Q. Is it grammatically accurate to say something like, “I’m going to dress warmly”? My hunch is no, because “dress warmly” means that I’ll be smiling and emotionally warm as I’m dressing, given that “warmly” modifies the verb “dressing.” If all that is true, then what I’m unsure about is how to fix the sentence. Can you suggest any good alternatives besides writing around it like so: “I’m going to dress in warm clothing”?

A. If you say you’re going to dress warmly, that means you’re going to put on warm clothes, whereas addressing someone warmly would mean greeting that person with affection or kindness. Words often have more than one sense depending on how they’re used; according to Merriam-Webster (among other dictionaries), warmly is no exception.

Or maybe you’re thinking of the feel badly versus feel bad principle. That’s different, though, because unlike dress, the word feel can be a linking verb. Linking verbs reflect the predicate back onto the subject—as when you feel bad, where the adjective bad modifies the pronoun you. But when you feel badly, you are literally not good at feeling something (either physically or emotionally). See also CMOS 5.175.

Q. How should one style the title of a work in a discussion not of that work, but of its title. As an example, consider the following sentence:

The novel’s title, “Pride and Prejudice,” refers to a pair of traits seen in all of its characters.

Should the title be set in roman and within quotation marks because it is a phrase being mentioned (rather than used)? Or does the fact that it IS a title prevail, so that it should be italicized and without quotation marks? Or perhaps some tertium—or even quartum—quid? My sense is that because in that sentence its referent is not Austen’s book itself but the character flaws that recur in its plot, the italics would be inappropriate. Do I have that right?

A. You might be overthinking this. The novel’s title is Pride and Prejudice, a three-word italic phrase that names a pair of traits exhibited by many people, including the characters in that book. Chicago-style italics for book titles doesn’t prevent you from discussing what the words mean.

But if you really want to get your readers to home in on the title words as words, try something like this: “The nouns in the novel’s title, pride and prejudice, refer to a pair of traits . . .” or “The nouns in the novel’s title, ‘pride’ and ‘prejudice,’ refer to a pair of traits . . .”

For the use of italics or quotation marks to refer to words as words (either treatment is correct), see CMOS 7.66.

Q. Does CMOS have guidance for the White House’s recent changes to the names of the Gulf of Mexico and Denali?

A. Relative to matters of style, yes: Spell a generic word like gulf with an initial capital when it’s used as part of a proper name but not otherwise (“the Gulf of Mexico,” but “the gulf”; see CMOS 8.54); don’t add “Mount” before the name Denali (see 8.56); and spell out “Mount” in names like Mount McKinley rather than abbreviating it as “Mt.” (see 10.35).

Other than that, it’s easy enough to confirm that the names of those two geographic entities were officially changed (at least in the United States) to the Gulf of America and Mount McKinley, respectively, in accordance with an executive order issued on January 20, 2025, by the White House. What an author does with that information will then depend on various factors, including a publisher’s house style (if any) and considerations related to historical accuracy.

For additional guidance, see the AP Stylebook, which issues regular updates geared toward those who cover the news. In a pair of updates added on January 30, 2025, that guide says to use the original name for the gulf “while acknowledging the new name,” but, for the mountain, it says that “the Associated Press will use the new official name of Mount McKinley.” For the gulf, AP points to the long history of the older name together with the fact that the gulf shares its borders with Mexico; for the mountain, AP cites the fact that it lies entirely within the United States, which lends broader authority to that name change.

Q. With coordinate adjectives separated by a conjunction, there’s no comma: “A stable and sensible approach.” I assume it would be the same for contrasting adjectives: “A sensible yet volatile approach.” Though if you wanted to emphasize the volatility, you might set it off with commas: “A sensible, yet volatile, approach.” Does this all sound right?

A. That sounds right to us, though whenever you interrupt an adjective-plus-noun construction with an intervening phrase set off by commas, the result tends to be a little awkward. If you want to smooth things out while keeping the emphasis on volatility, try rephrasing. For example:

an approach that’s sensible yet also volatile

a sensible approach, albeit a volatile one

Or you could embrace the interruption by applying something stronger than commas:

a sensible—yet volatile—approach

a sensible (yet volatile) approach

See also CMOS 6.51.

Q. I work in curriculum. I need to be able to spell out large numbers so as to model how to read numerals correctly. I can find rules for when to hyphenate whole numbers, but I can’t find any for hyphenating decimals. Specifically, I need to know when to hyphenate the words to the right of the decimal (tenths/hundredths, etc.). Please advise. Thanks so much!

A. That’s a challenging question! Let’s start with a few numbers and how we would suggest spelling them out—on both sides of the decimal point:

1,357,201.5: one million, three hundred fifty-seven thousand, two hundred one and five tenths

1,357,201.58: one million, three hundred fifty-seven thousand, two hundred one and fifty-eight hundredths

1,357,201.580: one million, three hundred fifty-seven thousand, two hundred one and five hundred eighty thousandths

1,357,201.5803: one million, three hundred fifty-seven thousand, two hundred one and five thousand eight hundred three ten-thousandths

Note that we’ve used commas between groups of numbers to the left of the decimal point but not to the right, which reflects how the numbers are grouped (and punctuated) as digits. But we’ve treated the numbers to the left of the decimal point as a single value rather than as a series (which might require a serial comma before and).

The rules for hyphenation are the same on both sides of the decimal point (see CMOS 7.96, section 1, “numbers, spelled out”). But note that Chicago’s preference for hyphenating simple fractions doesn’t apply to five tenths in the first example above, which simply names the number in the tenths place. It does, however, apply to an ordinal fraction like ten-thousandths:

five-tenths (a simple fraction)

five tenths (the number in the tenths place; see first example above)

ten-thousandths (the ten-thousandths place; see last example above)

See also CMOS 7.96, section 1, “fractions, simple.” Finally, note that some writers add and when spelling out certain numbers that include hundred (three hundred and fifty-seven thousand; two hundred and one); Chicago omits this and (see CMOS 9.5).

Q. I am wondering how best to cite, within one chapter of a multiauthor book, other chapters from the same volume. I am accustomed to simply adding “(see chapter X)” to the text, but one author is pushing back and wants to see them in the reference list. We are using author-date style.

A. Chapters in multiauthor books are likely to be consulted separately  (and are sometimes offered for individual download or sale), so listing other chapters from that same book in the reference list at the end of your own chapter wouldn’t be the worst idea. But you should still let readers know that the chapter you’re citing is in the same book.

We’d suggest adding this information to the author-date reference for that chapter in your text—for example, like this: “(Smith 2025, in this volume).” The corresponding entry in your reference list would include the book’s title (per CMOS 13.109), so a similar comment shouldn’t be needed there:

Smith, Jane. 2025. “Chapter Title.” In Title of Book, edited by Joe Anyone. Publisher details.

If you cite more than a few chapters from your book, you may want to use a shortened form for the book: “In Anyone, Title of Book.” But even if you do that, you shouldn’t need to add a separate entry in the reference list for the book as a whole, the identity of which should be obvious to anyone who is already reading something from that book. For some additional considerations, see CMOS 14.10, under “author-date.”

Q. CMOS 13.128 shows how to use author-date citations in a footnote, but what about an informational footnote like, “The history of exclusion of Chinese people in the United States has been highly researched. To begin, see . . .”? Should the parentheses around the citations be removed, as in “To begin, see Chan 1991, Lee 2003, and Kurashige 2016”? Otherwise, it might seem as though the citations are substantiating the statement, rather than being offered as suggested reading.

A. In Chicago style, the “see” in “see Chan” means that you’re referring to a work rather than a person, and the year would retain parentheses whether in the text or in a note: “To begin, see Chan (1991), Lee (2003), and Kurashige (2016).” If you’re instead referring to the author in terms of the work, the wording would need to make that clear: “See the earlier efforts by Chan (1991) to digitize the archival records.”

Parentheses for the year are omitted only when the citation is itself in parentheses, in which case semicolons rather than commas separate the sources, as in “(to begin, see Chan 1991; Lee 2003; Kurashige 2016).” But if your parenthetical reference is to an author rather than a work, the year would get square brackets: “(See the earlier efforts by Chan [1991] to digitize the archival records.)” See CMOS 13.122 and 13.124.

Q. Is it okay for “%” to be changed to “percent” in quoted text to match the rest of the document, similar to how you can change en dashes to em dashes in CMOS 12.7?

A. It’s better to leave the symbol as is. Readers who look for the original text of a quotation that includes “a 7 percent increase” may have trouble finding the relevant passage if it has “a 7% increase” instead—or, if not, they may wonder what other changes have been made without notice.

By comparison, dashes are dashes. A reader consulting the source of a quotation that included “a 7 percent increase—defying all expectations” is unlikely to be tripped up by finding “a 7 percent increase – defying all expectations.”

In other words, we consider the difference between dashes to be purely typographical, whereas the difference between “%” and “percent” is just beyond that threshold—more like a case of synonyms.

Q. In the following sentence, is it correct to use an en dash after 25 but a hyphen after 30? “The report referred to a 25– to 30-year-old oak tree on the perimeter of the parking lot.”

A. It looks as if you’re trying to extend the logic behind expressions like “pre–Civil War,” where the idea is that an en dash, which is longer than a hyphen, bridges the space in “Civil War” to apply the prefix “pre” to both words in that phrase.

But Chicago style for your example would be to write “a 25-to-30-year-old oak tree,” with four hyphens. Only in the case of two different ages rather than a range would we recommend something like what you’ve written, but with a suspended hyphen instead of an en dash: “a 25- or 30-year-old oak tree”—which is short for “a 25-year-old or 30-year-old oak tree.” (See CMOS 7.96, section 1, under “age terms.”)

In each of those examples, the hyphen in “25-” is like the one in “30-”; an en dash rather than a hyphen after the first number might look like a mistake, and it wouldn’t necessarily make the expression any clearer. For more on suspended hyphens, see CMOS 7.95.

Q. Is it incorrect to include a space before a question or exclamation mark? E.g., “Do you like chocolate ?” Thank you.

A. In English? Yes, a space would be incorrect. But if you’re writing for a French audience, such a space would be expected. Just make sure it’s a nonbreaking space (see CMOS 6.129).

If you set your proofing language to French (under Review > Language), Microsoft Word will add a nonbreaking space next to certain marks of punctuation automatically as you type—not only before question marks and exclamation points but before colons and semicolons and between French quotation marks (or guillemets, « ») and the text they enclose. Word includes more than a dozen varieties of French, from Belgian French to Swiss French, and most add these spaces; the setting for Canadian French adds them only for colons and guillemets.

In English, however, such spaces are not required even if you’re quoting a French source verbatim in an otherwise English-language document. For more details, see CMOS 11.31.

Did you know? French typesetters used to add spaces before commas also (but not periods). See “One Space or Two” at CMOS Shop Talk (esp. footnote †).

Q. How would you style Napoleon’s name in something like “They researched the tin buttons on the uniforms of soldiers in Napoleon’s army.” Merriam-Webster has “Napoléon I” under the “Bonaparte” entry but “Napoleon I” under the “napoleon” entry. Encyclopaedia Britannica has “Napoleon I” as its first entry. CMOS 5.128 has “if Napoleon was in fact poisoned” as an example. So should my example sentence have an accent on “Napoleon,” include the “I,” or include “Bonaparte”?

A. Although fidelity to a person’s name is an important consideration, Napoleon Bonaparte entered the English vernacular long ago—without the accent. So, whereas “Napoléon” is the correct spelling of that name in French (where the accent is mandatory), there’s no need to use the French spelling in an English-language context.

As for the Roman numeral, add it only when needed for clarity—for example, to distinguish Napoleon I (or, in French, Napoléon Iᵉʳ) from Napoleons II and III. (Superscripts like the one in “Napoléon Iᵉʳ” are generally retained in an English-language context; see CMOS 11.30.)

As for “Bonaparte,” you can usually add that at your first mention of Napoleon, who is otherwise typically referred to by his first name.

Q. Dear Manuscript Editing Department, I am proofreading a bibliography using CMOS and wanted to ask where the period should go relative to the following title of a journal article: “In/Visibility and the (Post-Soviet) ‘Queer Closet.’ ” That placement seems to be the generally accepted solution in American English. I wonder, however, if, for the computational age, the following solution were not more appropriate: “In/Visibility and the (Post-Soviet) ‘Queer Closet’.” I find that it makes the string that one copies in order to search for it online correspond to what is in databases and on journal sites. Many thanks!

A. The period does look good between the two marks—where it solves the spacing problem between consecutive single and double quotation marks (we’ve added a narrow nonbreaking space to the first version of the title in your question, per CMOS 6.11)—but it’s not Chicago style.

And though we could make an exception for titles like the one you cite, we’d arguably then need to apply that same exception for periods (and commas) relative to single quotation marks everywhere for the sake of consistency—which, again, wouldn’t be Chicago style.

As for searches, the placement of the period (as well as its presence or absence) didn’t seem to make any difference in our tests, whereas the quotation marks and other marks of punctuation in the article title caused the occasional hiccup in certain library databases.

For a brief history of quotation marks relative to periods and commas—including the rationale for Chicago style (and, by extension, American English style)—see “Commas and Periods with Quotation Marks” at CMOS Shop Talk.

Q. I find ISBNs extremely useful when trying to locate copies of books of interest, especially when searching for secondhand copies of out-of-print books, for requesting books on interlibrary loan, and for disambiguating common names or titles. I’m writing a literature review in the form of an annotated bibliography and would like to include ISBNs in the entries for those books that have them, as a convenience and finding aid for readers. I can’t find any guidance for inclusion of ISBNs in Chicago-style footnotes or bibliography entries, even as an optional item. Can you provide a recommended template or example of placement and formatting?

A. Sure. Here’s how we’d recommend adding ISBNs to the bibliography entries for three different editions of Daniel James Brown’s bestselling book about a rowing team’s quest for Olympic gold at the 1936 Berlin Olympics (listed here in chronological order, from the 2013 Viking hardcover to the 2023 Penguin Books movie tie-in edition):

Brown, Daniel James. The Boys in the Boat. Viking, 2013. ISBN 978-0-670-02581-7.

Brown, Daniel James. The Boys in the Boat. Penguin Books, 2014. ISBN 978-0-143-12547-1.

Brown, Daniel James. The Boys in the Boat. Movie tie-in ed. Penguin Books, 2023. ISBN 978-0-593-51230-2.

In general, an ISBN or other optional information may be added to an entry in a bibliography when needed, following the period at the end of the other citation data. But if you need to include an ISBN within a note, we’d suggest adding it in parentheses, as part of the facts of publication:

1. Daniel James Brown, The Boys in the Boat, movie tie-in ed. (Penguin Books, 2023; ISBN 978-0-593-51230-2), 33–34.

The hyphens in the ISBN, which are optional, will help those who need to manually copy or type the number. For more on ISBNs and how they work, start with CMOS 1.36 and these FAQs from ISBN.org.

Q. Hello, Chicago doesn’t seem to have an example of how to cite a contribution to a new edition of a book. Should the edition number follow a period or comma in the reference list entry below? Though my example is in Chicago 17 style, the question is still relevant for Chicago 18 style, so I would appreciate your guidance. Thanks!

Rothbard, Murray N. 2006. “The Libertarian Heritage: The American Revolution and Classical Liberalism.” In For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto, 1–23. 2nd ed. Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute.

A. The best place for an edition number for a book is usually just after the title. When it’s part of an “In . .  .” statement (as in your example), it follows a comma. As of the 18th edition, Chicago no longer requires a page range for a chapter or other contribution to a book or a place of publication, so your author-date entry would look like this:

Rothbard, Murray N. 2006. “The Libertarian Heritage: The American Revolution and Classical Liberalism.” In For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto, 2nd ed. Ludwig von Mises Institute.

(If you were following CMOS 17, the edition number would precede the page range: “. . . Manifesto, 2nd ed., 1–23. . . .”) In a reference list entry for the book as a whole, the edition number would follow a period:

Rothbard, Murray N. 2006. For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto. 2nd ed. Ludwig von Mises Institute.

Bibliography entries would follow the same pattern (except for the placement of the year of publication; see CMOS 14.1).