Subsequent Note vs. Ibid.

I see that CMOS, 17th ed., says that using ibid is discouraged.  But my Evidence Explained, 3rd ed., supports using ibid.  For my own use, I prefer ibid rather than a subsequent note (in the right situation, of course) - it makes the footnote section look a bit cleaner.  Just wondering what is the current EE thinking on this - follow CMOS or encourage the use of ibid?  Thanks so much!

Submitted byEEon Sat, 04/11/2020 - 19:28

HockeyMom, ibid. is still valuable in EE's opinion—assuming it is used appropriately (EE 2.69). As a researcher and writer, EE's author does not use ibid. until the last stage of revision. Otherwise, the ibid. stands a high chance of being orphaned from its parent citation. The trend in most publications has been a move away from Latinisms.