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!
A. Normally, you can follow either the order in which the material appears in the text or, if the citations all refer to the same material, the relative importance of the sources cited. Where neither of those criteria applies, prefer either alphabetical or chronological order (be consistent). See CMOS 15.30 for some additional considerations.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
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?
A. JSTOR, like most bibliographic databases, generates its citations automatically, so it’s susceptible to certain types of errors. You’ve spotted a common one. You’d also want to change the author’s name to upper- and lowercase. And a copyeditor would apply smart quotation marks, plus an en dash in the page range. The corrected citation would look like this:
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 wait. If you dig into this example further, you’ll see that even though it’s from JSTOR (originally an abbreviation for “Journal Storage”), this article isn’t an article at all. In fact, it’s a chapter in a book. What looks like a journal title in JSTOR’s citation is actually the title of a book series. So the original citation needs more than just a few cosmetic changes. Here’s what it would look like, properly revised (see CMOS 14.107 and 14.123):
Kornbluth, Genevra. “Carolingian Engraved Gems: ‘Golden Rome Is Reborn’?” In Engraved Gems: Survivals and Revivals, edited by Clifford Malcolm Brown, 44–61. Studies in the History of Art 54. Washington, DC: National Gallery of Art, 1997. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42622184.
The book also happens to be the thirty-second volume in a subseries of published symposia, but if that’s relevant the details could be mentioned in the text. And there’s more: the book was distributed by the University Press of New England, an optional detail that can be added to the citation (see CMOS 14.141).
All of this can be determined by careful attention to the source as a whole—in this case, starting with the title page of the book. To its credit, JSTOR makes all of this context available, for those who are willing to look for it.
The moral of this story: Canned citations are a great convenience, but they should always be double-checked against the sources themselves. You never know what you might find.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. How do I footnote a reference to an online dictionary definition (Oxford English) in a PowerPoint presentation please?
A. In a presentation, it’s best not to distract your audience with a lot of bibliographic data (unless the point is to dissect a source citation). Instead, simply mention the source in your talk or include a brief attribution somewhere on the slide.
Brexit, n. The (proposed) withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union, and the political process associated with it. Sometimes used specifically with reference to the referendum held in the UK on 23 June 2016, in which a majority of voters favoured withdrawal from the EU.
—Oxford English Dictionary
It’s always a good idea also to include a final slide (or slides) that list sources in full. There you can include an expanded citation, shown here in the style of an unnumbered note:
OED Online, s.v. “Brexit, n.,” accessed May 2, 2019, http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/54763375.
You don’t have to discuss this final slide (you don’t even have to show it), but it serves as a detailed record that documents your research and stays with your presentation.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I’m a Spanish–English translator, mostly in the arts. Citations in Spanish often include the place of publication of a journal. This is not mentioned in the Manual (as far as I can see). Any thoughts on this?
A. According to CMOS 14.182, the place or institution where a journal is published may be added if the journal might be confused with a similar title, or if the title might be unfamiliar to readers. You could omit this information then (even if it occurs in the original citation) for titles that are well known (or easy to locate online). Otherwise it may be retained in parentheses, following the title of the journal. The following example includes the name of the university that publishes the journal:
Palacios Sanz, José Ignacio. “Evolución, espacios y contenidos del archivo y de la librería musical de la catedral de Burgo de Osma.” Anuario de Historia de la Iglesia (Universidad de Navarra) 27 (2018): 297–323.
The Palacios Sanz article conveniently includes an English-language title and abstract, so you could instead present the citation as follows (see also CMOS 14.99):
Palacios Sanz, José Ignacio. “Development, Spaces and Contents of the Archive and Music Library of the Cathedral of Burgo de Osma.” [In Spanish.] Anuario de Historia de la Iglesia (University of Navarre) 27 (2018): 297–323.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Hi, I was just wondering, how do you format the citation for a translated work if the name of the translator is not known?
A. For a book, you could adapt the usual format for translated titles (see CMOS 14.104), substituting information about the translation for the translator’s name. The fact that the name of the translator is not known could be added in square brackets. (Adapt as needed for other types of sources.)
Last Name, First Name. Title of Book in English. Translated from the Russian [translator unknown]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1972.
The definite article in “Translated from the Russian” is conventional (it implies “from the Russian edition” or “from the Russian text”). Some editors will choose to omit it.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. In the less-than-ideal situation of notes without a final bibliography, when citing a specific page reference in a journal article, should the full page range of the article be given in addition to the particular page, and if so, how? Thank you!
A. Good question! Usually you don’t have to include the page range for the article in addition to a specific page reference, even if the note is not supplemented by a fuller reference elsewhere. A page range in a bibliography entry helps readers locate the article absent any specific locator; a specific page reference in a note serves that purpose also (in that way doing double duty). But if you had to list both for some reason, the following format should work:
1. Susan Satterfield, “Livy and the Pax Deum,” Classical Philology 111, no. 2 (April 2016): 165–76, 170.
Readers consulting the source will figure out soon enough that the page range applies to the article as a whole. But for good measure you could add a comment at the end of the first such note: “References to journal articles cite the page range for the article followed by a specific page reference, if any.”
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Hello. I am writing an essay for history in Chicago style, and when I state a fact I have been putting the number of the citation in parentheses after I have stated it. Is this correct? Example: Abe Lincoln became president in 1861. (5) Or do I need to put it as an exponent following the text?
A. Some citation systems do use parentheses like that to refer to a numbered list of sources, but Chicago style is to use a superscript number that refers to an endnote or footnote containing a citation. Here’s the Turabian Tip Sheet that shows how it looks with footnotes. Please see the “For Students” page at CMOS Shop Talk for answers to many questions on writing a paper and citing sources (scroll to “Chicago Style Basics”).
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I write and edit reports for an environmental firm, and we frequently cite publications that are published by government organizations such as the Environmental Protection Agency. These publications almost always include the authors’ names. We use the author-date system for citations. When referring to EPA publications in the text of a report, I typically word the text such that both EPA and the correct author-date text citation are mentioned (e.g., “As recommended by EPA guidance [Puls and Barcelona 1996], sampling . . .”). The project manager for one of the reports I’m working on has requested that we use the publishing organization name (or acronym) instead of the authors’ names in the in-text citations (e.g., use “EPA 1996” instead of “Puls and Barcelona 1996”) and then use a cross-reference in the references section to point to the correct citation based on the authors’ names. Is this appropriate? Her reasoning is that “EPA 1996” will be more recognizable to the reader than the authors’ names. I could not find a similar question in the Q&A, but if I missed one, please let me know!
A. Your manager’s system is a bit cruel, sending readers on a two-hop trip to the correct reference, in service of a spurious goal, since readers don’t normally need the names in author-date citations to be “recognizable.” Although CMOS allows an organization to serve as author when there is no author (see 15.37), when there are actual authors, it’s right to cite them.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I was wondering: in an academic book is there a reason to put something in a bibliography and not in an endnote? If there is a reason, what is it? What references go in the endnotes then? Is a bibliography needed?
A. A bibliography is optional if the endnotes contain full citations. But some writers use a bibliography to include materials used in researching the document whether they are cited in the notes or not. It can also include suggested readings. You can find answers to related questions at the CMOS Shop Talk blog; scroll down to “Chicago Style Basics.”
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I am trying to document a long-standing journal which has undergone numerous title changes and publication sites. What title should I use for the multiple journal entries in the bibliography: the current title for all the entries or the title that was in use at the time of the issue publication? I have verified with the publisher that all the title variations (and differing places of publication) do indeed belong to the same journal. The changes are not extreme: no subtitle to a rather generic title or various subtitles attached to the generic main title.
A. List the journal titles as they were at the time of publication, and explain the variation in a headnote or footnote or annotation to the entries. The city of publication is not normally part of a journal citation, so you needn’t worry about that.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]