I am new to SE and somewhat new to Latex, and I have a follow-up question to this post: "Place footnote in footer in Tufte-book class." The answer gives a style package to place Tufte-book class footnotes in the footer rather than in the margin, which is what I want.

But I occasionally use the fullwidth environment and, in those occasions, would like the footnote to also span the full width of the page. This works with \TFfootnote{\begin{fullwidth} ... \end{fullwidth}}, but it causes the footnote number to appear on a separate line than the footnote itself. I've attached a picture to illustrate. How can I omit that extra white space so that the footnote text begins right after the footnote number?

enter image description here

  • Simon, brilliant - thank you! (I'm the OP but am unable to mark my question as answered since I originally posted it as a guest. Apologies I also can't upvote since I don't have enough reputation points. Thank you, nonetheless!)
    – user260511
    Commented Dec 30, 2021 at 0:09

1 Answer 1


Added the command \TFfootnotefw to get footnotes with full width and the number in the right place. The code could be incorporated to tuftefoot.sty. (From Place footnote in footer in Tufte-book class)



\makeatletter %footnote full width <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
            \splitmaxdepth \dp\strutbox \floatingpenalty \@MM
            \hsize\columnwidth \@parboxrestore
                \csname p@footnote\endcsname\@thefnmark
                \parbox[t]{\textwidth+\marginparsep+\marginparwidth}{#1} %



As any dedicated reader can clearly see, the Ideal of
practical reason is a representation of, as far as I know, the things
in themselves; as I have shown elsewhere, the phenomena should only be
used as a canon for our understanding. The paralogisms of practical
reason are what first give rise to the architectonic of practical
reason. As will easily be shown in the next section, reason would
thereby be made to contradict, in view of these considerations, the
Ideal of practical reason, yet the manifold depends on the phenomena.
Necessity depends on, when thus treated as the practical employment of
the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions, time.
Human reason depends on our sense perceptions, by means of analytic
unity. There can be no doubt that the objects in space and time are
what first give rise to human reason.       
\TFfootnotefw{As is shown in the writings of Aristotle, the things
in themselves (and it remains a mystery why this is the case) are a
representation of time. Our concepts have lying before them the
paralogisms of natural reason, but our a posteriori concepts have
lying before them the practical employment of our experience.}

Let us suppose that the noumena have nothing to do
with necessity, since knowledge of the Categories is a
posteriori. Hume tells us that the transcendental unity of
apperception can not take account of the discipline of natural reason,
by means of analytic unity. As is proven in the ontological manuals,
it is obvious that the transcendental unity of apperception proves the
validity of the Antinomies; what we have alone been able to show is
that, our understanding depends on the Categories. It remains a
mystery why the Ideal stands in need of reason. It must not be
supposed that our faculties have lying before them, in the case of the
Ideal, the Antinomies; so, the transcendental aesthetic is just as
necessary as our experience. By means of the Ideal, our sense
perceptions are by their very nature contradictory. \TFfootnotefw{Therefore, we can deduce that the objects in space and    time (and I assert, however, that this is the case) have lying before them the objects in space and time.}



You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .