Q. I’m copyediting a book that’s using endnotes with no bibliography. For multiple
authors, should I use the rule in CMOS and list up to ten authors in the first endnote? What if each chapter in the book I’m copyediting is
written by a different author, and these authors differ in the number of authors they list in the endnotes? Does the copyeditor
then have a role in imposing consistency?
A. In note citations of works with four or more authors, Chicago recommends naming only one author and adding et al. to stand for the rest, but that’s assuming there’s a bibliography. If there isn’t
one, it’s up to the writer how many names to include. In a multiauthor work, the copyeditor should decide
(or ask) at the start whether chapters need to be consistent only within themselves or across the entire book.
Q. If a number of references are given in the same endnote, should they be given in any particular order (e.g., alphabetically)?
A. References are usually given in the order that they apply to the text or in order of importance. If neither is relevant,
then alphabetical (or chronological) order is fine.
Q. I am attempting to proofread and fix the style of the endnotes of a book on communications for a generally humanities audience.
My problem is that the author of the book is a lawyer and has cited many law review articles that he considers governed by
the Bluebook style. Should I use the general style for citing periodicals in the sixteenth edition of CMOS (paragraphs 14.170–217) for the legal articles? As it is, the humanities articles are in CMOS format and the law review articles are in Bluebook format. This hybrid style doesn’t seem acceptable to me. Please help.
A. I agree that only one style should prevail for journal articles. If the audience were primarily legal scholars, I would advocate
following Bluebook style for all citations, journal articles and otherwise; in this case Chicago style is preferable since the intended audience
is general. Following Chicago style will require a bit more research on the author’s part since Chicago
recommends that the page range of the entire article be provided whereas Bluebook requires only the first page of the article.
Q. Hi. I’m creating a handout for students that’s kind of a quick guide to simple
kinds of citations following CMOS and referring them to their copies of CMOS for more info. I’m having trouble finding your preference for television show citations. I can find
info on citing them within a text or for citing reviews, but how about citing the actual program in a bibliography?
A. Here goes:
Friends. Season 7, episode 7, “The One with Ross’s Library Book.” Directed by David Schwimmer and written by Scott Silveri. Aired November 16, 2000, on NBC.
You can also list under the name of the director. See CMOS, chapter 14, for more examples.
Q. I have a question that I hope you will answer for me. In an academic book, how does one cite a quote that is taken from a
book of quotations (such as Bartlett’s)? Does one cite the quote’s original source— Bartlett’s provides scant information about its quotes’ sources—does one cite Bartlett’s, which seems awkward to me, or are quotes found in books of quotations considered to be part of the public domain and, therefore,
not in need of citation? Also, are there different rules for whether the quote is placed above the chapter title (a chapter
epigraph) or part of the body of a chapter? I am working under a tight deadline and would, therefore, greatly appreciate a
prompt response, if possible.
A. In an epigraph, just the name of the author of the quotation is generally sufficient. Membership in Bartlett’s guarantees such status. Add the date, if it is interesting, and the work from which the quotation is drawn, if that seems
interesting as well. In text, you also need only credit the name of the speaker, but if you feel a reader might benefit from
knowing more, it is appropriate to cite the work as well in the bibliographic apparatus. You can cite Bartlett’s, like this:
13. From William Shakespeare, A Midsummer Night’s Dream. Quoted in Familiar Quotations: Being an Attempt to Trace to Their Sources Passages and Phrases in Common Use, by John Bartlett (Boston: Little, Brown, 1886), 44.
Or you can track down the original source in order to check accuracy and cite the full publication facts of that source. It’s
really a matter of which source you, as an author or an editor, feel would be more relevant given the context of the work
in question. But outside the familiar world of Bartlett’s, it’s usually best to avoid citing something “quoted in”
another work; always go to the original work if possible.
An epigraph generally goes after the chapter title and before the beginning of the text of the chapter (but before a leading
subhead, if there is one), but an innovative designer could conceivably depart from that rule with success.
Q. I have looked high and low for some reference to citing television ads in your manual, and have not found a single one. How
would one cite a television commercial as part of an article’s running text, and in the references section
as well?
A. There is no provision for citing television advertisements in The Chicago Manual of Style. TV ads are in a sense part of the public experience and a matter of historical record. Say you are describing the advertisement
for the Volkswagen Golf that features the Styx song “Mr. Roboto.” It is a piece
of popular media that you are describing and need not be cited—description suffices. It is not a matter
of leading a reader to a specific source that can be obtained from a public archive (though you might be able to find a copy
on YouTube). Should there be an occasion on which you did need to provide a reference citation, you could do something like
this:
Volkswagen. “Crazy Guy.” Television advertisement. Arnold Communications, Inc.,
directed by Phil Morrison, 2000.
But you would have to have that information (the ad won an ANDY, and information about it became readily available online,
from a variety of reputable sources).
Q. I am attempting to help someone out with their bibliography and I, of course, have received all the difficult entries. I
have a three-page document that is an Executive Summary; it is not a published work, nor does it have any “publisher”
information, but it does list authors. How would I cite this? Would I follow the rules for citing an unpublished, duplicated
piece?
A. I assume that an executive summary is a type of corporate report; pamphlets, corporate reports, brochures, and other freestanding
publications are treated essentially as books. Data on author and publisher may not fit the normal pattern, but sufficient
information should be given to identify the document. So,
Dean, James, and Brenda Starr. High- and Low-Density Lipoproteins. NIH Advisory Panel, Executive Summary, June 2001.
In other words, you should include the author, any title, the organization under whose auspices the summary has been written,
the fact that it is an executive summary, and the date. If something doesn’t seem to fit any parameters,
be descriptive and ask yourself if the citation would either lead the interested reader to the source or let the reader know
exactly who was responsible for what, and when.
Q. I’m in the process of finalizing my Ph.D. dissertation, and I’m struggling with
two minor stylistic issues: (1) How should I handle citations within a parenthesis when it begins with e.g.? Should the year
be enclosed in parentheses or not? That is, “. . . (e.g.,
Porter (1987))” or “(e.g., Porter 1987).” (2) Is there an
elegant way to refer to a page or section in the current document so that the cross-reference is not confused with an external
reference. For example, the text may read: “According to Porter (1987), strategy can be defined as.
. . . This definition is used in the current research (see also p. 49).”
This reference could be interpreted as page 49 in Porter (1987) or as page 49 in the dissertation.
A. If your citation is to the work and not to the author and secondarily to the work, then the correct form is (e.g., Porter
1987). If you were citing the author, that would change:
Many authors have discussed this point (e.g., Porter [1987]).
As for the cross-reference to your own work, try this: (see also p. 49 above).
Q. Perhaps you can help me. How do I format a second footnote for an article in an edited anthology (more than two editors),
when the anthology already has been cited fully in another footnote for a different article in the same anthology? Must I
write the complete citation for the anthology for every article contained within it?
A. Once the full facts of publication for the anthology have been presented, you may use the short form (N.B.: my example is
partly made up; I don’t have the anthology handy):
17. Emily Dickinson, “After Great Pain a Formal Feeling Comes,” in The Norton Anthology of American Literature, ed. Nina Baym (New York: Norton, 1998), 1:33–38.
24. James Russell Lowell, “To the Dandelion,” in Baym, Norton Anthology, 1:77.
For a discussion of short forms of titles, see CMOS 14.28.
Q. I have searched for the answer to this question but have not found it discussed in your text. I am writing a dissertation
in the social sciences. I cite to references in parentheses in the text in the format (Smith 1999) with full citations contained
in a bibliography. I sometimes cite to the same reference a few sentences later. I am wondering if I can use the abbreviation
(ibid.) instead of repeating the exact same citation (Smith 1999)?
A. Chicago considers an in-text parenthetical author-date citation to already be in a short form and therefore discourages “ibid.”
as a substitute. If you must use “ibid.,” just be careful that no intervening
sources creep into the text. It does mean “in the same place [as the last item cited],”
but it requires that the reader see or recall the last source, an inconvenience we feel outweighs the minor space gain.