Forums
Dear EE,
I've noticed that some publications use distinct numbering systems for citation (1,2,3...) vs. discursive (A,B,C,...) reference notes, with one category of notes grouped in endnotes and the other category becoming footnotes. Is this a practice that is welcomed or is it frowned upon? Would it be acceptible to use a "footnotes only" arrangement of reference notes with the distinct numbering systems intermixed?
Stan M.
Stan, in what field do you
Stan, in what field do you see that practice used? Can you cite examples from any peer-reviewed journal in history or family history, where the editors have found that to be an effective way of presenting the end-products of someone's research?
The first example I've seen
One example is:
The main text of this book has 685 endnote citations and discursive footnotes ranging from A..Z, AA..BJ. This is a self-published book, so it may not be peer-reviewed.
Another is:
The main text of this book has 325 endnote citations and discursive footnotes marked with a symbol from the sequence: asterisk, dagger, double-dagger, etc. The footnote symbols are unique to a page (the symbol sequence is reset on each new page). This style seems to be more common.
Stan M.
Stan,
Stan,
Both of these books are attractively designed. However, both are standalone books, whose designers weighed many options against the specific content of each manuscript before deciding upon an approach for that particular book. Design options chosen for one book might work poorly with another—depending upon the nature of the content. If I were to tell you, "Oh, yes. Shorto's system works just fine for his book," I might well mislead you and our readers who could be working with significantly different ratios of notes to narrative or discursive notes to source notes, and notes of significntly different lengths.
EE, as you may have noticed, does use symbols for a few notes. The operative word is few. Very few. We made that decision as a less confusing option because both discursive and source notes are so few and scattered that numbering is not feasible. As another example, CMOS demonstrates the use of symbols only for tables. This usage is occasionally seen in history journals but, given the nature of notes in most history manuscripts, standard numbering is the standard. (That said, Bowden's system of using "A..Z, AA..BJ" for discursive notes is not one that enhances clarity.)
As for your question about intermixing the two systems: that is not recommended any guide to citations, style, or writing that we have on our reference shelves. It's also not one we would recommend.
On the subject of discursive notes—if you have not seen it already—you'll find them discussed in one of our blog postings from last summer: https://www.evidenceexplained.com/quicktips/overlong-citations-discursive-notes.
Dear EE,
Dear EE,
Thank you for pointing out the factors that go into selecting a reference note system for a book. It is likely a choice that would be made in the finishing stages and depend a good deal on what would be most "natural" to the intended audience.
Yes, I had read the QuickTip on discursive notes and will heed that advice as well. I'm in the habit of searching the EE forum for topic keywords. Quite often I find someone else has asked the same question before.
Stan M.
With an archive of 1500 posts
With an archive of 1600+ posts, that does happen fairly often now!