Q. How do I cite a page or folio number if that number was incorrectly printed on the page—something that happens occasionally in early books? Page numbers might run 14, 15, 26, 17, 18. For the one after 15, should I use “26 [16]”?
A. Square brackets are indeed used in this way for editorial interpolations, but “26 [16]” might not be crystal clear to many readers. Instead, write something like “[16] (original page misnumbered as 26).”
[This answer relies on the 18th edition of CMOS (2024) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I have a prepublication edition (“Uncorrected Proof for Feedback Purposes”) of Mishkan Tefillah, a Reform Jewish prayer book. It is, of course, different in many aspects from the final published version. How do I cite this uncorrected proof? (I use full note and bibliography style.)
A. First, make sure your proofs don’t prohibit citing or (more commonly) quoting. Much can change between the proof stage and final publication, so it’s important to respect the publisher’s directions. Assuming it’s fine to cite the work, cite it as you would any book, with the use of forthcoming rather than a year of publication. Please see examples at CMOS 14.45 and 14.75.
[This answer relies on the 18th edition of CMOS (2024) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I’m editing an online wildlife correspondence course. Subject-matter specialists who have written the lessons sometimes cite web links that are now dead. How do I style a bibliography citation with a dead link? Often I can find a live link containing the article or information. Thank you!
A. There are two main ways to approach this task, so consult with the author or publisher to decide which approach to use. (1) You can update each link silently, or (2) you can leave the dead links but add “(no longer available at this address)” or whatever’s applicable after each link. A caveat: You should update a link only if the web page still contains the information referenced in the lesson.
[This answer relies on the 18th edition of CMOS (2024) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. In cases where a single short quotation stands completely on its own (such as in the front matter of a book or in a social media post), I generally see it attributed using a dash and the person’s name (“—Albert Einstein,” for example). Is this format accepted by Chicago, or is it strictly informal? Also, is it an em dash, en dash, or hyphen?
A. The use of an em dash with the source of an epigraph indeed fits with Chicago style. Please see CMOS 12.35 for an example.
[This answer relies on the 18th edition of CMOS (2024) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. If a book is not published yet but is under contract, with the manuscript in the copyediting process, and has a publication date and ISBN assigned by the publisher on their website, how is this referenced? Putting “forthcoming” in place of the year ignores the fact that a publication date has been set, and it also applies to books that are less far along, and “in press” seems premature. Is there some terminology between these two?
A. Knowing how often the pitfalls of publishing can delay a book project, Chicago prefers to recommend forthcoming. It’s safer to be vague than to publish a citation that turns out to be wrong. If the stage of publication is important to the topic under discussion, you can always explain in the text or a note rather than try to indicate it in the citation.
[This answer relies on the 18th edition of CMOS (2024) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I use a software called Zotero to cite my work in graduate school. Zotero has several options for CMOS citations, including (1) Author-Date, (2) Full Note with Bibliography, and (3) Note with Bibliography. Which one of these is the best for a thesis paper instructed to be per Chicago/Turabian?
A. They are all fine for a Chicago/Turabian paper. If your instructor didn’t express a preference, pick whichever one you like best. Usually notes-bibliography styles are used in the humanities, author-date in the sciences and social sciences.
[This answer relies on the 18th edition of CMOS (2024) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. In the author-date format, are multiple references divided by commas or semicolons?
A. Use semicolons to separate references by different authors. If there are also locators, put a comma between the year and locator. Multiple references to works by the same author are separated by a comma unless a page number intervenes (as in the example citing Wong below).
(Armstrong and Malacinski 1989; Beigl 1989; Pickett and White 1985)
(Wong 1999, 328; 2000, 475; García 1998, 67)
(Schonen et al. 2023, 2024)
[This answer relies on the 18th edition of CMOS (2024) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I’m working on an edited collection that includes many articles originally published in online sources. These articles often include live links that serve as citations, leading readers to a specific article or resource under discussion. In a traditional print publication, these items would almost certainly be cited in endnotes that we would then include in our volume. Following this logic, it seems that we should incorporate the citations in our print-only volume. Do you have any recommendations on how best to handle them? By creating an endnote structure not native to the original publication? Or through author-date citations, which would likely be even more disruptive but are appropriate for our book’s formatting?
A. It’s important to include the writers’ sources in your collection, and any of your suggestions would work. Book editors usually decide how to handle source citations based on the type of book, expectations and tolerances of the intended reader, production costs (e.g., page count), etc. It is not necessary to follow the endnote structure in the original publication, but be sure to include a note explaining your method.
[This answer relies on the 18th edition of CMOS (2024) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Do YouTube video blogs that are made by everyday people (i.e., not mainstream corporate companies) need to be cited in the bibliography? Or do they just need a note? If so, what is the style format?
A. Privately made videos are just as much copyrighted as those made by corporations, so provide a complete citation in the note. You can find citation formats for videos at the Chicago-Style Citation Quick Guide. Listing a video in your bibliography is optional. Consider how important it is in your paper and decide accordingly.
[This answer relies on the 18th edition of CMOS (2024) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Has Chicago completely eliminated the use of ibid., when quoting more than once from the same source?
A. Not at all. Although Chicago now prefers the use of a short citation (e.g., “Author, Short Title” plus a page number), ibid. remains an option for those who wish to use it and who are in a position to decide (if in doubt, check with your publisher). See CMOS 13.37; see also 12.77 (for ibid. with parenthetical citations in the text).
[This answer relies on the 18th edition of CMOS (2024) unless otherwise noted.]