Q. I normally have cited at the beginning of a paraphrase. For instance, if I am using three sentences to express a scholar’s
point, I would reference after the first sentence. I recently was advised that this is not correct and that the last sentence
of the three is the sentence that needs the reference. Can you enlighten me on which is correct?
A. If your paraphrase is obviously a summary of this scholar’s work, and if you make it clear to readers
where the summary begins and ends (and why wouldn’t you?), either location for the note callout will
be fine.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. When I am citing a periodical that does not provide the page number, but does provide the volume and issue, is it necessary
to cite the issue number (e.g., Hameed 2009, 3:1)? Or how should this be cited?
A. Since the issue number (or month) will appear in the reference list citation, “Hameed 2009”
is sufficient in the text citation.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. What do you do about reproducing a table found in a work you are citing? Can it be used and cited the same way text can be?
A. There is some debate about this. One camp perceives a table as text and would cite it as you would a passage in a book or
journal, without special permission (especially if you are merely using the data within the table). Another camp recommends
getting permission, especially if you are reproducing wholesale a table that has a unique design or layout or interpretation
of the data. If you have any doubts, seek the advice of your publisher.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I am editing a nonfiction trade book for an author who wants to use endnotes that begin with specific words in the text but
that have no note numbers in the text. We are in rather strong disagreement about this. First, what do you call this style?
Second, is this the new standard in trade publishing?
A. It isn't new; some University of Chicago Press books have used it. We call it “notes keyed to text.”
It's especially favored for books meant for a general readership, because it's a little friendlier than those scholarly note
numbers.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I need help on how it would be easier to make a bibliography easier.
A. You could keep it short. You could find the references online and copy and paste them in so you don’t
have to type them. You could buy some software that helps format bibliographies. You could ask your mom to do it.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I am doing some developmental editing on a book about Elvis and East Tupelo, Mississippi. The author has gathered her information
from a variety of sources, including firsthand interviews. Footnotes and a bibliography will not work with the format. How
do we acknowledge sources such as websites or newspapers?
A. If you absolutely can’t have notes (not even endnotes? or a brief section called “Sources”?),
then you have to write the sources into the text. That could get ugly. It’s one reason notes were invented.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Our (I believe overzealous) rights manager has decreed that when trademarked terms are used in running text in our fiction and nonfiction books, they must be written in all caps, since this is what the International Trademark Association recommends. I argue that Chicago allows trademarks (used only when a generic term cannot be substituted) to be initial-capped only.
A. INTA in fact allows initial caps (see “Trademark Basics” at http://www.inta.org/). Not only does it look suspicious to use all caps (readers will assume you are promoting the product), but it’s not always feasible to research and duplicate all the typographic variations that trademarked names involve. Chicago prefers initial caps.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Please, please settle this question about questions for me! A colleague insists that the following construction does not
require a question mark: “I had to consult an authority. What would The Chicago Manual of Style say.” Another example: “I got a new bike. How cool is that.”
CMOS indicates that a question mark is not required for indirect or courtesy questions, but a question, even if it is not being
asked of someone in dialogue, is still a question. Who’s right?
A. When a sentence structured as a question doesn’t end with a question mark, it conveys the tone of voice
we use when we don’t really expect an answer. The first example you give, however, seems to be an actual
question. If it isn’t—if your colleague means it to sound like “I
drank everyone under the table; what would Grandma say”—then fine. But actual
questions require question marks.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Is there text in CMOS that explains that placing a footnote number or symbol at the nearest point of punctuation—rather than at the precise point of reference—will not mislead the reader? I know I have seen such an explanation, but I cannot find it in CMOS. If it no longer appears in CMOS, can you point me to a source?
A. Although CMOS 14.26 doesn’t promise in so many words not to mislead the reader, it does call for placing the note number at the end of a sentence or a clause. Of course, in a situation where more precise placement would be preferable, there’s no need to avoid it. For example, although you could put a single note at the end of the sentence “Statistics for Asia, Europe, and Africa disprove the theory,” a separate note after the name of each continent might make more sense if the statistical sources cited were many and complex.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I have a question about citing journal articles that are in print but have only been accessed online, where the online version
is a PDF identical to the print version. CMOS states that you need to cite the DOI or URL. What is wrong with citing the page number of the print version as it appears
on the PDF, if all things are identical?