Ponciano Manzano

+1 to footnote/endnote feature!
I've only had a brief look at the Beta and I'm very impressed by it. During my short time with it so far, and what I've gleaned from the Tutorial videos, the footnote.endnote feature appeared to be the only major thing that would prevent me from using on projects that I currently use PagePlus for.
Allan

+ 1 for this. So far as I can tell from a first test flight, the only important feature that would stop me from quitting Adobe CC would be missing foot and end notes. 

I'm sure the dev team are already working on this.

I would also very much appreciate such a feature. I think it could be solved by citation companies (such as Mendeley) once Affinity introduces Plugin Architecture.
So here also +1 for a need of Plugins in Affinity.

bump to this, the ability to add a citation tool (Zotero or Mendelay please!) would make Affinity Publisher the ultimate tool, and I could finally ditch the horror show that is MS Word! 

I would like to see a citation tool too. I do use this for some of my reports which are heavily referenced. I did my last report in Word since it has a very good citation manager that remembers references used from past projects. Word suffers from how it handles graphics making it very frustrating at times. I would say goodbye to Word for good if publisher had a citation manager similar in operation to Word.

I second this...

It should have support for CSL and citeproc, and be able to communicate with Zotero, Mendeley, Citava, JabRef and other Bibliography Software...

There is a lot of libraries that can be used for this...

To be able to add citations and bibliography directly in Publisher so that we didn't have to first write everything in Word or LibreOffice, would save so much time...

Full support for InText, FootNotes and EndNotes should be available...

As well as writing on "academic" subjects, I also write in the more "mainstream" area, photography, obviously supported by a lot of relevant photographs.  This sort of publication must be at the centre of the sorts of publications that Affinity is targeting with Publisher.  But even in such publications for a general audience, sometimes a footnote is the best way to indicate the source of a quotation, an explanation of a statement or even an exception to a rule, and I note the presence of footnotes in publicity brochures for the general public by major industry players such as Ricoh/Pentax.

So we are not talking about an obscure feature only sought by academics writing for a small audience of specialists in an insignificant subject.

I am not trying to prolong a years-long argument; I am a recent (December 2019) adopter of Affinity products, and it never occurred to me that an ability to handle footnotes would be missing.  Having made an enormous investment of time to learn to use Publisher, I am not keen to abandon it and spend more time, as well as money, starting to learn a program from a different source.

I admit my post was more terse than normal: it so happens I was writing from my phone, whereas I almost always write from a keyboard where I tend to be much more verbose.
Certainly I do not wish to “censor” anyone’s opinion. However, it is my opinion that we are getting to a point where not a whole lot is being served by further stating how much footnotes are needed, and what a shame it was that they were not included. It won’t change the past (to state the obvious), and as we already know that Serif is working on footnotes, it doesn’t seem that further comments will advance our cause any further.
Instead, my opinion is that it simple pushes back the posts that talk about the current status as we know it. New users pop on, usually won’t read every page (and who can blame them?), and see nothing but frustration on the last page, when it would be more helpful to see those posts indicating that even though footnotes are not here yet, they are on the way. So that is why I periodically remind that footnotes are on the way. Sometimes in the past, I have cited the posts from Serif that serve as the source of my claims, but after awhile—especially if I am typing from my thumbs—I just get lazy. I guess it may help to repost the latest official statements:
[The underline in the above quote was added by me, not by Patrick, to draw attention to the most pertinent point.]
 

Are footnotes and endnotes currently possible (besides manually creating them, of course)? I haven't found them so far.
If not, this is a feature that I think would be widely used. I suspect it may take some time to get right if it is not yet under development, so I would understand if it is not a day-1 feature.

Agreed. How is it relevant?  I suppose we can give it some in this sense: it highlights what we already know – that what Publisher does well it does spectacularly well. And, it highlights the point I made earlier about the concentration on magazine-type production.
However, the number of people calling for footnotes/endnotes (and better cross referencing, in my case) ... and the number of years they've been doing so ... should be sending a clear message to Affinity. People are desperate to dump InDesign and QuarkXpress, but the lag with introducing basic, essential DTP features is a major issue.
Further down this topic's timeline there is mention that Publisher is maybe not the best for academic publishing. Agreed. If I were to do an academic article/book, I would use Mellel as it's ideally suited to that purpose and integrates wonderfully with Bookends for reference management. However, one could do academic publishing in InDesign or QuarkXpress. Now, Affinity came on the scene with a clear indication – albeit implicitly to a large extent – of taking on Adobe. So many of us are sick of Adobe's price gouging and ridiculous subscription system that gives you "value" by forcing you to pay for a pile of stuff you don't need (in many cases).  I only use Illustrator (and will dump that when Affinity provides calligraphic pens) and InDesign; but to subscribe to both those would be as expensive (nearly) as getting the whole thing. Given the gauntlet that Affinity has thrown down, you might expect that Publisher would provide the essential, basic tools that InDesign has, for example.
Moreover, if people were able to effectively use Publisher for academic writing, there is a HUGE market out there, especially given the very sensible pricing.
There is also the potential for disaffection of existing customers having to wait too long for what, in my opinion, they consider to be fundamental tools in the app. Recently, I found myself doing training documents in Publisher because it's so much nicer to use, generally, than Quark or InDesign. BUT, I need footnotes, so I've been wondering whether to just give up on Publisher and use Mellel (more laborious and much fiddlier with placing images, but it has all the essential tools).
Affinity, take note: I'd quite happily pay twice the price to have footnotes/endnotes, and fully-functional cross referencing. (And calligraphic pens in Designer.). 
Just don't EVER go to subscription model though.