Archive for June, 2007

The Chicago Notes Strike Back…

Chicago Style 15th EditionSo I’m on chapter 3. Since putting the style guide online worked so well last time, I thought I’d do it again.

General Usage Issues:

  • Not only…but also: Chicago 6.41 states that it depends largely on whether pauses are intended. (I tend to overuse this rule and try to place commas everywhere. They come in pairs—either two or none.) There also seems to be a trend that the shorter examples do not get commas.
  • Sea/sea: As per Chicago 8:57, when used as a proper noun to describe a specific place, it should be capitalized (e.g. Aegean Sea). (Also, the same goes for mount, straight, bay, forest, islands, etc.)
  • book/Book: Books of the Bible are not italicized and are usually not capitalized, either.
  • key-bearer: Websters has “color-bearer” and “standard-bearer” and “live-bearer” all with hyphens. I believe that “key-bearer” will follow that pattern. (Actual usage online is pretty much split between the hyphenated version and the open version.) Either would be acceptable as long as they’re consistent.
  • fullness vs. fulness: In a battle, which would win: Webster’s Dictionary or the Church’s style guide? Webster’s spelling is the former, the Church’s is the latter. I personally subscribe to the idea of “When in doubt, go with the Church,” but that mindset is usually more for matters of salvation. In the end, I marked it and the authors can decide where their true allegiances lie.
  • winepress: No hyphen as per Webster’s.
  • The Three Nephites: There are some differences, even in church publications on lds.org. Since it is talking about them in a similar manner to talking about a specific Quorum of the Twelve, I will capitalize it for the purposes of this paper.

General Help with Chicago Footnotes

Chicago Style 15th EditionOkay, since I have to write this stuff down anyway, I thought I’d include it here for easy reference. The paper I’m editing began with the following:

EDITOR: I guess this is a disclaimer. This is my first time working with Chicago-style footnotes—really the first for footnotes. I did my best, but there may be a lot of problems and errors that I created.

And it made me smile. I don’t know many people who do feel comfortable with Chicago citation styles (and those who do feel comfortable with it have considerable industry experience). It’s definitely confusing at the beginning. Even as an editor, I am still chained to my Chicago—but I’ve gotten pretty good at figuring out where to look.

So, while this is definitely tailored to the decisions I’m making for this one particular paper, here’s a sample Chicago-style style sheet. I’ll also include my thoughts, when pertinent. Read more…