# APA names

**URL:** <https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/apa-names/773>\
**Category:** CSL Development\
**Created:** [September 23, 2009, 12:01pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/apa-names/773 "2009-09-23T12:01:43Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 17\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Frank\_Bennett](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/discourse.citationstyles.org/frank_bennett/32/198_2.png) [@Frank\_Bennett](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Frank_Bennett)\
**Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 12:01pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/apa-names/773/1 "2009-09-23T12:01:43Z")

</div>

Just when you thought it was safe to go in the water again …

> **[APA 6th ed. References with more than seven authors](https://forums.zotero.org/discussion/8978/apa-6th-ed-references-with-more-than-seven-authors/#Comment_41876)**
>
> One of the changes in the new APA manual refers to references with more than seven authors.

When there are more than seven authors of a work, list the first six,  
and the last, separated by an ellipsis. Looks like this wants an  
option attribute on citation/bibliography. Perhaps something like  
last-name-as-et-al=“true”?

Not pushing this for CSL 1.0, just noting to the list so that we have  
it in the mix.

Frank

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rintze\_Zelle](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/discourse.citationstyles.org/rintze_zelle/32/175_2.png) [@Rintze\_Zelle](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Rintze_Zelle)\
**Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 12:39pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/apa-names/773/2 "2009-09-23T12:39:16Z")

</div>

Maybe, in addition to et-al-use-first, we could add et-al-use-last (which  
also accepts any positive integer value, and counts backwards). We’d still  
need a way to specify the ellipsis (…), though. Maybe we can also  
rename the “symbol” option of the and-attribute on cs:name to “ampersand”,  
and add a new value, “ellipsis”?

RintzeOn Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Frank Bennett \<@Frank\_Bennett\>wrote:

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Frank\_Bennett](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/discourse.citationstyles.org/frank_bennett/32/198_2.png) [@Frank\_Bennett](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Frank_Bennett)\
**Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 12:55pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/apa-names/773/3 "2009-09-23T12:55:56Z")

</div>

> Maybe, in addition to et-al-use-first, we could add et-al-use-last (which  
> also accepts any positive integer value, and counts backwards). We’d still  
> need a way to specify the ellipsis (…), though. Maybe we can also  
> rename the “symbol” option of the and-attribute on cs:name to “ampersand”,  
> and add a new value, “ellipsis”?

Do you think there will be a call ever for more than one name at the tail end?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bruce\_D\_Arcus1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@Bruce\_D\_Arcus1](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Bruce_D_Arcus1)\
**Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 1:08pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/apa-names/773/4 "2009-09-23T13:08:53Z")

</div>

I never thought someone would come up with this sort of scheme to  
begin with. So I don’t have much confidence some other editorial group  
won’t come along and say “ah, this is cool, but let’s use last two”.

Bruce

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Frank\_Bennett](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/discourse.citationstyles.org/frank_bennett/32/198_2.png) [@Frank\_Bennett](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Frank_Bennett)\
**Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 2:02pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/apa-names/773/5 "2009-09-23T14:02:02Z")

</div>

> > > Maybe, in addition to et-al-use-first, we could add et-al-use-last (which  
> > > also accepts any positive integer value, and counts backwards). We’d still  
> > > need a way to specify the ellipsis (…), though. Maybe we can also  
> > > rename the “symbol” option of the and-attribute on cs:name to “ampersand”,  
> > > and add a new value, “ellipsis”?
> > 
> > Do you think there will be a call ever for more than one name at the tail end?
> 
> I never thought someone would come up with this sort of scheme to  
> begin with. So I don’t have much confidence some other editorial group  
> won’t come along and say “ah, this is cool, but let’s use last two”.

🙂 I feel your pain. Rather too well, I’m afraid.

Might be worth getting someone to double-check that this is a  
_mandatory_ feature of the new APA. The explanation given in the blog  
entry linked in the forum verges on psychotic raving – essentially,  
“every once in awhile, a list of authors has chiastic structure, which  
is why we’ve assumed that all of them do”. Even I can see the case  
for boycotting this rule, if there’s a way to dodge it.

Frank

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rintze\_Zelle](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/discourse.citationstyles.org/rintze_zelle/32/175_2.png) [@Rintze\_Zelle](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Rintze_Zelle)\
**Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 2:08pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/apa-names/773/6 "2009-09-23T14:08:52Z")

</div>

> > > > Maybe, in addition to et-al-use-first, we could add et-al-use-last  
> > > > (which  
> > > > also accepts any positive integer value, and counts backwards). We’d  
> > > > still  
> > > > need a way to specify the ellipsis (…), though. Maybe we can also  
> > > > rename the “symbol” option of the and-attribute on cs:name to  
> > > > “ampersand”,  
> > > > and add a new value, “ellipsis”?
> > > 
> > > Do you think there will be a call ever for more than one name at the  
> > > tail end?
> > 
> > I never thought someone would come up with this sort of scheme to  
> > begin with. So I don’t have much confidence some other editorial group  
> > won’t come along and say “ah, this is cool, but let’s use last two”.
> 
> 🙂 I feel your pain. Rather too well, I’m afraid.
> 
> Might be worth getting someone to double-check that this is a  
> _mandatory_ feature of the new APA.

It’s noted in other (derived) online resources:

> **[APA\_2010\_final.pdf](https://www.lonestar.edu/departments/libraries/nharrislibrary/APA_2010_final.pdf)**
>
> 306.07 KB

[http://libwebdev2006.fullerton.edu/Documents/APA\_6th-2009-Final.pdf](http://libwebdev2006.fullerton.edu/Documents/APA_6th-2009-Final.pdf)

(search for 6.27)

> The explanation given in the blog  
> entry linked in the forum verges on psychotic raving – essentially,  
> “every once in awhile, a list of authors has chiastic structure, which  
> is why we’ve assumed that all of them do”.

I actually think it makes sense 🙂 (even though it may not be very pretty).  
But having a lot of co-authors with the principle investigator at the end is  
more common in the natural sciences, I guess.

RintzeOn Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 4:02 PM, Frank Bennett \<@Frank\_Bennett\>wrote:

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bruce\_D\_Arcus1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@Bruce\_D\_Arcus1](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Bruce_D_Arcus1)\
**Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 2:20pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/apa-names/773/7 "2009-09-23T14:20:12Z")

</div>

…

> I actually think it makes sense 🙂 (even though it may not be very pretty).  
> But having a lot of co-authors with the principle investigator at the end is  
> more common in the natural sciences, I guess.

But as I say in my comment\*, there’s a big difference if the logic is  
to include the PI; suggests a different solution.

Bruce

- \<[http://blog.apastyle.org/apastyle/2009/08/formatting-apa-references-with-more-than-seven-authors.html#comment-6a01157041f4e3970b0120a59185d1970b](http://blog.apastyle.org/apastyle/2009/08/formatting-apa-references-with-more-than-seven-authors.html#comment-6a01157041f4e3970b0120a59185d1970b)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Frank\_Bennett](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/discourse.citationstyles.org/frank_bennett/32/198_2.png) [@Frank\_Bennett](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Frank_Bennett)\
**Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 2:20pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/apa-names/773/8 "2009-09-23T14:20:23Z")

</div>

> I actually think it makes sense 🙂 (even though it may not be very pretty).  
> But having a lot of co-authors with the principle investigator at the end is  
> more common in the natural sciences, I guess.

I stand corrected – I had no idea this was a common practice. Learn  
something everyday. 🙂

Frank

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rintze\_Zelle](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/discourse.citationstyles.org/rintze_zelle/32/175_2.png) [@Rintze\_Zelle](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Rintze_Zelle)\
**Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 2:41pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/apa-names/773/9 "2009-09-23T14:41:55Z")

</div>

I presume their logic is that the last author is most probably the (main)  
PI, and that guessing is the preferred option. I guess the alternative  
you’re thinking of would be to give the PI(s) a dedicated creator type, so  
that they can be formatted separately? But that would require additional  
curating of the data (you would have to figure out who the PI(s) are, which  
isn’t always obvious).

Rintze

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bruce\_D\_Arcus1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@Bruce\_D\_Arcus1](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Bruce_D_Arcus1)\
**Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 2:44pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/apa-names/773/10 "2009-09-23T14:44:48Z")

</div>

> > …
> > 
> > > I actually think it makes sense 🙂 (even though it may not be very  
> > > pretty).  
> > > But having a lot of co-authors with the principle investigator at the  
> > > end is  
> > > more common in the natural sciences, I guess.
> > 
> > But as I say in my comment\*, there’s a big difference if the logic is  
> > to include the PI; suggests a different solution.
> 
> I presume their logic is that the last author is most probably the (main)  
> PI, and that guessing is the preferred option. I guess the alternative  
> you’re thinking of would be to give the PI(s) a dedicated creator type, so  
> that they can be formatted separately?

Yes; it’s one obvious alternative.

> But that would require additional  
> curating of the data (you would have to figure out who the PI(s) are, which  
> isn’t always obvious).

But the “last author” approach has its own problems.

Bruce

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rintze\_Zelle](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/discourse.citationstyles.org/rintze_zelle/32/175_2.png) [@Rintze\_Zelle](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Rintze_Zelle)\
**Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 2:50pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/apa-names/773/11 "2009-09-23T14:50:45Z")

</div>

Such as?

Rintze

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bruce\_D\_Arcus1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@Bruce\_D\_Arcus1](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Bruce_D_Arcus1)\
**Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 2:54pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/apa-names/773/12 "2009-09-23T14:54:29Z")

</div>

If the intention is only to list the PI, and the last author is not  
the PI, then it is wrong!

Bruce

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rintze\_Zelle](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/discourse.citationstyles.org/rintze_zelle/32/175_2.png) [@Rintze\_Zelle](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Rintze_Zelle)\
**Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 2:57pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/apa-names/773/13 "2009-09-23T14:57:28Z")

</div>

As discussed in the reply to your APA blog comment, that’s not the aim.

Rintze

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rintze\_Zelle](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/discourse.citationstyles.org/rintze_zelle/32/175_2.png) [@Rintze\_Zelle](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Rintze_Zelle)\
**Post date:** [December 16, 2009, 6:58am UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/apa-names/773/14 "2009-12-16T06:58:22Z")

</div>

Coming back to this, as a ticket has been opened:

> **[List last author's name in truncated authors listing](https://bitbucket.org/bdarcus/csl-schema/issues/14/list-last-authors-name-in-truncated-authors)**
>
> For consideration post-1.0, APA requires the last author to be listed with a special delimiter if there are more than seven names in the author list of a bibliography entry. Relevant to physics papers with hundreds of authors et cetera.

  
(BTW, I agree this is something for post-CSL 1.0)

So the goal is to express this:

Terracciano, A., Abdel-Khalek, A. M., Adam, N., Adamovova, L., Ahn, C.,  
Ahn, H., . . . McCrae, R. R.

I think with the current schema (with expanded et-al support) it would be  
sufficient to just have the earlier proposed et-al-use-last attribute. When  
specified, this would include the number of authors specified with the  
attribute after the et-al-term, e.g.:

The term “and others” can then be set to the ellipsis ("…").

There are of course some overlap issues here, e.g. if et-al-min=“3”,  
et-al-use-first=“2” and et-al-use-last=“2”. It probably makes sense to  
remove names that have appeared from the use of et-al-use-first from those  
that can be outputted with et-al-use-last. There may be some delimiter  
issues lingering, so perhaps we need to use affixes on the et-al term, but I  
think that’s the only problem with this approach.

Rintze

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rintze\_Zelle](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/discourse.citationstyles.org/rintze_zelle/32/175_2.png) [@Rintze\_Zelle](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Rintze_Zelle)\
**Post date:** [June 24, 2010, 3:17pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/apa-names/773/15 "2010-06-24T15:17:32Z")

</div>

As a slight modification to my earlier proposal, I was thinking we might not  
need the ellipsis as a (redefined) term. Instead the CSL processor could  
just implicitly add it if et-al abbreviation is active and et-al-use-last is  
set.

(earlier, I was a bit worried that some other style might want an extra  
comma before the last name, like: “Terracciano, A., Abdel-Khalek, A. M.,  
Adam, N., Adamovova, L., Ahn, C., Ahn, H., . . ., McCrae, R. R.”. But it  
might be better to worry about that later once we come across such a style)

RintzeOn Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 8:58 AM, Rintze Zelle \<@Rintze\_Zelle\>wrote:

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bruce\_D\_Arcus1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@Bruce\_D\_Arcus1](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Bruce_D_Arcus1)\
**Post date:** [June 24, 2010, 3:22pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/apa-names/773/16 "2010-06-24T15:22:28Z")

</div>

So how confident are you in this proposal?

What does everyone think we ought to do about this? For context, it’s  
required to fully support the new APA style.

Please register comments at ticket:

[http://bitbucket.org/bdarcus/csl-schema/issue/14/list-last-authors-name-in-truncated-authors](http://bitbucket.org/bdarcus/csl-schema/issue/14/list-last-authors-name-in-truncated-authors)

My big question is whether we could consider this a backward  
compatible change, and so fold into some minor release?

Bruce

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rintze\_Zelle](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/discourse.citationstyles.org/rintze_zelle/32/175_2.png) [@Rintze\_Zelle](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Rintze_Zelle)\
**Post date:** [September 11, 2010, 1:06am UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/apa-names/773/17 "2010-09-11T01:06:30Z")

</div>

For those only following the xbiblio mailing list, and not the Bitbucket  
issue tracker: there seems to be consensus that APA’s new rule for  
references with more than 7 authors can be supported with a new boolean  
et-al-use-last option and a term for the ellipsis. The proposed spec entry  
can be found here:

> **[Spec change for et-al-use-last](https://bitbucket.org/bdarcus/csl-docs/issues/2/spec-change-for-et-al-use-last)**
>
> This change has been approved on the schema tracker. Ticketing here as the first step toward pushing in the changes (text below if from Rintze).
> 
> Frank
> 
> \*\*\*
> 
> A proposed extension to the 1.0 spec, which assumes a boolean...

The only thing holding me back from implementing this in the schema is that  
I realized we might need a names-use-last attribute on cs:key. cs:key  
already has the names-min and names-use-first attributes to override the  
values of et-al-min and et-al-use-first during sorting (  
[http://citationstyles.org/downloads/specification.html#sorting](http://citationstyles.org/downloads/specification.html#sorting)) and I think  
names-use-last would be needed to give full control over name sorting. I was  
curious whether everyone agreed with this analysis and proposed addition.

Rintze