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}
Zetagon
  • 33
  • 5
  • 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 02 '18 at 19:07
  • Short answer (because of missing minimal working example): → manyfoot – Schweinebacke Jan 02 '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 02 '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 02 '18 at 20:18

1 Answers1

4

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

Ulrike Fischer
  • 327,261
  • 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 03 '18 at 09:55