Q. Invariably, when I’m reading historical text, I want to follow a footnote number to its note. In most cases, these are grouped at the end of the book by chapter, each set of notes beginning with 1. I have to go back to the beginning of the chapter to find out what chapter I’m currently reading, then go to the back of the book, find that chapter’s listing of notes, and hunt for my number. The system cries out for a more reader-friendly method.
All notes should be numbered consecutively and then grouped by chapter in the back. This way, I could simply go to the back and look up my note number. And, if I was just interested in that chapter’s notes, they would all be together. It would be a one-step look-up—not the three-step method explained above. Footnote numbers are merely pointers: Who really cares how high they go, if they work simply and efficiently?
A. Chicago books normally address the issue in a couple of ways. First, the running head on the left-hand page in the text shows the chapter number; second, the running heads in the notes section consist of “Notes to Pages 000–000.”
It used to be time-consuming to renumber notes if any were added or deleted during editing (which they invariably are). It saved a lot of time and trouble to renumber only one chapter’s notes instead of all the notes to the end of the book. It is still the case that in books where an author refers to note numbers explicitly (“see above, n. 8”; “see below, n. 42”), automatic renumbering does not include such references, leaving errors. (We have yet to receive a MS where the author linked such references electronically.)
Another reason for numbering chapters individually is that chapters are sometimes disseminated (even printed) as separate units, especially in volumes where each chapter is by a different author. In that case, beginning a chapter with a high note number is inelegant and possibly confusing. And in scholarly books like the ones we publish, it’s not unusual to have more than a thousand notes.1,297 (How elegant is that?)1,298
It’s not that there’s never a case for numbering notes straight through; occasionally we do it that way. But it’s a trade-off of conveniences, and for now, we feel that our current system is optimal.
[This answer relies on the 18th edition of CMOS (2024) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I’m writing an essay based upon an early explorer’s daily journal and quote extensively from it—do I need to cite it every single time, or is there a way to just cite it once at the beginning and it will be understood that subsequent quotes are from the same source?
A. Luckily, you have the power to make it understood! For instance, you can write “All references to X’s journal are to this edition.” Citation styles aren’t meant to burden writers and readers with endless busywork. Rather, they’re a tool for conveying information accurately and concisely and consistently. When writing notes and bibliographies, try not to think “Aargh—do I have to follow all these rules?” but “How can I use these tools to support my point?”
[This answer relies on the 18th edition of CMOS (2024) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Can ibid. be used for parenthetical citations? If so, what is the precise format (e.g., “ibid. 32” or “ibid, p. 32”)? If not, how can one simplify the citation when it appears multiple times in the same paragraph?
A. Ibid. is fine in parenthetical citations (ibid., 32), and as long as no other source is referred to, you can continue to cite by page number alone (43). Please see CMOS 12.77 and 12.78 for details and examples.
[This answer relies on the 18th edition of CMOS (2024) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I have read in your style guide that it is incorrect to have more than one footnote number attached to a piece of text (e.g., piece of text2, 3, 4) so that footnotes 2, 3, and 4 all contain one citation each. Instead should all three citations be included under one footnote number, and that footnote number be attached to the piece of text?
A. That’s right. You can put as many citations as you want into a single note. Use as many as it takes to cite all your sources for that piece of text.
[This answer relies on the 18th edition of CMOS (2024) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. My question concerns line spacing in footnotes and endnotes in student papers. CMOS is clear that manuscripts submitted for publication should be double-spaced throughout to allow for copyediting, but I can’t see any specific instructions about how to space notes in papers submitted for coursework. Searching has revealed some academic quick guides (based on Chicago) that say to “single-space footnotes and bibliographies, leaving a blank line between entries,” which is the format that I believe to be correct. Is it?
A. Sort of. It’s important to understand that in matters like this the “correct” style is the one required by your teacher or thesis committee or by whatever style guide you have chosen to follow. That said, the quick guides you found are probably following Kate L. Turabian’s Manual for Writers of Research Papers, Theses, and Dissertations, which is a standard student reference. (Turabian is based on Chicago style. CMOS is aimed more at scholars who are preparing journal articles and book manuscripts for publication.) Turabian is available in all large bookstores and many school libraries.
[This answer relies on the 18th edition of CMOS (2024) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Apologies if this is answered somewhere in the Manual; I don’t see it in the section under Place of Publication. My question: When the place of publication no longer exists, because the city has been renamed or has been absorbed into a larger municipality, how should we cite the place of publication? (Similarly, for books that indicate an alternate English version of the city name, should we use the city name as given, or the more modern/contemporary spelling—e.g., Peking vs. Beijing, Canton vs. Guangzhou, Bombay vs. Mumbai)?
A. Cite the city as recorded in the book. You are documenting a historical fact of publication; the subsequent history of that city or variations of its name are irrelevant. Of course, it’s always an option to annotate a citation with information you think readers need or would appreciate. Please see figure 13.10 for an annotation to a bibliography entry. (Note that CMOS no longer requires citing a place of publication for most books. See paragraph 14.30 in the 18th edition.)
[This answer relies on the 18th edition of CMOS (2024) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. What is the correct way to write an endnote where the author has used a quote from a letter that appears in a volume of letters by someone else, and it appears as one of the book’s appendixes? The book is Delius: A Life in Letters, 1862–1908. The editor is Lionel Carley. The letter quoted by the author of the essay I’m editing is from Jelka Delius, Frederick’s wife. I’ve looked in chapter 14 of CMOS, but can’t find anything that quite matches this. The author has put this:
“Jelka Delius: Memories of Frederick Delius,” appendix 7 in Lionel Carley, ed., Delius: A Life in Letters, 1862–1908, vol. 1 (Scolar Press, 1983), 408–15.
Is this correct? Should it be
Jelka Delius, “Memories of Frederick Delius,” in . . . ?
I hope I don’t get scolded for submitting a silly query.
A. Your query is certainly not silly! A complex citation calls for thoughtful formatting. The author’s version indicates that the book has an appendix titled “Jelka Delius: Memories of Frederick Delius.” Your version would suggest something different: that the book has an appendix titled “Memories of Frederick Delius” that was written by Jelka Delius. Unless you have the book in front of you to confirm that you are right, you should leave this as the author wrote it.
There is danger in forcing citations into a set style regardless of their meaning. The goals are rather to convey the sources accurately and to tidy the punctuation and styling as much as you can without doing any damage. In Chicago style, your citation would look like this:
“Jelka Delius: Memories of Frederick Delius,” appendix 7 in Delius: A Life in Letters, 1862–1908, ed. Lionel Carley (Scolar Press, 1983), 1:408–15.
[This answer relies on the 18th edition of CMOS (2024) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. An author wrote the following sentence: “Indeed, there has been extraordinary growth in the field, with the number of publications discussing epigenetics growing from approximately 100 in 1992 to well over 18,000 in the last year.” The citation is to the Google Scholar website. We were unsure what to do with this. Citing the website itself seemed odd, but he did get his information there. How would you handle this?
A. Since Google Scholar is not a definitive or authoritative source for statistics, the author should be asked to qualify the statement considerably in the text or in a note. For instance, he might write, “There has been extraordinary growth in the field: A search using the keyword epigenetics at Google Scholar turned up approximately 100 publications discussing epigenetics in 1992 as compared to well over 18,000 in the last year.”
[This answer relies on the 18th edition of CMOS (2024) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. How would you cite Aquinas’s Summa Theologica, Question 65, Article 4? Thank you.
A. If you are using Chicago style, follow the form at CMOS 14.143 (“Identifying numbers in classical references”):
Aquinas, Summa Theologica 1.65.4.
Note that you need a part number as well as a question and article number.
[This answer relies on the 18th edition of CMOS (2024) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. We publish books in the water and mining industries. Authors list many references, and we’re finding that in-text citations are becoming more and more excessive. For example, one simple sentence lists seven sources, which seems unreasonable. One chapter is 158 pages long, of which 49 pages are references. Do publishers set some kind of limits on the quantity of citations? Of course it is necessary to avoid plagiarism, but 49 pages of citations seems to be too much! How would you suggest we address this with our authors?
A. It’s the job of the acquiring editor to assess the source citations in a book or article (or send the manuscript out to experts who can assess them), and if they are excessive, it’s his or her job to work with the writer to bring them under control. Our own books vary dramatically, ranging from almost no notes or bibliography entries to tons of them. It wouldn’t be right to set a limit, however, because writers must be free to document their work fully. Unless you’re publishing books with no oversight or development, someone must be in charge of judging the quality of each book, and this person should decide whether the source citations are really necessary.
[This answer relies on the 18th edition of CMOS (2024) unless otherwise noted.]