Q. I’m editing a list of security recommendations. Would you put a hyphen in “password-protect” when used as a verb?

A. According to the hyphenation guide at CMOS 7.96 (sec. 2, under “phrases, verbal”), compound verbs like that one are left open unless entered in Merriam-Webster with a hyphen. There’s no entry there for that verb, hyphenated or otherwise, so we’d write password protect.

If you strongly prefer the hyphen, you could cite the OED, which does include an entry for the term, where it’s hyphenated (password-protect). The OED mostly reflects British usage, but many similar verbs are listed in either Merriam-Webster or the OED with a hyphen (e.g., double-click, fact-check, hot-wire, fast-forward). And though the term password-protect isn’t listed in either Microsoft’s or Apple’s style guide, the similar verb write-protect is listed in Microsoft’s guide (and in the OED) and copy-protect is entered in Apple’s guide (all as of February 3, 2026).

In sum, Chicago style would call for password protect (no hyphen), but the hyphen is nonetheless a reasonable choice recorded in at least one major English-language dictionary and reflected in similar terms.

Q. Would you please confirm that “over the top” is not hyphenated when used as a predicate adjective or adverbial phrase. Example: “It’s extreme,” she said. “Way over the top.”

A. We can confirm that Chicago style doesn’t require hyphens in over the top when it’s used as a predicate adjective (as in your example, where it modifies the implied subject “It” from the previous sentence) or when it’s used an adverb (“they went over the top with their demands”). But you won’t necessarily get this answer from the dictionary.

Merriam-Webster’s entry for that term shows two forms: the phrase over the top (without hyphens) and the adjective over-the-top (with hyphens). That hyphenated adjective, however, isn’t the last word.

In Merriam-Webster’s entries for over-the-top and many other hyphenated compound adjectives, the hyphens are generally presented as if they’re a permanent fixture of such terms. But more than a few of these terms—from clear-cut to well-versed—can be left unhyphenated when they follow rather than precede a noun that they modify, a usage long supported by CMOS. For example, you could refer to “an over-the-top solution” (with hyphens) but “a solution that was over the top” (no hyphens).

This nuance may be falling out of fashion (perhaps because it’s so easy to toggle over to the dictionary for any hyphenation question and copy whatever’s entered there), but it still matters in Chicago style. For more on this subject, see “Compound Modifiers After a Noun: A Postpositive Dilemma,” at CMOS Shop Talk. See also the hyphenation guide at CMOS 7.96, under “phrases, adjectival”; for adverbs, see “phrases, adverbial.”

Q. Why are heaven and hell not capitalized like any other named noun? Assuming that these religious terms refer to a place (even if they are metaphorical or metaphysical) why would they not be capitalized like any Walmart? Is capitalization not applied to any specific, named place?

A. Both of those terms are entered with a lowercase h in Merriam-Webster and the OED, and lowercase is the more common form for both in published documents going back more than two hundred years (as this Google Ngram suggests).

Starting with the metaphorical, if you were to write that you were “in Heaven” thanks to an especially tasty milkshake and that you’d have “a Hell of a time” finding anything as good again, those initial caps would stand out as oddly literal. But when these same two words are used in their traditional senses in the context of theology, initial caps would seem normal, especially for Heaven (which Merriam-Webster labels “often Heaven”—capital H—for the religious meanings).

Even if the context isn’t religious, initial caps would still be perfectly appropriate for either term whenever a religious meaning is implied, even loosely, especially if that’s your preference.

See also CMOS 8.110.

Q. How should I capitalize a foreign phrase within a title? For example, in sentence case, “The loi de position as a pedagogical norm.” I recall that an isolated non-English word would be capitalized (“The Loi as a . . .”), as would the first word in an included non-English title, but I can’t find anything regarding a phrase.

A. Except for any words that would be capped in the original language, both words and phrases in sentence-case titles can remain lowercase. The following titles from peer-reviewed journals illustrate this usage:

“The loi de position and the acoustics of French mid vowels,” by Benjamin Storme, in Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 2, no. 1 (2017): 64,* https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.300.

“Diachronic evolution of the subordinator kak in Russian,” by Natalia Serdobolskaya and Irina Kobozeva, in Linguistics 62, no. 3 (2024): 691–728, https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2021-0213.

but

“Volk against Kaste: Nondemocratic popular sovereignty in Nazi Germany,” by Luna Sabastian, in Journal of Modern History 96, no. 4 (2024): 842–80, https://doi.org/10.1086/732675.

In that last example, the initial capitals in Volk and Kaste follow the rule for German nouns (see CMOS 11.42). Here are the same three titles in title case (usually preferred in Chicago style for the titles of works):

“The Loi de position and the Acoustics of French Mid Vowels”

“Diachronic Evolution of the Subordinator Kak in Russian”

“Volk Against Kaste: Nondemocratic Popular Sovereignty in Nazi Germany”

As the first example suggests, the non-English terms are in sentence case, according to which the first word and any other word that would normally be capitalized gets an initial cap. Alternatively, we could have applied title case to the French phrase:

“The Loi de Position and the Acoustics of French Mid Vowels”

You can do that if you know the parts of speech in the other language. In the title above, de remains lowercase as a preposition, but the nouns Loi and Position (which would normally be lowercase in a French title when not the first word) get initial caps. See also CMOS 11.28.

__________

* The number 64 is the article ID assigned by Glossa, an online-only open-access journal that isn’t paginated across issues in the traditional way (see CMOS 14.71 for more details). If you were to cite specific pages in a note (from the PDF version, which starts at page 1), you’d want to clarify what the numbers mean: “. . . (2017): pp. 3–4, article no. 64.”

Q. Is the term “Clouds of Glory” (the specific ones that accompanied the Israelites in the desert) a proper noun? And if it is, would you capitalize the transliterated term? E.g.: “The Ananei HaKavod (Clouds of Glory) protected the Israelites as they traveled through the desert.”

A. Unless your sources suggest a clear preference for or against initial capitals for that term, it’s up to you. Whichever you choose, capitals or lowercase, you can usually do the same for the transliterated Hebrew. Lowercase: “ananei hakavod (clouds of glory).” Initial capitals: “Ananei HaKavod (Clouds of Glory).” (Some sources capitalize the Hebrew term as either Ananei haKavod or Ananei Hakavod.) See also CMOS 11.103.

Q. I’m editing a nontechnical text, but I’ll occasionally come across a technical unit of measurement such as °F or m². What is the rule regarding when to use the symbol versus writing out the measurement?

A. Except in tables and similar contexts where abbreviations are the norm (and where they’re often required to make things fit), it’s usually best to spell out abbreviations and symbols for units of measurement and the like in nontechnical prose (e.g., “water freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit”; “more than ten square meters”).

See chapter 10 in CMOS for more details and examples (start with the overview in paragraphs 10.1–12). For the use of numerals for exact quantities (as in “32 degrees Fahrenheit”), see paragraph 9.14.

Q. CMOS 14.122 offers advice on how to date an entry in an unpublished diary, but I do not see full instructions for citing such a diary. Could you offer a sample footnote or two?

A. Let’s start with an example of how to cite an unpublished letter in a note (adapted from the examples in CMOS 14.127):

1. George Creel to Colonel House, September 25, 1918, box 31, folder 986, Edward Mandell House Papers, Yale University Library.

That’s American journalist George Creel writing to Edward M. House, an American diplomat and adviser, at that time, to President Woodrow Wilson. The example assumes that House has been identified more fully in the text. (See this article on House in Britannica for the form used in the note; “Colonel” was an honorary rather than a military title.)

A letter is similar to a diary entry, and House’s diaries are also included in the same collection at Yale. House’s diary entry from the same day as the letter could be cited as follows (and note that “Colonel House,” the addressee in the letter from Creel, isn’t used in this context):

2. House, diary, September 25, 1918, Edward Mandell House Papers, Yale University Library, original transcript, ser. 2, vol. 6, https://archives.yale.edu/repositories/12/archival_objects/1748077.

The diary entry, unlike the letter, has been digitized, so we included a URL for the part of the collection where the diary may be found (plus a few more details about the location in the collection). For a diary that isn’t in a public collection, adjust your entry accordingly. Here’s a general-purpose form that can be adapted as needed:

3. So-and-So, diary, February 3, 2026, quoted with the permission of [name of person who owns the diary].

For an alternate date format that may be suitable for works that cite many letters or diary entries, see CMOS 14.122. See also 12.3.

Q. I’m confused about this issue of whether to add a space after the abbreviation “w/” (with). A previous answer said that there should be a space because the abbreviation stands for a full word, which would have a space after it if written out. But CMOS 6.116 shows no spaces around a slash that stands for “per” or that is used in an abbreviation like “c/o” (in care of) or “n/a” (not applicable). So why is “w/” treated differently?

A. In an expression like “km/s” (kilometers per second) or “$450/week” (450 dollars per week), the slash is a stand-alone abbreviation for “per.” If you were to add a space in either of those expressions, you’d need two of them (one before and one after the slash). In an expression like “c/o” or “n/a,” the slash is a kind of shorthand that tells readers to interpret the letters as abbreviations; it belongs equally to both letters.

The abbreviation “w/” is very much like “c/o” and “n/a” but with only one rather than two abbreviated letters. (Each of those could be written instead with periods, but the slash nonetheless became the convention.) But whereas c pairs with o and n with a, that w is, as our original answer suggested, a single entity that doesn’t normally pair with anything, so it’s usually separated from what comes next by a space.

That’s the editorial logic anyway. The abbreviation “w/” is casual. Any rule regarding its use should be taken w/ a grain of NaCl (and with the understanding that no rule is w/out exceptions).

Q. Is the following sentence correct? “Do the speaker or the characters have any specific personality traits that are highlighted throughout the poem?” According to CMOS 5.143, “When a verb has two or more subjects connected by or or nor, the verb agrees with the last-named subject” (e.g., “Bob or his friends have your key”; “neither the twins nor Jon is prepared to leave”). Based on that, it seems like it would be correct. “Characters” is closest to the verb, so that part is correct. I’m wondering if the auxiliary verb should match the verb or the subject closest to it? “Do the speaker or the characters have . . .” “Does the speaker or the characters have . . .” I’m probably overthinking this, but I can’t find any definitive answers when it comes to questions with compound subjects—one singular and one plural—joined by “or.” Could you point me to a rule that might address this? Thank you for your help.

A. We haven’t been able to find anything definitive either. So let’s try to invent something—we can call it the inverted-proximity rule—by adding on to the current wording in CMOS 5.143 (the new part is underlined):

When a verb has two or more subjects connected by or or nor, the verb agrees with the last-named subject; however, in a question that begins with an auxiliary verb, the auxiliary usually agrees with the first-named subject.

Here’s what that would look like relative to your example, starting with each subject used alone (and shortening your original predicate to make the examples easier to digest):

Does the speaker have any faults?

Do the characters have any faults?

Does the speaker or the characters have any faults?

That last example, where the auxiliary “Does” agrees with the subject “speaker,” seems to work well enough. But so does “Do the speaker or the characters have . . .” The problem with any rule based on a subject’s proximity to the verb is that a singular and a plural subject joined by or will tend to read as plural regardless of the order of subjects.

The remedy for questions, when you don’t like the result, is to put the plural subject first: “Do the characters or the speaker have any faults?” That fix can work for statements also: “Either Bob or his friends have your key” seems to work slightly better than “Either Bob’s friends or Bob has your key.”

In sum, for a plural and a singular subject joined by or (or nor), apply the proximity rule as stated above; if the result seems awkward, try switching the order of subjects.

Q. When referring to two doctors in a letter, should they be addressed as “Dr. A and Dr. B”? Or “Drs. A and B”?

A. For extra formality, use Drs., which echoes the old-fashioned Messrs. (the plural of Mr.) and would be especially well suited to the salutation. But if your letter isn’t especially formal, or if you’re simply naming the two doctors (as in the body of the letter), use Dr. before both names.

Q. According to CMOS 6.86, “The en dash can be used in place of a hyphen in a compound adjective when one of its elements consists of an open compound.” And according to 5.96, “If a compound noun is an element of a phrasal adjective, the entire compound noun must be hyphenated to clarify the relationship among the words,” as in the example “time-clock-punching employees.” But “time clock” is an open compound, so this seems contradictory. Am I misunderstanding something?

A. Those two paragraphs do seem to contradict each other, but it’s important to note that CMOS would recommend reworking the phrase “time clock–punching employees,” if possible, to avoid the need for an en dash. The problem is that more than a few readers will assume that the en dash is simply a kind of hyphen (if they notice the difference at all), which could result in a misreading, at least initially, of “clock-punching employees” who are somehow modified by “time.”

A phrase like “Civil War–era veterans,” by contrast, is a little easier to parse, thanks to the initial caps, which can help readers to understand that “Civil War” is a single term joined to the word “era.” The lowercase term “time clock,” though it’s common enough, doesn’t stand out in the same way. That’s why “country music–influenced lyrics” (the analogous example in CMOS 6.86) is followed by an alternative: “lyrics influenced by country music.”

We could have offered a second alternative: “country-music-influenced lyrics” (with two hyphens). But the noun phrase “country music” doesn’t seem to need a hyphen even when it’s used attributively before another noun, as in “country music lyrics,” which rarely appears anywhere with a hyphen (even though “country-music lyrics,” with a hyphen, wouldn’t be technically wrong; see CMOS 7.91 for a fuller explanation).

The phrase “time-clock punching,” however, seems to benefit from the hyphen, even though “time clock” is normally unhyphenated as a noun. That’s why “time-clock-punching employees”—where the whole phrase is used attributively—is our preference in CMOS (not only in chapter 5 but also in our hyphenation guide, section 1, under “noun + gerund”).

If you don’t like all those hyphens, try “employees who punch a time clock”—or, yes, use an en dash: “time clock–punching employees.” Some (many?) readers may not notice your en dash, but IYKYK.

Extra credit: What about “time-clock–punching employees,” with a hyphen and an en dash? That’s not a terrible idea (it does signal the hierarchy of relationships in the phrase), but it’s not Chicago style.

Q. In a series that contains titles with internal commas, would you use commas or semicolons to separate each item? For instance, how would you punctuate “the films The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, With Six You Get Eggroll, and Die, Monster, Die!”?

A. We’ve gotten many variations on this question over the years. In general, if a series is clear to you with commas, and you think it will be clear to your readers—and especially if you are resistant to semicolons or think they wouldn’t be a good fit for your document—then keep the commas. Otherwise, use semicolons instead; that’s what they’re for (among other things, as this sentence demonstrates).

Whether you choose commas or semicolons as separators, make sure you don’t italicize them along with the titles (any punctuation within a title remains in italics; see CMOS 6.2). For the lack of a serial comma in the title of the first movie (which follows the usage in that movie’s title sequence), see 8.167.

Q. I’m looking for a source for guidelines on what to display on a website when only one source is referenced in an online article. Is it okay to still put 1? I have previously been told by college professors and professional colleagues to substitute an asterisk instead.

A. If there’s a note number 1, readers may expect to find a note number 2 later in the same document. For that reason, using an asterisk instead of a number can make sense when there’s just one note. But there isn’t any general rule that we know of that says you must do this.

Let’s say, for example, that an academic journal uses author-date style supplemented by numbered notes for substantive comments, and that most articles in that journal include more than one note. It would be reasonable in that case, as a matter of consistency across articles, to assign a number even in the case of only one footnote.

So if you have the option of using an asterisk, consider doing so, but it’s not a requirement. For the answer to a similar question about whether to number a single figure in a document, see this Q&A (which links to the seventeenth edition of CMOS but still applies).