Technical editing: if repeating a figure within a document, do you repeat the figure number or use a different number for the second occurrence of the figure?

January 4, 2005 8:19 AM

I am editing a technical document that contains figures. One of these figures is referred to twice (on pages 13 and 33). What is the accepted way of dealing with this?

I want to show the figure twice, with different figure numbers. I think this will make it easy for the reader to see what's being referenced in both places. It doesn't bother me if the same picture has different figure numbers associated with it on different pages. It does, however, bother my boss, who wants to either show the figure only once and refer back to it in the second reference, or show it twice and use the same figure number in both places. (Have I explained that clearly enough?) (Chicago Manual of Style doesn't seem to address this.)
posted by booth to Media & Arts (16 answers total)

If the big guy's concern is confusing the reader, I would reference the first figure number in the second figure somewhere; something like: Figure 4.2 (for reference only; identical to Figure 1.3).

I tend to agree with the boss, though, in that it should only appear once. In technical data at least, any repeated data should clearly be labeled as "for reference only".
posted by Doohickie at 8:33 AM on January 4, 2005

I have most frequently seen the same figure referenced twice. Could this be an artifact from older books due to the former expense of printing figures?
posted by sonofsamiam at 8:35 AM on January 4, 2005

When the accepted practice is unclear, ask yourself what the least confusing option would be. Think of what the impact on the reader will be.

Showing the figure twice will confuse the reader, who will have a reasonable expectation that a figure shown twice, with a different figure number, will in some way be different. A figure shown twice, with the same figure number, will mess the reader up as well: figure 3, 4, 5, 3, 6 -- is that an error, the reader will ask, or am I lost?

(On preview: Doohickie's first suggestion sounds like a bit of a kludge.)

Your boss's first suggestion is probably the best. Referring back to Figure 3 when the current page has Figure 11 is a pretty clear signal to the reader to back up a few pages and look for it. And I seem to remember seeing a few examples of this in print, though I can't give you anything concrete.
posted by mcwetboy at 8:41 AM on January 4, 2005

In technical writing, it is unquestioned, standard, across-the-board practice to set a figure only once, regardless of style. sonofsamiam is correct that setting figures twice is traditionally frowned on because of expense, but also because of the space it eats. mcwetboy is also absolutely correct that a repeated figure will confuse a reader with any experience of reading technical documents at all.

The assumption, on the part of the editor, is that the first time the figure is called out in the text, the reader will look at it, comprehend it, and if later text references the figure, remember or review it. You and your readers will be fine with a single placement of the figure.
posted by melissa may at 9:08 AM on January 4, 2005

As someone who uses technical documents on a daily basis to draw on for my reference material, I have to say that conflicting references is both irritating and frustrating. Finding them in the same document makes me think that the authors are amateurs (I would probably use other words) and would usually would lead me to abandon the reference as it is unreliable
posted by biffa at 9:24 AM on January 4, 2005

Response by poster: Thanks to all so far. It appears that my proposed solution was wrong wrong wrong. Now that I look at the document again, I might get away with another solution: just delete one of the figure's appearances.
posted by booth at 9:47 AM on January 4, 2005

The reason why the practice is unclear is because you aren't supposed to do it. The figure is more detailed than it need be; limit it or change it then make a new figure. This might not be your job or in your power, but this problem you're having is the sign of someone else (the artist who drew the figure...) who didn't do a good job.
posted by pwb503 at 9:58 AM on January 4, 2005

I'm going to somewhat disagree with everyone here (if I understand the question correctly). I read dozens of technical manuals, and I'm always reading them in awkward places (on the subway, etc.). I HATE having to flib back-and-forth through pages. I generally lose my place. I really like the figure to be near the text that discusses it. I would repeat the figure with a note that it's indentical to the figure on page whatever.
posted by grumblebee at 10:03 AM on January 4, 2005

booth- Well, I didn't want to say "wrong wrong wrong", but that was the way I was leaning.

If information is repeated, though, it is proper to label it as "for reference only". The reason for this is that information should only appear once. If it is repeated for whatever reason, the one that's authoritative should be clear. By designating information as "reference only", it indicates that if there is a difference between versions of the figure, the "reference only" version(s) should be thrown out.
posted by Doohickie at 10:41 AM on January 4, 2005

Grumblebee's point is a good one, but the way to solve the problem is not to repeat the figure. It's to reorganize the text so all major discussion of the figure is clustered as close as possible to where the figure will appear. Reference to the figure many pages distant from the original discussion should be of the glancing kind.

Pwb's point about the complexity of the figure might apply, but it's unlikely you can do anything about it. I reflow and revise text all the time to accommodate figures because it is inevitably more time-consuming and expensive to fix art rather than text. Just make the text as clear and linear as you can, and you'll have done your job.
posted by melissa may at 10:43 AM on January 4, 2005

I agree with melissa may. In writing engineering papers for journal submission, we often decide which figures to include before getting into the thick of the text.
posted by mbd1mbd1 at 10:56 AM on January 4, 2005

Response by poster: I agree with melissa may's point (re: reorganizing the text), but - and maybe I should have pointed this out this earlier - one instance of this figure is in the body of the report, and the other is in one of the Appendices.
posted by booth at 11:42 AM on January 4, 2005

Well, then I actually think you are fortunate, because Appendices are understood to be supplements to the main text, and your readers will expect to use yours as such. If the text in your Appendix offers some vital bit of information regarding the figure, that bit should be moved into the main text to make sure it's not missed. Otherwise, don't give it a second thought.
posted by melissa may at 12:23 PM on January 4, 2005

I don't want to sound too extremist, because I agree with the general thrust of the comments for most cases, but I can imagine exceptions. For instance (and this may not be the best example -- maybe someone else can come up with a better one), imagine a technical book on painting. Chapter One might be called Color. In it, the author might ask you to look at "Starry Night" and focus on the colors in the painting. Chapter Six might be called "Layout" and it might ask you to focus on the relationships of the shapes in the painting. It would be useful to see full the painting in both chapters.
posted by grumblebee at 12:30 PM on January 4, 2005

Response by poster: Yeah, grumblebee, I originally thought that this might be an exception because, like mellissa may says, having one figure in the Appendix could make it all okay. In this case, though, I'm suggesting to my authors that they delete the figure from the body of the report. I'm sure I'll run into this issue another time, so I appreciate all the guidance.
posted by booth at 12:51 PM on January 4, 2005

It is absurd and unprofessional to show a figure twice, unless one is a detail of another. Listen to melissa may; she knows what she's talking about.
posted by interrobang at 10:21 PM on January 4, 2005