Citation, Documentation of Sources

Q. Bibliographical citations of books with more than two editors look weird to me. The following citation, at a glance, appears to have four editors, as there are four items separated by commas: Cypess, Rebecca, Beth L. Glixon, and Nathan Link, editors. Word, Image, and Song, Volume 1: Essays on Early Modern Italy. Rochester: University of Rochester Press, 2013. Is there a way to improve this citation and make it clear that there are three editors, Rebecca Cypess being just one person?

Q. When citing a book in a bibliography, endnotes, etc., one does not include the name of the library that holds the volume consulted. Why, then, must we continue to include the URL of books we’ve consulted online that have been scanned by Google Books, HathiTrust, or the Internet Archive, to name a few such providers? Isn’t the internet as common a place a researcher would go to find a book these days as is a library or bookstore? Why is it necessary any longer to give internet sources “credit” for “possessing” a copy of a book when physical holders have always gone “uncredited”?

Q. Hi there. I’m wondering if you can resolve what seems to me to be a contradiction in the Manual. I’ve got short-form notes and a bibliography that include names with lowercased particles (e.g., du). CMOS 8.5 says the particle is “always capitalized when beginning a sentence or a note.” But CMOS 14.21 says, “A bibliography entry starts with a capital letter unless the first word would normally be lowercased (as in a last name that begins with a lowercase particle; see 8.5).” Sorry if I’m missing something, but aren’t these two sections contradicting each other? Or are short-form notes and bibliography entries really supposed to treat such names differently?

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.

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?

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.

Q. How do I cite a YouTube video in Chicago style?

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!

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?

Q. How do I footnote a reference to an online dictionary definition (Oxford English) in a PowerPoint presentation please?