Q. Hello, I’m struggling with source links. Chicago allows stable links from databases like JSTOR, but on the other hand it sometimes recommends listing JSTOR instead of a link. It also allows Google Books and Archive.org links. But are all these links only recommended if they offer a full view of the source? And what about links to a book landing page from the publisher, such as Routledge or Chicago? Are those useful? Finally, if a link does not match the edition or format of the source cited, can it still be used? I typically delete links that don’t pass this test because I worry about copyright issues and inaccuracy. Am I being too strict? Thank you so much for your help!
A. Some answers, assuming you’re talking about source citations:
- Though we would allow listing “JSTOR” in place of a URL, it’s not a recommendation. The “stable” URLs offered for articles at JSTOR tend to be relatively short and easy to decipher (“https://www.jstor.org/stable/” plus a number), so there’s usually no reason not to include them in your citations. See CMOS 13.8, 13.9, and 13.10.
- You could cite a copyright-restricted book or other source that you consulted in a limited preview at Google Books or Archive.org. But it would be better to find a complete copy of the source elsewhere (in whatever format) and cite that instead; you may have missed something in your review of the partial source.
- A URL for a publisher’s book page isn’t normally all that useful in a citation; those pages are essentially advertisements for the book and places to buy it. Likewise, there’s no need to include a link to the Amazon page for a book purchased there or to list a URL that points to a book’s entry in an online library catalog.
- Including a URL that doesn’t lead to the edition or format of the cited source isn’t normally necessary. But you can include such a URL if you think it will help readers who might otherwise not find the source; in that case, preface it with “also available at” or the like. See also CMOS 13.14.
- Though you shouldn’t publish a URL that provides unauthorized access to a work under copyright, the scenarios you’ve mentioned all seem to involve citing legitimate copies (or partial copies) of a work. If you’re concerned, consider getting legal advice.
A URL is a convenience intended to lead readers directly to a source that you’ve consulted and that’s otherwise been cited in full (such that a URL wouldn’t be needed to locate it). URLs that don’t lead to the full source, or that aren’t reasonably short, can usually be omitted.