# elsarticle vs newclude vs bibliography

Consider the MWE below. If we use article + newclude the bibliography works, elsarticle + newclude it does not.

My advise to the user to came by with this issue was not to use newclude, but now I'm curious, what is wrong?

% works with article + newclude
%\documentclass{article}
% does not work with elsarticle + newclude
\documentclass{elsarticle}
\usepackage{newclude}
\begin{document}
\cite{t}
\begin{thebibliography}{9}
\bibitem{t} Test
\end{thebibliography}
\end{document}


Here is what I end up with in the elsarticle + newclude case:

• Consider that elsarticle is from 2009, whereas newclude is from 1999 or 2000 and hasn't been updated so far – user31729 Jun 25 '15 at 8:19

elsarticle loads natbib, which redefines \@lbibitem. But newclude resets it to the standard definition (in tag.sto). So this shows the same problem:

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage[numbers]{natbib}
%\makeatletter\show\@lbibitem

\usepackage[simple]{newclude}
%\makeatletter\show\@lbibitem

\begin{document}
\cite{t}
\begin{thebibliography}{9}
\bibitem{t} Test
\end{thebibliography}
\end{document}


Contrary to the claims in the documentation one can't suppress the loading of tag.sto with the option simple. (And the option allocate gives errors). So it has bugs. I wouldn't use this package.

• Thanks for the analysis. It was also my recommendation to not use newclude. The user used it to suppress the \clearpage but it seemed the user did not know \input and especially not the difference between \include and \input. We removed newclude and switched to \input and it worked just fine. – daleif Jun 25 '15 at 9:11