you prob could do that but it is NOT good practice... foot note SHOULD stay on that page (if thats what you want to do??) or all at the end (end notes) of the document... are you using ID's footnote capabilities or manual?
yeah, i know it's not a good practice, but it's somewhat common in academic papers.
i'm using ID's footnotes. and they should be on the page they're cited, so i can't put it on the end of the document.
lol: where norms fail anarchy prevails...
footnotes as called... they are not to be continued notes....
but im sure (like almost everything) can be scripted... ask in the scripting forum..
This forum has posted many complaints about the limitations of ID's footnotes, but one of the things it can do is use the rule above the footnotes section on a page to distinguish between a new vs. a continued footnote. That's not a lot of choice, but I've used no rule for new notes with a 5-em rule for continued notes. Off the top of my head, I don't recall what the Chicago Manual and MLA style guides say, but one common-sense trick is to make sure the continuation of a note doesn't begin with a new sentence, or a capitalized word that could be confused with one.
in the document footnote options (Type>Document Footnote Options)
In the layout tab there is a the options for First Footnote in a Column and Split Footnotes in the Rule Above
These can be changed independently to give different rule aboves if a footnote is split across the pages
This can give a visual indication that the footnote is indicated by choosing a thinner weight rule and a shorter rule.
Why the options are in a drop down menu are beyond me...
First Paragraph Rule in a Column and Continued Rules
They could/should be independent settings within the dialog - not lumped together like that.
Ah footnotes, the bane of my existence.
Eugene Tyson wrote:
[..] Ah footnotes, the bane of my existence.
It's getting InDesign to import them that's usually my biggest problem! Here's one from today:
Instead of the expected footnote #24, I get a pinky square with a code U+FFFD (which is a generic "placeholder" code). All other notes, up to thirty-something are just fine. Nothing special with this one either -- well, apart from the fact that it occurs right before a table. For some unknown reason that's so utterly complicated that at times ID flat out refuses to import such a document, until I give up and type some text between note and table.
(In this case I could get by by copying the missing footnote text out of the original Word document. Further problems with this one document -- one of a set of 11 separate docs -- were a footnote with a number code that read "<?>", and two notes originally inside a table that got renumbered from 1 and placed as endnotes at the end of the text.)
Uh. Why I was posting: usually, the first line between text and footnote is a short thick one, and the line between text and a "continued" note is full width. My InDesign does this by default (I might have set it up to do so), and I have known this as a possible system for some decades now.
I agree with Jongware in identifying ID's biggest footnote problem as the way it replaces random notes with the "pinky square." I used to think it was CJK characters in the notes that confused InDesign, in part because ID always seemed to apply a Chinese font to the pink box. But as Jongware notes, the problem is more complicated, and is still with us, version after version.
Just a thought, but might the ID problem be triggerd by minor corruption inside the original file? For me, these are almost always *.doc files, which have a way of accumulating crud. Moreover, they've usually passed through several users, some of whom never bothered to develope skill with the software on which their jobs depend. I don't recall whether the problem survives twiddling in Word (or Open Office Writer): conceivably saving to *.rtf, or converting footnotes to endnotes and back again might shake things back into shape. But I assume Jongware tried those long since.