Q. Very wealthy event sponsor Thurston Quagmire III insists on presenting his name to the public as Thurston Quagmire, III—no doubt because his letterhead and business card have long contained the error. Since throwing the book at him doesn’t help, do you have any advice on talking him out of the comma? (Okay, what I’d really like is a cathartic, subversive response that I can keep to myself whilst I lower our standards.)
A. If other names on the list are so encumbered, then copyediting for consistency is the editor’s prerogative. And if house style takes out the comma, it needn’t suggest that Thursty’s business cards are wrong. It’s just a style. But evidently this moneyman is allowed to micromanage, and if style books don’t impress him, there’s nothing CMOS can say about it. Wealth has its privileges! Perhaps you can add a comma before each “Jr.” in the list as well, and take comfort in the parallel.
[This answer relies on the 18th edition of CMOS (2024) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. In a scientific book the source of some information is cited as an abbreviation for the name of the organization. For example,
“Weather data is taken from WMO 1990.” WMO stands for World Meteorological Organization.
In the literature cited, is WMO placed alphabetically according to WMO or according to World? That is, before or after an
entry by Wood?
A. If the reference list entry begins with WMO (World Meteorological Organization), it comes before Wood; if it begins with
World Meteorological Organization (WMO), it comes after Wood. The way it appears in the list should match the way it’s
cited in the text and notes.
[This answer relies on the 18th edition of CMOS (2024) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I edit medical textbooks in which series of closely related abbreviations are used often. For example, a chapter might discuss interleukins 1, 2, 3, and 4, abbreviated IL-1, IL-2, IL-3, IL-4. How would I introduce the abbreviation IL (for “interleukin”) into the following sentence: “Local osteolytic hypercalcemia is caused by locally produced osteoclast-activating cytokines, including interleukin 1, interleukin 6, and interleukin 8.”
A. You could write, “Local osteolytic hypercalcemia is caused by locally produced osteoclast-activating cytokines, including interleukin 1 (IL-1), IL-6, and IL-8.”
[This answer relies on the 18th edition of CMOS (2024) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I have translated a German-language publication and am prepared to publish. But at the last minute I face a challenge from the author. In her work she used the term “Erneuerungsbewegung” (Renewal Movement) extensively. She consistently placed the German term within quotation marks in her work. I am now requested to do the same with “Renewal Movement.” Her explanation is that “Erneuerungsbewegung” is a self-designated, political term. Is her request valid?
A. If the Renewal Movement is an official organization (with headquarters, officers, letterhead), then quotation marks are overkill and would almost certainly be removed by a copyeditor. On the other hand, if the movement is an unofficial one and the designation inaccurate or tongue-in-cheek or in some other way deserving of scare quotes, then quotation marks are appropriate, perhaps without the caps. Repeated use of optional quotation marks is distracting in a text, so if you can work with the author to find a way to refer to this movement in a way that doesn’t require quoting it, that would be best.
[This answer relies on the 18th edition of CMOS (2024) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. When we first use an acronym or initialism like FMCSA we put it in parentheses after the spelled-out version. If the spelled-out version is possessive, does the acronym/initialism need to be possessive too? Example: the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s (FMCSA’s) new rule or the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s (FMCSA) new rule?
A. Either of those is just too awkward. Reword the sentence to avoid the possessive: the new rule issued by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). See CMOS 7.17.
[This answer relies on the 18th edition of CMOS (2024) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Which is correct (or are both correct): the Office of Capital Markets (OCM) or the Office of Capital Markets (“OCM”)? The second just doesn’t seem right to me, but my boss keeps correcting my work by changing it to that.
A. The quotation marks are unconventional, and they aren’t Chicago style (see CMOS 10.3), but if your boss really, really wants them, it probably won’t kill you to use them.
[This answer relies on the 18th edition of CMOS (2024) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I know there are abbreviations such as n.p. and n.d. indicating missing info about the publisher and year of publication. Is there any abbreviation indicating that the name of
a translator of a particular book is missing?
A. How about t.n.i.m. (translator name is missing)? Maybe not. Try “Translator unknown” or “Unknown
translator” or any other wording that makes sense to you.
[This answer relies on the 18th edition of CMOS (2024) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. My significant other and I have a disagreement: He maintains that in referring to a roomful of nurses, we may say “a roomful of R.N.” on the grounds that we do not need to pluralize R.N. as R.N.s, although he does concede that one would not say “a roomful of nurse.” (“Room full” perhaps irrationally connotes to me a more ominous density of nurses than “roomful.”) We have been arguing about this for going-on ten years and would like to settle the question in order to move on to some new dispute.
A. To my ear, a roomful of R.N. sounds far more ominous than a roomful of RNs. But as you can see, Chicago style regularly pluralizes abbreviations and skips the pesky periods: “a roomful [or room full] of RNs.” Maybe you can argue about the periods from now on.
[This answer relies on the 18th edition of CMOS (2024) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I’m wondering about the ampersand versus and in journal titles. There are two examples where past editions of Chicago used and for a journal whose title online has an ampersand (Past and Present; Trends in Ecology and Evolution). Is it fair to extrapolate from these examples that Chicago would recommend replacing the ampersand in citations of journals?
A. If the ampersand is on the journal’s cover (or cover image) and elsewhere at the journal publisher’s website (e.g., an About page or the like), then you can safely retain the ampersand. If there’s any doubt about the journal title, however (perhaps a particular journal is inconsistent in its usage over the years), use and. See also CMOS 13.90 (for some permissible changes to titles of works; changing an ampersand to and is among the permissible changes).
[This answer relies on the 18th edition of CMOS (2024) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I am in the process of editing and updating a publication my department produces. Before reprinting, we must get approval
from our funders, and they have requested we remove all the contractions because it is a formal publication with a safety
message they want to see firmly reinforced. The original creator of the publication argues that we should keep the contractions
because the intended audience is children, who have a wide variety of literacy abilities. He believes it will be off-putting
to children if the style is too formal, and that a more conversational style is more likely to resonate with this particular
audience. What do you suggest? Are there any guidelines on exceptions to the general rule of avoiding contractions in formal
writing?
A. A complete avoidance of contractions is common only in the most formal writing (think wedding invitations, or speeches before
the queen). Even scholarly books freely use contractions in sentences that would sound stuffy and pompous otherwise. Your
funders have a point in that it’s traditional to get attention in safety matters by means of a firm
“Do not,” but the writer’s approach merits serious consideration.
If there is any room for compromise, the best solution might be a conversational tone that maintains uncontracted phrases
in the most important messages.
[This answer relies on the 18th edition of CMOS (2024) unless otherwise noted.]