It literally says in your excerpt "if there are more than six, list only the first three, followed by “et al.”" in the bibliography and says that notes without bibliography should follow the bibliography rules for et al

Et Al after three authors for works with more than 6 is implied by "as in the bibliography" in 13.23 -- you're welcome to ask CMOS about this, they do answer emails, but I promise you adunning's interpretation is what the Manual intends. It would make no sense to list more authors in notes than in a bibliography, not would the Manual establish a third different et al rule.

Adam, the scholarly editors group is equally divided on how to read that. I've submitted the question to the Chicago Q&A. I'll report back when and if they respond.

I've recently been using CMOS styles to write a paper, for which I use Zettlr for the Markdown and Zotero (via BetterBibTeX) to handle the referencing. One can then export the markdown file via Zettlr's internal pandoc to generate a new format; I generally send it to Word, since that is what is requested. Zettlr allows you to use the Zotero style files to do the rendering.

I recently swapped from 17 to 18 and noticed that with the change to 18 (and the reverse-engineering of 17 mentioned in these fora), that some of the forms of referencing have stopped working, whereas they worked perfectly in the previous version (of 17).

Specifically, the text used to indicate a chapter in a ref (i.e., "chap.") no longer appears to work, whereas "part", "figure", "Table", etc all seem to.

I find this to be so in most of the styles I've tried: notes; notes-bibliography; shortened-notes-bibliography; etc.

Example: the reference written in markdown in Zettlr as

[@kocs19io, chap. 7]

would when exported render, correctly, under the older CMOS 17 style as

(Kocs 2019, chap. 7)

However, under CMOS 18 and the revised 17, it now renders as

(Kocs 2019, 7).

Whereas, something like

[@matlock10si, chap. 1; @matlock24lbla, part III]

renders as

(Matlock 2010, 1; 2024, pt. III).

So, I am wondering: is the new CMOS deprecating the "chap." designator, or is there possibly a typo/bug in the style files that handle the "chapter" referencing?

I ask because using, e.g., Harvard Cite Them Right style, does insert the "chap." text in the Matlock citation above.

Anyone else notice this behaviour?

@dunning
Tried it in shortened-notes-bibliography and it worked!
I just commented out the line.

I have a lot of references for the paper, and I have noticed that while most are rendered in title capitalisation, as expected, a handful are done in sentence caps.

This is odd, because I store all refs in sentence caps, with the APA caveat of a capital after the colon in a compound title (i.e., main title and a subtitle; a throw back to olden times... I think CMOS does do this now). I've double-checked this, and when I change the citation of one ref which only has a title to another with a subtitle (i.e., a later paperback edition), the title caps work as expected.

However, the sentence caps also occurs for a ref which has a compound title, so is there perhaps another pandoc obscurity that causes this?

@jvoros I suspect that you're encountering the difference in pandoc versus citeproc-js (the citation processor in Zotero) in the interpretation of languages. Pandoc follows the CSL specification strictly, which states that the value of language should be an ISO 639-1 (= IETF) language tag, i.e. en for English. Zotero interprets this more loosely.

Thus, if you have an item with English or eng as the Language, it will be rendered in title case in Zotero but sentence case in pandoc. Changing the language to en will fix the problem.

Many thanks for this; I have a query about citing manuscript letters and the like located in archival collections. The csl for CMOS 17 (full note, short title subsequent) rendered letters in archival collections as

Writer to Recipient, Date, Loc. in Archive, Archive.

Which is what I see recommended in CMOS 18 too, more or less; see for example item two in 14.120.

Unless I'm doing something wrong, it looks to me as if the csl for Chicago 18 (notes and bibliography) renders the same item as

Writer to Recipient, Date, Archive (Loc. in Archive).

Is the rendering of location in archive in parentheses actually a new recommendation in CMOS 18, and I'm failing to find it? I admit this is entirely possible and would be grateful for guidance. Otherwise, is there some way to revert to the way CMOS 17 rendered it?

OK, so there seems to be a difference between how Zotero (using, I now understand, citeproc-js) renders podcast episodes and how Zettlr does it (using an 'internal' pandoc).

CMOS18 14.168 suggests the following template for podcasts (using notes style):

Name of Podcaster, host, Title of Podcast in Title Caps, podcast, season num, episode num, "Title of Episode in Title Caps", Publisher/Source, Date, URL.

No mention is made of what to do when there is a guest on the podcast: i.e., should the guest be the cited name or should it still be the podcaster?

Using the CMOS18 notes-with-bibliography style in the Item Pane header, the following is produced (it is the Bibliography form of course since the Item Pane header does not allow the choice of a Note rendering -- at least, not yet):

Rachman, Gideon. Is There Such a Thing as a Rules-Based International Order? With guest G. John Ikenberry. The Rachman Review Podcast. April 20, 2023. 27m. https://www.ft.com/content/664d7fa5-d575-45da-8129-095647c8abe7.

Interestingly, when this reference is exported from Zettlr, using the same style as used in the Item Pane header, this is the output:

Ikenberry, G. John, guest. Is There Such a Thing as a Rules-Based International Order? Directed by Gideon Rachman. The Rachman Review Podcast. April 20, 2023. 27m. https://www.ft.com/content/664d7fa5-d575-45da-8129-095647c8abe7.

So, is this an example of the difference between citeproc-js and pandoc? At any rate, I like the use of the guest's name as the citation anchor (when there is one), since that seems to be of more interest (and it is what I ended up doing for the paper I wrote). But CMOS does not seem to have a stance on this, except insofar as they say to cite podcasts in a similar way to TV eps and series.

I am not criticising here; I'm just wondering where the disconnect might be, in the spirit of trying to work out what is going on. And for how to get these two excellent programs to work together even better (as I said over on the Zettlr forums).

BTW, the metadata for the above citation is:

Item Type: Podcast
Title: Is there such a thing as a rules-based international order?
Podcaster: Gideon Rachman
Guest: G. John Ikenberry
Date: 2023-04-20
URL: https://www.ft.com/content/664d7fa5-d575-45da-8129-095647c8abe7
Series Title: The Rachman Review podcast
Running Time:	27m

Hmm. I knew about podcaster not being part of CSL (from reading through the comments in @dunning's CSL files).

I found that by deleting Podcaster in the above data, and putting

Director: Rachman || Gideon

into Extra, the second of the above citations is produced in the Item Pane header.

But it's still a bit strange -- I looked through the JSON file that BetterBibTeX produces, and anyone listed as podcaster is output as "director" in the Better CSL JSON file, so it really shouldn't have made any difference.

However, if I export the library using CSL JSON (not Better CSL JSON), then indeed the podcaster is rendered as an author.

Interesting...

@dunning
This is fantastic to know. I've updated the podcasts mentioned in my paper and the formatting works as needed except if there is no episode number (I have a couple of these, since not all podcasts number their episodes). I've tested this on author-date and notes.

For example, the Rachman-Ikenberry item shown above renders with the container-title and title reversed (i.e., the "title" first, then the italic container-title second).

It's too late to change them in the paper, since that has been submitted and is now on its way to the interweb. Nonetheless, I am redoing all the podcasts in my library to use this format for future use. Thanks!

@dunning
It strikes me that, for consistency of form, the same format would make sense, with or without a season/episode number to necessarily distinguish the specific episode. If I try to think like a CMOS editor might, I would be led down that path, since the specific episode comes after the collection title, whether or not it is distinguished by a season/number (which I would consider like a locator in the collection). This is the same way of thinking that led me to use the guest name as the citation anchor above.

That said, I can also see how it would work the other way, like an analytic work title inside a monographic work title. :shrug:

I've now signed up to CMOS and, dammit, will have to learn CSL too, at this rate :-)

@jvoros See the Buolamwini example in the Quick Guide for placing the episode name of a broadcast before the programme title without an episode number:

https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/tools_citationguide/citation-guide-1.html#cg-interview