Q. The abbreviation for “revolutions per minute” is rpm as stipulated in CMOS 10.49. A document I’m editing contains a picture with the following label: “RPM Gauge.” I don’t like RPM being all capitals, but I’m not sure if rpm or Rpm is any better. What should I use?
A. Although rpm is Chicago style, RPM is well accepted. (Rpm less so.) It may be difficult or expensive or time-consuming to get changes made in an illustration, so unless there’s a problem caused by the departure from Chicago style, you should consider looking the other way. (An example of a “problem” would be if the text specifically discusses how to abbreviate the term and specifies the use of rpm, so that the inconsistency is confusing.)
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Hello, I’m looking for clarification for CMOS 10.33. Are you recommending 123 MAIN ST STE 456 for envelopes but 123 Main St., Ste. 456 for running text, etc.? (And if capitalizing the envelopes, would the entire address be capitalized?)
A. As we say at CMOS 10.33, spell out the terms in running text: I live at 123 Main Street, Suite 456. (Please see 10.35 as well). As for addressing envelopes, CMOS does not presume to override US Postal Service instructions. If you want your mail delivered, you’d better abandon Chicago style.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I came across the following footnote in a scientific table: “[A] cohort born ≤ 2010, [B] cohort born ≥ 2011.” Is this an acceptable use of the ≤ and ≥ symbols?
A. Maybe not. You’re safer writing “in or before” and “in or after.”
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Can you use ’80s when referring to the 1880s? Thanks.
A. Yes. But if you want people to know what you’re talking about, and your context hasn’t already made it clear which century you’re in, then no.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. What is CMOS’s take on the use of and the defining of acronyms in section and subsection headings?
A. It’s fine to use and define unfamiliar acronyms in headings, but that doesn’t take the place of defining them in the text. The text should make sense even if all the headings and subheadings are removed.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. A colleague frequently uses the abbreviation Sr. in reports and other communications, even when not abbreviating other words. For example, “the Sr. Leadership Team agreed to meet on Thursday” or “the Sr. Researcher is attending the meeting this week.” Am I just being picky?
A. If these are in-house memos and the culture of your office is such that people use abbreviations or initialisms as time-savers (mtg., appt., ASAP, FYI), then you are being picky. If the reports are formal documents that go out to news media or shareholders, then an editor should spell out such abbreviations.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Is it acceptable to use undefined acronyms in the table of contents, waiting to define the acronyms in the body of the document?
A. If you are sure your readers won’t look at the table of contents and throw the book across the room because nothing makes sense, then it’s acceptable.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I work for a theological seminary and am editing a brochure that has a list of speakers. If the speaker is an ordained minister or has a PhD, that is noted with a Rev. or Dr. However, there are a few speakers on this list who are just referred to by first and last name with no social title such as Mr. or Ms. I think this is incorrect, but I can’t find anything to support my position.
A. In academic publications, Chicago style does not use Mr. or Ms. with names or Dr. or Prof. for people with PhDs. It does allow the use of Rev. for ministers and Dr. for medical doctors. These styles are a practical solution to the difficulties of checking the gender, marital status, and academic degrees of every scholar mentioned in a book or article—who sometimes number in the hundreds. However, this doesn’t mean it’s incorrect for your publication to use whatever titles suit your community of readers.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. How do I present the first mention of an in-text cited source which is normally referred to with initials? Specifically, AAALAC, which is the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care. Is this correct? (Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care [AAALAC] 2011)
A. You could do that, although it would be more elegant to introduce the initialism in the text than in a citation. Note too that if you are going to use “AAALAC 2011” thereafter as your citation (which seems practical), the reference list entry must go under AAALAC, rather than under Association.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. The acronym NVM stands for “non-volatile memory.” The acronym NVMe stands for NVM Express. Unfortunately, the first mention of NVMe shows up before the first mention of NVM. This means I am first writing “NVM Express (NVMe).” I then later write “non-volatile memory (NVM).” If I were to define the first mention of NVMe as “Non-Volatile Memory Express (NVMe),” would that mean I would not define the first mention of NVM as “non-volatile memory (NVM)” because NVM has already been defined as part of another acronym?
A. Why not explain that there are two overlapping acronyms in this article and set everyone straight from the get-go? Contrary to popular belief, there is no rule that acronyms must be defined once and only once when they first appear, no matter how unhelpful that is. And even if there were such a rule, when you have a situation like this, you simply have to take charge and be extra clear.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]