Q. In “People in chef’s coats were being shepherded from room to room,” should it be written as “chef’s coats,” “chefs coats,” or “chefs’ coats”? I’m guessing that it’s the former, since it is a single, standardized coat that all the chefs are wearing, but I’m not sure.

Q. What is the plural of “Mercedes”? For example: “The armored Mercedes’ of the oligarchs sped through the streets of Moscow.” “Mercedeses” sounds clunky, but does the final apostrophe adequately convey the plural?

Q. I’m dealing with a quote within a quote. In fiction, a character in dialogue says something like, “You’re using a whole lot of ‘we’s’ here.” The “we” is supposed to be plural. How can this be punctuated properly? Or another case of the same situation, but in narrative text: A chorus of “got it”s, “yeah”s and way too enthusiastic “woo”s followed.

Q. In the following sentence, should the word “point” be singular or plural? “The type should be no larger than 11 point.”

Q. What is the plural of a last name ending in a silent x? I just read an article using “the Robidouxes” and wondered if it should be “the Robidouxs” or “the Robidoux.” Thank you for your response.

Q. I was asked how to refer to more than one of a specific numbered form. For example, do you say “IRS Form 1040s” or “IRS Forms 1040”?

Q. How should the symbols N2 and O2 be pluralized in Chicago style? N2’s and O2’s or italicized symbols with no apostrophes?

Q. How do you pluralize given names such as in brand names? For example, I was editing a book where a person received a gift of a pair of Jimmy Choo shoes. Another character exclaimed, “You could miss my birthday too if it means a pair of Jimmys.” An apostrophe is not quite right since it is not possessive. And using the “ie” form of plural with a “y” would look odd IMO. What’s the best way to handle it?

Q. I am working with an author who insists on referring to a photo that was taken in a certain decade as “this 1950’s photo.” Is the apostrophe needed, and is it in the correct place?

Q. How would you handle the plural of a term of art like “artist’s proof,” which itself contains a possessive as the first word, when referring to proofs of multiple artists? It seems clear that we would say “artist’s proofs by the engraver Combet” to refer to several proofs by the single engraver Combet. I think we would also say “artist’s proofs by the two engravers Combet and Haley” (referring to several proofs by each engraver), because we are using the plural of the term of art or unit “artist’s proof,” which is shorthand for “a proof of an engraving by an artist.” Stated differently, adding an “s” to proofs is sufficient to make the term of art “artist’s proofs” plural, and we don’t need to use the plural of the first term as well when two different engravers are involved, since we are still just referring to multiple examples of the term of art “artist’s proof.” We should distinguish this case from the use of “artist” as a normal possessive and not as part of a term of art, in which case we would need to use the plural of the possessive (artists’) when referring to proofs by several artists, but I don’t think we would say “artists’ proofs by the two engravers Combet and Haley” when using “artist’s proofs” as a term of art. If we decide that the possessive of “artist” is singular in the case of multiple proofs by a single engraver and plural in the case of multiple engravers, we are still left with the unclear case when the number of engravers is not specified, i.e., when just using the term “artist’s proofs.” An analogous situation might arise with a term like “baker’s dozen” but not with normal possessives like “manufacturers’ coupons.”