Q. In an essay, an author cited a report by an organization that has, since that report, changed its name, and later the author cited a second report written and published by the organization under its new name. Should the entries in References be under two different names, or both under the new name, perhaps with the first including a note such as, “Formerly . . .”?
A. The author should cite each report under the name that appears on the report. Annotating the new name with “Formerly . . .” is a good idea. Add blind entries in the reference list, if necessary:
New Name. See also Old Name
Old Name. See also New Name
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Chicago is very clear on the styling of editor- or author-translated titles in notes, but the examples provided are all books with italicized titles. In the case of a paper where the foreign title is enclosed in double quotes, is the bracketed translation placed before or after the closing quotes?
A. A translation would be placed within the quotation marks only if it were actually part of the title. You can find examples of bracketed translations of titles in quotation marks at CMOS 14.99.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Hello. I’m organizing a bibliography with multiple sources from the same author, including several introductions she’s written. Would all the introductions be alphabetized under I for Introduction?
A. Yes, and then all the introductions should be sorted into alphabetical order by book or article title. See CMOS 14.110 for how to style a bibliography entry for a book introduction.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I’m editing a dissertation that quotes letters and interviews and other private documents. I understand that authors’ names in the bibliography do not include clerical titles such as Father, Bishop, and Archbishop. Does that apply to footnotes as well? And should the clerical titles be omitted for the recipients of the letters? Given that the dissertation concerns all manner of ecclesiastical matters, it includes many references to clergy at all levels of the hierarchy.
A. You were right to inquire! In scholarship, it’s much more important to include information that is relevant to the work than to follow a style guide’s preferences. Style must accommodate the work, not the other way around. As you suspect, in a dissertation concerning ecclesiastical matters, the titles of people can be very important, indicating their place in the clerical hierarchy, their manners, their viewpoints, or their power relative to the addressee. If the writer included them, they should not be removed without consultation, and the writer’s wish to keep them should take precedence over a style preference.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I am writing a long research paper, and in almost every page the footnotes take up nearly half the page. Most of my sources have URLs with them; am I allowed to take out all of the URLs in the footnotes if they are included in my bibliography?
A. You should ask your instructor what’s allowed, but as far as Chicago is concerned, footnotes may consist of short citations (author, short title, page number) when there’s a bibliography to provide full citations. Please see CMOS 14.23.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Many online journals are switching from continuous pagination of their articles to assigning each article a number. I’m working with a company that wants to incorporate these article numbers in their citations. Where would the article number go in the citation?
A. Since CMOS is silent on this, it’s up to you, but logic would suggest that article numbers come after volume numbers.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I am editing a paper and changing the citations into Chicago style. The sentence in question reads: “In terms of the transition from a sociology of labour, there has been enough uptake to allow for such assessments (see Lier 2007; Castree 2007; Coe and Lier 2011; Rutherford 2010; and Coe 2013 for a more recent review).” How would I cite this in Chicago?
A. This is your lucky day: they are already in Chicago style! Please see CMOS 15.30 (“Multiple text references”) for a similar example.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I’m trying to write a footnote for a book that has been revised and enlarged. How do I cite the reviser? This is what the author has currently provided: James Boswell, Life of Johnson, ed. George Birkbeck Hill, revised by L. F. Powell, rev. ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1934–64), 2:365. I feel that if I include Powell it should be abbreviated somehow—“rev. by” or something. Should I treat him like an editor instead?
A. Yes, you can change “revised by” to ed. or rev. (not rev. by) to match the ed. in front of George Hill’s name. And it would make sense to place the fact of its being a revised edition (rev. ed.) before the name of the revision editor so that the phrases together mean “the revised edition was edited by L. F. Powell”: James Boswell, Life of Johnson, ed. George Birkbeck Hill, rev. ed., ed. L. F. Powell . . .
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I am citing a letter from a volume of documents that was once part of a manuscript collection at an archive. I have a photocopy of the letter, made twenty-five years ago when the volume was at the archive, but the volume has since been stolen. How do I cite the letter?
A. You could cite the document and add “The volume has since been lost” or “No longer available.” Be sure to add the word photocopy to your citation (see CMOS 14.218). You don’t want readers to think you’re the perp who took the original!
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. In my footnotes, I want to cite something as well as explain what it is I have cited, because I do not want to insert the info in the body of my paragraph. How do I do this? Does the citation go first or the explanation?
A. Put your citation first and the explanation after. (When an explanation comes first in a note, a citation after it might appear to be in support of the explanation rather than in support of something in the text.)
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]