Q. With the new rule for the en dash and personal names (CMOS 6.85), does that mean a city like Winston-Salem will be spelled with an en dash now?

A. That’s a good question, but the new rule does not extend to a place-name like Winston-Salem. Nor would it extend to a name like Merriam-Webster (the dictionary publisher). Such names are like the hyphenated surname Newton-John in the name Olivia Newton-John. Though each of those three names (of the city, the publisher, and the person) combines two names, they’re each considered to be a single hyphenated unit.

The en dash in a term like “Epstein–Barr virus” or “Ali–Frazier fight,” by contrast, is supposed to help clarify that something (as a virus or a fight) is being attributed to two people rather than just one. A Winston-Salem virus or Winston-Salem fight, on the other hand, would be a virus or a fight named for a single city in North Carolina—one that happens to have a double-barreled (and hyphenated) name.

Note, however, that the names of some places would get an en dash in Chicago style: for example, Minneapolis–Saint Paul, where the dash connects to an open compound (see also CMOS 6.86).

Q. Hi CMOS, I have a (possibly silly) question. Would the phrase “dogs have a tail” be considered grammatically correct? My instinct is that it should be “dogs have tails,” with both nouns plural. On the other hand, there are some contexts where “dogs have a tail” sounds fine, at least to my ear. For example, if someone asked you what the difference is between dogs and frogs, you might say, “for one thing, dogs have a tail.” Is this a quirk of spoken English vs. written English? This is a trivial example, but this issue comes up a lot in the scientific writing I edit. If it’s purely a personal style choice, I’d prefer to stick with the authors’ original wording. Wordings? Thanks!

A. Though some dogs can be silly, your question isn’t silly at all. One problem is that either statement—dogs have a tail and dogs have tails—could be ambiguous if taken literally. The first could mean that dogs as a group share one tail, and the second could mean that dogs each have more than one tail.

But it’s common knowledge that the animal known as a dog normally has only one tail, so you can follow your instincts (which are correct in this case, grammatically speaking) and match plural subject with plural object: dogs have tails. Use a singular object only when the plural might be misunderstood (unlikely with dogs and tails), or when the fact that the object is singular is the point—as in most dogs have only one tail.

This advice applies equally to writing and speaking, but you’re probably right to suggest that a singular object would be more common in speech than in edited prose. For more on this type of construction, known as the distributive possessive, see CMOS 5.25.

Q. In CMOS 8.117, why are Mars Global Surveyor and Mars Polar Lander not italicized? Aren’t they the names of specific spacecraft?

A. Italics are normally reserved for creative as opposed to descriptive names. Mars Global Surveyor and Mars Polar Lander are the names of specific vehicles launched by NASA, but they’re both based on generic descriptions: The first name refers to a spacecraft that was launched to do a global survey of Mars (while orbiting that planet), and the second names a spacecraft designed to explore the south polar region of that same planet (after having landed on its surface).

Phoenix also refers to a specific spacecraft that was sent to Mars, but “Phoenix” is a name, not a description, so it gets italics (including when used with a generic description, as in “NASA’s Phoenix Mars lander”).

Trivia: Though italics for names are now usually limited to ships and other named vessels, it was once relatively common to find the names of people and places in italics, as in two influential eighteenth-century English novels: Samuel Richardson’s Pamela: or, Virtue Rewarded (vol. 4, London, 1742, via Internet Archive) and Henry Fielding’s The History of Tom Jones, a Foundling (vol. 1, 1749, via HathiTrust).

Q. Hello! In the examples in CMOS 8.48, can you clarify why Southern California, Northern California, West Tennessee, East Tennessee, and Middle Tennessee get capitalized, whereas western Arizona, eastern Massachusetts, southern Minnesota, northwest Illinois, and central Illinois do not?

A. Southern California and Northern California are capitalized because they have become recognized beyond their borders as the names of two geographic and cultural entities. East, West, and Middle Tennessee are capitalized as the names of the three “grand divisions” in that state, a usage that has become widely accepted; see, among other sources, the entry for “Tennessee” in Britannica. (Many sources style these as the Grand Divisions—with initial capitals—including this page from the Tennessee Historical Society. Tennessee’s state constitution, on the other hand, uses lowercase, and it doesn’t name the three divisions.)

As for the other examples in your question, each of those is more likely to be used generically (i.e., to refer to the western or other portion of a state) rather than as a proper noun. And though any of them might be capitalized in local usage (as in a travel guide extolling the virtues of a certain region), such usage shouldn’t necessarily determine your own (or that of your author). When in doubt, use lowercase for terms like western at the state level and caps for national or global regions.

Q. Would you use a comma after the verb read in fiction when written text is introduced by that word? Does it matter whether the text is presented as a sentence? For example,

The sign read Keep Out.

versus

The sign read, “Thank you for not smoking.”

As a copyeditor I am always unsure whether read is considered a variation of such terms as said, replied, asked, wrote, or the like. Perhaps I must consider whether the grammar and syntax of the quoted material is separate from the text that introduces it?

A. You don’t normally need a comma before words introduced by the verb read—or said, for that matter—used in the sense of “consisted of (or included) the word(s).” And though quotation marks are helpful in some cases, they can usually be omitted in favor of title case for shorter signs (see CMOS 7.64):

The sign read “Thank you for not smoking.”

or

The sign read Thank You for Not Smoking.

Use a comma only in the rare event that read is used as a speech tag (in which case the quoted words would be considered to be syntactically independent relative to the surrounding sentence; see CMOS 12.14):

I asked, “Could you tell me what that sign says?”

Squinting through the haze, she read, “ ‘Thank you for not smoking.’ ”

Note the nested single quotation marks, which clarify that the quoted speaker is quoting something in turn (see also CMOS 12.46 and 6.11).

Q. Why do you use a colon to separate page numbers in a journal article citation but a comma to separate page numbers in most everything else? It seems completely nonsensical.

A. You’re right, a comma might make more sense. Somewhere along the line, however, the idea that a colon should come between a volume and page number morphed into Chicago’s current journal citation style. The following example, from the Botanical Gazette, appeared in the first ten editions of the Manual (the 1 in parentheses was used to mark the first of two examples by the same author):

LIVINGSTON, B. E., (1) On the nature of the stimulus which causes the change in form of polymorphic green algae. BOT. GAZ. 30:289–317. 1900.

That was offered not as an example of Chicago style but of Gazette style. Today, that same article can be found on the website of the International Journal of Plant Sciences (which continues the Gazette, a journal that got its start in 1876) and would be cited in modern Chicago style as follows:

Livingston, Burton Edward. “On the Nature of the Stimulus Which Causes the Change of Form in Polymorphic Green Algæ.” Botanical Gazette 30, no. 5 (1900): 289–317. https://doi.org/10.1086/328048.

An issue number and date now intervene between volume number and page range, but that colon nonetheless became Chicago style for citing journal articles, starting with the 12th edition (published in 1969). That was also the first edition to prefer Arabic rather than Roman numerals for volume numbers (the Gazette example was an exception to this rule in earlier editions), which may have factored into the decision. A colon remains Chicago style for referring to a volume and page number alone, as in “2:37” (for vol. 2, p. 37); see CMOS 14.74. Older Chicago style would have called for “II, 37” (with a Roman numeral and a comma, as in the 10th ed., ¶ 253).

The editors of the 12th edition could have specified a comma whenever a year or other number intervenes between volume and page numbers (as is the case for most journal article citations), but they didn’t. More than fifty years later, our editors have come to think of that colon as a helpful little sign that says journal article.

Q. Small question, but should you use a person’s middle initial in running text or is it acceptable to just use the first and last name? I see mixed usage at my job and would like to encourage consistency with solid grounding from the manual. Thanks!

A. Names are so variable (not to mention personal) that the best we can do is to offer some general guidelines. First, it’s usually fine to use only a first and last name when referring to someone by their full name (as on first mention), even if that person is known to have a middle initial. In fact, for most names it will be preferable to omit a middle initial.

But you’ll want to make an exception for any name that’s normally spelled with an initial or that might be ambiguous without one. This would include people like John D. Rockefeller, Samuel L. Jackson, and Michael J. Fox; it would also include lesser-known individuals whose names usually appear with an initial (whether in published works or elsewhere).

And when naming the author of a particular book or other work, it can be helpful on first mention to use the form as it appears in the work itself (as on a title page), especially if the name may not be familiar to your intended audience. Also (though it probably goes without saying), a name like I. M. Pei generally retains initials whenever mentioned in full (i.e., don’t write “I. Pei”). And don’t substitute an initial for a middle name that’s normally spelled out (e.g., James Earl [not E.] Jones).

In other words, consistency may not be a realistic goal, but with a little editorial discretion backed up by some basic research, you should be able to determine which names will need or benefit from an initial and which ones (usually most of them) can go without.

Q. When a map is inserted sideways on a verso page, which direction should it face? Should the top of the map be near the gutter or near the outside margin? Is there a standard?

A. The practice at the University of Chicago Press is to rotate the image 90 degrees counterclockwise, which would mean that the top of the map is toward the outside margin on a verso (left-hand) page but toward the middle of the book (the gutter or binding) on a recto (right-hand) page.

A map rotated in this way is called a broadside figure (as defined in the glossary at the end of CMOS). In most books, pages are taller than they are wide, so a broadside figure will usually be in landscape (▭) rather than portrait (▯) orientation before being rotated.

Q. According to Merriam-Webster, “than” can function as a conjunction or a preposition. If using title case, would you capitalize “than” in the following title? “There Is More Than One Path to a Successful Meal.” I think so, but I’m not sure what part of speech “than” is in expressions like “more than” and “less than.” Thanks!

A. When than is followed by a noun that acts as its object, then it’s a preposition and can be lowercased in a title; if it’s instead followed by a clause (with a subject and a verb—though the verb is sometimes omitted but understood), then assume it’s a conjunction and give it a capital T.

In your example, where the noun path is the object of the preposition than, you’d use lowercase for the latter:

“There Is More than One Path to a Successful Meal”

But in the following example, where than is followed by a clause and is therefore a conjunction, you’d apply a capital T:

“A Successful Meal Requires More Than I Bargained For”

It might be easier to make an exception and capitalize than even when it’s acting as a preposition rather than as a conjunction (see CMOS 5.189 for an explanation of how these two uses differ). But until that dream becomes a reality (19th edition, maybe?), you’ll need to figure out the grammar before deciding what to do.

Q. Why do we not use commas when writing years? What will happen in the year 10000?? I’m very concerned.

A. You have nothing to fear: Though commas are omitted from years that include no more than four digits, they’re recommended for years that run to five digits or more. So about eight thousand years from now (or just under 7,975 years as of April 2025)—when the year 9999 will have turned into 10,000 (as in 10,000 CE, or AD 10,000 if you prefer)—you can start adding commas to years to help you keep track of all those digits.

We don’t know why commas are omitted from four-digit years. But check back with us once commas are required again for everyday use. Maybe by then CMOS will have grown to more than 10,000 pages. If so—and assuming it’s still published in print and fits in a single volume (or two or more consecutively paginated volumes)—you should be able to turn to page 10000 or later to find out whether we’re still omitting commas from five-digit page numbers.

For more on years (including abbreviations like AD and CE), start with CMOS 9.36; for page numbers, see 9.63. For spelling out numbers versus using digits, start with 9.1.

Q. How should one handle mentions of questions, rather than direct expressions of them? As an example, consider this sentence: The question “What is dark energy?” has been a major focus of cosmology for decades. Should there be a comma after “question”? Should the question be set within quotation marks? Should it instead be set in italics? Is there some other format that Chicago would recommend?

A. When a question occurs within another sentence—but not as a form of direct discourse introduced with a verb like asked or wondered—it can usually be treated like any other noun. Whether to use a comma in your example will depend, then, on whether the question itself is restrictive or nonrestrictrive relative to the word question.

If you don’t know what that means, consider these two sentences (and see CMOS 6.30):

The artist Frida Kahlo has been a major focus of self-portraiture studies for decades.

The question What is dark energy? has been a major focus of cosmology for decades.

Just as “Frida Kahlo” is essential to the meaning of the word artist in the first sentence, “What is dark energy?” is essential to the meaning of the word question in the second. In other words, the name and the question are both restrictive, so no commas are needed in either sentence.

If the artist or question has already been introduced, or if either one is preceded by a limiting adjective like this (see also CMOS 5.72)—or if both are true—those same elements become nonrestrictive and are set off by commas. For example:

We were discussing a question that, to date, has no definitive answer. This question, What is dark energy?, has been a major focus of cosmology for decades.

Quotation marks are usually unnecessary for such questions unless you’re quoting someone or something directly. And though italics can be helpful, they aren’t usually necessary either. For the use of a comma following a question mark (which you could avoid in the example above by using dashes or parentheses instead), see CMOS 6.134. For commas with direct questions (with asked or the like), see 6.45.

Q. A paper includes the following references:

Tawiah, Vincent, Ernest Gyapong, and Muhammad Usman. 2024. “Returnee Directors and Green Innovation.” Journal of Business Research 174 (March): 114369.

Tawiah, Vincent, Ernest Gyapong, and Yan Wang. 2024. “Does Board Ethnic Diversity Affect IFRS Disclosures?” Journal of Accounting Literature, ahead of print, September 24.

Tawiah, Vincent, Reon Matemane, Babajide Oyewo, and Tesfaye T. Lemma. 2024. “Saving the Environment with Indigenous Directors: Evidence from Africa.” Business Strategy and the Environment 33 (3): 2445–61.

Tawiah, Vincent, Abdulrasheed Zakari, and Rafael Alvarado. 2024. “Effect of Corruption on Green Growth.” Environment, Development and Sustainability 26 (4): 10429–59.

Should I still cite the first two references in the text as first author, second author, et al. YEAR (e.g., Tawiah, Gyapong, et al. 2024), even though only one author is not mentioned and so “et al.” doesn’t seem appropriate?

A. It would be nice if et al. (a Latin abbreviation meaning “and others”) could be used to refer to just one person, but it’s plural, and there’s no suitable alternative abbreviation for the singular.

In your situation—where you are obligated to include more than one name in your parenthetical author-date text references to distinguish between different works published in the same year by the same first-listed author but with different coauthors (otherwise, “Tawiah et al.” would suffice)—you have no choice but to include all three authors when citing any of the three sources by exactly three authors.

But you can still use et al. for the source by four authors (the article in Business Strategy and the Environment), where it would stand in for the names of the third and fourth authors (Oyewo and Lemma):

(Tawiah, Gyapong, and Usman 2024)

(Tawiah, Gyapong, and Wang 2024)

(Tawiah, Zakari, and Alvarado 2024)

but

(Tawiah, Matemane, et al. 2024)

Note that you’d need to list all three authors for the first two examples no matter what—because the first two authors are the same for both. It’s the third example (with coauthors Zakari and Alvarado) that requires all three names simply because et al. must refer to more than one person.

For some additional considerations (including the option to use a short title to differentiate such sources in text references, which would allow you to cite “Tawiah et al.” for all four of your sources), see CMOS 13.123. For the article ID in place of page numbers in the “Returnee Directors” citation, see CMOS 14.71. For the meaning of “ahead of print” in the Accounting Literature example, see CMOS 14.75.

Q. When citing an endnote, should the page number be the page the note callout appears on or the page where the endnote is at the end of the book (24n5 vs. 385n5)?

A. Footnote or endnote, you’re citing the note itself, not its reference number in the text. For an endnote, the page number to cite is the one at the end of the book where the note can be found (or 385n5 in your example).

This does mean that readers who follow the citation to its source will need to track down the note reference in the text if they want to see the context for that note, but endnotes are almost always less user-friendly than footnotes (unless the notes are linked, as in an ebook).