3

I have this in my preamble so that \autocite makes footnotes:

\usepackage[backend=biber, style=authoryear, autocite=footnote]{biblatex}

The problem comes when I want to make a regular footnote to explain something. Regular footnotes and footnotes for citations use the same numbering so it is confusing for the reader. How can I use different numbering for regular footnotes and footcites? Or how do I differentiate between these types of footnotes?

Minimal working example with bibliography:

\documentclass{article}

\usepackage[style=authoryear-comp, autocite=footnote]{biblatex}
\addbibresource{\jobname.bib}
\usepackage{filecontents}

\begin{filecontents}{\jobname.bib}
@book{key,
  author = {Author, A.},
  year = {2001},
  title = {Title},
  publisher = {Publisher},
}
\end{filecontents}

\begin{document}

foo\autocite{key}

bar\footnote{Explaining text}

\printbibliography
\end{document}
  • You could change the numbering scheme of footnotes using for example \renewcommand*{\thefootnote}{\alph{footnote}} (letters) or \renewcommand*{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}} (symbols). Please also extend your code snippet to a full minimal working example (MWE) – leandriis Jan 2 '18 at 19:07
  • Short answer (because of missing minimal working example): → manyfoot – Schweinebacke Jan 2 '18 at 19:08
  • @leandriis I tested this answer which seems to be the same as your solution but it changes the numbering for both footcite and footnote. My problem was that I want to separate them from each other somehow. – Zetagon Jan 2 '18 at 19:39
  • @LeoEricson: You are completely right. I have been overlooking that the commands affect both numberings. To differentiate them you should definitely give the package manyfoot a try, as already recommended by Schweinebacke. You can then influence the numbering scheme of footcites and footnotes separately by commands similar to the ones in my first comment. – leandriis Jan 2 '18 at 20:18
3

I'm not sure if it a good idea to separate the footnote. In general I prefer it if there is only one footnote type where one has to search the note. But it can be done with manyfoot e.g. like this:

\documentclass{article}

\usepackage[style=authoryear-comp, autocite=footnote]{biblatex}
\addbibresource{biblatex-examples.bib}

\usepackage{manyfoot}
\newfootnote{A}
\newcounter{footnoteA}
\newcommand{\footnoteA}{%
\stepcounter{footnoteA}%
\Footnotemark\thefootnoteA \FootnotetextA{}}
\renewcommand{\thefootnoteA}{\alph{footnoteA}}
\begin{document}

foo\autocite{herrmann}

bar\footnoteA{Explaining text}

blalb\autocite{doody}

blblb\footnoteA{explain more}

\printbibliography
\end{document}

enter image description here

  • I think that it would be easier for the reader when it is obvious when there is an actual footnote and not a citation. Citations don't add to the reading but footnotes do. Edit. also I saw that manyfoot has a new command \DeclareNewFootnote which seems to be more concise – Zetagon Jan 3 '18 at 9:55

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.