In the Chicago style guide it mentions that you should use footnotes for unusual sources and sources with additional notes/information added and that bibliography is added for traditional sources without any notes.

An article I'm editing was done fully with footnotes references. Should I convert the items without notes to a bibliography list?

  • 4
    Welcome to Academia StackExchange! When you say you edit the article, is this editing for a specific journal (equivalent)? Are there instructions as to how the final article should be formatted? The answer will likely be completely dependent on such circumstanecs so please add additional information to your question. If no instructiosn exist then it seems it is up to your own discretion to come up with a solution (following perhaps the guideline you mention) Commented Feb 25, 2022 at 13:46

1 Answer 1


If you have to follow Chicago style 17th edition, you have to follow Chicago style 17th edition.

Therefore, it boils down to identifying all the "unusual sources and sources with additional notes/information" that are in the footnotes. These can be left as footnotes, while all the others must be converted to a typical bibliographic list.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .