That’s the best we can advise right now, and we strive to provide the optimal experience for your visitors and to our users. By contrast, when footnotes are unique in footnotes, the back-button extends over the whole table-cell the number sits in. (In the example of MediaWiki, the referrers are not disambiguated like the backlinks are.)Īs of usability on mobiles: Since each footnote has its individual backlink, these are close to each other when footnotes are combined, so tapping a backlink in a cluster may require special attention. using names as suggested by another user and seen in Wikipedia and elsewhere, the reader is left without many clues about what tiny letter they need to click to get back. When footnotes are combined in a single number, e.g.

Repeating full citations is also an opportunity to add details. For changing sources, shortened citations may be used. notation followed by the current page number avoids repeating the footnote content. This avoids suboptimal referrer and backlink disambiguation using a secondary numbering system. In Footnotes, when footnotes are combined, footnote numbers keep incrementing. After a full citation the first time, next instances will shorten to authors names and year, plus page number or figure reference. Whatever the use case is, a recommended solution is adding value by citing the exact page number in each instance. In publishing web pages I see an issue here. To avoid recreating the note, you may wish to store it on a line in an auxiliary text file, and copy the line (may be done without selecting it, just while the cursor is on the line) when using the footnote.Īnother use case is the same footnote multiple times in the same page.

In this use case, the same footnote is used (at least) once on multiple pages.

Word footnotes on multiple pages