Q. When using a pseudonym to hide the real name of an organization, how do you cite that organization’s
website in the references?
A. Hmm—fake URL? Encryption? Disappearing ink? (Is this a trick question?)
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. When I reference an author within the body of my text, do I then repeat the author’s name in the footnote?
A. If it’s an actual footnote (at the bottom of the page), it’s not necessary to
repeat the author’s name, but if the notes are gathered at the end of the chapter or the back of the
book, it’s helpful to the reader to do so.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I’m preparing a bibliography for an edited volume, which means merging the bibliographies from ten chapters. One of the authors seems to be a German speaker, and though his writing is in English, the titles in his bibliography are in German. Must I translate these? Is there a difference if he read them in German or English? And if I do not need to translate the titles of the works, should I still translate words like “editor” and “volume?”
A. The books that are cited should be the ones the author consulted, no matter what language they are in. For guidelines and examples of full citations of books published in languages other than English (including how to deal with terms like “editor”), please see chapter 14 in CMOS (start with paragraphs 14.99 and 14.102). Unless you are fluent in German and have been hired for the purpose of translating, it’s a terrible idea to translate the titles.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Sometimes a work will cite a series of annual publications: The Annual Report on Stuff for 1993–1997, 1999, and 2001–2004, say. Does the bibliography or reference list
need a separate entry for each year’s volume, or is there an appropriate way to combine them into one
entry? If they can be combined, how can breaks in the sequence be handled? Sometimes I feel silly putting eleven basically
identical entries in a reference list, but if eleven volumes of the report were consulted . . . ?
A. Use one entry and note the range of years. There’s no need to indicate in the bibliography which years
you consulted—you’ll do that in the notes. If the annual was not published in
every year in the range, you can add the word “intermittently” after the range.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. We are using the author-date form of citation. One author cited appears in the reference list with four items for a single year (Author 2003a, 2003b, 2003c, 2003d). However, in the last entry, the person is the editor, rather than the author, of the work. Thus, the entry is Author, J. Q., ed. 2003d. But this entry currently occurs after entries dated to 2004, 2005, and 2006. This makes the entry difficult to find, though the author clearly is attempting to follow the rule that “edited entries follow those of which the person cited is the author.” What would CMOS do?
A. Chicago no longer recommends putting edited works after authored ones (see CMOS 15.19), so this solves your problem. In any case, it’s not a good idea to force a rule for the sake of a rule. Rather, help the reader out by bending or breaking the rule.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I have an author listed in the bibliography. Below that entry will be one with the same author plus a second author. Should
I use a 3-em dash to represent the repeated name, or should I spell it out?
A. Spell it out. Use the 3-em dash when the author information is entirely the same.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Should I use footnotes to simply list the reference information or are they for adding additional information mainly?
A. Footnotes serve both purposes. Usually, notes that consist mainly of citations are collected at the back of the book (endnotes),
while notes that are more discursive might go at the bottom of the page (footnotes). Many books mix the two purposes, but
in every case the author and editor must decide whether readers (that is, buyers) would be put off by footnotes or prefer
them.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I am writing a paper on Chinese literature in English. I am having a lot of trouble in citing Chinese sources. Since I am familiar with both Chinese and English, I prefer to present pinyin as well as English translations. However, I am confused whether to use ( ) or [ ] and I am confused on the general rules.
A. If you are citing a Chinese book in a list of references and wish to add your own English translation of the title, put the English in square brackets [ ] immediately after the Pinyin title. (Chicago style uses sentence caps and roman type for the translation of the title.) If you are citing both a Chinese book and a published English translation of the book, cite the one you are quoting from first, then note the other one. Use a phrase like “Translated as . . .” or “Originally published as . . .” to connect the two citations. Published titles are italic. Please see CMOS 14.99 for examples. If you are citing the book and translation in the main text of your paper, follow the same guidelines but use parentheses instead of brackets.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I have been told it is not a good idea to document every sentence within a paper. But one of my professors does not accept
a single footnote at the end of each paragraph as a proper citation. My question is this: If I write a paraphrased paragraph
for a paper based on one source only, how many sentences in an average-sized paragraph are cited individually as opposed to
being cited only once at the end of the paragraph?
A. The idea is to provide a citation every time it’s needed, not to follow arbitrary rules about numbers
of note callouts or their location in a paragraph. You need a new note every time the source changes, and the callout should
be located where it makes the most sense—at the end of a clause or sentence, if possible. Each time
you use a different source (or a different page number in the same source), a new note is appropriate. If the contents of
an entire paragraph can be attributed to a single source, then a single note at the end of the paragraph is sufficient.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. In a footnote I have a quote that, in the original, itself has a footnote. The latter footnote (i.e., the original author’s footnote) is salient to the discussion, and I’d like to include it in my footnote. What are the mechanics to handle such a situation? Currently I have this:
1. Author (date: page) writes, “Body of quote [original author’s footnote #] ([original author’s footnote #] body of footnote).”
A. This seems more complicated than necessary. You could simplify by leaving out the note number, which conventionally would be left out in any case (see CMOS 13.7). After the close of the text quote, write “Smith adds in a note that . . .” If you like, reference the note number at the end of that quote or paraphrase, e.g., (2004, 25n16).
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]