Talk:The Chicago Manual of Style

message: This section doesn't make much sense as written. It seems to be referring to a method of citing other works, or something like that, but even that isn't clear. The CMS is an extremely comprehensive book, and you need to tell us what part of it you're talking about. Lou Sander 05:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. I'm going to put a  tag up for now. If we don't hear back from the original author of the material in that section -- who is probably gone, see Special:Contributions/Wokilemil -- we should probably just remove it. --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-07-01 07:23 (UTC)
The article cited in this section, "What’s in a Surname? The Effects of Surname Initials on Academic Success," does not mention/criticize Chicago Manual of Style, but rather argues that alphabetizing authors can be detrimental because some journals and indexes only list the first author followed by et. al.https://web.stanford.edu/~leinav/pubs/JEP2006.pdf This is not an issue in the Chicago Manual of Style, which requires all authors to be listed in every citation. This is perhaps the reason the authors do not mention Chicago in their article. In fact, the article is published in a journal that uses Chicago style.https://www.aeaweb.org/journals/policies/sample-references All AEA journals use Chicago.  Since the critique in this section is not actually levied at Chicago Manual of Style, nor is it actually a problem in Chicago Manual of Style, I think it should be removed, or a clarification note added.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.209.158 (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

text: At prompting of a wikipedia editor, I have removed the criticism section because the only article cited neither mentioned nor critiques Chicago Manual of Style. The article does suggest that alphabetized citation systems may be detrimental to authors with names toward the end of the alphabet, however it states this is only true when bibliographies or indexes use et. al.  This is not the case in Chicago Manual of Style, in which the full list of authors are always provided in the bibliography. This is perhaps why the authors do not critique Chicago Manual of Style in the article, which is itself written in the Chicago Manual of Style.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.209.158 (talk) 07:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Criticism" section 

message: The current article states "Note that, in the field of publishing, style means punctuation, italicizing, bolding, capitalization, tables, and so forth; not prose style."  Isn't that too restrictive?  Don't style manuals actually say some things about wording, such as 'avoiding sexist language'?  I won't change this myself, because I'm really not too familair with the subject. ike9898 21:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True. And CMS goes on to discuss other publishing things (e.g., barcodes). —Ben FrantzDale 22:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it is definitely true that publishing deals with not just the physical formatting, grammar and punctuation, but also prose style, including things like clarity of prose, organization, gender-neutral language, flow, documentation, plagiarism, etc., I have edited out the following section. 
        (Note that, in the field of publishing, style means punctuation, italicizing, 
         bolding, capitalization, tables, and so forth; not prose style.)
[Grrr...I know I'm signed in, but my signature isn't showing up. I'll try again. ]Cyg-nifier 14:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  isn't style more general that formating? 

message: This article (like any other in Wikipedia) requires citations (full citations) to reliable and verifiable sources; see WP:V, WP:V#Sources, WP:CITE (one should use Chicago style to illustrate, given this subject, I believe), and WP:EL.  Do not embed external links in main text.  Use a citations style (parenthetical citations and/or footnotes), keyed to the References list (just added); new references (books and articles) can be added to the References list.  External links section must follow WP:EL; no redundancy between footnotes and external links section.  Listing either as a footnote (full citation) or keyed to References list (bibliography). One cannot lift material from external sites and plop it into Wikipedia articles; quotation marks and citations to attribute sources of material are required.  WP:ATTRIBUTION, though inactive, contains useful links to WP.  See Plagiarism for what to avoid.  Also, this is not supposed to be an advertisement for The Chicago Manual of Style; it is supposed to be an encyclopedia article about it; see WP:Advert (scroll down for info. re: the no advert template).  --NYScholar 19:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: missing citations template

message: Unsourced and poorly reference claims for CMS.  From the first paragraph: It is "one of the most widely used and respected style guides in the United States,"[1]  This claim is only backed up by a dubious self-published source.  Also from the first paragraph:  is considered the de facto guide for American English style, grammar, and punctuation.  While this may once have been true, the CMS has been losing authority for at least 50 years, as evidenced by the increasing popularity of MLA, APA, and AMA, styles. Also, why does the article read like it was written by the CMS marketing department?  17 January, 2012  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.129.148.154 (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: How is it a self-published source? As to your other comments, they are reasonable observations, even if arguable. Please feel free to contribute to the article with reliable sources and suggest further changes here. --Airborne84 (talk) 20:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

text: An updated appendix on production and digital technology demystifies the process of electronic workflow and offers a primer on the use of XML markup, and a revised glossary includes a host of terms associated with electronic as well as print publishing. The Chicago system of documentation is streamlined to achieve greater consistency between the author-date and notes-bibliography systems of citation, making both systems easier to use. In addition, updated and expanded examples address the many questions that arise when documenting online and digital sources, from the use of DOIs to citing social networking sites. Figures and tables are updated throughout the book—including a return to the Manual’s popular hyphenation table and new, selective listings of Unicode numbers for special characters.
(My emphases.) Lots of praise implicit and even explicit in that. Maybe the praise is justified. But it shouldn't be here merely on the say-so of the publisher or of a WP editor. Instead, independent reviews saying this should be cited.
As for the IP's suggestion about sinking popularity, I have my own tart comments to make, but this isn't the place. Still, I've added the expert voice of Geoffrey K. Pullum to the article. -- Hoary (talk) 16:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: unsupported statements in first paragraph

message: I came to this article to find which disciplines use CMS the most--is it more for humanities or sciences, etc.--but found nothing. Obviously I don't know so I cannot add any information to the page but I would appreciate if someone did. I believe that to be necessary. 76.124.116.124 (talk) 13:50, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage 

message: I find that the basic color highlights in the "Notes and Bibliography Style" section are hurting my eyes. If you need to use highlighting for clarity, using less offensive colors would be much better.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:302:D1BE:10C0:1CA3:90F1:457C:F613 (talk) 00:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: For example, I think that the italics are enough to distinguish the journal title from other parts of the citation. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 19:52, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Highlighting