Do you appreciate footnotes or do they annoy you?
I took them out of my Regency romance because half a dozen people complained in the UK while others in the US said that it was interesting to pick up historical facts on the way.
One of my footnotes explained the origin of the Burlington Arcade, for example.
Pratchett's footnotes are a part of the story, maintaining the illusion of the story. They are the exception, rather than the rule, for me. I can see how "real world" explanations might interrupt the flow of the narrative. I prefer those sort of "supporting information" notes to come at the end of the book - with clear indications of what they refer to, or course.
I have a beloved, if rather battered, copy of "Mansfield Park" which comes with an introduction and extensive end notes. I very much enjoyed reading them, but I'm not sure I would want them as footnotes on each page.
Writing Regency, I thought it might be of interest to know something along the way about William Wilberforce (Clapham Sect), why the Regent was ruling in place of his father, how the Burlington Arcade came into being, John of Gaunt's Mistress (my story is about a lord's mistress) etc.
It seems the general consensus is for the end of the novel, if people can be bothered to look...
I can but try.
I've never seen footnotes in a novel, though frankly I prefer them to chapter- or end-notes in NF simply because it's easier than flipping back and forth. But do most readers actually bother to read them?
In fiction I've seen notes both before and after the story, though the latter seems more common. Personally I put notes at the end of my HF, mostly to explain what's fictitious and what's 'real' history. And I try to encourage reading with a (very slightly) humorous title - because I write about cavalry it's 'Author's Tail'
Whether that works or not is another matter :?