Talk:Note (typography)

Explanatory Notes
Does anyone know how to add short Explanatory Notes as numbered footnotes in Wikipedia? If so, please leave a link or directions on my talk page. Thank you.Shannon bohle (talk) 05:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Footnotes and Reference Marks
I only see two pages devoted to Footnotes and Reference Marks in the U.S. Government Printing Office Style Manual (pdf). The rest of that section deals with Indexes and Tables of Contents, and Outlines. The sixth page is blank. --152.105.129.9 18:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

We need a name for the subscript character used in footnotes.
The name for the text at bottom of the page is called the "footnote." The name of the character that refers to that footnote is called the what? How about "headmark" or "notemark" or something like that? There really should be a name for this thing.


 * I've been using "notemark" for the better part of the last decade.


 * Oxford University Press used "reference markers" (see 37th ed of Hart's Rules for Compositors and Readers (1967) - the latest in libraries to which I currently have access.) I live in the UK, and have been accustomed in 40 years of dealing with print as a teacher to call them 'footnote markers'.  This seems unambiguous to me, particularly if we distinguish between 'text footnote markers'  and 'footnote markers at the foot'.MacAuslan 07:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

"reference figures" is what the government page calls the number or asterick used in a footnote.


 * Isn't it a "superscript"? And does this article actually cite Al Franken as a source?!  Schnaz 20:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it's superscript (Lat super = above).MacAuslan 07:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

How about: dex. Ex: What was the dex on the footnote. Tom Marquette Footnote podcast


 * The current version of the article uses the term "cue" for the in-line marker for a footnote or endnote. Finding that terminology is actually the reason I looked up the article. Steve98052 (talk) 03:06, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Copy and Paste
The "Academic usage" section of the article has been lifted verbatim from the NASA History Style Guide referenced earlier in the article. I'm a bit new to Wikipedia; as far as I understand verbatim copying is not permitted, right? -SoulSkorpion 07:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I've re-wrote this section to fix the errors as well as the plagiarism. It should be correct and original now. Rutherford B. Hayes 17:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Ann Coulter swipe
Could the Franken-Coulter sentence be a NPOV swipe at Coulter? I believe that this could be better written. TuckerResearch 05:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Before or after
I'm sure I could find it somewhere but I think it would take quite a while to find it does the footnote go before or after the punctuation mark. For example should it go like: [1]. or .[1]. Thanks SirGrant 01:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I much prefer the superscript or notemark -- whatever we call it -- to go after the ending punctuation. (Although, I must admit, it seems a bit trivial.) -- Schnaz 21:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I had an amiable disagreement with a Lecturer in History once who agreed with you, Schnaz. He said that he had never seen otherwise in History books.  Since then, I have observed that this is so, and I have to admit that he was right - but I still feel that in logic it should go before.  Consistency is much to be desired; and if there is a high consistency among other users, one should probably go with the flow.  Alas!  MacAuslan 07:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Asimov used footnote in novel
In Murder at The ABA Asimov used footnotes. Please add this information to the fiction section of this article. Thank you. Jane Foxx 22:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

HG2G
How about adding the instance in Douglas Adams's Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy? There's a pretty long footnote there about Ford's real name. Bob the Wikipedian, the Tree of Life WikiDragon (talk) 23:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Footnotes and endnotes
The current title of the article implies that footnotes is the common term and that "endnotes" is merely a variant. The common term for footnotes and endnotes, though, is simply "notes". So unless we are to keep separate articles on both terms, the current title is slightly misleading and doesn't seem entirely neutral. Are there any reasons for not moving the article to, say, note (annotation)?

Peter Isotalo 13:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Since there had been no critical response to my comment above I moved the article to a title that more accurately reflects the article topic, ei a typographical issue. I thought that note (typography) would be better title, though, since "annotation" could be interpreted as referring too specifically to commentary notes. Any alternative suggestions are more than welcome.
 * Peter Isotalo 14:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

foot and note disease
The reference for "foot and note disease" only mentions the phrase in passing. It does not examine the phrase in detail or depth. A better reference is needed. Here's what the text says:

Mr. Hastings has tried thoughout his study everything that I have put down here is no 'to keep away from what John Betjeman calls more than an alternative way of observing "the rash of foot and note disease" that most the future at all events. It remains one biographical accounts tender'. Fair enough, if one's a dramatist, to throw overboard the scholars with the critics. 41.204.77.50 (talk) 09:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * That quotation is irredeemably scrambled. Just try to read it through, and you'll see that it makes no sense and can't even be parsed.


 * The source text is in short lines, each of which is a plausible chunk when taken by itself. The anonymous poster plainly didn't realize that Wiki rendering ignores line breaks except in wikilists and  text. They had probably copied it carelessly from two columns in a PDF, with the quotation in one column and something else in the other.


 * I haven't been able to find the original on-line, but this reconstruction seems plausible:



! intended quotation !! !! extraneous
 * Mr. Hastings has tried thoughout his study ||      || everything that I have put down here is no
 * 'to keep away from what John Betjeman calls ||      || more than an alternative way of observing
 * "the rash of foot and note disease" that most ||      || the future at all events. It remains one
 * biographical accounts tender'. Fair enough, if ||      ||
 * one's a dramatist, to throw overboard the ||      ||
 * scholars with the critics. ||      ||
 * }
 * biographical accounts tender'. Fair enough, if ||      ||
 * one's a dramatist, to throw overboard the ||      ||
 * scholars with the critics. ||      ||
 * }
 * scholars with the critics. ||      ||
 * }


 * But after all that, a quick Google search shows several sources using the expression, with or without attribution. I've added the attribution to Betjeman, referencing an interview with his daughter.


 * --Thnidu (talk) 03:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Sidenotes/Margin Notes
Sidenotes or marhin notes are an attractive and easy-to-read method for inserting additional information. I have seen them used often in the academic humanities, for example this journal (http://www.field-journal.org/). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.224.68.168 (talk) 16:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Duplicate sections
The sections were duplicated en bloc, from Revision as of 12:24, 25 February 2008 to Revision as of 12:25, 25 February 2008. I've removed the second set. --Thnidu (talk) 02:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Explanatory Notes
 * Footnotes and Reference Marks
 * We need a name for the subscript character used in footnotes.
 * Copy and Paste
 * Ann Coulter swipe
 * Before or after

Bank of Scotland logo
Isn't '※' the logo of the Bank of Scotland? Is this just a random coincidence? 88.104.254.106 (talk) 19:59, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, since the Bank of Scotland logo is intended to represent a Saltire between four coins. The design comes from their formal coat of arms (in this instance carved above the entrance to a branch in Glasgow). Zacwill16  ( talk ) 20:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Literary Device
Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Note_(typography)&oldid=692773278

Millions of books have footnotes. Thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands include snarky or whimsical footnotes, very frequently with running gags. Are we supposed to list them all here? Or, maybe, all those books that everybody has already heard of? Maybe there should be a Books with Snarky Footnotes page for those. (Disgusted, leaving.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.122.73 (talk) 07:15, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Footnotes are awesome
Endnotes banished to the back of a text break up the text and force you to think. Who is the text written for? Are they the notes for the sake of the editor or the reader, really. Bring back the footnote --121.222.121.19 (talk) 17:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Komejirushi which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Intercalated footnotes
The Irish Convention, 1917-18 pp.90–93 (Routledge & K. Paul, 1970; ISBN 0710065116) includes the following consecutive footnote numbers: 101, 101A, 102, 103, 103A, 104, 105, 106, 107, 107A and 108. jnestorius(talk) 13:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia style guide?
Would it be appropriate to link the Wikipedia style guide as a usage example?

Against For "See also"
 * Wikipedia articles typically don't write about Wikipedia itself.
 * There may not be reliable secondary sources on the topic.
 * People interested in editing Wikipedia for the first time might find this article when trying to understand how to add references, if their search terms don't lead to the style guide.
 * The style guide is an entity separate from the encyclopedia part of Wikipedia, and is the authoritative source for Wikipedia references. (As such, however, although reliable, is a primary source.)
 * The current "HTML" section refers to Mediawiki already.
 * The rules for "See also" sections seem more relaxed than regular article text.

On grounds of Be bold, I'm going to link the style guide in "See also". But it's worth discussion.
 * — Steve98052 (talk) 03:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC)