Well, I only use humanities/social sciences styles, so numbered
references are unfamiliar to me, but when I've wanted to see what the
different formats look like, I've switched into IEEE 2006 and never
seen any such thing.
Your problem has nothing to do with that particular style, or with
numbered references. You'd see the same thing if you switched to
Chicago style.
It looks like you have typed a long list of authors for each entry
directly into the "Author" slot on the form, even including the word
"and," instead of respecting the syntax required by XML.
Go to the Bibliography database (sorry, I don't remember how, I put it
on my QAT the first time I used it) -- the panel with the master list
in the left window and the list for the current document in the right
window.
Click on one of your bibliography items (you can do it in either of
the windows, it will ask if you want to make the changes in the other
one as well; of course you'll say yes), and choose Edit from the
middle column.
Your record for that item will open up. Delete everything in the
"Author" box, and instead of typing directly into the "Author" box,
click the "Edit" button next to it. This will then give you a subform
where you enter each author individually -- last name, first name,
middle name. (If you know the full names, type them; the computer will
process them into initials, depending on the style you've chosen.) Tab
between the three fields. Enter when you finish the first author, and
the cursor is back in the top box so you can type the next name, and
so on. After you type the last author of your article, type Enter
again, the subform will go away, and in the "Author" box you'll see
the proper syntax for a multi-author work.
You can then open up each record in your database and put the commas
and semicolons in the right places within the "Author" box, or you can
wipe out what's already there and use the Edit button to reenter them
(to be sure it comes out right the first time).
Peter T. Daniels;492526 Wrote:
There are many, many mistakes* in the Bibliography Tool, and there is
no evidence that anyone at MS has any interest at all in repairing
them. However, whatever you posted is so tiny, at so coarse a
resolution, that it's impossible to see what's going on.
First of all, what do you mean by "references"? All I can make out
from enlarging your picture many, many times is that there seem to be
a lot of capital letters inside brackets that should contain nothing
but a number.
Which Style (e.g. APA, Chicago, etc.) are you using?
How do you enter the data into the database?
*I use Chicago almost exclusively. One of the mistakes is that if a
book has more than one editor, it lists them as "Smith, P. and Q.
Jones,." instead of "Smith, P. and Q. Jones, eds." Another is that it
provides no slot for entering the Series information of a book, though
if one puts that information in the slot called Edition, it appears
correctly -- unless the entry is for a Book Section, and then it is
simply omitted.
Hey,
Sorry, the pictures got a less quality than I thought of.
Please check this page for a higher quality:
http://folk.ntnu.no/karlern/reference_list.png
As you can see, the long list there is a list of references for a
report. You can also see that there is problems with the automatic
numbering in the list, when the numbering exceeds 2 characters.
I am using the "IEEE 2006" style. I want the reference in the report to
be in "[]" and this was the only style that had this option.
