Q. In running text, is it necessary to include a website’s domain extension? “The
video on YouTube.com showed a cat,” for example, looks incredibly stilted. The publication I’m
working on is scholarly—but not intended specifically for grandmothers. Can I get rid of the “.com”
if it’s clear that a website is being referred to?
A. Hey, there are grandmas who could tell you that you should be careful about shortening your references, because not all sites
end in .com. If the exact site (like YouTube) can be located reliably in an online search, fine, but if you’re
referring to a more commonly used name like Best Foods, there could be any number of websites with the same name that end
in .net, .org, .biz, or other extension.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I am writing a research paper about a school. How do I cite written histories by individuals that are not published or dated?
Thank you.
A. Give the information that you have and indicate where information is not available. Model your citation on the usual form:
author, title, kind of document (manuscript, letter, etc.), place, date, and where you found it. “N.p.”
can stand in for “no place,” “no publisher,”
and “no page number”; “n.d.” for “no
date.” For example, Deborah Dorman, “Psychoanalyzing the Penguin,”
manuscript, Misc. Papers File, Chicago College Library, n.d.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I often have difficulty deciding how to cite translations with critical commentaries of ancient texts. What if I’m
citing a critical comment or note made by the translator/Loeb editor? The bibliography entry is
Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics. Rev. ed. Loeb Classical Library. 1934.
But how do I refer to something the editor/translator says in that edition? If it’s like “Rackham
in Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics , p. xxx,” then do I need some separate bib entry that mentions Rackham?
A. Yes, that’s right. Your bibliography entry should include the name of the editor, like this:
Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics. Rev. ed. Edited by H. Rackham. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1934.
If the editor is more central to your discussion than the author, you may put the bibliography entry under the name of the
editor instead. A cross-reference will aid the reader.
Aristotle. See Rackham, H.
Rackham, H., ed. Nicomachean Ethics, by Aristotle. Rev. ed. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1934.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Per CMOS, in author-date documentation style, the citation can be placed immediately after the name in the text. If you have multiple
such references in a single paragraph, does it become awkward? E.g., Chuck (1990, 3n8) indicates his disagreement with the
theory outlined by Gregg and Harris (1990, 383, 387). However, Sherry and Lang (1991, 77–81) criticize
both arguments, as do Brown and Brown (1992, 93–98).
A. Yes, it’s awkward. Author-date style is awkward any way you slice it, although I’m
told that scholars are used to it and don’t mind. I don’t see any way around the
ugliness except to use notes and bibliography instead.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. How do you cite T-shirts?
A. You could write, for example: Last week on Ellis Avenue I saw a T-shirt that said, “I keep pressing
Escape but I’m still here.” That is, if you think it’s a
good idea to cite a T-shirt.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. When one is citing an ancient source whose author is unknown or disputed and which is published in the original language,
is the editor’s name put before the title in footnotes and bibliography? Does the modern translator’s
name go first?
A. Some citations of ancient sources emphasize the original author (Plato), some the title (Inscriptiones Graecae), and some the modern translator or editors (Pauly-Wissowa). You can check published sources in your field to see how a particular
work is cited, since there is often a standard way to refer to a given work. If your source is too obscure for that, then
style it in the way that seems best to you.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. When using the same five sources throughout the same paper, do I create a new endnote (using a new number) throughout the
paper (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc.)? For example, if my paper has twenty-two citations, will I use endnotes 1–22?
Or do I just refer to the same five numbers throughout the paper?
A. You will need all twenty-two numbers, although it’s fine to shorten a citation after you’ve
given it once in full. The other method is used mainly for charts and tables, where you can recycle a single note number every
time it applies.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I’m struggling with the correct format for websites. It’s when the author is
unknown that I run into trouble. For a print source, we’d begin with the article title, but CMOS says that the website’s owner “may” be used as the author.
Does “may” mean “should”? How do we
distinguish between the website’s name and owner? For example, if I’m citing an
authorless article from CNN.com, do I begin with CNN.com as the author, and then also include CNN.com as the website? Can
you sort this out?
A. Of course we can. By “may” we do not mean “should.”
We mean that listing the owner as the author is an option. You can begin with the article title instead, followed by CNN (in italics) as the title of the web page. If you’d rather have an “author,”
however, CNN (not CNN.com) in roman type makes a fine one. CNN.com will appear in the URL you include.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. In citations and references, what is the preferred format for codes and standards issued by scientific organizations? As
an example, “RASB Standard 531: Antigravity and what to do when it fails” (one
of many standards published by the Rebel Alliance Scientific Branch, each on a different topic and with a different number)
would be set differently by each of our several editing groups here, and we are trying to find common ground. Would you suggest
we treat it along the lines of (1) a book title, (2) a multivolume work, (3) an article in a periodical, or (4) something
else entirely?
A. To style documents that don’t fit neatly into one of Chicago’s categories, pick
out the main elements and list them in the familiar order: author or organization, title, place of publication, publisher,
date. Your standards look like a series of reports, so you could write something like this: Rebel Alliance Scientific Branch,
Antigravity and What to Do When It Fails, RASB Standard 531 (City: RASB, 2009).
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Hello—I need to correctly format an Australian law for a nonlegal publication. May I use the format
suggested in CMOS for British historical records? I realize that this is specific to UK publications, but it seems like the best approximation.