Q. We are using the author-date form of citation. One author cited appears in the reference list with four items for a single year (Author 2003a, 2003b, 2003c, 2003d). However, in the last entry, the person is the editor, rather than the author, of the work. Thus, the entry is Author, J. Q., ed. 2003d. But this entry currently occurs after entries dated to 2004, 2005, and 2006. This makes the entry difficult to find, though the author clearly is attempting to follow the rule that “edited entries follow those of which the person cited is the author.” What would CMOS do?
A. Chicago no longer recommends putting edited works after authored ones (see CMOS 15.19), so this solves your problem. In any case, it’s not a good idea to force a rule for the sake of a rule. Rather, help the reader out by bending or breaking the rule.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I have an author listed in the bibliography. Below that entry will be one with the same author plus a second author. Should
I use a 3-em dash to represent the repeated name, or should I spell it out?
A. Spell it out. Use the 3-em dash when the author information is entirely the same.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Should I use footnotes to simply list the reference information or are they for adding additional information mainly?
A. Footnotes serve both purposes. Usually, notes that consist mainly of citations are collected at the back of the book (endnotes),
while notes that are more discursive might go at the bottom of the page (footnotes). Many books mix the two purposes, but
in every case the author and editor must decide whether readers (that is, buyers) would be put off by footnotes or prefer
them.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I am writing a paper on Chinese literature in English. I am having a lot of trouble in citing Chinese sources. Since I am familiar with both Chinese and English, I prefer to present pinyin as well as English translations. However, I am confused whether to use ( ) or [ ] and I am confused on the general rules.
A. If you are citing a Chinese book in a list of references and wish to add your own English translation of the title, put the English in square brackets [ ] immediately after the Pinyin title. (Chicago style uses sentence caps and roman type for the translation of the title.) If you are citing both a Chinese book and a published English translation of the book, cite the one you are quoting from first, then note the other one. Use a phrase like “Translated as . . .” or “Originally published as . . .” to connect the two citations. Published titles are italic. Please see CMOS 14.99 for examples. If you are citing the book and translation in the main text of your paper, follow the same guidelines but use parentheses instead of brackets.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I have been told it is not a good idea to document every sentence within a paper. But one of my professors does not accept
a single footnote at the end of each paragraph as a proper citation. My question is this: If I write a paraphrased paragraph
for a paper based on one source only, how many sentences in an average-sized paragraph are cited individually as opposed to
being cited only once at the end of the paragraph?
A. The idea is to provide a citation every time it’s needed, not to follow arbitrary rules about numbers
of note callouts or their location in a paragraph. You need a new note every time the source changes, and the callout should
be located where it makes the most sense—at the end of a clause or sentence, if possible. Each time
you use a different source (or a different page number in the same source), a new note is appropriate. If the contents of
an entire paragraph can be attributed to a single source, then a single note at the end of the paragraph is sufficient.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. In a footnote I have a quote that, in the original, itself has a footnote. The latter footnote (i.e., the original author’s footnote) is salient to the discussion, and I’d like to include it in my footnote. What are the mechanics to handle such a situation? Currently I have this:
1. Author (date: page) writes, “Body of quote [original author’s footnote #] ([original author’s footnote #] body of footnote).”
A. This seems more complicated than necessary. You could simplify by leaving out the note number, which conventionally would be left out in any case (see CMOS 13.7). After the close of the text quote, write “Smith adds in a note that . . .” If you like, reference the note number at the end of that quote or paraphrase, e.g., (2004, 25n16).
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I have been asked by my professor to cite in my reference list all newspaper articles that I have used. The articles do not have authors. They do include the date and all other information. What is the correct way to cite this? The manual does not go into detail on this area of citation.
A. Please see CMOS 14.199: “Unsigned newspaper articles or features are best dealt with in text or notes. But if a bibliography entry should be needed, the title of the newspaper stands in place of the author.” Example:
New York Times. “In Texas, Ad Heats Up Race for Governor.” July 30, 2002.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. How should I cite a work I’ve already cited in a previous chapter: in full each time I cite it or with
formal direction to the previous citation?
A. Either method is fine. You can cite a work in full the first time it appears in each chapter, or you can use short citations
for all but the first one in the book. The latter method works best if you include a bibliography, so readers don’t
have to rummage through the entire book to find the full citation. Or if you don’t have a bibliography,
you can refer the reader to the note where the full citation appeared: Miller, Quest, 81 (see chap. 1, n. 4).
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. If you have tables in your manuscript containing six or so columns of tabulations, do you in your text discussion of the
table go into detail about what calculation is in each column of the table? For instance, in the text, “Table
1 shows, in column 4, the sphere’s true volume percentage change from the initial 10-unit radius sphere.
Column 5 shows . . . Column 6 tabulates the . . .”
Or do you do a generic, nondescriptive text statement like “For changes in a sphere’s
radius of up to 10%, table 1 details the level of error introduced by . . .”
Do you leave it to the reader to figure out the details of each column?
A. This is not a matter of style, but of figuring out why you have included the table. Think about where your readers need to
focus in order to understand your points. If you are using a single column or cell of the table to support a specific point,
by all means refer to it. Likewise, if the entire table supports a general conclusion, say so. Tables are evidence, materials
that support your explanation or argument. If you aren’t clear in your own mind as to why your table
is there or how to use it, reconsider whether you need it at all.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. When an author refers to his own book, how should it be capitalized and/or punctuated? E.g., According to the list in Appendix C . . . ; in the Glossary . . . ; discussed more fully in Chapter 25 . . .