Take the 2-minute tour ×
TeX - LaTeX Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for users of TeX, LaTeX, ConTeXt, and related typesetting systems. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I'd like to have three authors that use the same footnote for their \thanks identifier (they are at the same university, and don't need separate affiliation notes). I've read one of the solutions proposed in http://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/1750/how-to-write-a-footnnote-attached-to-the-author-in-a-latex-paper, but the last solution (using recalled footnotes) only works for two authors.

So an example: I'd like to have

Author1* and Author2* and Author3*


  • University of Podunk, Timbuktoo.
share|improve this question

2 Answers 2

up vote 11 down vote accepted

How about the following?

\newcommand*\samethanks[1][\value{footnote}]{\footnotemark[#1]}
\author{Foo\thanks{University of Podunk, Timbuktoo}
\and Bar\samethanks
\and Baz\thanks{Somewhere Else}
\and Bof\samethanks[1]
\and Hmm\samethanks}

The \samethanks either duplicate the previous value or if you give it the optional argument, it uses that value. So Foo, Bar, and Bof have the same affiliation. Baz and Hmm have the same affiliation, different from Foo, Bar, and Bof's.

share|improve this answer
2  
Probably not so important, as author lists tend not to change for a paper. But it may be better to also redefine \thanks to take an optional argument which sets a counter thanks@#1 to the value of footnote, and recall that mark in \samethanks rather than passing in the value of footnote by hand. –  Willie Wong Oct 15 '10 at 18:01
    
@Willie Wong: I'm not sure I follow. Why is it a better solution to have two identical counters? –  TH. Oct 15 '10 at 21:15
    
They are not identical. My point was that I don't like the hard-coding of Bof\samethanks[1]. I would much prefer if you can say Foo\thanks[foo]{..} and then refer to it with Bof\samethanks[foo] which will be less of a hassle if you ever need to re-order the authors. I was not completely sure how \thanks work (is it really just a footnote environment?), so I wasn't sure if you can just \label it. Is this clearer now? –  Willie Wong Oct 16 '10 at 1:44
    
@Willie Wong: I see now. \thanks uses \footnotemark and then defines \@thanks as \@thanks\footnotemark \protect\footnotetext[\the\c@footnote]{#1}} I guess you could probably use \label and \ref, but it hardlyl seem worth it. –  TH. Oct 16 '10 at 2:20
    
@WillieWong While I accepted the solution above, I'm interested in knowing how to do what you suggest. I'm not a good tex hacker –  Suresh Oct 13 '11 at 17:22

I ran into this problem often in the past and my solution is like this

\author{Author1\thanks{University of Podunk, Timbuktoo.} \and 
  Author2\footnotemark[1] \and Author3\footnotemark[1]}`  

Not really flexible as one has to count but this is the easiest way I know.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

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.