English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

When using superscripts to indicate a footnote, do these fall inside or outside adjacent punctuation? If there is an answer, is that answer applicable worldwide, or just to specific regions or publishers?

Does it matter what the particular punctuation is, including such punctuation as commas, colons, parentheses and other brackets, periods, and quotation marks?

Does it matter whether the footnote applies to just one gloss1, or to an entire phrase in toto?

Does the answer change if, instead of using instead of numeric footnotes, you use the traditional sequence of symbols (*, †, ‡, §, ‖, and ¶)2  ?

  1. OED: “A word inserted between the lines or in the margin as an explanatory equivalent of a foreign or otherwise difficult word in the text; hence applied to a simliar explanatory rendering of a word given in a glossary or dictionary.”

  2. As enumerated on pp 68–69 of Robert Bringhurst’s The Elements of Typographic Style (version 3.2); Hartley and Marks, 2008. Bringhurst goes on to say “But beyond the asterisk, dagger3, and double dagger4, this order is not familiar to most readers, and never was.”

  3. That is, the † character at codepoint U+2020 DAGGER, also known as the obelisk, obelus, or long cross. The classical plural of obelus is obeli.

  4. That is, the ‡ character at codepoint U+2021 DOUBLE DAGGER, also known as the
    diesis or double obelisk. The classical plural of diesis is dieses.

share|improve this question
What I do know is that notes within notes are a no-no! – Cerberus Dec 22 '12 at 15:34
@Mitch: I have only the above comment. But seriously, common sense dictates that you use as few notes as possible: a note is a necessary evil. They are an evil because switching between main text and notes is very annoying, easy to lose track of where you were. You only use them when you have to. If you are already in a note, then why not just write out whatever details you wish to add within the note itself, instead of referring to yet another note? There is no reason at all to do so, and it makes your text even less readable. Unless you are trying to make your text look fancier than it is... – Cerberus Dec 22 '12 at 23:25
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because answers will be (or rather are) primarily opinion based: 'A lot depends on what style manual you follow.' – Edwin Ashworth Dec 6 '15 at 17:04
@EdwinAshworth: I have to vociferously disagree with the close vote here. As I have discovered in the research to my new question (which I now agree was off-topic), there is definitely a consensus about the placement of these symbols which is independent of style guides. There may be a few exceptions for particular editorial styles, but there are generally accepted standards. – Athanasius Dec 6 '15 at 20:06
@EdwinAshworth - Also, I just read the Meta question you quoted. That Meta question actually has answers implying that style guide questions are okay, if they are "incidental" to the usage question being asked. This question is not asking for opinions from style guides -- it is asking for the standard practice, and there is one: footnote numbers go after terminal punctuation and usually after internal punctuation (exceptions to the latter may sometimes be dictated by style guide). – Athanasius Dec 6 '15 at 20:17
up vote 21 down vote accepted

A lot depends on what style manual you follow. I follow Hart’s Rules at the University Press Oxford and according to Hart’s -

Footnote references should be placed outside punctuation, but inside the closing parenthesis when referring to matter within parentheses.

It makes no distinction between numeric or symbol footnotes.

It makes no distinction between a single word or phrase.

Footnotes should begin with the numbers indented 1 em space.

share|improve this answer

In my business, it depends on what the journal publisher says is the rule. Most journals require them to be outside the punctuation. Some, like all the journals published by the Nature group, require them to be inside the punctuation. There are reasonable arguments for whatever style is mandated, but there's no internationally accepted style.

Although, according to the Chicago Manual of Style (Rule 16.25), it is proper to place the superscript footnote inside the semicolon and colon but outside the comma and period, some (very few) biomedical publishers don't like that foolish inconsistency: they demand that all superscript footnotes be outside the punctuation.

I've never seen a style manual that says it matters "whether the footnote applies to just one gloss, or to an entire phrase".

In biomedical journals, the traditional symbols aren't allowed in the text, only in the list of author names, and it doesn't matter: some publishers want them inside and others want them outside the punctuation.

All rules are ad hoc, it seems.

share|improve this answer

It seems that when dealing with British/UK English conventions, the note number would be placed within the punctuation (comma, period, semicolon, etc.). When using US English, note numbers are generally placed outside of the punctuation. While there is no hard and fast rule as to one way or the other per se, I would advise consistency above all. Regardless of which method you choose, be certain to employ it consistently throughout the entirety of your text/document.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

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