Q. I’m preparing the fifth edition of a book. Each edition has had a preface, and all will be included.
Should the old prefaces be reproduced verbatim, or should mechanical changes (e.g., a reference to chapter 12 which is now
chapter 11) be made?
A. Think about your readers; sending them to the wrong chapters would just be mean. You can update all the references and explain
in a footnote at the beginning of the first preface, or you can leave the original references in place and add updates in
square brackets [chapter 16 in this volume].
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I have four different levels of headers. What should be the format (font, bold vs. italic, centered, etc.)? Thanks for your
help!
A. The convention is for the copy editor not to style the headings but merely to label them (a, b, etc.) so the designer or
typesetter can impose the specified stylings, whatever they are. If you are writing a paper not for publication, however,
you might follow the suggestions in Kate Turabian’s Manual for Writers of Research Papers, Theses, and Dissertations, 7th ed.: “Each level of subhead should be consistent and different from all other levels, and higher-level
subheads should be more visually prominent than lower-level ones” (398).
Turabian’s caveat about subheadings is also worth considering: “Unless you are
writing a very long and complex paper, think carefully before using more than two or three levels of subheads. Rather than
being helpful, they can become distracting. You should have at least two subheads at any level; if you do not, your divisions
might not be logically structured” (397–98).
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I am proofreading a book that has numbered endnotes for each chapter. The numbered endnotes begin at and include the epigraphs
for each chapter. The preface uses arabic numerals for the two epigraph citations. There are two epigraphs for the afterword,
and these are referenced in the endnotes with roman numerals (i, ii). Is this correct? Should the references in the preface
also be cited with roman numerals? Should references, including epigraphs, in front and back matter be cited with roman numerals
or arabic numerals?
A. All the notes should have the same kind of numbering. (If the preface and afterword are in separate documents, it’s
possible that this author’s word-processing application supplied the roman numerals and that he didn’t
know how to fix it.) Please note that Chicago discourages the practice of attaching notes to epigraphs and other display matter.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I have written a book with twelve other authors. One of the authors is also the editor of the book. He has listed himself
first as author/editor. I am thinking the authors should be listed first in alphabetical order and then the editor. Is this
correct?
A. There’s a fine old tradition for the authors to fight this out. Your suggestion would work, assuming
that the entire book was authored by all twelve. If the book is a collection of chapters by individual authors, however, it’s
more conventional to list only the editor on the title page. The other authors appear in the table of contents and are perhaps
listed on the book jacket flaps or back cover, depending on how famous they are.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Does the font size of the footnotes need to be reduced in comparison to the main text font size?
A. In a manuscript, everything should be the same size. In a published document (whether typeset on paper or posted online),
notes are usually set in smaller type.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Stacked headings: no-no or no problem? My employer issued new rules for published products that often result in an A-heading
immediately followed by a B-heading—that is, no text separating them. Granted, some design-savvy publications
may be able to get away with this. But ours are far from design savvy; the headings are large and in the margin, leaving several
lines of white space where the first paragraph should be. Can you point to anything to make a case against stacked headings?
A. Headings are determined by the logical organization of content, so no, I can’t make a case against
stacking them. We do it all the time. Design should also be determined by content, not the other way around, but if your design
is locked in, you’re probably stuck with the awkwardness. My only thought is that you should find a
way to bring up the text into the white space. Most word-processing and design-layout programs can accomplish this easily.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Where should a list of abbreviations be placed in the organization of a book? Before the text? At the back of the book before
the index?
A. The list should precede the part of the book where the abbreviations are used. If they appear in the text, it’s
convenient for the reader to see the list in the front matter; if they’re mainly used in the endnotes,
the list might immediately precede the notes.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. How many underlines (_) should be used to indicate a blank line to be filled in?
A. Seven, unless you want a longer line, in which case use twenty-five. Sixty is also good. (Is your refrigerator running?)
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I was wondering what your thoughts were concerning using the words “above” and
“below” in the text to refer to different sections (“as
mentioned above”). Our editorial director insists we alter any such uses of the words, but I’ve
had several authors become quite annoyed when we change them. Thanks!
A. Those words are often used to steer readers, and I don’t think readers are puzzled if something referred
to as “below” actually appears at the top of the next page. But if there’s
any chance of confusion (say, in writing for children) or misdirection (say, in referring to images that might get moved during
composition), it’s best to find other words.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. We are editing a scientific book. We have to follow UK spelling. Per the dictionary, sulfur is the US spelling and sulphur is the UK spelling. But in one chapter the author has used sulfur and in another chapter sulphur. Since we are following UK spelling, can we change sulfur to sulphur? Or, per CMOS, since the IUPAC recommended spelling is sulfur irrespective of UK or US spelling, can we change sulphur to sulfur?