellent:
+\begin{verbatim}
+ key = {{\APACcitebtitle{Text}}},
+\end{verbatim}
+ where the \cmd{\APACcitebtitle} macro recognizes that the argument
+ should be formatted as a booktitle (i.e., in italics according to the
+ APA rules). This macro, and its companion \cmd{\APACciteatitle} for
+ article title formatting, are used by \pkg{apacite} if the
+ \fieldname{firstkey} and \fieldname{key} fields are missing,
+ but can also be used by the user. Note that if you use such a
+ \fname{.bib} file with another style, you have to provide
+ definitions of these macros yourself.
+
+ \emph{Warning:} the \fieldname{key} field, which acts
+ as a kind of pseudo-author, should not be confused with the
+ (citation) \opt{key} that is used to match citations with
+ entries in a \fname{.bib} file.
+
+ \item[\fieldname{month}\LC] \mbox{}\\
+ The month something was published. Mainly used for
+ magazine or newspaper articles, lectures, and electronic documents.
+ Use the month macros \verb+jan+, \verb+feb+, etc. These are
+ predefined strings in \fname{apacite.bst} and \fname{apacitex.bst},
+ but can be overridden when desired, e.g., when using another
+ language (see section~\ref{sec:compat-babel}).
+
+ \item[\fieldname{note}\LC] \mbox{}\\
+ A note. This puts additional information between parentheses
+ at the end of a reference list entry. In the examples from
+ the APA manual, it is used for NTIS No., ERIC No., and UMI No.,
+ and for notes about how to obtain the work
+ (``Available from \opt{organization}, \opt{full address}'').
+ If however, the work has been obtained from the internet
+ or from an ``aggregated database'', then the
+ \fieldname{howpublished} field should be used, because it
+ should not be between parentheses then.
+
+ Finally, the \fieldname{note} field is used to give the
+ recording date (i.e., year) of a song when this is different
+ from the date (year) of copyright. The latter should be
+ put in the \fieldname{year} field.
+
+ Do not use the \fieldname{note} field to denote the original
+ publication of a reprint or translation, because the
+ \fieldname{originalyear} field must be used in those cases to
+ obtain the correct citation in the text \cite<e.g.,>{ex39}.
+
+ \item[\fieldname{number}\LC] \mbox{}\\
+ The number of a journal issue or a report. This can be quite
+ complex, for example, ``\verb+PRM~92-01+'', or
+ ``\verb+3, Pt.~2+'', or ``\verb+1, Serial No.~231+''.
+ These latter examples imply that the generality (language and
+ style independence) of the \fname{.bib} file is somewhat lost.
+ Furthermore, if the journal paginates by year and not by issue,
+ the issue number should not be mentioned at all (except when
+ referring to a whole special issue). Of course, \pkg{apacite}
+ does not know whether the journal paginates by issue or by year.
+ If the \fieldname{number} field is available, \pkg{apacite}
+ simply assumes that it should be included. It is the user's
+ responsibility to ensure that this is indeed the case.
+
+ \item[\fieldname{organization}\LC] \mbox{}\\
+ Used for the \entryname{unpublished} reference type to denote
+ the organization in which the unpublished work was produced.
+
+ \item[\fieldname{originaladdress}]
+ \item[\fieldname{originalbooktitle}]
+ \item[\fieldname{originaledition}]
+ \item[\fieldname{originaleditor}]
+ \item[\fieldname{originaljournal}]
+ \item[\fieldname{originalnumber}]
+ \item[\fieldname{originalpages}]
+ \item[\fieldname{originalpublisher}]
+ \item[\fieldname{originalvolume}]
+ \item[\fieldname{originalyear}] \mbox{}\\
+ These (\fieldname{original*-}) fields have the same
+ meaning as their counterparts without the ``original'' prefix,
+ except that they refer to the book or journal in which the
+ work was originally published. This can be used in referring to
+ translations or reprints of articles in journals or books. If the
+ original work is a book or other ``standalone'' work,
+ only the \fieldname{originalyear} field should be used. If the
+ original work is a (PhD or Master's) thesis that is also abstracted
+ in \emph{Dissertation Abstracts International},
+ \emph{Masters Abstracts International}, or comparable, the
+ \fieldname{originalyear} field should be used to denote the year
+ of the dissertation and the \fieldname{year} field to
+ denote the year of publication of the abstract, even if they
+ are the same.
+
+ \item[\fieldname{pages}\LC] \mbox{}\\
+ The (inclusive) page numbers of the article that is referred to,
+ in the journal or book in which it was published. If a range of
+ pages is given (which is usually the case), an en-dash should
+ be used: ``\verb+29--43+''. Other styles sometimes allow a
+ single hyphen (``\verb+29-43+''), which is then automatically
+ formatted as an en-dash (``29--43''), rather than as a hyphen
+ (``29-43''), but I have encountered situations, esp.\ software
+ manuals, in which the page number was of the form ``II-3'',
+ meaning page~3 of chapter~2. In such a situation, you may
+ get page numbers like ``II-1--II-15'', where the distinction
+ between a hyphen and an en-dash becomes important. Therefore,
+ \pkg{apacite} does not perform such automatic transformations.
+
+ \item[\fieldname{publisher}\LC] \mbox{}\\
+ The publisher of the item. Primarily used for books.
+
+ \item[\fieldname{school}\LC] \mbox{}\\
+ The school or university for which a PhD thesis or
+ master's thesis was written.
+
+ \item[\fieldname{series}\LC] \mbox{}\\
+ Not used, although the APA manual has a rule for series.
+ If you refer to a volume in a series, the series title,
+ volume number, and volume title should be joined into
+ a two-part title , e.g., \emph{Handbook of child psychology:
+ Vol.~4. Socialization, personality, and social development},
+ see ex.~36. In the current version of \pkg{apacite} this
+ whole part must be put in the \fieldname{title} or
+ \fieldname{booktitle} field (whichever is appropriate).
+ Maybe in a next version I will use the \fieldname{series}
+ field to allow disentangling such situations.
+
+ \item[\fieldname{symposium}] \mbox{}\\
+ The name of the symposium or meeting at which a
+ lecture was given. This is typically used for the
+ construction ``In \opt{chair} (Chair), \opt{symposium}'',
+ see ex.~51. I have never used it myself, however,
+ I always use the ``Paper presented \ldots'' form,
+ which puts this information in the \fieldname{howpublished}
+ field.
+
+ \item[\fieldname{text}] \mbox{}\\
+ Used for items of type \entryname{literal}. This field contains
+ the complete literal text to be used in the bibliography.
+
+ \item[\fieldname{title}\LC] \mbox{}\\
+ The title of the work.
+
+ \item[\fieldname{translator}] \mbox{}\\
+ The translator of a book or article. This should
+ be formatted in the same way as \fieldname{author} and
+ \fieldname{editor}. If the \fieldname{translator} and
+ \fieldname{editor} fields are identical, they are
+ formatted as if there were only an editor, except that the
+ editor receives the suffix ``(Ed. \& Trans.)'' instead of
+ just ``(Ed.)'', or similarly if there is more than 1 editor.
+
+ \item[\fieldname{type}\LC] \mbox{}\\
+ The type of \entryname{phdthesis} (e.g.,
+ ``Doctoral dissertation''), type of \entryname{article}
+ (e.g., ``Letter to the editor''), type of \entryname{techreport}
+ (e.g., ``DHHS Publication''), type of \entryname{book}
+ (e.g., ``Brochure''), type of \entryname{misc}
+ (e.g., ``Cassette recording''), and so forth.
+
+ With a review (which is typically an \entryname{article}),
+ the \fieldname{type} field contains a lot of information
+ and formatting, e.g.:
+\begin{verbatim}
+ type = {Review of the book {\APACcitebtitle{Life in the middle:
+ Psychological and social development in middle age}}},
+\end{verbatim}
+ where I used the \cmd{\APACcitebtitle} command introduced above in
+ the discussion of the \fieldname{key} field.
+
+ In one of the APA manual examples, I used the \fieldname{type}
+ field to give a description of the subject of an unpublished
+ raw data file (``Auditory response latencies in rat auditory
+ cortex''), leaving the \fieldname{title} field blank.
+
+ For most reference types, if the \fieldname{type} field
+ is missing, it is simply ignored and no type description
+ is given. For a \entryname{techreport}, however, if the
+ \fieldname{type} field is missing, the default type
+ (``Tech. Rep.'') is inserted. In ex.~42 of the APA manual,
+ a report without a type description is given. To make it
+ possible to format a report successfully without a
+ type description, \pkg{apacite} recognizes
+\begin{verbatim}
+ type = {\bibnotype},
+\end{verbatim}
+ indicating that there should be no type description.
+
+ Another special purpose use of the \fieldname{type}
+ field is for a computer program, software, programming
+ language and/or manual. These are put into a \entryname{misc}
+ entry, but unlike other \entryname{misc} types (such as
+ motion pictures) the titles of these types should not
+ be italicized. This is now recognized by \pkg{apacite}
+ in the following way: When referring to a computer program,
+ software, programming language and/or manual, you should
+ use the \entryname{misc} reference type with
+ one of the following commands in the \fieldname{type} field:\\
+ \cmd{\bibcomputerprogram},\\
+ \cmd{\bibcomputerprogrammanual},\\
+ \cmd{\bibcomputerprogramandmanual},\\
+ \cmd{\bibcomputersoftware},\\
+ \cmd{\bibcomputersoftwaremanual},\\
+ \cmd{\bibcomputersoftwareandmanual}, or\\
+ \cmd{\bibprogramminglanguage}.\\
+ Using any of these commands as type designator of a
+ \entryname{misc} entry ensures that the title is not italicized,
+ as required. Note that the \entryname{manual} entry reduces to
+ \entryname{misc}, so can be used sensibly, but only if the
+ \fieldname{type} field is defined as above. Perhaps it would
+ be logical to define a default type for this, but this is not
+ implemented. Anyway, adding a \fieldname{type} field to a
+ \entryname{manual} entry in a \fname{.bib} file will probably
+ do not any harm with other bibstyles, so this is probably only
+ a minor nuisance.
+
+ Similarly, if you refer to a message that has been posted to
+ a newsgroup, internet forum, etc., you should use the
+ \entryname{misc} reference type with \cmd{\bibmessage} as
+ \fieldname{type} field.
+
+ \item[\fieldname{volume}\LC] \mbox{}\\
+ The volume or volumes of the referenced book(s) or
+ of the book in which the referenced article was published,
+ or the volume of the journal (magazine, newspaper, \ldots)
+ in which the referenced article was published.
+
+ \item[\fieldname{year}\LC] \mbox{}\\
+ The year in which the referenced item was published, or
+ if it was not published, the year in which it was written
+ or presented. For manuscripts or books that are accepted
+ for publication but have not yet been published, ``in press''
+ should be used according to the APA rules. The best way to do
+ this is to use the ``\cmd{\BIP}'' command, which can be redefined
+ by the user if the language or editorial style requires
+ something else than ``in press''. Furthermore, \cmd{\BIP}
+ is recognized by \pkg{apacite} and treated a little differently,
+ because for multiple ``in press'' references with the same
+ author(s), a hyphen (``-'') should be inserted between the
+ ``year'' (i.e., ``in press'') and the ``a'', ``b'', etc., that
+ follow it to distinguish the works, whereas this hyphen must
+ be omitted if the ``year'' is an ordinary year (1991a, 1991b).
+
+ If no date is explicitly given in (or on) the referenced work,
+ a ``n.d.'' (no date) should be given as year description.
+ For this, \pkg{apacite} supports the \cmd{\bibnodate}
+ command. This sometimes leads to different formatting as well,
+ e.g., by referencing a translation of a work of which there
+ is no original date. Then the \fieldname{originalyear}
+ field should be \cmd{\bibnodate} and the \fieldname{year} field
+ is then, e.g., \verb+1931+. If the \fieldname{translator}
+ field is not empty, the citation in the text is then formatted
+ as, e.g., ``\citeA{3.100-2}''.
+\end{description}
+
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+\section{Customization}
+\label{sec:custom}
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+The description in the previous sections, with the exception of
+section~\ref{sec:usage}, almost exclusively discussed the default behavior of
+\pkg{apacite}. However, as mentioned in the introduction, in addition to the
+options, \pkg{apacite} offers many possibilities for customization. Most
+punctuation used in the citations and reference list are implemented through
+\LaTeX{} commands instead of explicit symbols. Consequently, the user can
+fine-tune the behavior of \pkg{apacite} by redefining these commands, through
+\cmd{\renewcommand} after \pkg{apacite} has been loaded. Analogously, most
+fixed texts, like ``Tech.\ Rep.{}'' and ``Eds.{}'' are implemented through
+\LaTeX{} commands as well, and can similarly be changed by the user. The
+commands used by \pkg{apacite} are discussed in this section. Of course, the
+defaults are based on the rules of the APA manual.
+
+Some commands, predominantly punctuation, are used both in citations and in
+the reference list. If you want their definitions in citations to be different
+from their definitions in the reference list, you can simply redefine their
+definitions before starting the bibliography.
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+\subsection{Punctuation and formatting}
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+The following punctuation commands are provided and used for
+the citations and reference list.
+\begin{description}
+ \item[\cmd{\BAstyle}] This defines the text style of the authors
+ (or whatever takes their place) for an in-text citation. It
+ defaults to nothing: The authors use the same fonts as the
+ text surrounding it. Introduced because some journals use
+ a different style. For example, \emph{Statistica Neerlandica}
+ uses small-caps, so for that journal, you would define
+\begin{verbatim}
+\renewcommand{\BAstyle}{\scshape}
+\end{verbatim}
+ Do not use the \cmd{\textsc}-type commands, but \cmd{\scshape},
+ \cmd{\bfseries}, etc. The \cmd{\BAstyle} command is used for
+ the author-part by the citation commands
+ \cmd{\cite}, \cmd{\shortcite}, \cmd{\fullcite},
+ \cmd{\citeA}, \cmd{\shortciteA}, \cmd{\fullciteA},
+ \cmd{\citeNP}, \cmd{\shortciteNP}, and \cmd{\fullciteNP}.
+
+ \item[\cmd{\BAastyle}] This is the same as \cmd{\BAstyle}, except that
+ \cmd{\BAastyle} is used for \cmd{\citeauthor}, \cmd{\shortciteauthor},
+ and \cmd{\fullciteauthor}.
+
+ \item[\cmd{\BBOP}] Open parenthesis, used for parentheses opening
+ a citation, as in ``(Rao, 1973)'' or ``Rao (1973)'', and the
+ year in the reference list, as in ``Rao, C. R. (1973).''
+ Default is ``\verb+(+''.
+
+ \item[\cmd{\BBCP}] The corresponding closing parenthesis.
+ Default is ``\verb+)+''.
+
+ \item[\cmd{\BAP}] This command is inserted after the prefix and before
+ the first citation in a \cmd{\cite} command. It defaults to an
+ ordinary space.
+
+ \item[\cmd{\BBAA}] Last ``and'' between authors in a citation
+ between parentheses and in the reference list, as in
+ ``(Mooijaart \& Bentler, 1986)'' or ``Mooijaart, A., \&
+ Bentler, P. M. (1986).''. Default is ``\verb+\&+''.
+
+ \item[\cmd{\BBAB}] Last ``and'' between authors in a citation in text,
+ as in ``Mooijaart and Bentler (1986)''. Default is ``\verb+and+''.
+
+ \item[\cmd{\BBAY}] Punctuation between author(s) and year in a citation
+ between parentheses, as in ``(Rao, 1973)''. Default is ``\verb+, +''.
+
+ \item[\cmd{\BBYY}] \label{cmd:BBYY}
+ Punctuation between two subsequent years, if two works
+ by the same author(s) are referenced in a single citation command,
+ as in ``(Rao, 1965, 1973)'' or ``Rao (1965, 1973)''.
+ Default is ``\verb+, +''.
+
+ \item[\cmd{\BBC}] Punctuation between multiple cites, as in
+ ``(Rao, 1973; Mooijaart \& Bentler, 1986)''.
+ Default is ``\verb+; +''.
+
+ \item[\cmd{\BBN}] Punctuation before a note (postfix) after
+ a citation, as in ``(Rao, 1973, chap.~2)''.
+ Default is ``\verb+, +''.
+
+ \item[\cmd{\BBOQ}] Opening quote for an article title in the
+ reference list, as in
+ ``\flqq Random polynomial factor analysis.\frqq'' Default is
+ the empty string: no quotes used.
+
+ \item[\cmd{\BBCQ}] Closing quote for an article title in the
+ reference list. Default is the empty string.
+ (The \pkg{theapa} package required the closing period to be part
+ of the closing quote, but this has been
+ changed, because the period must be left out if title comments,
+ such as type, English translation of non-English title, or
+ translator follow the title.)
+
+ \item[\cmd{\BCBT}] Comma between authors in the reference section when
+ the number of authors is two, as in
+ ``Mooijaart, A., \& Bentler, P. M. (1986).'' The comma
+ after the ``A.'' is this one. Default is ``\verb+,+''.
+ The APA manual requires it, but other styles leave out this
+ comma. In such a case, you would redefine this ``comma'' to
+ be the empty string:
+\begin{verbatim}
+\renewcommand{\BCBT}{}
+\end{verbatim}
+
+ \item[\cmd{\BCBL}] Comma before the last author (for 3 or more authors)
+ in a citation and in the reference section, as in ``(Gill, Murray,
+ \& Wright, 1981)'' or ``Gill, P. E., Murray, W., \& Wright, M. H.
+ (1981).'' Default is ``\verb+,+''. The APA manual requires it,
+ which is standard U.S. usage, but other styles, particularly
+ European, such as British English, leave out this comma. Again,
+ in such a case, you would redefine this ``comma'' to
+ be the empty string.
+
+ \item[\cmd{\BAnd}] This is the ``and'' that is used in the reference list
+ if someone is both editor and translator:
+ ``In J. Strachey (Ed. \& Trans),''. Default is ``\verb+\&+''.
+
+ \item[\cmd{\theBibCnt}] If there are multiple citations with the same
+ author and year, a letter should be added to the year to distinguish
+ the references. For example, one may refer to two or more articles
+ by J. Smith published in 1982. They should be referred to as
+ ``Smith (1982a)'', ``Smith (1982b)'', and so forth. To accomplish
+ this, the counter \verb+BibCnt+ is defined in \fname{apacite.sty}.
+ The \cmd{\theBibCnt} command defines how the value of \verb+BibCnt+
+ is formatted. The default is ``\verb+\alph{BibCnt}+''. To
+ emphasize (italicize) the ``a'', ``b'', etc., you can redefine
+ this as
+\begin{verbatim}
+\renewcommand{\theBibCnt}{{\em\alph{BibCnt}\/}}
+\end{verbatim}
+ (This presumably works better than ``\verb+\emph{\alph{BibCnt}}+''.)
+ To control this behavior, redefining the \cmd{\theBibCnt} command
+ should normally be sufficient. However, the complete formatting
+ commands are \cmd{\BCnt}, \cmd{\BCntIP}, and \cmd{\BCntND}. The
+ second of these is for ``in press'' works, which need an extra hyphen
+ between ``in press'' and the ``a'' and ``b'' suffixes. The third is
+ similar, for works without a date. Their default definitions
+ in \fname{apacite.sty} are
+\begin{verbatim}
+\newcommand{\BCnt}[1]{\setcounter{BibCnt}{#1}\theBibCnt}
+\newcommand{\BCntIP}[1]{\setcounter{BibCnt}{#1}-\theBibCnt}
+\newcommand{\BCntND}[1]{\setcounter{BibCnt}{#1}-\theBibCnt}
+\end{verbatim}
+
+ \item[\cmd{\APACciteatitle}] The formatting of the title of an
+ article (or similar work)
+ when used as a citation in the text when no author or editor
+ is available for that purpose. Its default definition
+ in \fname{apacite.sty} is
+\begin{verbatim}
+\newcommand{\APACciteatitle}[1]{``#1''}
+\end{verbatim}
+ i.e., the title is put between double quotes.
+
+ \item[\cmd{\APACcitebtitle}] The formatting of the title of a book
+ (or other independent work)
+ when used as a citation in the text when no author or editor
+ is available for that purpose. Its default definition
+ in \fname{apacite.sty} is
+\begin{verbatim}
+\newcommand{\APACcitebtitle}[1]{{\em #1\/}}
+\end{verbatim}
+ i.e., the title is emphasized (in italics) but not put between
+ double quotes.
+
+ \item[\cmd{\APACmetastar}] The asterisk that precedes an item in the
+ bibliography to denote that it is included in the meta-analysis.
+ The default value is ``\verb+$\star$\ +''.
+
+ \item[\cmd{\bibnewpage}] If the \pkgoption{bibnewpage} option
+ is chosen, this command is included before the bibliography.
+ Its default definition is \cmd{\clearpage}, but \fname{apa.cls}
+ uses a similar construction with its \pkgoption{man} option
+ through \cmd{\newpage}.
+ See \citeA[p.~215]{LaTeXbook} for the differences between
+ \cmd{\clearpage} and \cmd{\newpage}.
+
+ \item[\cmd{\bibliographytypesize}] This command is used before
+ the reference list, but after the section or chapter heading.
+ It is intended for the font size of the reference list:
+ For \citeA{WaMe00}, I defined it as \cmd{\small} (and even then
+ the reference list took up 34 pages). The default value is
+ \cmd{\normalsize}.
+
+ \item[\cmd{\bibleftmargin}] This gives the indentation of the second
+ and subsequent lines of a reference list entry, relative to the
+ usual left margin. It is not a proper command, but a
+ ``skip'' (rubber length), which means that it cannot be changed by
+ \cmd{\renewcommand}, but by \cmd{\setlength}. Its default
+ value is \verb+2.5em+.
+
+ \item[\cmd{\bibindent}] This gives the indentation of the first
+ line of a reference list entry, relative to the second line.
+ It is also a ``skip''. Its default value is \verb+-\bibleftmargin+,
+ which means that the first line starts at the original left margin,
+ and the second and subsequent lines are indented by 2.5em.
+
+ \item[\cmd{\bibitemsep}] This gives the vertical separation
+ between two reference list entries. It is also a ``skip'', with
+ default value ``\verb+\z@ \@plus .3\p@\relax+'', i.e., 0pt,
+ but it may be stretched a little to fill the page nicely.
+ This is an old (Plain \TeX) style definition, I will probably
+ change that in a next version. If you want to change it,
+ e.g., to get a blank line between reference list entries,
+ you can use
+\begin{verbatim}
+\setlength{\bibitemsep}{\baselineskip}
+\end{verbatim}
+\end{description}
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+\subsection{Labels}
+\label{sec:labels}
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+There are a lot of specific pieces of text that can be put into the reference
+list or a citation by \pkg{apacite}. Here, these pieces are called
+\emph{labels}. Almost all of these are to some extent language-specific, and
+sometimes style-specific even within the same language. Therefore, they are
+implemented through \LaTeX{} commands, so that users can easily change them.
+In this section, these commands and their purposes are described, and their
+(U.S.\ English) defaults are given. Section~\ref{sec:compat-babel} below will
+discuss how these commands are changed if another language is used.
+
+The following label commands are used:
+\begin{description}
+ \item[\cmd{\bibmessage}] This is the first of 9 specific type
+ commands that are recognized by \pkg{apacite}. If you
+ define the \fieldname{type} field of a \entryname{misc}
+ entry as ``\cmd{\bibmessage}'', the formatting of the
+ entry is changed (e.g., the title is not italicized),
+ see the discussion of the \fieldname{type} field in
+ section~\ref{subsec:fields} above. This one is used for
+ messages in newsgroups, internet forums, etc.
+ Default is ``\verb+Msg+''.
+
+ \item[\cmd{\bibcomputerprogram}]
+ Default is ``\verb+Computer program+''.
+
+ \item[\cmd{\bibcomputerprogrammanual}]
+ Default is ``\verb+Computer program manual+''.
+
+ \item[\cmd{\bibcomputerprogramandmanual}]
+ Default is ``\verb+Computer program and manual+''.
+
+ \item[\cmd{\bibcomputersoftware}]
+ Default is ``\verb+Computer software+''.
+
+ \item[\cmd{\bibcomputersoftwaremanual}]
+ Default is ``\verb+Computer software manual+''.
+
+ \item[\cmd{\bibcomputersoftwareandmanual}]
+ Default is ``\verb+Computer software and manual+''.
+
+ \item[\cmd{\bibprogramminglanguage}]
+ Default is ``\verb+Programming language+''.
+
+ \item[\cmd{\bibnotype}]
+ This one is a bit different from the previous 8. It is used for
+ \entryname{techreport} entries to indicate that the type specifier
+ should be suppressed. Its default value is the empty string, but this
+ will not have an effect on \pkg{apacite} behavior, because the type
+ specifier is suppressed anyway by \pkg{apacite}. However, by defining it
+ as the empty string, formatting may become better (i.e., closer to the
+ desired formatting) with other styles.
+
+ \item[\cmd{\bibnodate}] Used in the \fieldname{year} and
+ \fieldname{originalyear} fields to indicate that no
+ publication date has been given. Default value is ``\verb+n.d.{}+''.
+ The extra pair of braces ensures that \TeX\ does not treat
+ the period before them as a sentence-ending period, after which
+ more space is inserted. This also applies to several other
+ labels discussed below.
+
+ \item[\cmd{\BOthers}] Used for ``others'' if the number of authors
+ or editors is too large, as in ``(Gill et al., 1981)''.
+ The default is ``\verb+et al.{}+''.
+
+ However, the definition contains a slight adaptation, because
+ in a previous version of \pkg{apacite}, there was a problem
+ implying that in some cases \BibTeX{} might put an extra period after
+ \cmd{\BOthers}, not recognizing that it already contains a period,
+ so that you would get ``et al.{}.'', which is undesirable.
+ It depends on the definition of \cmd{\BOthers} whether there should
+ be a period or not: If it is defined as ``\verb+et al.{}+'',
+ there should not be an additional period, but if it is defined
+ as, say, ``\verb+and others+'', then there should be an additional
+ period. But \BibTeX{} does not know what the (later) definition
+ of this command will be in \LaTeX{}. Therefore, the \cmd{\BOthers}
+ command is defined to have one argument. In \BibTeX{},
+ \pkg{apacite} inserts \verb+\BOthers{.}+ in the output, so no
+ additional period is inserted by \BibTeX{}. By default, this
+ command is defined as ``\verb+et al.{}+'', and the argument is
+ simply ignored.
+
+ If you redefine the \cmd{\BOthers} command and need the additional
+ period, you can redefine it appropriately. However, in the current
+ version, the \cmd{\BOthers} command is distinguished from the
+ \cmd{\BOthersPeriod} command and I think the mentioned problems
+ do not occur anymore. Nevertheless, I have kept the definition of the
+ previous version. I may decide, after thorough testing, to change
+ this again in a next version.
+
+ There is still a complication, however. If you use a \cmd{\citeauthor}
+ at the end of a sentence, there may be a period too many, if
+ you end the sentence explicitly with it and \cmd{\BOthers} is
+ ``et al.{}''. On the other hand, if you omit the sentence-finishing
+ period but decide to redefine \cmd{\BOthers} to ``and others'',
+ the period is missing. Therefore, it seems wise not to end a sentence
+ with a \cmd{\citeauthor}, or you could define a command, e.g.,
+ \cmd{\finishsentence}, and insert it in an appropriate place.
+ Then, this command should be changed along with \cmd{\BOthers}.
+
+ \item[\cmd{\BOthersPeriod}] Also used for ``others'' if the number of
+ authors or editors is too large, as in ``Gill, P. E., et al. (1981)''.
+ But this one is used for situations when it should always end with
+ a period. The default is ``\verb+et al.{}+''.
+
+ \item[\cmd{\BIP}] ``In press'', the string to be used as year for
+ in-press references. In the \fname{.bib} file, the \fieldname{year}
+ field should be ``\verb+\BIP+'', so that \pkg{apacite} can recognize
+ this and use appropriate formatting and sorting.
+ The default value is ``\verb+in press+''.
+
+ \item[\cmd{\BIn}] Used for \entryname{incollection} and
+ \entryname{intechreport}, for ``In \opt{editor} (Ed.{}),
+ \opt{booktitle}'', and similar phrases. Default value is ``\verb+In+''.
+
+ \item[\cmd{\BCHAP}] Used for \entryname{incollection} if the
+ \fieldname{pages} field is empty, to denote the chapter number
+ of the referenced work in the collection. Used primarily for
+ internet documents, where there are no page numbers.
+ Default value is ``\verb+chap.{}+''.
+
+ \item[\cmd{\BCHAPS}] Just like \cmd{\BCHAP}, but this one is used
+ if the \fieldname{chapter} field refers to more than 1 chapter.
+ Default value is ``\verb+chap.{}+''.
+
+ \item[\cmd{\BED}] Editor in reference list, as in
+ ``In P. R. Krishnaiah (Ed.{})''. Default is ``\verb+Ed.{}+''.
+
+ \item[\cmd{\BEDS}] Editors (more than one editor) in reference list,
+ as in ``In C. R. Rao \& J. K. Ghosh (Eds.{})''.
+ Default is ``\verb+Eds.{}+''.
+
+ \item[\cmd{\BTRANS}] Translator, as in ``(J. Strachey, Trans.{})''.
+ Default is ``\verb+Trans.{}+''.
+
+ \item[\cmd{\BTRANSS}] Translators. Default is ``\verb+Trans.{}+''.
+
+ \item[\cmd{\BTRANSL}] Translation. Used in a text citation when
+ referring to a translated work for which there is no date
+ for the original work. This is then formatted as
+ ``Aristotle (trans.{} 1931)''. Default is ``\verb+trans.{}+''.
+
+ \item[\cmd{\BCHAIR}] Chair of a symposium, etc.
+ Default is ``\verb+Chair+''.
+
+ \item[\cmd{\BCHAIRS}] Chairs. Default is ``\verb+Chairs+''.
+
+ \item[\cmd{\BVOL}] Volume, as in ``Vol.\ 1''.
+ Default is ``\verb+Vol.{}+''.
+
+ \item[\cmd{\BVOLS}] Volumes, as in ``Vols.{} 1--4''.
+ Default is ``\verb+Vols.{}+''.
+
+ \item[\cmd{\BNUM}] Number, as in ``Tech.\ Rep.{} No.{} 12''.
+ Default is ``\verb+No.{}+''.
+
+ \item[\cmd{\BNUMS}] Numbers, as in ``Nos.{} 3--5''.
+ Default is ``\verb+Nos.{}+''.
+
+ \item[\cmd{\BEd}] Edition, as in ``2nd ed.{}''.
+ Default is ``\verb+ed.{}+''.
+
+ \item[\cmd{\BPG}] Page, default is ``\verb+p.{}+''.
+
+ \item[\cmd{\BPGS}] Pages, default is ``\verb+pp.{}+''.
+
+ \item[\cmd{\BTR}] The (default) technical report type name, which can be
+ overridden by the \fieldname{type} field. Default is
+ ``\verb+Tech.\ Rep.{}+''
+
+ \item[\cmd{\BPhD}] The (default) PhD thesis type name, which can be
+ overridden by the \fieldname{type} field. Default is
+ ``\texttt{Doctoral dissertation}''.
+
+ \item[\cmd{\BUPhD}] The (default) Unpublished PhD thesis type name,
+ which can be overridden by the \fieldname{type} field. Default is
+ ``\texttt{Unpublished doctoral dissertation}''.
+
+ \item[\cmd{\BMTh}] The (default) master's thesis type name, which can be
+ overridden by the \fieldname{type} field. Default is
+ ``\texttt{Master's thesis}''.
+
+ \item[\cmd{\BUMTh}] The (default) unpublished master's thesis type name,
+ which can be overridden by the \fieldname{type} field. Default is
+ ``\texttt{Unpublished master's thesis}''.
+
+ \item[\cmd{\BOWP}] ``Original work published'', default is
+ ``\texttt{Original work published}''.
+
+ \item[\cmd{\BREPR}] ``Reprinted from'', default is
+ ``\texttt{Reprinted from}''.
+
+ \item[\cmd{\refname}] Name of the reference list if it's a section.
+ (So it's the section name.) Default is ``\verb+References+''.
+
+ \item[\cmd{\bibname}] Name of the reference list if it's a chapter.
+ Default is ``\verb+References+''.
+
+ \item[\cmd{\bibliographyprenote}] This command is used before
+ the reference list, but after the section or chapter heading,
+ and immediately after \cmd{\bibliographytypesize}.
+ It is intended for an optional note just before the references
+ in the reference list. It defaults to nothing, but can be changed
+ to a list of commands (e.g., if some commands should be different
+ in the reference list than in the text) and/or some text.
+
+ \item[\cmd{\APACmetaprenote}] If a meta-analysis is reported, the
+ works included in the meta-analysis should in the bibliography be
+ preceded by an asterisk, see the description of \cmd{\APACmetastar}
+ above. This should then be explained in a note before the references.
+ This command contains the text of that note. Default is
+ ``\texttt{References marked with an asterisk indicate studies
+ included in the meta-analysis.}''.
+
+ \item[\cmd{\authorindexname}] Name (heading) of the author index.
+ Default is ``\verb+Author Index+''.
+\end{description}
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+\section{Language support}
+\label{sec:compat-babel}
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+The APA is, of course, American, and therefore the rules in the APA manual
+are also based on the (U.S.) English language. Because \pkg{apacite} was
+primarily designed to implement the APA rules, and because I write all
+my scientific work in English, \pkg{apacite} never contained explicit
+support for other languages. However, most language-specific elements
+have been implemented in the form of \LaTeX{} commands, so that users
+could define their own \LaTeX{} package in which these elements were
+changed. The labels discussed in section~\ref{sec:labels} above are the
+most important part of this.
+
+Furthermore, when writing in a non-English language, the \pkg{babel} package
+will usually be loaded. The \pkg{babel} package is an extensive package that
+facilitates using \LaTeX{} for documents in languages other than English.
+There have been some compatibility problems between \pkg{babel} and
+\pkg{apacite}, and therefore since 2003 \pkg{apacite} contained some
+explicit code to overcome the compatibility problems. I think this works
+well, provided that \pkg{apacite} is loaded \emph{after} \pkg{babel}.
+
+Thus, although \pkg{apacite} did not support non-English languages
+explicitly, it did facilitate them. Supporting non-English languages is
+not a main objective of \pkg{apacite}, because it is not needed for
+the APA. Nevertheless, it would be a useful addition. Many journals in
+non-English languages and universities in countries where other languages
+are spoken base their rules on the APA manual. Therefore, it would be
+efficient if, with a few adaptations, \pkg{apacite} could also be used in
+these circumstances. For this reason, and based on user requests, the
+current version of \pkg{apacite} contains a first attempt at explicit
+language support.
+
+The \pkg{apacite} distribution now contains a subdirectory \fname{lang},
+which contains files that have names according to the construction
+\opt{language}\fname{.apc}, i.e., \fname{english.apc}, \fname{dutch.apc}, etc.
+These files contain the language-specific modifications of \pkg{apacite},
+mainly translations of terms like ``and'', ``Ed.{}'', etc., and have been
+written by \pkg{apacite} users that are (native) speakers of the languages
+involved. If the \pkg{babel}, \pkg{german}, or \pkg{ngerman} package is
+loaded, \pkg{apacite} is able to determine the language of the document that
+is processed. Then the corresponding \fname{.apc} file, when available, is
+read. In this way, language-specific elements are changed to the relevant
+language. This is done fully automatically, the user does not have to do
+anything explicitly. However, sometimes an \fname{.apc} file makes some
+assumptions (such as \fname{greek.apc}, which assumes ISO-8859-7 encoding)
+or makes some choices that are nontrivial. Therefore, look at the source
+code of the \fname{.apc} file if you obtain unexpected results. These files
+contain some brief documentation of the specific issues relevant for the
+language at hand.
+
+The list with available \fname{.apc} files can be found in the file
+\fname{manifest.txt}. One file is defined for each ``language'', which can be
+used for several ``dialects'' (in \pkg{babel} terminology). For example,
+\fname{english.apc} is also used if the language is ``american''. See the
+documentation of the \pkg{babel} and \pkg{(n)german} packages for a list of
+dialects of the language files supplied. If an \fname{.apc} file is not
+available for the language you need, you can use one of the supplied ones as a
+template and write your own. If you send it to me, I can include it in a next
+version of \pkg{apacite}.
+
+Note, however, that this form of language support is still very limited.
+There are many aspects that are not yet covered, like different forms of
+dates (month-day vs.\ day-month). I have recently discovered the
+\pkg{babelbib} package, which offers very sophisticated support of
+different languages. I will study this and see whether I can use some
+of its features in a future version of \pkg{apacite}.
+
+One of the issues that is not yet settled is how to treat the months.
+I could define these as commands like \cmd{\January} or according
+to a construction like \verb+\bibmonth{1}+. The months are now still
+hard-coded in English as macros in \fname{apacite.bst}.
+This means that, when using a different language, they can (and must)
+be redefined in the \fname{.bib} file, by including lines like:
+\begin{verbatim}
+ @string{jan = "{\APACSortNoop{01}}January"}
+\end{verbatim}
+etc., where you replace ``\verb+January+'' by the translation of January
+in the desired language. The ``\verb+{\APACSortNoop{01}}+'' ensures that
+\BibTeX{} sorts January before, say, April, when that is needed.
+
+It is likely that you would use these month definitions a lot, in which case
+an even better solution would be to write a special \fname{.bib} file, say
+\opt{language}\fname{.bib}, which only contains these month redefinitions.
+Then you could put this file somewhere where \BibTeX{} can find it and include
+this before your (other) \fname{.bib} file(s) that contain the actual
+references:
+\begin{verbatim}
+\bibliographystyle{apacite}
+\bibliography{language,otherbibfiles}
+\end{verbatim}
+See \citeA[p.~159]{LaTeXbook} or \citeA[p.~403]{LaTeXcomp} for a discussion
+of these issues.
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+\section{Compatibility}
+\label{sec:compat}
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+Generally speaking, I would want \pkg{apacite} to be compatible with other
+packages, of course. However, what does compatibility mean? It can mean
+various things:
+\begin{enumerate}
+\item \label{compat1}%
+ The same \fname{.bib} file can be used with
+ different \BibTeX{} styles and \LaTeX{} citation packages;
+\item \label{compat2}%
+ The same citation commands as other citation packages;
+\item \label{compat3}%
+ Another \LaTeX{} citation package can be used with a
+ \fname{.bbl} file that is generated by the \pkg{apacite}
+ \BibTeX{} style;
+\item \label{compat4}%
+ The \pkg{apacite} \LaTeX{} citation package can be used with a
+ \fname{.bbl} file that is generated by another \BibTeX{} style;
+\item \label{compat5}%
+ The \pkg{apacite} \LaTeX{} citation package can be loaded at the
+ same time as other packages without errors or undesirable
+ side-effects.
+\end{enumerate}
+Because of the complicated rules of the APA manual, it is not always possible
+to achieve all kinds of compatibility with all other packages. Later in this
+section, I will discuss compatibility issues with other packages with which
+known incompatibility problems exist or have existed. A first example of this,
+the \pkg{babel} package, has already been mentioned above in
+section~\ref{sec:compat-babel}.
+
+Point~\ref{compat1} is the most important. If you have to write a completely
+different \fname{.bib} file for different citation styles, there does not seem
+to be an advantage in using \BibTeX{}. You might as well write the reference
+list explicitly in \LaTeX{} then. However, not even this point can be achieved
+completely, although the vast majority of the items will be the same for
+different styles. But there remain a number of choices that are style-specific
+and that lead to differences in the \fname{.bib} file. Examples from the APA
+manual are:
+\begin{itemize}
+\item If a referenced book is volume~III according to its title
+ page, this should be referenced as Vol.~3 according to the
+ APA manual rules, but that may not be the case with other
+ styles;
+\item Journal names are abbreviated by some styles, but not
+ according to the APA manual rules;
+\item Publisher names should be abbreviated according to the
+ APA manual, e.g., ``John Wiley \& Sons'' becomes ``Wiley''.
+ Other styles do not do this;
+\item The issue number of a journal should only be given if
+ the journal starts each issue with page~1, not if page
+ numbers of different issues in the same volume are consecutive.
+ Other styles may require the issue number in all cases;
+\item Page ranges are given as ``341--351'' in APA style, whereas
+ other styles use ``341--51'';
+\item The APA rules require a capital after a colon (`\verb+:+'),
+ so that subtitles start with a capital as well. Other styles
+ may not do this;
+\item The APA has specific rules about the address: For a U.S. city,
+ the state (or territory) should be given as a 2-letter code
+ from the U.S. Postal Services, and the province and country
+ should be given if it is a non-U.S. city, unless it is one of
+ the 17 (U.S. and non-U.S.) cities that are ``well-known for
+ publishing''. Then, only the city should be mentioned. There
+ are similar exceptions if the name of the state (and sometimes
+ even city) is already mentioned in the university name and
+ the university acts as publisher;
+\item Yearbooks like \emph{Annual Review of Psychology} should be treated
+ as journals according to the APA rules, whereas other styles
+ treat these as books;
+\item The additional fields (such as \fieldname{translator} and the
+ \fieldname{original*}-fields) that are used by \pkg{apacite} but are
+ not defined in other \BibTeX{} styles are of course
+ \pkg{apacite}-specific.
+\end{itemize}
+Some of these problems can be handled relatively elegantly. For example,
+the user could use a command like ``\verb+\RomanVol{3}+'' in the
+\fieldname{volume} field. Then, the user could define a counter,
+\verb+RomanVolcounter+, say, in \LaTeX{} and then define
+\cmd{\RomanVol} (similar to \cmd{\BCnt} discussed earlier) as
+\begin{verbatim}
+\newcommand{\RomanVol}[1]{%
+ \setcounter{RomanVolcounter}{#1}\theRomanVolcounter}
+\end{verbatim}
+where \cmd{\theRomanVolcounter} is defined as \verb+\arabic{RomanVolcounter}+
+if \pkg{apacite} is loaded and as \verb+\Roman{RomanVolcounter}+ if another
+package is loaded that desires this. The example with style-specific
+\fname{.bib} files that contain the definitions of journal-strings was already
+given in section~\ref{sec:bib} above. However, many users will not go through
+all this trouble, and not all problems can be solved in this way. So we have
+to realize that not all entries in the \fname{.bib} file will be suitable for
+all citation styles. On the other hand, most citation styles and journals are
+not as critical as APA journals and many styles in psychology and other social
+sciences (including economics) are very similar, so a \fname{.bib} file that
+is tailor-made for \pkg{apacite} is likely to be suitable enough for the
+styles of most relevant alternative journals.
+
+Point~\ref{compat2} above is currently not fulfilled. The \pkg{apacite}
+citation commands are directly based on those of its immediate predecessor,
+\pkg{theapa}. But the use of `\verb+<+' and `\verb+>+' for prefixes is not
+used by other packages. The influential \pkg{natbib} package uses \cmd{\citep}
+and \cmd{\citet} instead of \cmd{\cite} and \cmd{\citeA}, and uses many more
+alternative commands, see section~\ref{sec:compat-natbib} below. The
+\pkg{chicago} package uses \cmd{\citeA} instead of \cmd{\citeauthor}, many
+``numerical'' citation styles only recognize \cmd{\cite}, and so forth. As
+discussed below, I now consider \pkg{natbib} as the standard with which other
+packages should comply. Therefore, future versions of \pkg{apacite} will
+support the \pkg{natbib} citation commands, but the current version does not
+do that.
+
+I think that points~\ref{compat3} and~\ref{compat4} are not that important. It
+seems to me that there is not much wrong with defining a style through a
+combination of a \fname{.sty} and \fname{.bst} file, each requiring the other
+to work. However, given the possibilities and philosophy of the \pkg{natbib}
+package, it would be desirable that \fname{natbib.sty} can be used with
+\fname{apacite.bst}. As discussed below, this works to some extent, although
+it requires \fname{apacite.sty} to be loaded as well, before
+\fname{natbib.sty}.
+
+Point~\ref{compat5} is very important, especially with other packages that are
+complementary to \pkg{apacite} in some sense. It would be very annoying having
+to choose between using \pkg{babel} and \pkg{apacite}, or between
+\pkg{hyperref} and \pkg{apacite}, etc. These packages serve totally different
+purposes, cannot usefully be compared, and are more valuable when they can be
+used jointly. The rest of this section addresses this issue for a number of
+packages with which compatibility problems are known to exist or have existed.
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+\subsection{Compatibility of \pkg{apacite} and \pkg{natbib}}
+\label{sec:compat-natbib}
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+The \pkg{natbib} package is a general purpose citation package that is
+intended to work with a broad range of \BibTeX{} (and non-\BibTeX{}) styles
+that generate the bibliography. The \pkg{natbib} package is quite advanced and
+can be used to switch easily between completely different citation styles.
+Furthermore, the apparent popularity of \pkg{natbib} has inspired writers of
+packages that would otherwise be incompatible with \pkg{natbib} to write code
+to resolve these incompatibilities. I will mention some of these packages
+below.
+
+I consider \pkg{natbib} as the \emph{de facto} standard with which
+other packages should be compatible. Unfortunately, \pkg{apacite} is still
+not entirely compatible with \pkg{natbib}. The main incompatibility is that
+different citation commands are used, so that it is not possible to use the
+same document with \pkg{natbib} or \pkg{apacite}.
+
+\pkg{apacite}, building on its predecessors, uses \cmd{\cite} for
+parenthetical citations and \cmd{\citeA} for in-text citations, whereas
+\pkg{natbib} uses \cmd{\citep} and \cmd{\citet} for these purposes. Moreover,
+text that should precede the citation is entered between \verb+<+ and \verb+>+
+marks and text that should follow the citation is entered between square
+brackets (\verb+[+ and \verb+]+, i.e., a standard \LaTeX{} optional argument)
+in \pkg{apacite}, whereas \pkg{natbib} uses \emph{two} optional arguments
+between brackets. If there is one optional argument, \pkg{natbib} interprets
+this as text following the citation (just like \pkg{apacite}). If there is
+text that should precede the citation, but not text that should follow the
+citation, two optional arguments must be used in \pkg{natbib}, the second
+being empty.
+
+Furthermore, both packages have defined some alternative citation commands,
+such as \cmd{\citeNP} (\pkg{apacite}) and \cmd{\citealp} (\pkg{natbib}), some
+of which serve the same purpose and could therefore be mapped onto each other
+easily, but some others have no equivalent in the other package.
+
+A partial conversion table, listing the main \pkg{apacite} commands and their
+(closest) \pkg{natbib} equivalent is given in Table~\ref{tab:APAnatConv}. The
+APA requirement and \pkg{apacite} behavior of listing the full author list for
+the first citation (if there are at most 5 authors) and the short author list
+in subsequent citations is accomplished by loading \pkg{natbib} with the
+\pkgoption{longnamesfirst} option. This is assumed in the table. An example of
+better APA-like behavior of \pkg{natbib} is that, by using the
+\pkgoption{sort} option, \pkg{natbib} is able to sort the references within
+the same citation command, as required by the APA manual, whereas
+\pkg{apacite} does not have this option yet.
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+\begin{table}[htp]
+\caption{Partial conversion table of the main \pkg{apacite}
+ citation commands and their (closest) \pkg{natbib} equivalents.}
+\label{tab:APAnatConv}
+\begin{tabular}{lcl}
+\hline
+\pkg{apacite} & $\mbox{}\qquad\qquad\mbox{}$ & \pkg{natbib} \\
+\cline{1-1}\cline{3-3}
+\cmd{\cite} & & \cmd{\citep} \\
+\cmd{\citeA} & & \cmd{\citet} \\
+\cmd{\citeNP} & & \cmd{\citealp} \\
+\cmd{\citeauthor} & & \cmd{\citeauthor} \\
+\\
+\cmd{\fullcite} & & \cmd{\citep*} \\
+\cmd{\fullciteA} & & \cmd{\citet*} \\
+\cmd{\fullciteNP} & & \cmd{\citealp*} \\
+\cmd{\fullciteauthor} & & \cmd{\citeauthor*} \\
+\\
+\cmd{\shortcite} & & \cmdtwo{shortcites}{keys}\cmd{\citep} \\
+\cmd{\shortciteA} & & \cmdtwo{shortcites}{keys}\cmd{\citet} \\
+\cmd{\shortciteNP} & & \cmdtwo{shortcites}{keys}\cmd{\citealp} \\
+\cmd{\shortciteauthor} & & \cmdtwo{shortcites}{keys}\cmd{\citeauthor} \\
+\\
+\cmd{\citeyear} & & \cmd{\citeyearpar} \\
+\cmd{\citeyearNP} & & \cmd{\citeyear} \\
+\cmd{\nocite} & & \cmd{\nocite} \\
+\hline
+\end{tabular}
+\end{table}
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+
+Many labeling and punctuation commands are also different but similar between
+\pkg{natbib} and \pkg{apacite}. I haven't studied the \pkg{natbib} commands
+in detail, but will do so in the future. It is my intention to add
+\pkg{natbib}-compatible commands to apacite in the future, so that the same
+document can be processed either with \pkg{natbib} or with \pkg{apacite}.
+
+With previous versions of \pkg{apacite}, there used to be some erratic
+behavior (error messages and wrong formatting) when the \pkg{natbib}
+\LaTeX{} package (\fname{natbib.sty}) was used with the \pkg{apacite}
+\BibTeX{} style (\fname{apacite.bst} or \fname{apacitex.bst}). These
+problems have now been almost entirely resolved (I believe).
+
+When you want to use \pkg{natbib} for citation and \pkg{apacite} for the
+reference list, you still need to load the \LaTeX{} package \fname{apacite.sty}
+(with \cmd{\usepackage}), because of the commands that are included in the
+\BibTeX{} output (as defined in section~\ref{sec:custom} above). The
+\fname{apacite.sty} file must be loaded \emph{before} \fname{natbib.sty},
+otherwise you will get lots of error messages. I may try to fix that for
+a future version of \pkg{apacite}.
+
+Using \pkg{natbib} for the citations has some advantages over using
+\pkg{apacite} for the citations. Apart from the abovementioned sorting
+of citations within a single citation command, these are mainly
+\pkg{natbib}'s better compatibility with other important packages,
+such as \pkg{hyperref}.
+
+However, \pkg{natbib} does not fully comply with the APA rules.
+Known incompatibilities between \pkg{natbib} and the APA rules are: (1)
+Multiple adjacent citations with the same author and year are formatted
+as ``Johnson, 1991a,b'' by \pkg{natbib}, whereas the APA manual requires
+this to be ``Johnson, 1991a, 1991b''; (2) The APA manual requires ``and''
+between authors to be ``and'' in text and ``\&'' in parenthetical citation.
+
+I could change the \fname{apacite.bst} and \fname{apacitex.bst} \BibTeX{}
+style files so that \pkg{natbib} would be ``fooled'' and the first
+problem would be resolved. However, this has the drawback of imposing APA
+style citations when you request \pkg{natbib} style citations, and you
+may actually want the behavior mentioned above. I am only able to provide
+one of these possibilities. It would be better to add an option to
+\pkg{natbib} with which the desired behavior can be chosen. Thus, you
+could try to put pressure on the author of \pkg{natbib} to achieve this.
+Alternatively, I might attempt to provide an option to \pkg{apacite}
+in the future that controls this behavior of \pkg{natbib}.
+
+The second incompatibility between \pkg{natbib} and the APA rules mentioned
+above occurs because \pkg{apacite} uses the re-definable \cmd{\BBA}
+command for this usage of ``and''. With \pkg{natbib}, it is not possible
+that \cmd{\BBA} ``knows'' whether it is parenthetical or in-text, so you can
+choose only one of these, or you must redefine \cmd{\BBA} explicitly before
+each citation.
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+\subsection{Compatibility of \pkg{apacite} and \pkg{hyperref}}
+\label{sec:compat-hyper}
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+The \pkg{hyperref} package turns (cross-) references into hypertext links.
+This can be used in conjunction with a program such as \latextohtml{} to
+compose \fname{.html} files with clickable links, to internet pages or within
+the same document, or it can be used to create a \fname{.pdf} document with
+clickable crossreferences. Evidently, citations are also references.
+Therefore, the \pkg{hyperref} package transforms these into hypertext links as
+well, and needs to redefine the citation commands and reference list commands
+in order to do so. These redefinitions are incompatible with redefinitions of
+the citation commands by \pkg{apacite}.
+
+Similar problems occur between \pkg{hyperref} and \pkg{natbib}, and some code
+is included in both packages, which jointly resolves these incompatibilities.
+In order to make \pkg{apacite} compatible with \pkg{hyperref}, similar code
+should be developed and included in \pkg{apacite}.
+
+An attempt to achieve this can be tried through the \pkgoption{hyper} option
+of \pkg{apacite}. This activates some code provided by Ross Moore (thanks,
+Ross) that makes \pkg{apacite} and \pkg{hyperref} work together to some
+extent. However, different things go wrong depending on the order in which the
+two packages are loaded.
+
+If the \pkg{hyperref} package is loaded \emph{after} \pkg{apacite}, different
+citations with the same author(s) and year do not work well: \pkg{hyperref}
+suppresses the ``a'', ``b'', etc., so ``(Johnson, 1991a)'' becomes ``(Johnson,
+1991)'', which is undesirable. If the \pkg{hyperref} package is loaded
+\emph{before} \pkg{apacite}, this problem does not occur, but the citations in
+the text do not link to the reference list anymore.
+
+The following problems are independent of the order of loading:
+(1) Citations of the form ``(Author, year1, year2)'', i.e., with multiple
+ references to the same author(s) in the same citation command are not
+ recognized as such and are thus formatted as ``(Author, year1; Author,
+ year2)'';
+(2) If the \cmd{\url} command from the \pkg{url} package is used for internet
+ addresses (e.g., for retrieval information in the reference list), line
+ breaks are not inserted within the address, even if it's way too long for
+ the line, and ``\verb+#+'' characters in the internet address are not
+ processed well, see the discussion of the \pkg{backref} package below.
+
+Because of these known problems, the \pkgoption{hyper} option is not executed
+by default (the \pkgoption{nohyper} option is), but if you find the advantages
+more important than the disadvantages, you can request this option. Note that
+you should load the \pkg{hyperref} package yourself, this is not done by
+\pkg{apacite}. Thus, you can choose the order in which to load the packages.
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+\subsection{Compatibility of \pkg{apacite} and \pkg{backref}}
+\label{sec:compat-backref}
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+The \pkg{backref} package adds to each entry in the bibliography a list
+of pages (or sections) on which it is referenced. Hence, it serves as
+an alternative to an author index, in which not the entries themselves
+are backreferenced, but the authors of these entries, see
+section~\ref{sec:autindex}. Note that \pkg{natbib} offers yet another
+possibility, viz.\ the citations in the standard index, or a separate
+citation index, see the \pkg{natbib} documentation. In my opinion,
+the \pkg{backref} way of indexing the page numbers of the citations
+is more logical. Moreover, it is more condensed as well.
+
+Obviously, the \pkg{backref} package has to change the citation commands
+and reference list to be able to do its backreferencing.
+Because \pkg{apacite} redefines these as well, they are conflicting
+to some degree. A similar compatibility problem between \pkg{backref}
+and \pkg{natbib} was noticed by the author of \pkg{backref}. Therefore,
+\pkg{backref} contains some code to make it compatible with \pkg{natbib}.
+This code has been adapted for \pkg{apacite} and incorporated in
+\pkg{apacite}. Thus, \pkg{backref} as a standalone package has been made
+compatible with \pkg{apacite}. The drawback of this solution is that if
+changes are made in the \pkg{backref} package, this may result in new
+incompatibilities with \pkg{apacite} unless \pkg{apacite} is changed as
+well. Whether, and if so, when, this will occur will be a question for
+the future.
+
+Ex.~74 of the APA manual references an internet address that contains a
+``\verb+#+''. This leads to an error with \pkg{backref} and when entered
+through, \LaTeX{} inserts ``\verb+##+'' in the output instead of ``\verb+#+''.
+This will not occur often in practice, but unfortunately occurs in the
+mentioned example, which might give the impression that it is an \pkg{apacite}
+bug, but it is not an \pkg{apacite} problem or even a compatibility problem,
+but a \pkg{backref} problem. I had to use some nasty code in the current
+document (\fname{apacite.tex}) to have the bibliography entry of this
+reference formatted correctly when \pkg{backref} is loaded. When you
+encounter this problem, you can use this code.
+
+Apart from being a standalone package, \pkg{backref} can also be
+combined with \pkg{hyperref}. It is then not loaded separately,
+but through the \pkgoption{backref} or \pkgoption{pagebackref}
+option of the \pkg{hyperref} package. In this case, the backreferences
+become hypertext links. See the discussion of the \pkg{hyperref}
+package above.
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+\subsection{Multiple bibliographies}
+\label{sec:compat-chapterbib}
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+The \pkg{chapterbib} package allows separate bibliographies for separate
+chapters of a book, or, technically, separate \cmd{\include}d files. To work
+properly, it needs some small changes to the citation package, which are
+clearly described in the \pkg{chapterbib} documentation. These changes have
+been incorporated in \pkg{apacite}, and therefore \pkg{apacite} is compatible
+with \pkg{chapterbib}.
+
+It is generally advisable not to use the \pkgoption{sectionbib} option of
+\pkg{chapterbib}, because this redefines \cmd{\thebibliography}, which
+interferes with the redefinition by \pkg{apacite}. You can use the
+\pkgoption{sectionbib} option of \pkg{apacite} to accomplish that the
+bibliography or bibliographies are sections, rather than chapters.
+
+Moreover, \pkg{apacite} is configured such that it takes a section as default
+if it is in the main matter (signified by \cmd{\mainmatter}) of the document.
+In the back matter (\cmd{\backmatter}) the bibliography is put in a chapter.
+This is also the case if \cmd{\chapter} is defined but \cmd{\mainmatter} not.
+(Is this possible? Perhaps for reports?) Consequently, the
+\pkgoption{sectionbib} option is only useful in specific circumstances. The
+\pkgoption{nosectionbib} forces the bibliography to be a chapter, provided
+\cmd{\chapter} is defined. (I figured a \pkgoption{chapterbib} option would be
+a bit confusing, so I stuck with \pkgoption{nosectionbib}.)
+
+The \pkg{bibunits} package is an alternative to \pkg{chapterbib}. It allows a
+greater flexibility in choosing the scope of a bibliography (chapter, section,
+or arbitrarily defined part of the document). I haven't tested it thoroughly,
+but it seems like there are no compatibility problems between \pkg{apacite}
+and \pkg{bibunits}.
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+\subsection{Programs for conversion to html, rtf, etc.}
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+There are several programs that convert \LaTeX{} files to other types
+of files, most notably html and rtf. This may, for example, be useful if you
+want to publish your document on the internet or if you are requested to send
+a ``Word'' file to a journal. I have received reports that \latextohtml{}
+and \LaTeXrtf{} do not handle documents that use \pkg{apacite} well.
+Therefore, I have studied these programs.
+
+\latextohtml{} is a \Perl{} program that converts a \LaTeX{} input
+file into one or more \fname{.html} files, so that a document that is prepared
+with \LaTeX{} can be used as a (user-friendly) internet document. For papers,
+lecture notes, and transparencies of classes, I always convert the
+\fname{.dvi} file output by \LaTeX{} to a \fname{.pdf} file (through the
+\pkg{dvipdfm} program), which can be read by most people, e.g., using the
+\pkg{Adobe Reader} program or browser plug-in. I find \fname{.pdf} files
+more convenient, because I can download a whole paper or presentation
+with a single click and then print it and read it when and where I desire,
+whereas typical examples of conversions to \fname{.html} use many
+\fname{.html} files, which can only be conveniently read from the computer
+screen when and where you're connected to the internet. Nevertheless, I can
+imagine that someone would like to convert a document to \fname{.html}, e.g.,
+because it loads faster and reads easier from the screen, because for some
+documents most people will have to use only a small part and can easier browse
+or search through it, or just because you want to make a home page and do not
+want to learn the html-language.
+
+Similarly, \LaTeXrtf{} is a standalone program that converts a \LaTeX{}
+document to \fname{.rtf} format, which can be read by most word processors.
+This may be convenient if you (a \LaTeX{} user) want to share a document with
+someone who does not work with \LaTeX{}, or as mentioned above, if you are
+required to send a ``Word'' file to a journal.
+
+Both \latextohtml{} and \LaTeXrtf{} implement \LaTeX{} macros etc.\ in
+another programming language (\latextohtml{}: \Perl{}; \LaTeXrtf{}: C) and
+process the \fname{.tex} files directly. This design implies that the
+conversion program must know the definitions of all \LaTeX{} macros that
+are used. A drawback of this design is that essentially the same code has
+to be written in different programming languages (\LaTeX{} macros for the
+\fname{.sty} file, \Perl{} for \latextohtml{}, and C for \LaTeXrtf{}), but
+typically with some adaptations specific for the application at hand.
+
+With \LaTeXrtf{}, the \LaTeX{} macros that it is able to process are included
+in the C source code that is compiled. Consequently, no user additions are
+possible in principle. However, the source code is freely available, so if you
+define a \LaTeX{} macro, you could adapt \LaTeXrtf{}'s source code and
+recompile \LaTeXrtf{}. It is obvious that this is very inconvenient,
+especially if \LaTeX{} macros are defined differently for different styles or
+if they are defined differently in different parts of the same document.
+
+Version~1.9.15 and higher of \LaTeXrtf{} contains some support for
+\pkg{apacite}, but lags a few versions of \pkg{apacite} behind and thus
+doesn't work with recent versions of \pkg{apacite}. Moreover, even if this
+would be fixed, e.g., because I (or you) send patches to the \LaTeXrtf{}
+authors, this wouldn't do justice to the flexibility of \pkg{apacite}, i.e.,
+its customization options.
+
+In contrast with this, \latextohtml{} allows the possibility to supply
+external \Perl{} scripts. If \latextohtml{} encounters a
+\cmdtwo{usepackage}{package} command in the document, it attempts to read the
+corresponding \opt{package}\fname{.perl} \Perl{} script. \latextohtml{} is
+shipped with many such \Perl{} scripts. There is not one for \pkg{apacite},
+but there is one for \pkg{natbib}, which could possibly be adapted for
+\pkg{apacite}. Alternatively, you could use the \pkg{natbib} citation commands
+and use the \pkg{natbib} package, which should work. This will become more
+straightforward when, in a future version, \pkg{apacite} also supports the
+\pkg{natbib} citation commands. Then the \fname{natbib.perl} script may
+possibly be copied to \fname{apacite.perl} without having to adapt much.
+However, I have never studied \Perl{}, and I do not particularly like the
+idea of having to learn that language for this purpose, so it is not very
+likely that in the near future \latextohtml{} will work well with
+\pkg{apacite}.
+
+Note, however, that the design with the \Perl{} scripts has the advantage
+that, if you customize the usage of \pkg{apacite} by writing your own
+\fname{.sty} file that renews the definitions of some macros, you can also
+supply a corresponding \Perl{} script, so that your customizations are
+processed.
+
+An alternative to both \latextohtml{} and \LaTeXrtf{} is \TeXht{}. This is
+a collection of programs and style files that convert \LaTeX{} to
+various formats, such as html, xml, and OpenOffice format. If you have
+OpenOffice, the latter can be used to convert to Word (or rtf) format.
+The principle of \TeXht{} is to let \LaTeX{} do most of the formatting and
+processing of commands, and do the conversion at low-level \TeX{} commands.
+In this way, all newly defined commands and user-defined changes are
+automatically supported. This even carries over to redefinitions of macros
+in the middle of a document. However, for some specific purposes, there are
+some additional things that must be arranged. Therefore, \TeXht{} contains a
+large list of \fname{.4ht} files that are necessary to support various
+\LaTeX{} packages. One of these is the \fname{apacite.4ht} file. The main
+purpose of this file is to make citations into hyperlinks to the corresponding
+entries in the reference list. Currently, this only works partially, but
+the citation text itself is formatted correctly, so this is only a
+relatively minor inconvenience. But, of course, it would be better if this
+would work perfectly. I suspect that this issue is related to the problems
+with the compatibility of \pkg{apacite} with \pkg{hyperref}, and can be
+solved in the same way. I intend to study this issue in the near future and
+hope to solve this for a future version (although, technically, it is a
+\TeXht{} problem and not an \pkg{apacite} problem).
+
+The choice of which converter to use will typically not (only) depend on how
+good it works in conjunction with \pkg{apacite}. Furthermore, apart from the
+converters mentioned above, there are several additional converters that I
+haven't studied at all. I will only study them if I receive reports about
+incompatibility and even then it is far from certain that I will be willing or
+able to fix the problems. It would be very demanding if I would have to define
+the \pkg{apacite} commands in a large number of programming languages for a
+large number of different converters. Because I prefer the design of \TeXht{}
+and because this converter seems to work best at the moment, I will give a
+bit more attention to this one.
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+\section{Generating an author index}
+\label{sec:autindex}
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+The \pkg{apacite} package contains an option to (almost) automatically
+generate an author index. This is done by using the \fname{apacitex.bst}
+\BibTeX{} style file instead of \fname{apacite.bst} and loading the
+\fname{apacite.sty} \LaTeX{} package with one of the \pkgoption{index},
+\pkgoption{stdindex}, \pkgoption{tocindex}, or \pkgoption{emindex} options. In
+that case, the \pkg{apacite} package automatically loads the \pkg{index}
+package that supports multiple indexes, so that you can have a subject index
+as well as an author index. Consequently, the \pkg{index} package must be
+available in a directory that is read by \LaTeX{}. If a subject index is
+desired, it must be defined by the user, it is not defined by \pkg{apacite}.
+See the manual of the \pkg{index} package on how to do this. A default author
+index \emph{is} defined by \pkg{apacite}. The author index is then requested
+by putting
+\begin{verbatim}
+\printindex[autx]
+\end{verbatim}
+at the point in the \LaTeX{} document where the index is supposed to appear.
+To include the author index in the processed document, the following sequence
+must be followed: First, \LaTeX{}, which puts citation entries in the
+\fname{.aux} file. Second, \BibTeX{}, which generates the bibliography in the
+\fname{.bbl} file. Third, \LaTeX{} (at least) twice, which puts index entries
+in a \fname{.adx} file, Fourth, \MakeIndex{}, which uses the \fname{.adx} file
+as input and puts the formatted index in a \fname{.and} file, which can be
+processed by \LaTeX{}. So, if the main document is \fname{filename.tex}, then
+\MakeIndex{} must be called as follows:
+\begin{verbatim}
+makeindex -o filename.and filename.adx
+\end{verbatim}
+although the command with which the \MakeIndex{} program must be called may on
+some systems be slightly different, e.g., \fname{makeinde} or
+\fname{makeindx}. Furthermore, several additional options may be chosen on the
+\MakeIndex{} command line. Fifth, run \LaTeX{} again, which (finally) includes
+the formatted author index in the \fname{.dvi} file.
+
+The \pkg{apacite} package provides some options to change the appearance of
+the index somewhat. With the \pkgoption{index} option, the indexing facility
+is turned on, but the \cmd{theindex} environment is not explicitly (re)defined
+by \pkg{apacite}. This means that this environment is defined just like in the
+\pkg{index} package, unless it is overridden by the \pkgoption{tocindex} or
+\pkgoption{emindex} options or redefined by the user or another package that
+is loaded.
+
+The \pkgoption{stdindex} option explicitly uses the definition of the
+\cmd{theindex} environment that is defined in the \pkg{index} package
+[1995/09/28 v4.1beta Improved index support (dmj)].
+With this definition, the index does not appear in the table of contents. With
+the \pkgoption{tocindex} option, this definition is augmented with a table of
+contents entry. Finally, with the \pkgoption{emindex} option, there are some
+alternative definitions. It writes a table of contents entry as well, but the
+index itself is now set in two columns using the \pkg{multicol} package
+instead of the \cmd{\twocolumn} command, the text of the index is set in small
+type, and the page head is not put in uppercase.
+
+When a table of contents entry is desired, another additional \LaTeX{} run is
+required to obtain the table of contents with the author index included. In
+exceptional cases, such as the current document, the extra line in de table of
+contents may cause the text to be moved as well, so that it may be necessary
+to run \MakeIndex{} a second time, followed by yet another \LaTeX{} run.
+
+The definitions of the index discussed apply to all indexes in the document,
+so to, e.g., the subject index as well as the author index. Finally, the
+formatting of the index itself can be changed by writing a \fname{.ist} file
+containing the preferred options. \MakeIndex{} should then be called with the
+filename of this index style file after a ``\verb+-s+'' option on the command
+line, so, e.g.,
+\begin{verbatim}
+makeindex -s mystyle.ist -o filename.and filename.adx
+\end{verbatim}
+The \MakeIndex{} documentation discusses the possible options that can be put
+into the \fname{.ist} file.
+
+If you process the file \fname{apacite.tex} in the way discussed above (look
+at the instructions in the \fname{README} file), it becomes clear that the
+author index is almost as desired, but there are a few exceptions. First, I
+can imagine that you would not want corporate authors, such as ``American
+Psychological Association'', in the author index, but only human authors. I
+haven't (yet) figured out a way to do this (semi-) automatically, so this has
+to be done manually by editing the \fname{.bbl} file, see below.
+
+Second, serious problems occur with cases such as ``Bender, J.~{(Director)}.''
+and ``Bulatao, E.~{(with Winford, C. A.)}.''. Obviously, the description
+``{(Director)}.'' should not be in the index and Winford should not be listed
+as part of Bulatao, but as a separate author. These problems are caused by the
+``tricks'' I used to make \BibTeX{} format them correctly in the reference
+list, see section~\ref{sec:xmpl} below. They can also be manually solved by
+editing the \fname{.bbl} file as discussed below.
+
+The author index does not contain entries for the authors Shocked and
+Goodenough (as well as several corporate authors) as cited in text, although
+it does for the reference list part, because the \fieldname{key} field was
+used for the citations. If you use the \fieldname{key} (and
+\fieldname{firstkey}) field and you want the authors in the author index as
+well, you have to include the index command \verb+\protect\AX+ explicitly. For
+example, the ``tricked'' \fieldname{key} field for Michelle Shocked is
+\begin{verbatim}
+ key = {{\protect\bibsong{Shocked}{1992}{Over the
+ Waterfall}{track~5}}},
+\end{verbatim}
+and if we change this into
+\begin{verbatim}
+ key = {{\protect\bibsong{Shocked\protect\AX{shocked m
+ @Shocked, M.}}{1992}{Over the Waterfall}{track~5}}},
+\end{verbatim}
+then citations to her are included in the author index. The \cmd{\AX} command
+will be discussed below.
+
+Summarizing, the author indexing part works very well for most commonly
+encountered cases. However, it does not work (entirely) correctly if special
+measures need to be taken to get them formatted correctly in \BibTeX{}
+(citations, reference list).
+
+An easy solution to incorrect formatting and/or sorting in the author index is
+to edit the \fname{.bbl} file manually. This should be done at a time when
+\BibTeX{} will not have to be run again. Otherwise, the changes would be
+overwritten by the next \BibTeX{} run. This editing of the \fname{.bbl} file
+is not in the \TeX-spirit, but in my experience --- I used it for two books
+with lots of references \cite{meijer1998,WaMe00}, with a previous version of
+\pkg{apacite} that caused many more problematic cases --- this takes very
+little time, usually only minutes (compare that with the time spent on writing
+a book, or with the time that would be necessary to manually make an author
+index).
+
+The connection between the \fname{.bbl} file and the author index is through
+\cmd{\AX} commands that are entered by \fname{apacitex.bst} in the
+\fname{.bbl} file. These are responsible for the author indexing facilities.
+By looking at the contents of the \fname{.bbl} file, some changes that lead to
+correct formatting are immediately obvious. For example, the entry for Bender
+is generated by the following lines:
+\begin{verbatim}
+\protect\AX{bender jdirector
+@Bender, J.~{\bibliteral{(Director)}}.}}{%
+\end{verbatim}
+It is immediately clear that this can be changed to
+\begin{verbatim}
+\protect\AX{bender j
+@Bender, J.}}{%
+\end{verbatim}
+Then, this author will be placed and formatted correctly in the author index.
+Note that \pkg{apacite} uses the \opt{key}\verb+@+\opt{visual} form of
+indexing. This form is used in \MakeIndex{} to distinguish between the actual
+representation in the index and the place where it should occur. The \opt{key}
+is used by \MakeIndex{} to sort the entry, but the entry actually appearing in
+the index is \opt{visual}. In the \opt{key} part as formatted by
+\pkg{apacite}, all names are in lower case letters and all accents and
+punctuation are removed. Furthermore, \pkg{apacite} inserts \emph{two} spaces
+between surname and initials, and to \MakeIndex{}, two spaces are different
+from one space. Spaces between surnames are removed, as well as spaces between
+initials.
+
+The correct author index could also be accomplished by editing the final
+\fname{.and} file, which contains the final formatted author index. However,
+it is more convenient to edit the \fname{.bbl} file, which is usually
+``final'' in a much earlier stage.
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+\section{Known problems, things to be done, etc.}
+\label{sec:todo}
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+With any kind of software, there is usually a list with known problems (bugs)
+and desirable future work (to-do), and \pkg{apacite} is no exception. These
+subjects will be discussed in this section.
+
+A class of problems was already discussed in section~\ref{sec:compat} above.
+This concerns the incompatibility of the \fname{.bib} file with other citation
+styles, through \pkg{apacite}-specific fields, APA-specific contents of
+fields, or through special tricks. These lead to correctly formatted
+references in APA style, but may cause problems with using the \fname{.bib}
+file with other styles (in case APA journals reject your article~\ldots). As
+discussed there, however, this problem is unavoidable and presumably not a
+very big problem to most users.
+
+An incomplete list of other known problems and things that I would
+like to do with \pkg{apacite} is:
+\begin{itemize}
+\item Sort entries within a single citation command. The \pkg{natbib}
+ package already offers this option;
+\item Swap (optionally?) the order of closing quotes and various other
+ punctuation marks (\verb+.,;!?+) in a citation, for articles where
+ there is no named author and the title (between quotes) takes the
+ role of the author;
+\item If a work is authored by someone, ``with'' someone else: This
+ currently must be tricked in a nonelegant way. Perhaps I can
+ think of a better solution.
+\item Add the \fieldname{address} field for \entryname{lecture} entries.
+ In the current version, the address is part of the description of
+ the meeting in the \fieldname{howpublished} field, but it makes
+ sense to disentangle these;
+\item Give explicit support for citation to the Bible and other
+ ``classic'' works and the \emph{DSM};
+\item Give explicit support for music recordings in \entryname{incollection}
+ entries;
+\item Study referencing legal materials (Appendix~D of the APA manual);
+\item Define \BibTeX{} macros or strings for commonly encountered
+ journals (at least the APA journals);
+\item Support \pkg{natbib} citation commands (\cmd{\citet}, \cmd{\citep},
+ etc.);
+\item Improve and extend language support;
+\item Make a \pkg{doc}/\pkg{docstrip} version, so that the whole suite
+ consists of a \fname{.dtx} file containing all code, documentation,
+ and test documents, and a \fname{.ins} file that extracts the various
+ desired files from the \fname{.dtx} file.
+\end{itemize}
+Quite likely, other problems will come up when using the current version of
+\pkg{apacite}, but at least I got it working on the APA manual examples, see
+section~\ref{sec:xmpl} below. I have lots of ideas for improvements,
+extensions, options, etc., but not much time to devote to it. Therefore, it is
+difficult to give a good estimate of when I will release a new update.
+However, in the meantime, if you have questions, remarks, suggestions, or bug
+reports, you can e-mail them to me.
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+\section{Examples of the APA manual}
+\label{sec:xmpl}
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+In this section, the \pkg{apacite} package is tested by citing the examples of
+the APA manual (5th ed., pp.~207--281), and some additional references for
+additional purposes.
+
+The following list gives the examples from chapter~3 of the APA manual, with
+section number. For these and all later examples, whenever I thought it
+necessary or desirable, I added some comments. These are indicated by the \EM{}
+symbol. Especially for later examples (from chap.~4), the comments frequently
+pertain to the corresponding reference list entry.
+
+\begin{itemize}
+\item[3.94] \citeA{3.94-1} compared reaction times\\
+ In a recent study of reaction times \cite{3.94-1}\\
+ In \citeyearNP{3.94-1} \citeauthor{3.94-1} compared
+ reaction times\\
+ In a recent study of reaction times, \citeA{3.94-1}
+ described the method\ldots. \citeauthor{3.94-1} also found
+\item[3.95] \citeA{3.95-1} found\\
+ \citeA{3.95-1} found\\
+ \citeauthor{3.95-1} found\\
+ \fullcite{3.95-2} and \fullcite{3.95-3}\\
+ \citeA{3.95-2} and \citeA{3.95-3}\\
+ \EM It seems that if ``et al.'' would refer to one additional
+ author, then this author is named instead of the ``et al.''
+ clause.\\
+ \citeA{3.95-4} and \citeA{3.95-5}\\
+ as \citeA{3.95-6} demonstrated\\
+ \EM The comma after ``Nightlinger'' in the reference list
+ does not look right, but is explicitly required by the APA.
+ Of course, with people as authors,
+ one almost always has initials (although I have seen
+ an example of an econometrician who only had
+ one name), so this problem is not likely to occur.
+ With nicknames (``screen names'' as they are called in the
+ APA manual below ex. 85) in messages to newsgroups, initials
+ are typically missing, but then there is usually (always?)
+ only one author, so the problem does not exist either.
+ The problem can, however, come up when there are two authors,
+ the first of which is a corporate author, or with artists,
+ e.g., the song ``Into the Groove'' is written by
+ Madonna and Stephen Bray. (But perhaps the APA would want
+ Madonna to be referred to as ``Ciccone, M.'').\\
+ as has been shown \cite{3.95-7}
+\item[3.96] \cite{3.96-1}\\
+ \cite{3.96-1}\\
+ \cite{3.96-2}\\
+ \EM For this document, I defined the \cmd{\bibcorporate}
+ macro, which indicates that the author is a corporate
+ author. The way it is used now only has the effect that
+ in the reference list, the name is treated as a whole,
+ and not as a firstname-lastname combination. My idea is
+ to think of a way to define this macro such that it is
+ able to suppress inclusion of the corporate author in the
+ author index, but I have not succeeded in this.
+ Note, however, that this is not part of \pkg{apacite}, but
+ part of the trick box of the user.\\
+ \EM If the \fieldname{firstkey} field is different
+ and the \fieldname{key} field is the same, then, analogous
+ to the use of extra authors in 3.95 above, \pkg{apacite}
+ uses the \fieldname{firstkey} field for all citations:\\
+ \citeA{3.96-3}, \citeA{3.96-4}, \citeA{3.96-5}, \citeA{3.96-6};\\
+ \citeA{3.96-3}, \citeA{3.96-4}, \citeA{3.96-5}, \citeA{3.96-6}.\\
+ Although this is a constructed example, these organizations
+ really exist. The ``Koninklijke Nederlandse Schaakbond''
+ is the Royal Dutch Chess Association and the
+ ``Koninklijke Nederlandse Schaatsbond'' is the Royal Dutch
+ Skating Association. Both are abbreviated to KNSB and
+ presumably, both publish an annual report each year.
+\item[3.97] on free care \cite{3.97-1}\\
+ \EM The order of the
+ closing quotes and the comma is different from the
+ APA manual. I think this one is more logical, although the
+ APA manual's is the conventional one, presumably for
+ aesthetic reasons. I hope to implement this in a future
+ version.\\
+ the book \citeA{3.97-2}\\
+ \cite{3.97-3}\\
+ \EM If two articles both have no author and the title and
+ the year are the same, a's and b's should be used:
+ \citeA{3.97-4}, \citeA{3.97-5}, and \citeA{3.97-6}.
+ The latter two entries are correctly sorted by month,
+ through the way the month macros are defined in
+ \fname{apacitex.bst}.
+\item[3.98] \citeA{3.98-1} and \citeA{3.98-2} also found\\
+ \citeA{3.98-3} and \citeA{3.98-4} studied
+\item[3.99] Past research \cite{3.99-1,3.99-2}\\
+ Past research \cite{3.99-3,3.99-4,3.99-5}\\
+ Several studies
+ \cite{3.99-6,3.99-7,3.99-8,3.99-9,3.99-10,3.99-11}\\
+ Several studies \cite{3.99-12,3.99-13,3.99-14}\\
+ \EM \pkg{apacite} does not (yet?) sort the cited
+ references in the text (of course it does for the reference
+ list), as required by the APA manual.\\
+ (\citeNP{3.99-15}; see also \citeNP{3.99-16,3.99-17})\\
+ \EM Note that I had to use \cmd{\citeNP} here.
+\item[3.100] \cite{3.100-1}\\
+ \EM This is not an example, but a rule in the text.
+ The ``\bibnodate'' is handled by the \cmd{\bibnodate}
+ macro. It is not clear whether it is really meant that the
+ in-text form is \citeauthor{3.100-1}, \citeyearNP{3.100-1}
+ or the more logically consistent \citeA{3.100-1}.
+ The former can (currently) only be accomplished by using
+ \cmd{\citeauthor} and \cmd{\citeyearNP} explicitly,
+ whereas the latter is simply obtained by \cmd{\citeA}.\\
+ \cite{3.100-2}\\
+ \citeA{3.100-3}
+
+ \EM For citations to the bible, I defined a \cmd{\biblecite}
+ command and several obvious variations on it. For example:\\
+ \cmd{\bibleciteA}, first cite: \bibleciteA{1 Cor.\ 13:1}\\
+ \cmd{\bibleciteA}, second cite: \bibleciteA{1 Cor.\ 13:1}\\
+ \cmd{\biblecite}, first cite: \fullbiblecite{1 Cor.\ 13:1}\\
+ \cmd{\biblecite}, second cite: \biblecite{1 Cor.\ 13:1}\\
+ (\cmd{\bibleciteNP}, first cite:
+ \fullbibleciteNP{1 Cor.\ 13:1} and some text surrounding it)\\
+ (\cmd{\bibleciteNP}, second cite:
+ \bibleciteNP{1 Cor.\ 13:1} and some text surrounding it)\\
+ \EM Here, there probably should be a comma if it's the first
+ cite and not a comma when it's a later cite. A difficult one.\\
+ \EM Are there other ``classical works'' that should be treated
+ like this? If so, which and how?
+\item[3.101] \cite[p.~332]{3.101-1}\\
+ \cite[chap.~3]{3.101-2}\\
+ \EM If you like, you can use the \pkg{apacite}-defined
+ abbreviation commands \verb+\BPG+ and \verb+\BCHAP+.\\
+ \cite[\P~5]{3.101-3}\\
+ \cite[Conclusion section, para.~1]{3.101-4}
+\item[3.102] \EM Personal communication is not really citation and should
+ be done manually:\\
+ T.~K. Lutes (personal communication, April 18, 2001)\\
+ (V.-G. Nguyen, personal communication, September 28, 1998)
+\item[3.103] \cite<see Table~2 of>[for complete data]{3.103-1}
+\end{itemize}
+
+\noindent
+Chapter~4 of the APA manual deals with the reference list
+and only mentions some in-text citation issues in passing.
+Therefore, the rest mainly requires a lot of moving back and forth
+between the reference list and this part. I start with the
+more ``general'' part, sections 4.01--4.15, presented similar to
+the sections from chapter~3 as presented above.
+\begin{itemize}
+\item[4.04] \EM First, some examples mentioned in the text:\\
+ \citeA{4.04-t1},
+ \citeA{4.04-t2},
+ \citeA{4.04-t3},
+ \citeA{4.04-t4},
+ \citeA{4.04-t5},
+ \citeA{4.04-t6},
+ \citeA{4.04-t7},
+ \citeA{4.04-t8},
+ \citeA{4.04-t9}\\
+ \EM The APA manual states that prefixes must be treated
+ according to the rules of the language of origin. These rules
+ can differ a lot between languages (and countries) and it
+ is impossible to know all these rules. The APA manual gives two
+ examples, one in which ``De Vries'' is treated as the surname,
+ and one in which ``Helmholtz'' is the surname and ``von'' is
+ the ``von'' part of the name.
+
+ In the former case, the author is referred to as, say, ``De Vries
+ (1999)'' in text and ``De Vries, J. (1999).'', alphabetized under
+ ``D'' in the reference list. In the second example, the author is
+ referred to as, say, ``Helmholtz (1870)'' and listed in the
+ reference list as ``Helmholtz, H. L. F. von. (1870).'',
+ alphabetized under ``H''. To get this right, the author must be
+ defined as
+\begin{verbatim}
+ author = {H. L. F. von Helmholtz},
+\end{verbatim}
+ or
+\begin{verbatim}
+ author = {von Helmholtz, H. L. F.},
+\end{verbatim}
+ then \BibTeX{} will assign the correct parts to the first names,
+ ``von''-part, and last name. The seemingly logical
+\begin{verbatim}
+ author = {Helmholtz, H. L. F. von},
+\end{verbatim}
+ will not be formatted correctly, because ``von'' is now
+ considered to be part of the first names and therefore
+ abbreviated to ``v.''.
+
+ Below, under example B-2, I will further discuss some
+ issues about ``von'' parts.
+
+ \EM The APA manual requires that numerals are alphabetized
+ as if they were spelled out. This is not done by \pkg{apacite},
+ so when applicable should be done by the user, e.g.\ by using
+ the \cmd{\SortNoop} command as defined in
+ \citeA[p.~404]{LaTeXcomp}. I give one fictitious example
+ \cite{4.04-t10}.
+
+ \citeA{4.04-1}\\
+ \citeA{4.04-2}\\
+ \citeA{4.04-3}\\
+ \citeA{4.04-4}\\
+ \citeA{4.04-5}\\
+ \citeA{4.04-6}\\
+ \citeA{4.04-7}\\
+ \citeA{4.04-8}\\
+ \citeA{4.04-9}\\
+ \citeA{4.04-10}\\
+ \citeA{4.04-11}\\
+ \citeA{4.04-12}\\
+ \citeA{4.04-13}\\
+ \citeA{4.04-14}\\
+ \EM I have not (yet?) studied referencing legal materials.
+ In the first version of \pkg{apacite}, I defined a
+ \entryname{literal} type, so that the users can
+ literally format such entries themselves. However,
+ I think that if you need to refer to legal cases, you
+ can find a way to use the \entryname{misc} type to get
+ it right. I might study this and give examples in a
+ next version of \pkg{apacite}.
+\item[4.05] \citeA{4.05-1}\\
+ \nocitemeta{4.05-2}\citeA{4.05-2}\\
+ \EM Here I used the \cmd{\nocitemeta} command to let
+ \pkg{apacite} know that a meta-analysis is reported and this
+ work is included in it. As you can see, you can still cite
+ the work by using the normal citation commands such as
+ \cmd{\citeA}.
+\item[4.08] \citeA{4.08-1}\\
+ \citeA{4.08-2}\\
+ \citeA{4.08-3}\\
+ \EM I used the \verb+\bibliteral+ construction,
+ which echoes its argument literally, to obtain the
+ ``(with \ldots)'' description in the reference list. However,
+ to \BibTeX{}, this is not a description, but a complicated
+ accented character which is the second initial of the author.
+ Consequently, this does not work properly with styles that put
+ the initials \emph{before} the surnames, and care must be
+ exercised with ``junior'' parts (see ex. 70). Furthermore,
+ this construction must be put between a pair of
+ braces in order for \BibTeX{} to treat it as an accented letter.
+\item[4.09] \citeA{4.09-1}
+\item[4.10] \citeA{4.10-1}\\
+ \citeA{4.10-2}
+\item[4.11] \citeA{4.11-1}\\
+ \citeA{4.11-2}\\
+ \EM Note that in the \fname{.bib} file, the ``junior'' part comes
+ directly after the surname and a comma, with the initials
+ after the ``junior'' part, whereas in the formatted
+ reference list, the more logical order \opt{surname},
+ \opt{initials}, \opt{junior}, is used.
+\item[4.12] \citeA{4.12-1}
+\item[4.13] \citeA{4.13-1}\\
+ \EM ``For substantial reference works with a large editorial
+ board, naming the lead editor followed by \texttt{et al.} is
+ acceptable''. This is now implemented in \pkg{apacite} as
+ follows: If there are 7 or more editors, only the first one
+ is named, followed by ``et al.'' \cite{4.13-2}.\\
+\item[4.15] \citeA{4.15-1}\\
+ \EM I used the \cmd{\url} command from the \pkg{url}
+ package to format internet addresses. This command, however,
+ breaks addresses at different positions than the APA requires
+ (in particular, \emph{after} a dot and \emph{before} the
+ double slashes). Furthermore, I used a construction
+ through a \verb+\bibnodot{.}+ expression, which swallows
+ the dot, to prevent \BibTeX{} from adding a period
+ after the internet address.\\
+ \citeA{4.15-2}
+\end{itemize}
+
+\noindent
+The rest is from section 4.16, the examples section. The section number
+is omitted, but A--I are used instead for the unnumbered examples. For
+the numbered examples, only the number is given.
+
+The following enumerated list gives the example number, and
+the two basic in-text citation commands, both in a full and
+short form, of the examples.
+\begin{enumerate}
+\item[A-1] \cite{A-1} \\ \cite{A-1} \\ \fullciteA{A-1} \\ \citeA{A-1}
+\item \cite{ex1} \\ \cite{ex1} \\ \fullciteA{ex1} \\ \citeA{ex1}
+\item \cite{ex2} \\ \cite{ex2} \\ \fullciteA{ex2} \\ \citeA{ex2}
+\item \cite{ex3} \\ \cite{ex3} \\ \fullciteA{ex3} \\ \citeA{ex3}
+\item \cite{ex4} \\ \cite{ex4} \\ \fullciteA{ex4} \\ \citeA{ex4}\\
+ \cite{ex4-2} \\ \cite{ex4-2} \\ \fullciteA{ex4-2} \\ \citeA{ex4-2}\\
+ \EM Note that the list of authors can be finished with
+ ``\verb+and others+'' if there are more than 6 authors, or
+ all authors can be given, in which case \pkg{apacite} truncates
+ the list after the first 6. For compatibility with other styles,
+ the latter is preferable.
+\item \cite{ex5} \\ \cite{ex5} \\ \fullciteA{ex5} \\ \citeA{ex5}
+\item \cite{ex6} \\ \cite{ex6} \\ \fullciteA{ex6} \\ \citeA{ex6}
+\item \cite{ex7} \\ \cite{ex7} \\ \fullciteA{ex7} \\ \citeA{ex7}\\
+ \EM Here, I used
+\begin{verbatim}
+ month = {Spring},
+\end{verbatim}
+ which is perfectly fine to \BibTeX{}.
+\item \cite{ex8} \\ \cite{ex8} \\ \fullciteA{ex8} \\ \citeA{ex8}\\
+ \EM Here, again, the order of the closing quotes and the
+ following comma should be reversed according to the APA rules.
+\item \cite{ex9} \\ \cite{ex9} \\ \fullciteA{ex9} \\ \citeA{ex9}\\
+ \EM Here, again, the order of the closing quotes and the
+ following comma should be reversed according to the APA rules.
+\item \cite{ex10} \\ \cite{ex10}\\ \fullciteA{ex10}\\ \citeA{ex10}
+\item \cite{ex11} \\ \cite{ex11}\\ \fullciteA{ex11}\\ \citeA{ex11}\\
+ \EM Apparently, a weekly newspaper is not a magazine and should
+ therefore include ``p.'' or ``pp.'' in front of the page
+ number(s), whereas a magazine article should not. I do not
+ understand the distinction very well and find it not very
+ useful as well, but will adhere to it. It means that the
+ \entryname{newspaper} type gets the ``pp.'', whereas
+ \entryname{magazine} and \entryname{article}, which are now
+ identical, do not.
+\item \cite{ex12} \\ \cite{ex12}\\ \fullciteA{ex12}\\ \citeA{ex12}\\
+ \EM Here, \verb+\emph{DSM-IV}+ must be entered without an extra
+ pair of braces in the title field, see ex.~73 for the intricacies
+ of braces and \verb+\emph+ in the title field.
+\item \cite{ex13} \\ \cite{ex13}\\ \fullciteA{ex13}\\ \citeA{ex13}
+\item \cite{ex14} \\ \cite{ex14}\\ \fullciteA{ex14}\\ \citeA{ex14}
+\item \cite{ex15} \\ \cite{ex15}\\ \fullciteA{ex15}\\ \citeA{ex15}
+\item \cite{ex16} \\ \cite{ex16}\\ \fullciteA{ex16}\\ \citeA{ex16}
+\item \cite{ex17} \\ \cite{ex17}\\ \fullciteA{ex17}\\ \citeA{ex17}\\
+ \EM This case is the opposite of the more common situation where a
+ reprint is cited and an original publication year is given. I could
+ implement similar code to handle this case (and I may if I get requests
+ to do this), but for the moment, I decided to trick the system: I
+ defined a macro \cmd{\bibreftext} which must be called with two
+ arguments. Initially, it places the second argument in the text, but
+ just before the bibliography, its definition is changed so that the
+ first argument is placed in the reference list. By defining
+\begin{verbatim}
+ year = {{\protect\bibreftext{1992}{1992/1993}}},
+\end{verbatim}
+ in the \fname{.bib} file, the year is ``1992'' in the reference
+ list and ``1992/1993'' in the text citations. The \cmd{\protect}
+ is necessary to make sure that the \cmd{\bibreftext} macro is not
+ written out in the label-part of the bibliography, because then
+ only ``1992'' would appear in the text reference. The additional
+ pair of braces are necessary to make sure that the entry
+ is alphabetized correctly. When these are omitted, the entry
+ is alphabetized under the ``P'' of ``protect''. Of course, the
+ latter is only important if the reference list contains
+ multiple works by the same author(s), but the same phenomenon
+ is encountered when the \fieldname{author} or \fieldname{editor}
+ field starts with a command, or when there is no author or editor
+ and the \fieldname{title} field starts with a command, as in
+ the entry \citeA{4.04-t10} introduced in 4.04 above.
+
+ Of course, you can save yourself a lot of trouble by
+ obtaining the original article and citing that.
+\item \cite{ex18} \\ \cite{ex18}\\ \fullciteA{ex18}\\ \citeA{ex18}
+\item \cite{ex19} \\ \cite{ex19}\\ \fullciteA{ex19}\\ \citeA{ex19}
+\item \cite{ex20} \\ \cite{ex20}\\ \fullciteA{ex20}\\ \citeA{ex20}
+\item \cite{ex21} \\ \cite{ex21}\\ \fullciteA{ex21}\\ \citeA{ex21}\\
+ \EM Apparently, a translator and original publication date
+ do not have to be mentioned here.
+\item Seidenberg and McClelland's study \cite<as cited in>{ex22}\\
+ %\cite{ex22} \\ \cite{ex22}\\ \fullciteA{ex22}\\ \citeA{ex22}
+\item[B-1] \cite{B-1} \\ \cite{B-1} \\ \fullciteA{B-1} \\ \citeA{B-1}
+\item \cite{ex23} \\ \cite{ex23}\\ \fullciteA{ex23}\\ \citeA{ex23}
+\item \cite{ex24} \\ \cite{ex24}\\ \fullciteA{ex24}\\ \citeA{ex24}\\
+ \EM The APA manual gives a number, which would not ordinarily be
+ done with proper books and which suggests that it could also
+ be treated as a report. In that case, the default ``Tech. Rep.''
+ description should be left out, however. This can be accomplished
+ by defining
+\begin{verbatim}
+ type = {\bibnotype},
+\end{verbatim}
+ which flags that the type must be left out, see example 42.
+ However, for books, it now works fine leaving the \fieldname{type}
+ field empty and giving the number in the \fieldname{number} field.
+\item \cite{ex25} \\ \cite{ex25}\\ \fullciteA{ex25}\\ \citeA{ex25}\\
+ \EM According to the note after ex.~25 in the APA manual,
+ an edited book with ``just one'' author should list
+ the editor (and translator, when available) after the
+ title, just like the translator. An example of this is
+ \citeA{ex25-t1}. (Should the original years of publication
+ be used here?)
+
+ However, what does ``just one author'' mean here? Does it mean that if
+ there are 2 authors and 1 or more editors, the editors should
+ not be mentioned, or the authors should not be mentioned?
+ Presumably, it means the following:
+ In the default case, an edited book consists of several chapters,
+ with different chapters written by different authors. In this case,
+ the reference to the whole book lists only the editor(s).
+ If every chapter is written by the same author, and there are 1
+ or more editors, their condition holds. I think that if all
+ chapters are written by the same $n$ ($\geq 2$) authors, it should
+ also be treated in this way, i.e., with the authors in the
+ author position and the editor behind the title. A difficult
+ case would appear if the book were a collection of works of, say,
+ 2 authors, with some chapters written by one and some by the
+ other, and some jointly, as in \citeA{ex25-t2}. These choices have
+ to be made by the user, however, \pkg{apacite} will format author,
+ editor, and translator, whenever available.
+\item \cite{ex26} \\ \cite{ex26}\\ \fullciteA{ex26}\\ \citeA{ex26}\\
+ \EM According to section~3.97, the title should be in italics.
+ In this example, in the citation, it is not given in italics,
+ but this must be an error, because they do give it in italics
+ on p.~219 (but give no date there).
+\item \cite{ex27} \\ \cite{ex27}\\ \fullciteA{ex27}\\ \citeA{ex27}
+\item \cite{ex28} \\ \cite{ex28}\\ \fullciteA{ex28}\\ \citeA{ex28}
+\item \EM I defined a \verb+\DSMcite+ macro and some related
+ alternatives to get the \emph{DSM} references right:\\
+ \cmd{\DSMcite}, first citation: \DSMcite{ex29} \\
+ \cmd{\DSMcite}, second citation: \DSMcite{ex29} \\
+ \cmd{\DSMciteA}, first citation: \DSMfullciteA{ex29} \\
+ \cmd{\DSMciteA}, second citation: \DSMciteA{ex29} \\
+ \cmd{\DSMciteNP}, first citation: \DSMfullciteNP{ex29} \\
+ \cmd{\DSMciteNP}, second citation: \DSMciteNP{ex29} \\
+ \EM Actually, these macros are not related to the \emph{DSM} at all,
+ except that they are defined to handle these. These macros
+ act as a normal citation the first time a \emph{DSM} is
+ referenced and all subsequent times as a suitably formatted
+ \cmd{\citeauthor}. So the only difference with ordinary
+ citations is that the year is left out the second and later
+ times. By defining
+\begin{verbatim}
+ firstkey = {{American Psychiatric Association}},
+ key = {{\APACcitebtitle{DSM-IV}}},
+\end{verbatim}
+ using the \cmd{\APACcitebtitle} macro introduced before,
+ the \emph{DSM} citations are correctly formatted.
+ However, the \cmd{\DSM*} macros are still very rough. Multiple
+ citations are not handled well, so only one work should
+ be cited with such a macro. Furthermore, the pre- and
+ postfixes (through \verb+<...>+ and \verb+[...]+) are not
+ available.
+
+ \EM The following two are for testing the ordering (sorting)
+ in \BibTeX{} and \MakeIndex{} \cite{ex29-2,ex29-3}.
+
+\item \cite{ex30} \\ \cite{ex30}\\ \fullciteA{ex30}\\ \citeA{ex30}\\
+ \EM Here, ``6th ed.'' comes before ``Vols.\ 1--20'', so it is
+ Vols.\ 1--20 of the 6th edition. \pkg{apacite} now uses this
+ order. Pre-[2003/09/05] versions placed volumes before editions,
+ which is appropriate when different volumes of a series
+ are not updated jointly, so that you may have the 3rd edition
+ of Vol.~2, but only the 1st edition of Vol.~6. Should you
+ want this, you have to trick the system by putting both
+ elements in the \fieldname{edition} field:
+\begin{verbatim}
+ edition = {\BVOLS\ 1--20, 6th},
+\end{verbatim}
+ and leaving the \fieldname{volume} field empty.\\
+ \EM Does the remark about large editorial boards mean that the
+ APA intended to add ``et al.'' here? Anyway, here is an example
+ of such a situation: \citeA{ex30-2}.
+\item \cite{ex31} \\ \cite{ex31}\\ \fullciteA{ex31}\\ \citeA{ex31}
+\item \cite{ex32} \\ \cite{ex32}\\ \fullciteA{ex32}\\ \citeA{ex32}
+\item \cite{ex33} \\ \cite{ex33}\\ \fullciteA{ex33}\\ \citeA{ex33}
+\item[B-2] \cite{B-2} \\ \cite{B-2} \\ \fullciteA{B-2} \\ \citeA{B-2} \\
+ \EM This is a suitable point to discuss ``von'' parts further.
+ One of the editors in the current example is called
+ P. van den Broek. I am Dutch and I recognize this as a Dutch
+ name, so let's assume that this person is Dutch. Let us now
+ consider the situation that this person is the (only) author.
+ Then according to the Dutch rules, this person would be listed in the
+ reference list as ``Broek, P. van den. (1992)'' and listed under ``B'',
+ but referred to in the text as ``Van den Broek (1992)'', including
+ the ``von'' part and capitalizing the first letter. When an
+ initial precedes the ``von'' part (e.g., when there are two
+ primary authors with this surname, but with different initials),
+ then this person would be referred to in the text as
+ ``P. van den Broek (1992)'', including the ``von'' part, but now
+ in lower case. The Dutch rules are very difficult to do right in
+ \BibTeX{}/\LaTeX{} and they conflict with the rules for other
+ languages, and presumably with the rules of the APA, which would
+ require this person to be alphabetized under ``V'', at least.
+
+ For the current editor position, there is no big problem with
+ the APA rules. The ``von'' part can really be put in the ``von''
+ part as recognized by \BibTeX{}, which I did, or it can be enclosed
+ in braces, making the whole last name one part. Either will come
+ out right and the editor will not be referred to in the text
+ anyway. With styles that put the initials behind the surname,
+ it will only work right when put in the ``von'' part. In the
+ author position, however, things are different. Then this author
+ could be formatted as
+\begin{verbatim}
+ author = {Van {\lowercase{D}}en Broek, P.},
+\end{verbatim}
+ where the \verb+{\lowercase{D}}+ construction is used to prevent
+ \BibTeX{} from interpreting it as a ``von'' part, or
+\begin{verbatim}
+ author = {Van{\ }den{\ }Broek, P.},
+ author = {{Van den Broek}, P.},
+\end{verbatim}
+ which in most situations gives the correct version according to the
+ Dutch rules with the correct alphabetizing according to the APA
+ rules. Only in situations when the initial would appear
+ \emph{before} the surname (when there are other authors with the
+ same surname or when using other styles), this would lead to
+ unwanted results.
+
+ If you really want to alphabetize according to the Dutch rules
+ (which is \emph{not} APA in my interpretation), you can use the
+ following trick. Define a macro \verb+\Dutchvon+ with
+ two arguments which is equivalent to the \verb+\bibreftext+
+ macro discussed in ex.~17 above. That is, in the beginning
+ of the document, it is defined as echoing its second argument,
+ and just before the reference list, it is redefined to echo
+ its first argument. Then define the author as
+\begin{verbatim}
+ author = {van den {\protect\Dutchvon{Broek}{Van den Broek}}, P.},
+\end{verbatim}
+ which, combined with the \pkg{apacite} formatting implies
+ that in text, ``Van den Broek'' is used, whereas the author
+ is alphabetized under ``B'' in the reference list, and listed
+ as ``Broek, P. van den''. Of course, we could simply have
+ used \verb+\bibreftext+ again, but that was used to cover a
+ completely different situation, and I can easily imagine that
+ when switching to another citation style, the former application
+ (i.e., 1992/1993) must be kept, but the ``von'' part is handled
+ differently, so that \verb+\Dutchvon+ must be redefined.
+ Based on this example, users should be able to define their
+ own tricks for similar peculiarities.
+
+ Finally, note that in Belgium, where many people
+ speak Dutch as well, it is customary to alphabetize under ``V''
+ anyway (``Van Damme'').
+\item \cite{ex34} \\ \cite{ex34}\\ \fullciteA{ex34}\\ \citeA{ex34}
+\item \cite{ex35} \\ \cite{ex35}\\ \fullciteA{ex35}\\ \citeA{ex35}
+\item \cite{ex36} \\ \cite{ex36}\\ \fullciteA{ex36}\\ \citeA{ex36}\\
+ \EM I had to use some tricks to get the Series and Volume Editors'
+ descriptions right. The ``(Series Ed.)'' is according to
+ \BibTeX{} part of the last name of the first editor,
+ and I used a \verb+\bibeditortype+ macro to get the volume
+ editor right. The \verb+\bibeditortype+ macro has one argument.
+ The macro changes the definitions of the macros \verb+\BED+ and
+ \verb+\BEDS+ to the argument and then immediately changes the
+ definitions back to their old definitions. So it makes a one-time
+ change.
+
+ It seems to me that only mentioning the
+ volume editor as ``editor'' would be sufficient, but the APA
+ requires both. It raises the question when series editors
+ should be mentioned: only if the specific volume in the
+ series is itself an edited work (as with this handbook),
+ or also with books that are published in a series. Many books
+ are published in some series, with one or more series editors
+ and I have never seen any mentioning of the series editors of
+ such books, but it is not clear to me when this should be done
+ then.
+\item \cite{ex37} \\ \cite{ex37}\\ \fullciteA{ex37}\\ \citeA{ex37}
+\item \cite{ex38} \\ \cite{ex38}\\ \fullciteA{ex38}\\ \citeA{ex38}
+\item \cite{ex39} \\ \cite{ex39}\\ \fullciteA{ex39}\\ \citeA{ex39}\\
+ \EM Here, it is stated that the translator's name should be put
+ after the editor's name when both are different, but in example
+ 40, the translators are put after the title, before the editors.
+ Apparently, if the book is a collection of works by one
+ author(-group), edited and translated, then the translator
+ should come after the editor, but if different chapters
+ are translated by different translators, or perhaps not all
+ are translated works, then the translator should come after
+ the title. Of course, \pkg{apacite} has no way of knowing this.
+ In the current implementation, for an \entryname{incollection},
+ if the editor and translator are the same, they are formatted as
+ in this example, whereas if they are different, they are treated
+ as in example 40 below. I think this will be satisfactory in
+ most cases. If you really want the translator after the editor
+ when they are different, you can trick the system in a way
+ similar to example 36.
+\item \cite{ex40} \\ \cite{ex40}\\ \fullciteA{ex40}\\ \citeA{ex40}\\
+ \EM See my comments to example 39 above.
+\item[C-1] \cite{C-1} \\ \cite{C-1} \\ \fullciteA{C-1} \\ \citeA{C-1}
+\item \cite{ex41} \\ \cite{ex41}\\ \fullciteA{ex41}\\ \citeA{ex41}
+\item \cite{ex42} \\ \cite{ex42}\\ \fullciteA{ex42}\\ \citeA{ex42}\\
+ \EM I used the \cmd{\bibnotype} construction discussed
+ in example~24 to suppress the default ``(Tech.\ Rep.{})''
+ description. Actually, I don't think there is anything wrong with
+ calling a report a report, be it ``technical'' by default, or by
+ specifying
+\begin{verbatim}
+ type = {Report},
+\end{verbatim}
+ except that it's not done so in this specific example in the
+ APA manual. But there does not seem to be a rule against it.
+\item \cite{ex43} \\ \cite{ex43}\\ \fullciteA{ex43}\\ \citeA{ex43}
+\item \cite{ex44} \\ \cite{ex44}\\ \fullciteA{ex44}\\ \citeA{ex44}
+\item \cite{ex45} \\ \cite{ex45}\\ \fullciteA{ex45}\\ \citeA{ex45}
+\item \cite{ex46} \\ \cite{ex46}\\ \fullciteA{ex46}\\ \citeA{ex46}\\
+ \EM Note that in the example in the APA manual, ``Western Australia''
+ \emph{is} mentioned in the publisher location, whereas their rule
+ explicitly states that this should not be the case in this
+ situation, and they stress that again below the example.
+ Therefore, I did not mention ``Western Australia'' in the
+ \fieldname{publisher} field.
+\item \cite{ex47} \\ \cite{ex47}\\ \fullciteA{ex47}\\ \citeA{ex47}
+\item \cite{ex48} \\ \cite{ex48}\\ \fullciteA{ex48}\\ \citeA{ex48}
+\item \cite{ex49} \\ \cite{ex49}\\ \fullciteA{ex49}\\ \citeA{ex49}
+\item \cite{ex50} \\ \cite{ex50}\\ \fullciteA{ex50}\\ \citeA{ex50}
+\item \cite{ex51} \\ \cite{ex51}\\ \fullciteA{ex51}\\ \citeA{ex51}
+\item \cite{ex52} \\ \cite{ex52}\\ \fullciteA{ex52}\\ \citeA{ex52}
+\item \cite{ex53} \\ \cite{ex53}\\ \fullciteA{ex53}\\ \citeA{ex53}
+\item \cite{ex54} \\ \cite{ex54}\\ \fullciteA{ex54}\\ \citeA{ex54}
+\item \cite{ex55} \\ \cite{ex55}\\ \fullciteA{ex55}\\ \citeA{ex55}\\
+ \EM It seems logical to suppress the original year if it's the
+ same as the year of the abstract.
+
+ \EM According to example 54 and the text below it, an ``A''
+ or ``B'' should be added to the volume number of \emph{DAI}
+ of this entry, presumably an ``A'', but because they did not
+ give one, I left it out as well.
+\item \cite{ex56} \\ \cite{ex56}\\ \fullciteA{ex56}\\ \citeA{ex56}
+\item \cite{ex57} \\ \cite{ex57}\\ \fullciteA{ex57}\\ \citeA{ex57}
+\item \cite{ex58} \\ \cite{ex58}\\ \fullciteA{ex58}\\ \citeA{ex58}
+\item \cite{ex59} \\ \cite{ex59}\\ \fullciteA{ex59}\\ \citeA{ex59}
+\item \cite{ex60} \\ \cite{ex60}\\ \fullciteA{ex60}\\ \citeA{ex60}
+\item \cite{ex61} \\ \cite{ex61}\\ \fullciteA{ex61}\\ \citeA{ex61}\\
+ \EM The description of the data goes into the
+ \fieldname{type} field. It may be more logical to put it
+ in the \fieldname{title} field, with some trickery to indicate
+ that it's a description and not a title, but putting it in the
+ \fieldname{type} field already ensures that it's formatted
+ correctly, so I think I'm gonna be lazy on this one. The same
+ applies more or less to reviews (G-1, 63, 64), although there
+ it is logical to put at least ``Review'' in the \fieldname{type}
+ field, so as we're already there, we might as well make it
+ complete.
+\item \cite{ex62} \\ \cite{ex62}\\ \fullciteA{ex62}\\ \citeA{ex62}
+\item[G-1] \cite{G-1} \\ \cite{G-1} \\ \fullciteA{G-1} \\ \citeA{G-1}\\
+ \EM See my comments to example 61 above about the logic of the
+ \fieldname{type} field. For a review, the \fieldname{type}
+ field must contain the message that it is a review of a
+ \emph{book} (or motion picture, or whatever it is a review of)
+ and give the title of the reviewed work in italics, which must
+ be manually formatted, e.g., by using the \cmd{\APACcitebtitle}
+ macro. The author of the reviewed work should apparently not be
+ mentioned.
+\item \cite{ex63} \\ \cite{ex63}\\ \fullciteA{ex63}\\ \citeA{ex63}
+\item \cite{ex64} \\ \cite{ex64}\\ \fullciteA{ex64}\\ \citeA{ex64}
+\item \EM The rules for movies, television series, etc.\ do not appeal
+ very much to me, although they are not nearly as bad as those
+ for music recordings (ex.~69 and further, see below). My
+ primary objection is that when referring to movies and TV series,
+ the title is the most important characteristic. The director
+ may be a good second in some cases, but producers and writers are
+ almost always unknown to the general public and not relevant
+ when referring to them. You talk about the movie \emph{Jaws}
+ and not about Spielberg (1975) or whoever wrote the script.
+ Recognizing the primary creative input or authorship may be
+ politically correct, but not particularly informative.
+ However, you may think that my objections are mainly
+ driven by the difficulties of trying to format the entries
+ in \BibTeX{}. Anyway, here are my attempts to implement
+ the APA rules.\\
+ \cite{ex65-1} \\ \cite{ex65-1}\\ \fullciteA{ex65-1}\\ \citeA{ex65-1} \\
+ \cite{ex65-2} \\ \cite{ex65-2}\\ \fullciteA{ex65-2}\\ \citeA{ex65-2} \\
+ \EM Note that this and the following ``Available from'' must be between
+ parentheses (accomplished by putting it in the \fieldname{note} field),
+ whereas ``Available from'' some web site must not be between
+ parentheses, cf.\ ex.~95 (accomplished by putting it in the
+ \fieldname{howpublished} field).
+
+ \EM Here I also used the \cmd{\bibliteral} construction again, which
+ was introduced in my discussion of 4.08 above.
+ Furthermore, I used the \cmd{\bibskipbracenodot}
+ macro, which suppresses the period after the closing
+ brace after ``(Producer)''.\\
+ \cite{ex65-3} \\ \cite{ex65-3}\\ \fullciteA{ex65-3}\\ \citeA{ex65-3}\\
+ \EM Here, I simply let ``(Producer)'' be part of the author name,
+ but because of this addendum, the entry is not sorted correctly
+ in the reference list: It should be before \citeA{APAManual},
+ but because of the addendum, the authors are different to \BibTeX{}
+ and this one comes after \citeA{APAManual}. I don't see an easy
+ solution to this (presumably extremely rare) problem. Therefore,
+ in such a case, the \fname{.bbl} file should be edited manually.
+\item \cite{ex66} \\ \cite{ex66}\\ \fullciteA{ex66}\\ \citeA{ex66} \\
+ \EM Here, I used the same tricks as in example 65.
+\item \cite{ex67} \\ \cite{ex67}\\ \fullciteA{ex67}\\ \citeA{ex67} \\
+ \EM I used several tricks introduced before: the \cmd{\bibeditortype}
+ (cf.\ ex.~36) construction to be able to use ``(Producer)'' in
+ the editor position instead of ``(Ed.)'', and the ones used
+ in the previous examples. Because there is another Miller as well,
+ the initial is given here. To make sure that \BibTeX{} thinks
+ that there is only one initial, but the ``(Producer)'' is formatted
+ correctly, the name is defined as follows:
+\begin{verbatim}
+ editor = {Miller, {\bibliteral{R\protect\bibeditortype{Producer}}}},
+\end{verbatim}
+ It is then formatted correctly both in the text and in the reference
+ list if \cmd{\bibeditortype} is defined to swallow its argument
+ in the text, and redefined prior to the bibliography. After the
+ bibliography (before the index), it has to be redefined again
+ to swallow its argument. However, it leads to two different entries
+ in the author index, so if you're requesting an author index,
+ you still have to edit the \fname{.bbl} file manually, as with
+ all such types of ``authors'' or ``editors''.
+\item \cite{ex68} \\ \cite{ex68}\\ \fullciteA{ex68}\\ \citeA{ex68}\\
+ \EM Again, I used several tricks that were also used in the previous
+ examples.
+\item \EM The rules for music recordings do not make any sense, and they
+ are not entirely clear as well. It would seem to me that
+ most pop, rock, and other ``light'' music songs are almost always
+ attributed to the performing artist. You can usually read who the
+ composer and lyricist of the song are on the inlay-details
+ of the CD, but if you want the reader to refer to ``My Way'',
+ the reader will easier find it (in a CD store or on the
+ internet, for example) under ``Frank Sinatra'' than under
+ the composer's name (whoever that may be). Furthermore, the
+ year of release of the CD (or other medium) seems more relevant
+ in referring to the CD than the year of copyright of the
+ specific song, or the recording date.
+
+ For classical music, things are different. Then, the writer (composer)
+ is usually more important than the performing artist, although
+ the percentage of people who know who wrote the lyrics for
+ Mozart's operas may not be high. Furthermore, it may be
+ time-consuming and not very relevant for most authors and
+ readers to find the year in which a certain piece was written,
+ although strictly speaking, we should use the ``date of copyright'',
+ which is not relevant for a lot of classical music.
+
+ However, when referring to Beethoven's 9th symphony, say, it will
+ typically not be very informative to refer to a specific recording on a
+ specific CD, unless that specific recording is the subject of interest,
+ but then it would seem that the ``performing artist'' (conductor or
+ orchestra) should take the role of ``author''. For example, when
+ comparing a performance of this symphony conducted in 1975 by Masur with
+ a performance of this symphony conducted in 1990 by Bernstein (assuming
+ this exists), it does not seem logical to compare ``9th Symphony''
+ (Beethoven, 1823a, tracks~1--4) with ``9th Symphony'' (Beethoven, 1823b,
+ tracks~1--4), but more logical to compare Masur (1975) with
+ Bernstein (1990).
+
+ Finally, it seems a bit strange that the track number should be
+ mentioned in text, but not in the reference list.
+
+ Again, you may think that my objections are mainly
+ driven by the difficulties of trying to format the entries
+ in \BibTeX{}. Nevertheless, here are my attempts to implement
+ the APA rules.\\
+ \begin{tabular}{ll}
+ \verb+\citeAsong+: & \citeAsong{ex69-1} \\
+ \verb+\citesong+: & \citesong{ex69-1} \\
+ \verb+\citesongNP+: & \citesongNP{ex69-1}\\
+ \verb+\citeAsong+: & \citeAsong{ex69-2} \\
+ \verb+\citesong+: & \citesong{ex69-2} \\
+ \verb+\citesongNP+: & \citesongNP{ex69-2}
+ \end{tabular}\\
+ \EM I defined and used several macros, i.e., \verb+\citesong+
+ and some variations. These cite a song as required by the APA
+ (except for the relative placement of closing quotes and comma).
+ For that, the \fieldname{key} field (and possibly \fieldname{firstkey})
+ should contain the relevant information in the form of a protected
+ \verb+\bibsong+ command:
+\begin{verbatim}
+ key = {{\protect\bibsong{author}{year}{song title}{track info}}},
+\end{verbatim}
+ Furthermore, I used some tricks to get the reference list
+ entry right. I used the \entryname{incollection} type as
+ a basis, with the CD title in the \fieldname{booktitle} field.
+ At first sight, it seems natural to define
+\begin{verbatim}
+ type = {CD},
+\end{verbatim}
+ but with an \entryname{incollection}, the \fieldname{type}
+ field is put after the title, not after the book title.
+ I plan to change this for music-types (CD, record, etc.),
+ but this is currently not yet implemented. This means that the
+ ``[CD]'' description must be put in the \fieldname{booktitle}
+ field, after the CD title and with explicit formatting
+ commands:
+\begin{verbatim}
+ booktitle = {Arkansas Traveler {\upshape[\uppercase{CD}]}},
+\end{verbatim}
+ On the other hand, we can now use the \fieldname{type}
+ field to put the recording artists in for the second example:
+\begin{verbatim}
+ type = {Recorded by G. Bok, A. Mayo, \& E. Trickett},
+\end{verbatim}
+ We have to change the ``In'' string to ``On''
+ (``In'' a book versus ``On'' a CD). This is done with a
+ macro similar to the \verb+\bibeditortype+ macro discussed
+ in example 36. In this case, the macro is \verb+\bibInstring+,
+ which has one argument. The macro changes the definition of
+ the macro \verb+\BIn+ to the argument and then immediately changes
+ the definition back to the old definition. So it makes a one-time
+ change. Of course, the \verb+\bibInstring+ macro only works
+ if it is executed \emph{before} the \verb+\BIn+ macro. The latter
+ macro comes before the \fieldname{booktitle}, so
+ \verb+\bibInstring+ must be added to a field that comes before
+ that. I put it in the \fieldname{title} field:
+\begin{verbatim}
+ title = {Over the Waterfall{\bibInstring{\BOn}}},
+\end{verbatim}
+ where \verb+\BOn+ is defined by default as ``\BOn''.
+ Finally, the recording date of the second example (1990) must
+ be put in the \fieldname{note} field.
+
+ Note that this is all trickery within the \LaTeX{} domain
+ and the \fname{.bib} file, i.e., the user-definable and
+ user-customizable area.
+\item \cite{ex70} \\ \cite{ex70}\\ \fullciteA{ex70}\\ \citeA{ex70}
+\item \cite{ex71-1} \\ \cite{ex71-1}\\ \fullciteA{ex71-1}\\ \citeA{ex71-1} \\
+ \cite{ex71-2} \\ \cite{ex71-2}\\ \fullciteA{ex71-2}\\ \citeA{ex71-2} \\
+ \EM Here and in almost all remaining examples, the
+ ``Retrieved \ldots'' message must be put in the
+ \fieldname{howpublished} field if it refers to an internet
+ address or aggregated database. See the discussion of 4.15
+ above for the use of \verb+\url+ and \verb+\bibnodot{.}+.
+\item \cite{ex72} \\ \cite{ex72}\\ \fullciteA{ex72}\\ \citeA{ex72}
+\item \cite{ex73} \\ \cite{ex73}\\ \fullciteA{ex73}\\ \citeA{ex73} \\
+ \EM Note that the APA manual breaks a line \emph{after} a
+ period instead of before. I take it that it's not very
+ detrimental to use slightly different line breaking through
+ the \pkg{url} package. Furthermore, the APA manual uses a
+ typeface in which `1' (one) and `l' (ell) are not distinguishable.
+ This requires some guessing of the correct url's. I think that this
+ conflicts with their own stress on accuracy w.r.t.\ url's.
+
+ \EM Note the subtle use of braces to get \emph{Homo sapiens}
+ correctly formatted: The capital in \verb+\emph{Homo}+
+ is retained by \BibTeX{}, whereas the capital in
+ \verb+{\emph{Sapiens}}+ is changed into a lower case letter
+ by \BibTeX{}, because of the extra pair of braces.
+\item \cite{ex74} \\ \cite{ex74}\\ \fullciteA{ex74}\\ \citeA{ex74}\\
+ \EM As mentioned in section~\ref{sec:compat-backref}, I had
+ to use some nasty code in the current document to have the
+ bibliography entry of this reference formatted correctly
+ when \pkg{backref} is loaded.
+\item \cite{ex75} \\ \cite{ex75}\\ \fullciteA{ex75}\\ \citeA{ex75}
+\item \cite{ex76} \\ \cite{ex76}\\ \fullciteA{ex76}\\ \citeA{ex76}
+\item \cite{ex77} \\ \cite{ex77}\\ \fullciteA{ex77}\\ \citeA{ex77}
+\item \cite{ex78} \\ \cite{ex78}\\ \fullciteA{ex78}\\ \citeA{ex78}
+\item \cite{ex79} \\ \cite{ex79}\\ \fullciteA{ex79}\\ \citeA{ex79}
+\item \cite{ex80} \\ \cite{ex80}\\ \fullciteA{ex80}\\ \citeA{ex80}
+\item \cite{ex81} \\ \cite{ex81}\\ \fullciteA{ex81}\\ \citeA{ex81}
+\item \cite{ex82} \\ \cite{ex82}\\ \fullciteA{ex82}\\ \citeA{ex82}
+\item \cite{ex83} \\ \cite{ex83}\\ \fullciteA{ex83}\\ \citeA{ex83} \\
+ \EM Here and in the next example, both ``Paper presented \ldots''
+ and ``Retrieved \ldots'' must be put in a single
+ \fieldname{howpublished} field.
+\item \cite{ex84} \\ \cite{ex84}\\ \fullciteA{ex84}\\ \citeA{ex84}
+\item \cite{ex85} \\ \cite{ex85}\\ \fullciteA{ex85}\\ \citeA{ex85} \\
+ \EM When referring to a message to a newsgroup, internet forum, etc.,
+ use the \entryname{misc} type. Then define
+\begin{verbatim}
+ type = {\bibmessage},
+\end{verbatim}
+ and use the \fieldname{number} field when relevant. Furthermore,
+ you should include a description like ``Message posted to ... ''
+ in the \fieldname{howpublished} field. Then the entry is formatted
+ correctly: If the message has a number, say 1, it reverts to
+ ``\verb+[\bibmessage\ 1]+'', i.e., ``[Msg\ 1]'' with the default
+ definition of \cmd{\bibmessage}. If there is no number, the
+ type identifier is omitted (because it must be mentioned in the
+ \fieldname{howpublished} field anyway). In both cases,
+ however, the title is formatted as an article title, i.e., not
+ italicized.
+\item \cite{ex86} \\ \cite{ex86}\\ \fullciteA{ex86}\\ \citeA{ex86}
+\item \cite{ex87} \\ \cite{ex87}\\ \fullciteA{ex87}\\ \citeA{ex87}
+\item \cite{ex88} \\ \cite{ex88}\\ \fullciteA{ex88}\\ \citeA{ex88}
+\item \cite{ex89} \\ \cite{ex89}\\ \fullciteA{ex89}\\ \citeA{ex89}
+\item \cite{ex90} \\ \cite{ex90}\\ \fullciteA{ex90}\\ \citeA{ex90} \\
+ \EM Here, ``de Ridder'' may well be a Dutch name. If the APA
+ manual is serious about its rule to format names as they
+ should according to the rule of the country of origin,
+ this name should then be formatted as ``De Ridder''.
+\item \cite{ex91} \\ \cite{ex91}\\ \fullciteA{ex91}\\ \citeA{ex91}
+\item \cite{ex92} \\ \cite{ex92}\\ \fullciteA{ex92}\\ \citeA{ex92}
+\item \cite{ex93} \\ \cite{ex93}\\ \fullciteA{ex93}\\ \citeA{ex93}\\
+ \EM Strangely enough, the APA apparently does not find it necessary
+ to give a retrieval date or more exact publication date for
+ downloaded software, whereas it does require a retrieval date
+ for downloaded papers.
+\item \cite{ex94} \\ \cite{ex94}\\ \fullciteA{ex94}\\ \citeA{ex94}\\
+ \EM The example in the APA manual does not list a date, not even
+ a ``n.d.''. Given the logic of the APA manual, this seems an error
+ to me, so I added a ``\verb+\bibnodate+'' in the \fieldname{year}
+ field, which becomes ``\bibnodate'' in the output. If it would
+ really be the rule to omit the year, then it is not clear when
+ a year must be omitted and when not, or replaced by ``n.d.''.
+ Furthermore, formatting in both the \fname{.sty} file and
+ the \fname{.bst} file would have to be adapted to anticipate
+ a missing year. Currently, I assume that there should always
+ be something that acts like a date (a year, an ``in press'',
+ or a ``n.d.'').
+
+ \EM To get the version number correctly formatted, I added the
+ information and the correct formatting to the title field:
+ \verb+{\upshape(\uppercase{V}ersion~4)}+. A version is a kind
+ of edition, but it is more difficult to obtain the correct
+ formatting if the \fieldname{edition} field would be used,
+ because ``Version'' comes before the number and ``ed.'' after.
+\item \cite{ex95} \\ \cite{ex95}\\ \fullciteA{ex95}\\ \citeA{ex95}\\
+ \EM Note that here, unlike ex.~44 and ex.~91,
+ ``U.S.'' is omitted before ``Department of Health and Human
+ Services''.
+\end{enumerate}
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+%
+% Redefine commands that should be different in the bibliography.
+\renewcommand{\bibreftext}[2]{#1}%
+\renewcommand{\Dutchvon}[2]{#1}%
+\renewbibeditortype
+\def\bibskipbracenodot{\aftergroup\swallowdot}
+%
+% Dirty trick: request apacitex.bst if apacite is loaded with one of the
+% index options, and request apacite.bst otherwise.
+\makeatletter
+\if@APAC@index
+ \bibliographystyle{apacitex}% with index option
+\else
+ \bibliographystyle{apacite}% or without
+\fi
+\makeatother
+%
+% Solve the `#' problem of backref, see the backref section above.
+% This hack provided by Heiko Oberdiek.
+\ifbackrefloaded
+ \catcode`\#=12\relax
+\fi
+%
+% Include the bibliography
+\bibliography{apa5ex}
+%
+% Reset the above hack.
+\ifbackrefloaded
+ \catcode`\#=6\relax
+\fi
+%
+% Again redefine a command.
+\renewcommand{\bibeditortype}[1]{}%
+%
+% Include the author index if the index option is on.
+\printindex[autx]
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+\end{document}
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+% EOF apacite.tex
+