Q. I am preparing an online archive. Many of the items are audio or video recordings. I’ve fruitlessly searched CMOS for the proper way to indicate the total time of a recording—for example, thirty-five minutes and thirty-three seconds. 35 min. 33 sec.? 35m:33s?
A. There are various accepted stylings. At CMOS 14.264 (“Recorded Readings, Lectures, Audiobooks, and the Like”) one example shows the length of a reel-to-reel tape as 1:12:49, and another shows the length of an audiobook as 13 hr., 6 min. An example at CMOS 9.40 (“ISO Style for Time of Day”) suggests the option of putting a zero in front of a single-digit measure of time: 09:27:08.6 = 27 minutes, 8.6 seconds after 9:00 a.m. Based on all these examples, you could use either 00:35:33 (to clarify that it’s 35 minutes, not 35 hours) or 35 min., 33 sec.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Which of the following is correct or preferred? I’m guessing it’s the first option. I’m working on a very important, time-sensitive document, and everything has to be correct according to CMOS.
She’s number one in my book.
She’s number 1 in my book.
She’s No. 1 in my book.
She’s no. 1 in my book.
A. All of those stylings are widely accepted. The default Chicago style for numbers one through ten is to spell them out, so “number one” works well. In certain contexts (such as referring to a list), you might opt for “number 1,” based on Chicago style for “page 1”, “table 1,” and other such expressions.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Why, in many book titles that include ranges of years, is Chicago style for inclusive numbers not followed? As I understand it, Chicago style is to elide the first two digits of the four-digit second number if they are the same as the first two in the first number of the range. The publisher I work for, like many others, follows that rule in general text. But consider, for instance, the subtitle “Self-Portrait of an Actress, 1920–1956.” Do most readers prefer to see titles with ranges of years styled like this one?
A. You’re correct about Chicago’s style for inclusive dates when a writer chooses to abbreviate them, but CMOS is also fine with spelling them out. In fact, paragraph 9.64 says, “In book titles it is customary but not obligatory to repeat all digits.”
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Can you inform me how you would recommend writing out “10:05 a.m.” if an author is very set on using words rather than numerals?
A. Certainly. You can write “five past ten in the morning,” for instance. There are various ways to write times of day. Please see CMOS 9.37 (“Numerals versus Words for Time of Day”) for more suggestions. Please note that it’s conventional to use numerals for odd times like 10:05, however. Spelling out is usually reserved for the hour, half hour, and quarter hour.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Should hundred be repeated in spelled-out number ranges such as “one to three hundred” (meaning 100 to 300)?
A. Because “one to three hundred” can be mistaken for “1 to 300,” it’s important to spell out “one hundred” anytime there could be the least doubt.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Phone numbers. The US convention is sort of (Area Code) PRE-Number. International is all over the place. Any advice on presenting these in a consistent manner? In particular, I want to set a style rule for my company, which is US-based but has mostly international customers, so I want to include the country code as well. I’m leaning toward spaces separating the elements: +1 222 333 4567. Any thoughts?
A. CMOS 17 has a new section covering telephone numbers (9.57) that agrees with you on the use of spaces instead of hyphens for international numbers.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. In the money examples in the hyphenation guide, I would not have allowed the last example, “a $50–$60 million loss.” Almost certainly “a $50 million to $60 million loss” was meant, but the construction reads “fifty dollars to sixty million dollars.”
A. Luckily, in most contexts misreading is unlikely in the way you suggest (“Yes, it was a bad year; I suffered a loss between fifty dollars and sixty million dollars”). In the rare instance where such an expression could cause confusion, a writer should expand the range.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Our organization just had a raging dispute about the use of the term “the 1910s.” This term is actually going to be used in a photo caption in a book. I’m astounded! What do you think of this?
A. I think it’s the way CMOS styles it in paragraph 9.33 (“Decades”):
To refer to the second decade (i.e., without writing “second decade”), prefer numerals (e.g., 1910s); the expression “the teens” should be avoided, at least in formal contexts.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Are digits (e.g., 4, 8) appropriate for use in illustrations or diagrams to save space, even if they would be spelled out in text (e.g., four, eight)?
A. Highly appropriate! If you look at the “Illustrations and Tables” chapter of CMOS, you will see digits in the examples.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. In the following conversion in prose, should it be written “six feet (1.80 meters)” or “six feet (1.8 meters)”?
A. This is a matter of accuracy, rather than style. Six feet is 1.8288 meters. Rounded to the nearest tenth, that’s 1.8, but rounded to the nearest hundredth, it’s 1.83. So it would be inaccurate to write 1.80. Write 1.8 or 1.83 instead.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]