Abbreviation for \"Note\"

16:03 Oct 31, 2017 

It's as obvious as "p." for the implied readers of this text. I made the comparison in that context.

It is not part of our job to make every text we translate universally accessible to every kind of reader. It is part of our job to assess what is suitable for the kind of reader for whom the text is written. If a text is aimed at general readers, it should not use unexplained abbreviations that not all general readers will understand. But if it's aimed at specialists, it is inappropriate to explain or expand abbreviations very familiar to all specialists just in case a non-specialist happens to look in. And really, you don't have to be a specialist to know this.

14:34 Oct 31, 2017 

Whereas "n." is not obvious. You should never use abbreviations unless they're universally recognised, or you explain them.

14:00 Oct 31, 2017 

It's a "document" on archaeology, with footnotes, in which footnotes in other publications are cited. This can only be an academic text. Every intended reader, without exception, will know what "n." means. If it is written out in full, then of course everyone will understand it as well, but it will tend to make the author look amateurish, as though he/she doesn't know that it is normally abbreviated, and/or will seem implicitly insulting to academic readers, as if the author thinks they won't understand the standard abbreviation. It would be like writing "page" in full instead of putting "p.". So I'm not surprised that the author wants it abbreviated.

13:39 Oct 31, 2017 

Not everyone will know what "n." stands for - it looks like a mistake for "no." Your job is to make the text as easy as possible to read, so I would spell it out in full.