Encyclopedia reference in Chicago 15 - missing citation info for footnotes

In my Endnote library, i have references to articles in Encyclopedias.  When I entered one into a footnote in my text, the citation did not format properly.  So I opened the style sheet for Chicago 15 and was surprised to see there was no encyclopedia reference material, that is there were no codes for telling the program how to format the Encyclopedia reference in the footnote. 

When I selected to add an Encyclopedia format, the box came up but it was completely empty of codes.  So I’m not sure what to do.  

S. Tabacchi, “Giuliano Gondi,” in Dizionario biografico degli italiani (Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia italiana, 1960-), 658;  [notice missing volume number]

subsequent references: 

Tabacchi, “DBI,” 658

Should read, Tabacchi, DBI [in Italics not in quotation marks, 658.  

I’m also curious why there is the possibility to choose, “Encyclopedia,” but not style instructions to go with it in the actual template under Chicago 15.  I also checked the template for Chicago 16 and there was no template there either. 

Thanks so much,


Not all templates have all the ref types. If they aren’t there, they have no data in them.  You need to add them and add the correct template information. The easiest way to start is to copy the generic into the encyclopedia template and adjust/delete fields, add additional formating as needed from there. 

Hi Leanne, 

I’m not sure I know how to make the exact format for this.  I can give it a try, but by now someone must have made a template for an Encyclopedia.  Is there any way for people to shared their templates instead of having everyone do them individually? 



First you might want to check that the most recent version of that style hasn’t been updated to include your requirements here. (you can also get to this page from Endnote via the help menu in the PC version and thru the style manager in the Mac version). 

Then, if it hasn’t, the best way to “share updates”, is to request a change to the style here. There are so many styles already out there, that keeping track of these kind of specific changes, is challanging. Styles that predated the inclusion of a specific ref type won’t have that ref type included, unless someone requests it.  There are almost 50 ref types, and most are not included in most (all?) of the output styles.  Even when one is updated for a user here on the forum, and posted, it is hard to find later.  And then one assumes you would want to make the same change to Chicago 16th?  Both A and B, and the thousands of styles that are available on the website, in a sllightly different way? 

finally, if I were to do this for you, (and I stress I am not a Thomson employee) then I would need to know which exact template you would want altered: 15th or 16th and then A or B? Footnot or Bibliography templates?  If you have already made any changes to the out of the box template, attaching it so the modification builds on yours would also  be recommended. 

Anyway, you would need to specify exactly what fields you use and want to show (only the Vol missing in the current output?) Is the field you want in footnotes to be the “cited pages” or Pages field. How should it appear in the Bibliography?  Have you tried treating Encyclopedia references as a chapter section as an easy workaround.  Does it produce something closer to the output you are looking for?  I  made an attempt in the attached style below, but it probably still needs some tweaking. 

Chicago_15th_A[encyclopedia].ens (59.2 KB)