Inserting footnotes in Word document

[Davina]

In my fairly new Word for Mac X (but not 2004 version), am having
trouble formatting footnotes. Specific problems are:

-- the insert footnote command creates a small vertical bar centred to
the height of surrounding text, not a number as specified -- yet
numbers are noted in the footnote view and when I cut and paste text
into an Entourage mail, it is clear that Word has registered (via
hidden formatting) the numbering of each footnote in the text.

--I am confused about the difference in the Styles menu between
Footnote Text and Footnote Reference. My formatting of the styles for
both of these don't seem to be able to be applied to the footnote
numbers in the text or to the footnote texts themselves (the latter are
specified as 8pt but appear on screen much larger).

--Is there a way to make the numbers of footnotes the same size as
texts, and not superscripted in the footnote view, although they are
superscripted within the main text?

I've contacted Microsoft Technical Support and read several help
guides, but no luck. Can anyone help me?

Davina

 

[Elliott Roper]

In my fairly new Word for Mac X (but not 2004 version), am having
trouble formatting footnotes. Specific problems are:

-- the insert footnote command creates a small vertical bar centred to
the height of surrounding text, not a number as specified -- yet
numbers are noted in the footnote view and when I cut and paste text
into an Entourage mail, it is clear that Word has registered (via
hidden formatting) the numbering of each footnote in the text.

That is not working right. You might try to alter the font in the
paragraph containing the footnote reference to see if the behaviour
changes. The footnote reference style is nothing more than 'default
paragraph font + superscript'.

Ask yourself if you have been fiddling with numbering schemes
elsewhere. I can't immediately think how you could have done so, but it
looks like you have got the superscript reference tangled into a bullet
style.

See if it misbehaves in just the one document. If not, see what happens
after you replace your normal template (google this group for
directions or ask again)

--I am confused about the difference in the Styles menu between
Footnote Text and Footnote Reference.

Footnote text is at the bottom of the page, not including the number of
the footnote. Footnote reference is the superscripted number in the
body of the page and also the number part of the footnote at the
bottom.

My formatting of the styles for
both of these don't seem to be able to be applied to the footnote
numbers in the text or to the footnote texts themselves (the latter are
specified as 8pt but appear on screen much larger).

Confirm that in Page view. You can have different magnifications in
split screen views.

--Is there a way to make the numbers of footnotes the same size as
texts, and not superscripted in the footnote view, although they are
superscripted within the main text?

There does not seem to be an easy way to do that other than altering
the style of the reference in the footnote itself one by one. The easy
way to do that is select the number, then with the formatting palette
open, unselect the superscript button.

That is a truly ugly method of course. I think you might be able to
write a macro, or possibly do some magic in find and replace for
changing them all in bulk. To my eye, making those huge numbers in the
footnotes is totally wrong, the visual connection between the text
reference and the footnote number is broken, and the footnote number is
confused with the footnote text. I have never seen that done in a
published book.

 

[Daiya Mitchell]

There does not seem to be an easy way to do that other than altering
the style of the reference in the footnote itself one by one. The easy
way to do that is select the number, then with the formatting palette
open, unselect the superscript button.

That is a truly ugly method of course. I think you might be able to
write a macro, or possibly do some magic in find and replace for
changing them all in bulk. To my eye, making those huge numbers in the
footnotes is totally wrong, the visual connection between the text
reference and the footnote number is broken, and the footnote number is
confused with the footnote text. I have never seen that done in a
published book.

There's an article with a sample macro here, that can be tweaked for exact
desires.
"I want the numbers in my footnotes not to be superscripted, and I want the
numbers to be followed by a dot and a tab"
http://word.mvps.org/FAQs/MacrosVBA/UnSuperscptFnotes.htm

I think it looks weird too, though I've seen it in published books with
endnotes (not footnotes).

DM

 

[Clive Huggan]

There's an article with a sample macro here, that can be tweaked for exact
desires.
"I want the numbers in my footnotes not to be superscripted, and I want the
numbers to be followed by a dot and a tab"
http://word.mvps.org/FAQs/MacrosVBA/UnSuperscptFnotes.htm

I think it looks weird too, though I've seen it in published books with
endnotes (not footnotes).

DM

Thanks very much, Daiya, for pointing Dave's macro out -- I hadn't realised
it was available. I have been hitting the backspace + tab key all these
years, and my footnote text style has been superscripted to match the ref
number superscripting.

I grabbed the macro to install in my Normal template, but have encountered a
problem on installing it (Word 2004):

On instigating the InsertFootnote command, I get a message "Compiler error.
Expected Function or variable" and found the word "Reset" is highlighted in
"With Selection
   .Paragraphs(1).Range.Font.Reset

Any clues, O experts in this arcane art?

Cheers,

Clive Huggan
=============

 

[Paul Berkowitz]

I grabbed the macro to install in my Normal template, but have encountered a
problem on installing it (Word 2004):

On instigating the InsertFootnote command, I get a message "Compiler error.
Expected Function or variable" and found the word "Reset" is highlighted in
"With Selection
   .Paragraphs(1).Range.Font.Reset

Any clues, O experts in this arcane art?

I got that error too, copying and pasting, adding an End With, and removing
that double-quote you must have added. I kept getting something similar
until I erased and retyped. I think that the text of the macro, as you
derived it from a browser web-page copy, includes the wrong type of
line-ending, and that's what's erroring.

Either Safari, or the originating HTML page, must include Unix line-feeds or
Windows CRLF line endings. It must be the latter , the the error is marked
at the beginning of the subsequent line , i.e. after the CR is where the LF
occurs.

There's a speedy way of getting rid of the LFs in text editors like BBEdit
or Tex-Edit Plus. But I found an easy way using Word itself. Paste the
copied macro text into a Word Doc (NOT VB module). Now select it and copy it
again, and then paste into a module in VB Editor. Press Delete to remove the
final line ending (there will still be a couple extra blank lines, that's
OK). Now it will compile and run OK. The copying into a Word doc converts
the CRLF line endings, except the final one, into a standard CR Word
line-ending.

--
Paul Berkowitz
MVP MacOffice
Entourage FAQ Page: <http://www.entourage.mvps.org/faq/index.html>
AppleScripts for Entourage: <http://macscripter.net/scriptbuilders/>

Please "Reply To Newsgroup" to reply to this message. Emails will be
ignored.

PLEASE always state which version of Microsoft Office you are using -
**2004**, X or 2001. It's often impossible to answer your questions
otherwise.

 

[Clive Huggan]

I got that error too, copying and pasting, adding an End With, and removing
that double-quote you must have added. I kept getting something similar
until I erased and retyped. I think that the text of the macro, as you
derived it from a browser web-page copy, includes the wrong type of
line-ending, and that's what's erroring.

Either Safari, or the originating HTML page, must include Unix line-feeds or
Windows CRLF line endings. It must be the latter , the the error is marked
at the beginning of the subsequent line , i.e. after the CR is where the LF
occurs.

There's a speedy way of getting rid of the LFs in text editors like BBEdit
or Tex-Edit Plus. But I found an easy way using Word itself. Paste the
copied macro text into a Word Doc (NOT VB module). Now select it and copy it
again, and then paste into a module in VB Editor. Press Delete to remove the
final line ending (there will still be a couple extra blank lines, that's
OK). Now it will compile and run OK. The copying into a Word doc converts
the CRLF line endings, except the final one, into a standard CR Word
line-ending.

Ah! Thank you, Paul!

I will proceed along those lines and give feedback.

I copied out of IE, BTW.

Clive
=====

 

[CyberTaz]

Hi Davina-

Pardon me jumping in where it appears you are getting some excellent
assistance, but there is one basic thing that hasn't been mentioned
here. Since you also don't say you've tried it, let me suggest that you
take a look in the Insert>Footnote dialog box and see if Custom mark
may have somehow gotten specified instead of AutoNumber. Even if that
isn't the case, go on to click Options and see if Number format is set
to something other than what you want. If you have already done this,
my appologies for restating the obvious.

Also, I tried modifying the Footnote Reference style by simply removing
the check for Superscript,and the numbers were inserted full size with
no problem. If it isn't working for you, it suggests there must be a
problem of some sort.

Good Luck, |:>)

 

[nancy]

I have had a different formatting problem with footnotes in Word X:
When I try to insert two footnotes together, Word does not include a
comma between the reference marks. For example, if I insert footnotes
3 and 4 at the same place in the text, the subscripted reference
appears as "34" instead of "3,4". Has anyone else experienced this
problem or know how to fix it?

Thanks,
Nancy

 

[Daiya Mitchell]

I have had a different formatting problem with footnotes in Word X:
When I try to insert two footnotes together, Word does not include a
comma between the reference marks. For example, if I insert footnotes
3 and 4 at the same place in the text, the subscripted reference
appears as "34" instead of "3,4". Has anyone else experienced this
problem or know how to fix it?

You'll have to type the comma yourself, and probably superscript it (your
references aren't really *sub*scripted, are they?)--I've seen my cursor get
stuck in superscript formatting but can't seem to make it happen
deliberately. You can set up an AutoCorrect to make it easier.

Are you sure you can't simply combine the citations under the same footnote
number? That's rather more common.

 

[Elliott Roper]

I have had a different formatting problem with footnotes in Word X:
When I try to insert two footnotes together, Word does not include a
comma between the reference marks. For example, if I insert footnotes
3 and 4 at the same place in the text, the subscripted reference
appears as "34" instead of "3,4". Has anyone else experienced this
problem or know how to fix it?

A simple trick worked here.
Insert each footnote separately.
When you finish, insert a comma between the two footnote references in
the body, then superscript the comma. It is pretty convinciing.

 

[nancy]

Thanks, Elliot and Daiya, for your replies. I was hoping for a method
where Word took care of the commas for me. I cannot just combine the
footnotes in this case -- the standard in my field (chemistry) is that
references are referred to repeatedly by their original reference
numbers. Thus, if you refer to one citation twice in the text, you use
the same number each time. Two references which are grouped together
in one place may not be grouped together in a later place (or vice
versa), and that's when you need more than one reference number
together. Word can handle the numbering, but cannot format it
properly, as far as I can tell.

-- Nancy

 

[matt neuburg]

Thanks, Elliot and Daiya, for your replies. I was hoping for a method
where Word took care of the commas for me. I cannot just combine the
footnotes in this case -- the standard in my field (chemistry) is that
references are referred to repeatedly by their original reference
numbers. Thus, if you refer to one citation twice in the text, you use
the same number each time. Two references which are grouped together
in one place may not be grouped together in a later place (or vice
versa), and that's when you need more than one reference number
together. Word can handle the numbering, but cannot format it
properly, as far as I can tell.

You can leave out the comma, and then, when the paper is all done, do an
easy find and replace where you search for two footnote markers in a row
and insert the comma(s) automatically. m.

 

[Daiya Mitchell]

Thus, if you refer to one citation twice in the text, you use

You can leave out the comma, and then, when the paper is all done, do an
easy find and replace where you search for two footnote markers in a row
and insert the comma(s) automatically. m.

Matt, did you try this? I couldn't get it to work--have never been able to
put footnote marker in the replace box, but I don't know wildcards at all.

 

[matt neuburg]

Matt, did you try this?

Yes, I know how I would do it, if that's what you mean. The details for
the OP would depend upon precisely how the footnote markers are
represented, how the formatting is to look, and so forth. The point is,
though, that when someone says that Word cannot represent a certain
formatting or cannot do something automatically, I tend to get dubious,
since Word's formatting is pretty powerful and it can automate just
about anything. m.

 

[Daiya Mitchell]

You can leave out the comma, and then, when the paper is all done, do an

Yes, I know how I would do it, if that's what you mean. The details for
the OP would depend upon precisely how the footnote markers are
represented, how the formatting is to look, and so forth.

Actually I meant "could you tell me how to do it, because I tried and
failed?" I'm sure I (or Nancy) could tweak any example to fit, but here's my
situation, if you like--Assuming footnotes inserted by Word, in Footnote
Reference style, which is superscripted Calisto 12pt. The comma to also be
superscripted, between the footnote numbers generated by Word. How would I
set up the Find & Replace?

though, that when someone says that Word cannot represent a certain
formatting or cannot do something automatically, I tend to get dubious,
since Word's formatting is pretty powerful and it can automate just
about anything. m.

Indeed. A macro should be able to insert the footnote number with the
following comma. Depending on how many notes are involved, it may be easier
to deal with the AutoCorrect--less setup but extra keystrokes to execute.

Although in Nancy's case, many of these numbers are probably
cross-references rather than footnote numbers, which would complicate both
the VBA and F&R solution. But skip that for now.

 

[matt neuburg]

Actually I meant "could you tell me how to do it

tell application "Microsoft Word"
tell active document
set r to create range start 0 end 0
select r
end tell
set res to true
repeat while res
set f to (get find object of selection)
tell f
clear formatting
set content to "^f^f"
set format to false
set forward to true
set wrap to find continue
set match case to false
set match whole word to true
set match wildcards to false
set match sounds like to false
set match all word forms to false
end tell
set res to execute find f
if res then
select (move end of range (text object of selection) by a
character item count -1)
select (move start of range (text object of selection) by a
character item count 1)
set content of selection to ","
set style of selection to "Footnote Reference"
end if
end repeat
end tell

I'm sure Paul Berkowitz could tighten that up but it does work and it
only took me 30 seconds to write it. As I said before, the point is a
general one - it's not the specific answer that's important, but the
notion that an automatic solution is very likely possible. m.

 

[Daiya Mitchell]

You can leave out the comma, and then, when the paper is all done, do anNow I see my mistake. I interpreted "an easy F&R" as something like putting
^f^f in the Find box, and ^f,^f in the Replace box. I don't think that just
because the author of _AppleScript: The Definitive Guide_ can write this
applescript in 30 secs, that it qualifies as easy. But thanks for the
applescripting lesson/sample, and the reminder to inform people that just
about anything can be coded, so long as they are willing to investigate VBA
and/or applescript. With luck, your script will save Nancy some effort as
well.

DM

 

[matt neuburg]

Now I see my mistake. I interpreted "an easy F&R" as something like putting
^f^f in the Find box, and ^f,^f in the Replace box.

I didn't think of that, but in any case I don't believe it will work -
^f is probably not a supported character in the Replace field. Is it?

I don't think that just
because the author of _AppleScript: The Definitive Guide_ can write this
applescript in 30 secs, that it qualifies as easy

Well, to be honest, in the 30 seconds during which I gave this matter
any attention, I only had to write four lines of the script. The concept
"find, do something to the selection, repeat" is such a common need when
using Word 2004 that I naturally have a template script that embodies
that structure. I simply reach for that script, fill in the details
(what to find and what to do when you find it), and away we go. I use
this technique all the time. And now, so can you. m.

 

[Paul Berkowitz]

I didn't think of that, but in any case I don't believe it will work -
^f is probably not a supported character in the Replace field. Is it?

That's right. It works for the Find, but there's no way to specify how to
squeeze a comma between the two adjacent footnote references you've found,
no way to even specify the content of the "found object", unlike the script.

BTW, there are a few more things you can clear out in the Find, and - being
AppleScript, you can set all the booleans in a list in one line if you wish
(no advantage except concision). You're not using a replacement here so
could omit clearing replacement's formatting, but here's my standard
"clearance" template for a find. This one is for a whole document, but it
can be altered for the selection easily:


tell application "Microsoft Word"
set docText to the text object of active document
-- get the find object, and use 'tell' to avoid having to repeat 'of
find object of docText' with every command targeting it
tell (find object of docText)
--clear all unusual options from the Find panel
set {forward, wrap, format, match all word forms, match case, match
sounds like, match whole word, match wildcards} to {true, find continue,
false, false, false, false, false, false}
clear formatting
clear all fuzzy options
clear formatting (its replacement) -- note 'its' to avoid confusion
with replacement class
-- then execute find w or w/o replacement
execute find find text "^f^f" --replace with "(whatever)" replace
replace all
end tell
end tell


Actually in this case aren't we actually looking for format? I wonder if

set {format, paragraph format} to {true, footnoteRefParFormat}

within the long line above, having first extracted the paragraph format of
any footnote reference and set the variable footnoteRefParFormat to this,
might be faster for long documents. It's probably not worth the extra
effort... I'll check when I can.

--
Paul Berkowitz
MVP MacOffice
Entourage FAQ Page: <http://www.entourage.mvps.org/faq/index.html>
AppleScripts for Entourage: <http://macscripter.net/scriptbuilders/>

Please "Reply To Newsgroup" to reply to this message. Emails will be
ignored.

PLEASE always state which version of Microsoft Office you are using -
**2004**, X or 2001. It's often impossible to answer your questions
otherwise.

 

[Daiya Mitchell]

I didn't think of that, but in any case I don't believe it will work -

^f is probably not a supported character in the Replace field. Is it? Correct, that doesn't work.
The concept
"find, do something to the selection, repeat" is such a common need when
using Word 2004 that I naturally have a template script that embodies
that structure. I simply reach for that script, fill in the details
(what to find and what to do when you find it), and away we go. I use
this technique all the time. And now, so can you. m.

Yes, I certainly noticed that. Saved, along with Paul's variation.

DM