# Biblatex in author-date changes the way footnotes appear in the footer

I am using Biblatex-chicago in authordate format. The problem is that it also changes the way footnotes appear in the footer. Instead of appearing as superscripts they appear as inline numbers.

Here is a minimal working example.

\documentclass[11pt, a4paper]{report}

\usepackage[authordate,natbib,backend=biber,useprefix=true]{biblatex-chicago}

\title{Brief Article}
\author{The Author}

\begin{document}
\maketitle

Here is a footnote which looks fine in the text.\footnote{But here at the bottom of the page the number is in-line.}

\end{document}


Also I am typesetting in LuaLaTex but I don't think it makes a difference.

• The author of biblatex-chicago is following the guidelines set down by the Chicago Manual of Style. 15th ed. § 16.25 reads: 'Position of numbers. Note reference numbers in text are set as superior (superscript) numbers. In the notes themselves, they are normally full size, not raised, and followed by a period.' However, the package author understands that some may not wish to follow this guideline, so if you use a footnote package like footmisc or bigfoot or an expanded class like memoir or KOMA-Script, the expectation is that you will designate the footnote style. – jon Apr 1 '13 at 19:51
• @jon: Can you provide an answer please? – Marco Daniel Apr 23 '13 at 17:45
• @MarcoDaniel -- No problem. – jon Apr 24 '13 at 0:15

The Chicago Manual of Style has fairly strict requirements about the style of the footnote mark that preceeds the text of the footnote. I only have the 15th edition to hand (current edition: 16th), but it reads (§ 16.25):

Position of numbers. Note reference numbers in text are set as superior (superscript) numbers. In the notes themselves, they are normally full size, not raised, and followed by a period.

biblatex-chicago therefore does the 'right thing' automatically; even better, you can use it for either 15th or 16th edition requirements, which is important since journals themselves tend to lag behind the 'current' Chicago practice.

However, the author of biblatex-chicago realizes that not everyone follows, or needs to follow, the Chicago guidelines exactly, so if you load the footmisc package or use the memoir class, the expectation is that you will define your own footnote styles. (The KOMA-Script bundle, too, offers a lot of possibilities, but you have to explicitly overwrite the biblatex-chicago setup yourself if you use those classes.)

Compare the differences in the following when biblatex-chicago is loaded:

% \documentclass[11pt]{memoir}%   <-- memoir determines footnote style
\documentclass[11pt]{report}%   <-- biblatex-chicago determines footnote style
% \usepackage{footmisc}%          <-- footmisc determines footnote style

\usepackage[paperheight=2in,paperwidth=4in]{geometry}% (for this example)

\usepackage[authordate,natbib,backend=biber,useprefix=true]{biblatex-chicago}