Q. Hello, I was told by an editor that “footnotes should appear at the end of sentences, never in the middle.” This goes contrary to other style manuals, which state that the number should be as near as possible to whatever it refers to. Could you please tell me what your official policy regarding this issue is? The requirement of the editor simply seems illogical to me and I would like to have your view on this matter, since he said the journal in question was using your style manual. Thank you very much.
A. Chicago provides guidelines for placing note reference numbers at any appropriate point in the text—including in the middle of a sentence (see CMOS 14.26). These guidelines show where to put the number relative to punctuation marks. But they’re not meant to take the place of the house style for a journal or other publisher. If, for example, the International Journal of Middle East Studies, published by Cambridge University Press, follows Chicago style (it does, though it should consider updating to the 17th edition) but wants footnote reference numbers to appear only at the ends of sentences, that’s the journal’s prerogative. IJMES’s editors no doubt have their reasons for this preference; maybe they want to encourage authors to consolidate multiple references, or perhaps they find midsentence note numbers to be distracting. Our advice would be to read the publisher’s guidelines for authors and follow them to the letter.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. In my work I encounter many European authors who, in academic texts, insist on using “pp.” when subsequently using an “ff.” notation (writing, for instance, “pp. 173ff.”). Setting aside the advisability of using “ff.” as opposed to giving readers a specific page range, I feel quite certain that the abbreviation should be “p.” rather than “pp.” It does, after all, mean “and the following pages.” And one would never say “pages 173 and the following pages.” Yet I can’t find any explicit style-guide help to back me up here so as to silence the protests claiming that “pp.” is proper since multiple pages are being cited. Your thoughts?
A. Either choice is defensible, but we would side with your authors’ preference for “pp.”
The first eleven editions of the Manual (1906 through 1949) included a pair of examples that back up this usage (these examples are from the eleventh edition; the examples in the first ten editions included an equals sign after each opening parenthesis):
pp. 5 f. (page 5 and the following page)
pp. 5 ff. (page 5 and the following pages)
(Note the thin spaces between the numeral and “f.” or “ff.”—recommended in the first eleven editions and represented here with Unicode character number 2009; Chicago now omits that space.)
You’re right that “ff.” is typically interpreted as meaning “and the following pages,” but it’s Latin (it stands for a plural form of the word that survives in English as “folio”), and besides, it’s just a shorthand. If it helps, you can think of “pp. 173ff.” as equivalent to an indeterminate range expressed as “pp. 173–.”
CMOS 17 allows “ff.” in certain cases (though not in an index), but we discourage the singular “f.” because it’s always more helpful simply to include the following page (e.g., 173–74, not 173f.). See CMOS 14.149. And though CMOS no longer includes an example of these abbreviations with “pp.” (our primary recommendation omits “p.” and “pp.” with page numbers in source citations), we defer to the usage established by the earlier editions of the Manual.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Hi, I need to format an in-text citation for a book coauthored by the Archbishop Desmond Tutu and the Dalai Lama. I would normally write (Author, year, p.), but how do I handle these unusual names? Thanks.
A. Assuming you are citing The Book of Joy, the reference list entry would look like this (using author-date format):
Dalai Lama [Tenzin Gyatso] and Desmond Tutu. 2016. The Book of Joy: Lasting Happiness in a Changing World. With Douglas Abrams. New York: Avery.
“His Holiness the Dalai Lama” is the first-listed name on the title page, but you should cite the name under “Dalai Lama” (a descriptive name that is not inverted; see CMOS 14.80); however, you need to identify which Dalai Lama, and putting the fourteenth Dalai Lama’s religious name in square brackets accomplishes this (brackets signal an editorial addition). Spelling this name as it is commonly known in English will make it easy for readers to understand the reference, or if you prefer, you could record the name as Bstan-ʼdzin-rgya-mtsho, the transliterated form catalogued by the Library of Congress.
The name of the South African cleric, on the other hand, can be treated according to the usual convention for given names and surnames (see CMOS 14.76).
Finally, the name of coauthor Douglas Abrams is optional (see CMOS 14.105).
In-text references would refer simply to “(Dalai Lama and Tutu 2016),” with any page reference separated from the year by a comma. APA style would include a comma before the year and, unlike Chicago, add “p.” (or “pp.”) before a page number—as your question shows.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. How do I cite a YouTube video in Chicago style?
A. Most content on YouTube is created not by YouTube but by someone else, so the key to citing a YouTube video is to provide details for the item itself (by doing additional research if necessary). Then you can fill in the details related to YouTube (at the very least by including a URL). For example, you could cite the 2019 State of the City address by the mayor of New York City as follows:
Note:
1. Bill de Blasio, “Mayor de Blasio Delivers State of the City Address,” NYC Mayor’s Office, streamed live on January 10, 2019, YouTube video, 1:22:40, https://youtu.be/aZZYlpfZ-iA.
Bibliography:
de Blasio, Bill. “Mayor de Blasio Delivers State of the City Address.” NYC Mayor’s Office. Streamed live on January 10, 2019. YouTube video, 1:22:40. https://youtu.be/aZZYlpfZ-iA.
The details of the citation will vary depending on the type of source and the focus of your research. For more advice on citing multimedia content, including examples, see CMOS 14.261–68.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. In author-date references, for an in-text citation that includes two or more sources—e.g., (Doe 2008; Smith 2013)—would the authors’ names be alphabetized, or is it dependent on the order of references used in the work that the citation correlates to? Thank you!
A. Normally, you can follow either the order in which the material appears in the text or, if the citations all refer to the same material, the relative importance of the sources cited. Where neither of those criteria applies, prefer either alphabetical or chronological order (be consistent). See CMOS 15.30 for some additional considerations.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. JSTOR provides readers with what I would assume to be the correct way to cite articles. However, in the case of an article that includes double quotation marks in the title, these are retained in JSTOR’s “Chicago” citation:
KORNBLUTH, GENEVRA. "Carolingian Engraved Gems: "Golden Rome Is Reborn"?" Studies in the History of Art 54 (1997): 44-61. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42622184.
But isn’t this wrong?
A. JSTOR, like most bibliographic databases, generates its citations automatically, so it’s susceptible to certain types of errors. You’ve spotted a common one. You’d also want to change the author’s name to upper- and lowercase. And a copyeditor would apply smart quotation marks, plus an en dash in the page range. The corrected citation would look like this:
Kornbluth, Genevra. “Carolingian Engraved Gems: ‘Golden Rome Is Reborn’?” Studies in the History of Art 54 (1997): 44–61. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42622184.
But wait. If you dig into this example further, you’ll see that even though it’s from JSTOR (originally an abbreviation for “Journal Storage”), this article isn’t an article at all. In fact, it’s a chapter in a book. What looks like a journal title in JSTOR’s citation is actually the title of a book series. So the original citation needs more than just a few cosmetic changes. Here’s what it would look like, properly revised (see CMOS 14.107 and 14.123):
Kornbluth, Genevra. “Carolingian Engraved Gems: ‘Golden Rome Is Reborn’?” In Engraved Gems: Survivals and Revivals, edited by Clifford Malcolm Brown, 44–61. Studies in the History of Art 54. Washington, DC: National Gallery of Art, 1997. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42622184.
The book also happens to be the thirty-second volume in a subseries of published symposia, but if that’s relevant the details could be mentioned in the text. And there’s more: the book was distributed by the University Press of New England, an optional detail that can be added to the citation (see CMOS 14.141).
All of this can be determined by careful attention to the source as a whole—in this case, starting with the title page of the book. To its credit, JSTOR makes all of this context available, for those who are willing to look for it.
The moral of this story: Canned citations are a great convenience, but they should always be double-checked against the sources themselves. You never know what you might find.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. How do I footnote a reference to an online dictionary definition (Oxford English) in a PowerPoint presentation please?
A. In a presentation, it’s best not to distract your audience with a lot of bibliographic data (unless the point is to dissect a source citation). Instead, simply mention the source in your talk or include a brief attribution somewhere on the slide.
Brexit, n. The (proposed) withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union, and the political process associated with it. Sometimes used specifically with reference to the referendum held in the UK on 23 June 2016, in which a majority of voters favoured withdrawal from the EU.
—Oxford English Dictionary
It’s always a good idea also to include a final slide (or slides) that list sources in full. There you can include an expanded citation, shown here in the style of an unnumbered note:
OED Online, s.v. “Brexit, n.,” accessed May 2, 2019, http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/54763375.
You don’t have to discuss this final slide (you don’t even have to show it), but it serves as a detailed record that documents your research and stays with your presentation.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I’m a Spanish–English translator, mostly in the arts. Citations in Spanish often include the place of publication of a journal. This is not mentioned in the Manual (as far as I can see). Any thoughts on this?
A. According to CMOS 14.182, the place or institution where a journal is published may be added if the journal might be confused with a similar title, or if the title might be unfamiliar to readers. You could omit this information then (even if it occurs in the original citation) for titles that are well known (or easy to locate online). Otherwise it may be retained in parentheses, following the title of the journal. The following example includes the name of the university that publishes the journal:
Palacios Sanz, José Ignacio. “Evolución, espacios y contenidos del archivo y de la librería musical de la catedral de Burgo de Osma.” Anuario de Historia de la Iglesia (Universidad de Navarra) 27 (2018): 297–323.
The Palacios Sanz article conveniently includes an English-language title and abstract, so you could instead present the citation as follows (see also CMOS 14.99):
Palacios Sanz, José Ignacio. “Development, Spaces and Contents of the Archive and Music Library of the Cathedral of Burgo de Osma.” [In Spanish.] Anuario de Historia de la Iglesia (University of Navarre) 27 (2018): 297–323.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Hi, I was just wondering, how do you format the citation for a translated work if the name of the translator is not known?
A. For a book, you could adapt the usual format for translated titles (see CMOS 14.104), substituting information about the translation for the translator’s name. The fact that the name of the translator is not known could be added in square brackets. (Adapt as needed for other types of sources.)
Last Name, First Name. Title of Book in English. Translated from the Russian [translator unknown]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1972.
The definite article in “Translated from the Russian” is conventional (it implies “from the Russian edition” or “from the Russian text”). Some editors will choose to omit it.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. In the less-than-ideal situation of notes without a final bibliography, when citing a specific page reference in a journal article, should the full page range of the article be given in addition to the particular page, and if so, how? Thank you!
A. Good question! Usually you don’t have to include the page range for the article in addition to a specific page reference, even if the note is not supplemented by a fuller reference elsewhere. A page range in a bibliography entry helps readers locate the article absent any specific locator; a specific page reference in a note serves that purpose also (in that way doing double duty). But if you had to list both for some reason, the following format should work:
1. Susan Satterfield, “Livy and the Pax Deum,” Classical Philology 111, no. 2 (April 2016): 165–76, 170.
Readers consulting the source will figure out soon enough that the page range applies to the article as a whole. But for good measure you could add a comment at the end of the first such note: “References to journal articles cite the page range for the article followed by a specific page reference, if any.”
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]