The References Group: please help me with some problems

[Aliera2]

In philosophy it's customary to use the Chicago/Turabian documentation
styles. Word offers Chicago and Turabian as style choices (not even sure why
they are separate choices), but the formatting for them is incorrect (or, at
least, it's incomplete).

My 1st Problem: Word 2007 only adds parenthetical citations to the
bibliography; the common practice for Chicago style is to cite using
footnotes, and it'd be really convenient if my footnoted citations were added
to my master source list and bibliography.

2nd Problem: Word formats the bibliography/works cited entries incorrectly
for Chicago/Turabian style. The first line of an entry should be flush left,
but any additional lines must be indented 5 spaces. It should be simple a
simple matter of just indenting the text, but the program won't let me do it.

Can I change the settings for Chicago/Turabian reference styles? Is there
any way to do this short of having to right code (or XML... I don't even know
what it's called, let alone how to do that!)

Please help if you know how!

Thank you.

 

[EPIjb]

Chicago style isn't the only one with an indented bibliography. You can use
a hanging indent to easily solve your problem. Click in the text at the spot
you want to indent (the second line of the entry). In the ruler at the top
of the page, drag the bottom half of the hourglass-looking thing over five
spaces. That will indent all subsequent lines after the first in an entry.

 

[Aliera2]

THank you so much for your quick reply.

I had tried to move the arrows, but was moving the wrong one, so your advice
washelpful, thank you. I know other documentation styles have similar
formats, but I only have to worry about the Chicago/Turabian for now.

Is there any way to totally customize the Reference Groups default settings?

I still don't understand why footnote reference entries aren't added to the
bibliography. There's no way to customize the Reference group settings?
Microsoft's formatting of the bibliography/works cited pages is erroneous in
silly ways. For example, I can only imagine submitting a paper to my
professor for review that had a bold, blue "Works Cited" title. Luckily, that
actually was easy to fix.

The references group still has so many limitations, I just really wish
Microsoft had included in their 2007 version all the features offered by the
StyleEase or Endnote programs. It's well within their capabilities to have
done so. If the Office Suite had only cost me around $40 I wouldn't be so
demanding, but since I had to spend $150 on it, I have higher expectations.

 

[Suzanne S. Barnhill]

If you paid just $150 for the Office Suite, you got a bargain, as even
Office Standard retails for $399.95, with prices for other versions ranging
up to $679.95 for Office Ultimate. Presumably you got the Home and Student
version, which is really intended for use by families with young children.
If you are a university student, you may be able to get EndNote at a similar
promotional price.

 

[Aliera2]

Thank you for replying.
It wasn't clear to me that by "student" Microsoft meant only pre-university
level students. However, I think the Word program is the same in all the
suites; you just get more programs the more you pay.

It's just a shame that this new Reference feature, which could be so
potentially helpful, has these flaws. If Microsoft wanted to they could just
include in Word everything that Endnote (also very pricey) does in its
program. If we could just modify the given settings for this feature it
wouldn't be a problem.... if there's a way to do this, please let me know.

If it's helpful to anyone with similar issues, there's an inexpensive
program called StyleEase that's similar to Endnote, and so far it seems
compatible with the new Word.

Again, thank you for your responses,
- E.

 

[Bob Buckland ?:-\)]

Hi Aliera,

I've crossposted this into the Word:mac discussion group as well as its present location in the Winword document management
discussion group.

It is my understanding that the Word:mac 2008 Citation & Bibliography (C&B) feature, while in a somewhat different User Interface,
is for the most part common to Word 2007 and Word 2008. Daiya Mitchell, Word/mac MVP, among others there has experience from both
the Word user point of view and from the academia view point on this topic (as can folks here in the WinWord group) and we can, I
hope, benefit from understanding, expanding and taming this feature through discussion of it and the clarity others can add to to
this that I may overlook (or mistake) <g>. There have been discussions in that group (as well as in the Word 'en Espanol'
discussion group on this feature

You bring up an interesting point about how Word formats the 'Works Cited' and 'Bibliography' items inserted in Word documents when
you mentioned that

<<Word formats the bibliography/works cited entries incorrectly
for Chicago/Turabian style. The first line of an entry should be flush left, but any additional lines must be indented 5 spaces.
It should be simple a simple matter of just indenting the text, but the program won't let me do it.>>

You also mentioned that you expected Word's bibilography feature to pickup footnotes to include as well, but the way the feature is
structured that isn't quite, as I understand, an intent.

As I see it, how Word 2007 does the bibliography creation is mainly 'behind the scenes' but you can do a bit of tweaking without
knowing how to XML or needing to work with the underlying XML. (One of the folks who frequents the Word:mac discussion group is
Joonhwan Lee - who has already done a bit of customizing of the underlying XML and is, to my understanding, working on additional
tools that will make that a bit easier to do for the average user.

To my understanding, the Word 2007
Reference Tab=>Citation & Bibliography (C&B) Group
use of C&B-styles relates primarily to how the content that is presented for each of the 10, Microsoft provided C&B-styles is
applied in three locations in Word:

1. The default fields shown for a specific Source reference type when you're in
Manage Sources=>Source Manager=>Edit Source dialog

2. The content selected to be inserted in a document when you use
Insert Citation (where Word is inserting a 'Citation' field)
when you select 'Insert Citation'

3. The content and basic text formatting when you insert a {Bibliography} field into a Word document by clicking on the
'Bibliography' dropdown choie. This is usually done from the out-of-the-box pair of Word Document Building block entries in the
Bibliography gallery, which are:

- Bibliography
- Works Cited

Side note: Document Building blocks are Autotext engine driven reusable content blocks of information accessible in several ways.
One of those ways includes the 'Bibliography gallery'. (There are 36 separately accessible Building Block Galleries in Word 2007).
All Building Block entries are managed and viewable from the Building Blocks organizer in
Insert=>Quick Parts=>Building Block Organizer.
If you visit that dialog you'll see the listing for the two basic entries mentioned above.

When you create a 'Works Cited' or 'Bibliography' in a Word document you are inserting a content control that in the out-of-the-box
gallery entries consist of two parts

a. The first part of the entry is a title, formatted with the 'Heading 1' Word paragraph style. It is not necessarily a 'silly
blue' <g> color that you mentioned, but rather it reflects the currently applied theme, Quick Style set and Font Major/Minor pair
applied to the document. You can also add your own entries to the Bibliography gallery, so that you can insert an entry with a
different heading, or no heading when you wish.

b. The second part of the bibliography field that takes on the formatting of Word's Bibliography style is a listing Word builds
by reading the 'cited' (used in document) checkmark in the Manage Source list and then each of the tagged entries there to create
individual elements of the Bibliography/WorksCited list. While you can apply a different Word paragraph style to the bibliography
field, when you update the field/bibliogray Word throws off that change and reapplies the currently active bibliography paragraph
style.

The 'Bibliography' paragraph style does not, out-of-the-box, appear to contain any paragraph indenting. You can redefine that
paragraph style in Word for all documents created from a single template or for just one document. If you believe that a 2nd line
indent is needed that could be part of a redefined Bibliography paragraph style.

The Bibliography paragraph style is based on Word's 'normal' paragraph style, and as it comes out-of-the-box it appears to be pretty
much the same as the 'normal' style.

When you insert either a Citation or a Bibliography/WorksCited entry into your document Word queries the underlying XML/XSL files
for that style and enters what it's told by those files to select for content for the currently chosen C&B-Style and the order it is
to arrange these in. For the bibliography it also applies on top of the Bibliography paragraph style any direct formatting needed
for
italics, bold, underline and note reference/numbering.

[Word does not appear to include a 'Citation' style out of the box for inserting individual Citations.]

Ideally, it would seem, prior to submitting a final paper, using the ability of the Works Cited and Bibliography content control
entries, to convert to static text (so it doesn't get changed by reviewers). Once it's static text you can certainly reapply a
different paragraph style, but would have to be careful to not undo the direct formatting applied as described above.

Joonhwan Lee has a tool that works, so far, only on the mac last time I looked, that allows you to drag and drop source entries
from BibTex onto the widget and it converts them to Word:mac 2008 sources. It is available at
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~joonhwan/personal.html
Word 2007 is supposed to have a similar ability that allows sources to be copied over using the reference pane, but that has to be
implemented by the provider of the content, as I understand it, and so far I haven't run across a research pane source that does
this. There are other 3rd party tools becoming available to convert from/to Word 2007 sources.

For issues where the underlying content fields or layout are considered to be wrong/missing etc (including 'where is Harvard
Referencing Style' <g>) that would probably best be discussed separately from the visual formatting. From what I gather, in
addition to two Microsoft articles on modifying the underlying XML/XSL files, Joonhwan may be working on tools to do that as well.

================
THank you so much for your quick reply.

I had tried to move the arrows, but was moving the wrong one, so your advice was helpful, thank you. I know other documentation
styles have similar formats, but I only have to worry about the Chicago/Turabian for now.

Is there any way to totally customize the Reference Groups default settings?

I still don't understand why footnote reference entries aren't added to the bibliography. There's no way to customize the Reference
group settings? Microsoft's formatting of the bibliography/works cited pages is erroneous in silly ways. For example, I can only
imagine submitting a paper to my professor for review that had a bold, blue "Works Cited" title. Luckily, that actually was easy to
fix.

The references group still has so many limitations, I just really wish
Microsoft had included in their 2007 version all the features offered by the StyleEase or Endnote programs. It's well within their
capabilities to have done so. If the Office Suite had only cost me around $40 I wouldn't be so demanding, but since I had to spend
$150 on it, I have higher expectations. >>
--

Bob Buckland ?
MS Office System Products MVP

*Courtesy is not expensive and can pay big dividends*

 

[grammatim]

I checked out StyleEase after Aliera2's posting a couple of weeks ago,
and it's clear from the documentation (Chicago version) that it can't
be used by a serious scholar. The first drawback is that it simply
doesn't allow you to have both in-text parenthesized references and
references in footnotes in the same document. The second is that no
scholar will ever have to prepare papers in only one (of just four
available!) formats, and the cost of the four (uncustomizable!)
different applications goes a long way toward the purchase price of
EndNote. (And it doesn't seem to have provisions for such arcane but
essential additions as both editors and translators of a single work.)
The most sophisticated such program I've encountered was Papyrus, a
Mac-only app whose developer gave it up when he realized that adapting
it to OS X would be an overwhelming task. (It probably doesn't have
the web-search abilities of the more recent generations of such
tools.)

Incidentally, "Turabian" and "Chicago" are not the same. "Turabian" is
for unpublished work, from the weekly essay through the term paper to
the M.A. thesis and the Ph.D. dissertation; "Chicago," which is based
on it, is for published work. Mrs. Turabian (who had retired by the
time I became involved with the University of Chicago Press ca. 1975)
was the Press's Chief Manuscript Editor; she _may_ also, or at one
time, have been the University's Dissertation Secretary, a single
person whose responsibility was to see that every dissertation
submitted in every department of the university adhered to the
specified format. (There were typists who made a good living typing
dissertations for Ph.D. candidates who were thus relieved of the
necessity of mastering the arcana.) During my whole 25 years in
Chicago, the Dissertation Secretary was Geoffrey Plampin, a delightful
gentleman whom I knew from his many, many theatrical appearances (for
instance, as the Butler in *The Importance of Being Earnest*; we were
in *Ionlanthe* together in 1973).

Alas I fear that in the day of electronic manuscript preparation, the
notion of perfectly uniform style may have gone by the wayside, just
as the University of Chicago Press itself now states in the Manual
that a manuscript that has been prepared with perfect consistency
using _some other style_ can be published by the Press. (Mrs. Turabian
would not be pleased!)

 

[Suzanne S. Barnhill]

Computers make many tasks far easier and others more difficult. My college
independent study paper, typed on a manual typewriter, required many
characters (even some as basic as square brackets) to be inserted by hand;
since the subject was linguistics, there were actually *many* hand
insertions. My master's thesis (in Classics) was typed on an IBM Selectric
using three type balls: Prestige Elite, plus italic and Greek balls. At
least both of those papers permitted endnotes, but I typed many a student
paper with footnotes that had to be carefully estimated and allowed for; if
I miscalculated, an entire page had to be retyped.

Some of the worst jobs I ever did were (a) a finance dissertation, with many
formulas that had to be painfully built up with many half-line platen rolls,
and (b) a business dissertation for a university that required "two
originals" (I don't know what they were thinking!). In the latter case, even
using a memory typewriter (IBM Wheelwriter), the task of producing two
originals was excruciating; I had to type into memory until the end of a
page coincided with the end of a paragraph, then replay to get another copy,
then start on the next chunk. In another case, producing "camera-ready copy"
for an instructor's manual, I created boxed text (think of a paragraph
border in Word) with underlines and a vertical line character. Looking back
on these jobs and thinking what a breeze they would have been on the
computer, I see how much more productive I could (theoretically) have been
with a computer.

And of course that's without even mentioning the drudgery of typing draft
after draft for one's thesis supervisor, each one from scratch (and
inevitably introducing new errors).

OTOH, there are times when one does long for the simplicity of just rolling
the platen to a specific vertical location, tabbing or spacing to a specific
horizontal location, and typing in place (and no, I don't accept "click and
type" as a substitute, although it amounts to the same thing). And of course
when one is doing everything "by hand," one has complete control over
formatting. Not to mention that typing is not nearly as exhausting as
keyboarding. As much as I resented having to pull one sheet of paper out of
the typewriter and insert another one (especially when I was composing at
the typewriter and feared I'd lose my train of thought), that did provide
respite from typing and use a different set of muscles. On a computer,
typing on a single long page, there is never a need to stop, and I so seldom
do straight typing any more that I find it especially wearying when I have
to.

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA

I checked out StyleEase after Aliera2's posting a couple of weeks ago,
and it's clear from the documentation (Chicago version) that it can't
be used by a serious scholar. The first drawback is that it simply
doesn't allow you to have both in-text parenthesized references and
references in footnotes in the same document. The second is that no
scholar will ever have to prepare papers in only one (of just four
available!) formats, and the cost of the four (uncustomizable!)
different applications goes a long way toward the purchase price of
EndNote. (And it doesn't seem to have provisions for such arcane but
essential additions as both editors and translators of a single work.)
The most sophisticated such program I've encountered was Papyrus, a
Mac-only app whose developer gave it up when he realized that adapting
it to OS X would be an overwhelming task. (It probably doesn't have
the web-search abilities of the more recent generations of such
tools.)

Incidentally, "Turabian" and "Chicago" are not the same. "Turabian" is
for unpublished work, from the weekly essay through the term paper to
the M.A. thesis and the Ph.D. dissertation; "Chicago," which is based
on it, is for published work. Mrs. Turabian (who had retired by the
time I became involved with the University of Chicago Press ca. 1975)
was the Press's Chief Manuscript Editor; she _may_ also, or at one
time, have been the University's Dissertation Secretary, a single
person whose responsibility was to see that every dissertation
submitted in every department of the university adhered to the
specified format. (There were typists who made a good living typing
dissertations for Ph.D. candidates who were thus relieved of the
necessity of mastering the arcana.) During my whole 25 years in
Chicago, the Dissertation Secretary was Geoffrey Plampin, a delightful
gentleman whom I knew from his many, many theatrical appearances (for
instance, as the Butler in *The Importance of Being Earnest*; we were
in *Ionlanthe* together in 1973).

Alas I fear that in the day of electronic manuscript preparation, the
notion of perfectly uniform style may have gone by the wayside, just
as the University of Chicago Press itself now states in the Manual
that a manuscript that has been prepared with perfect consistency
using _some other style_ can be published by the Press. (Mrs. Turabian
would not be pleased!)

 

[grammatim]

Linguist and Classicist! Kewl! The elsementioned Director of the O.I.
later on had a handsome wooden case with about a dozen Selectric balls
for such exotic scripts as Greek, Russian, Hebrew -- and Arabic. (The
Arabic font was a brilliant piece of design, managing to squeeze
everything needed into just the 80 or so slots available; you can see
it in lots of teaching materials published in the 1970s such as the
Michigan series of textbooks.) He let everyone borrow them. One
shudders to think what would have happened if one had gotten broken.

In the early 70s I edited the members' newsletter (being in the
Director's office), and it was typeset on an IBM machine about the
size of a sideboard that could produce a page at a time, two columns,
proportinally spaced, justified, in various sizes. In the summer of
1981 a friend who worked at IBM took me to see an immense machine
called a "word processor" -- it took up a wall of a room, with a small
monitor over a keyboard in the middle -- which, with the input of lots
of codes, would produce serviceable output _that could be edited
inside the machine_. (My first computer was a Kaypro 4/84 -- I got it
like a month before Apple introduced its academic-user program, but
the Kaypro was more sophisticated than those earliest Apples, which
had something like a 32 K limit on file size.) And from 1987 I was
typesetter for an advertising company using a VariTyper 6400; then
there was a fire, and ca. 1990 it was replaced with a Macintosh and
this brand-new thing called "QuarkXpress." (I got to go to the
Consumer Electronics Show at McCormick Place to evaluate the competing
products. Met the guy who invented Tetris.)

The publisher of my first book, meanwhile, was also working in Mac (PC
wasn't an option for desktop publishing at the time), and he
introduced me to FrameMaker (v.3) when I began work on *The World's
Writing Systems* (Oxford UP paid for the whole suite of hardware and
software), when at the same time I had to learn Fontographer, too! His
business is becoming a Mac museum because there's no OS X version of
FrameMaker (Adobe is not supporting it, having bought it to eliminate
competition for InDesign, which has far fewer book-building
capabilities) and newer Macs don't run OS 9.

(I'm now on PC because the job I had put the computer in my house;
since Frame isn't Unicode-aware, I can't stay with it.)

 

[Suzanne S. Barnhill]

I was aware of IBM typesetters because there were some in use by the
university where I got my M.A. and later worked in the Development Office. I
was not familiar with their actual capabilities or operation, but I know a
lot of the university printed materials were produced in-house. My father
worked for IBM, so I was also aware of the early word processors but again
not terribly familiar with how they worked.

We dilly-dallied for a long time about getting a computer--just long enough
to avoid some of the disastrous decisions we could have made (operating
systems that seemed dominant at the time but were blown away by DOS)--and
ended up getting a Compaq Portable (now described as "luggable"), which was
about the same size as my "portable" sewing machine. It had a green-on-black
screen and two 5.25" floppy drives, no HD, and chronic power supply
problems. I actually did a fair amount of work (just editing) on it, in
WordStar and other applications, as required (I tolerated XyWrite but came
to cordially detest WordPerfect), but I didn't really take off (and ditch
the typewriter for "letter quality" output) until I got my own computer in
1992. It came with Windows 3.0, but an upgrade to Windows 3.1, which
included TrueType font support, followed quickly, and I also took advantage
of Gateway's generosity to purchase Word 2.0 for Windows at that time. Not
long thereafter I threw in the towel and bought a LaserJet 4 printer (dot
matrix, no matter how good, just didn't cut it). With that combination I
could do anything I had done with the typewriter (and of course much more);
I've never looked back. I still keep the Wheelwriter for addressing large
envelopes and typing on multi-part forms, but when I do I have to unearth it
from underneath a stack of accumulated "stuff."

I must say I never took to the Wheelwriter printwheels as I did the
Selectric balls. I have eight printwheels, but I had, I think, over a dozen
type balls (many of them symbol styles). The Wheelwriter is triple-pitch
(10, 12, 15), while the Selectric was just dual-pitch (10 and 12). The
Wheelwriter also introduced proportional printwheels and automatic
justification, which would have been more of a step up if the proportional
type styles hadn't been so ugly. My first experience with proportional
typing, though, was on an old Executive the summer I worked for IBM as a
programmer. I had to type reports (documentation of my programs) on that
typewriter, and I never quite got the hang of how many times to backspace to
get back to a previous character!

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA

Linguist and Classicist! Kewl! The elsementioned Director of the O.I.
later on had a handsome wooden case with about a dozen Selectric balls
for such exotic scripts as Greek, Russian, Hebrew -- and Arabic. (The
Arabic font was a brilliant piece of design, managing to squeeze
everything needed into just the 80 or so slots available; you can see
it in lots of teaching materials published in the 1970s such as the
Michigan series of textbooks.) He let everyone borrow them. One
shudders to think what would have happened if one had gotten broken.

In the early 70s I edited the members' newsletter (being in the
Director's office), and it was typeset on an IBM machine about the
size of a sideboard that could produce a page at a time, two columns,
proportinally spaced, justified, in various sizes. In the summer of
1981 a friend who worked at IBM took me to see an immense machine
called a "word processor" -- it took up a wall of a room, with a small
monitor over a keyboard in the middle -- which, with the input of lots
of codes, would produce serviceable output _that could be edited
inside the machine_. (My first computer was a Kaypro 4/84 -- I got it
like a month before Apple introduced its academic-user program, but
the Kaypro was more sophisticated than those earliest Apples, which
had something like a 32 K limit on file size.) And from 1987 I was
typesetter for an advertising company using a VariTyper 6400; then
there was a fire, and ca. 1990 it was replaced with a Macintosh and
this brand-new thing called "QuarkXpress." (I got to go to the
Consumer Electronics Show at McCormick Place to evaluate the competing
products. Met the guy who invented Tetris.)

The publisher of my first book, meanwhile, was also working in Mac (PC
wasn't an option for desktop publishing at the time), and he
introduced me to FrameMaker (v.3) when I began work on *The World's
Writing Systems* (Oxford UP paid for the whole suite of hardware and
software), when at the same time I had to learn Fontographer, too! His
business is becoming a Mac museum because there's no OS X version of
FrameMaker (Adobe is not supporting it, having bought it to eliminate
competition for InDesign, which has far fewer book-building
capabilities) and newer Macs don't run OS 9.

(I'm now on PC because the job I had put the computer in my house;
since Frame isn't Unicode-aware, I can't stay with it.)

 

[Aliera2]

Yes, just the other day I noticed that StyleEase didn't have a reference
entry option for books that have both editors and translators. That was
annoying, although one of the two can just be typed in by hand afterwards.

Thank you for clarifying the difference between Chicago and Turabian.

 

[Suzanne S. Barnhill]

BTW, I would not want to misrepresent myself as a linguist in the sense
being an expert in linguistics (at one time I was more of a linguist in the
sense of one who has command of more than one language). Aside from my
independent study, I've had only one linguistics course (at Georgetown
University in the summer of 1966 after graduating from Agnes Scott College).
But because I had essentially a second major in French, and because my
independent study director (Dr. Elizabeth G. Zenn) *was* a linguist, she
suggested that I do something that combined Latin and French, viz., the
transition from Vulgar Latin to Old French.

"To do this [according to my Foreword] I first spent seven weeks reading
Vulgar Latin texts beginning with Petronius and the Latin inscriptions and
continuing through texts as late as the seventh century, with emphasis on
those from Gallic areas. I then spent eleven additional weeks reading
nine-twelfth century Old French texts and several Provençal selections."

The remainder of the year was devoted to a detailed study of the first 50
verses of the "Lai du Chievrefeuille" of Marie de France (as much as I could
cover in the time I had) "in an attempt to bring all that I had learned to
bear on one piece of writing and demonstrate it in a written exercise.
I...tried to be as clear and complete as possible within the boundaries of
limited time and knowledge, and to increase the clarity of the paper with
indices, a set of phonological charts, and generous cross-references."

The entire opus is only 34 pages long (including a page of abbreviations and
one of sigla, an Index of Words Discussed and an Index to the Commentary). I
could easily reproduce it in a few hours (and I think at one time I actually
did at least a small sample). At the time, though, it was many days (or
nights) of labor just to type, quite aside from the study that went into it.
The "phonological charts," by the way, are entirely hand-drawn. <g>

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA

Linguist and Classicist! Kewl! The elsementioned Director of the O.I.
later on had a handsome wooden case with about a dozen Selectric balls
for such exotic scripts as Greek, Russian, Hebrew -- and Arabic. (The
Arabic font was a brilliant piece of design, managing to squeeze
everything needed into just the 80 or so slots available; you can see
it in lots of teaching materials published in the 1970s such as the
Michigan series of textbooks.) He let everyone borrow them. One
shudders to think what would have happened if one had gotten broken.

In the early 70s I edited the members' newsletter (being in the
Director's office), and it was typeset on an IBM machine about the
size of a sideboard that could produce a page at a time, two columns,
proportinally spaced, justified, in various sizes. In the summer of
1981 a friend who worked at IBM took me to see an immense machine
called a "word processor" -- it took up a wall of a room, with a small
monitor over a keyboard in the middle -- which, with the input of lots
of codes, would produce serviceable output _that could be edited
inside the machine_. (My first computer was a Kaypro 4/84 -- I got it
like a month before Apple introduced its academic-user program, but
the Kaypro was more sophisticated than those earliest Apples, which
had something like a 32 K limit on file size.) And from 1987 I was
typesetter for an advertising company using a VariTyper 6400; then
there was a fire, and ca. 1990 it was replaced with a Macintosh and
this brand-new thing called "QuarkXpress." (I got to go to the
Consumer Electronics Show at McCormick Place to evaluate the competing
products. Met the guy who invented Tetris.)

The publisher of my first book, meanwhile, was also working in Mac (PC
wasn't an option for desktop publishing at the time), and he
introduced me to FrameMaker (v.3) when I began work on *The World's
Writing Systems* (Oxford UP paid for the whole suite of hardware and
software), when at the same time I had to learn Fontographer, too! His
business is becoming a Mac museum because there's no OS X version of
FrameMaker (Adobe is not supporting it, having bought it to eliminate
competition for InDesign, which has far fewer book-building
capabilities) and newer Macs don't run OS 9.

(I'm now on PC because the job I had put the computer in my house;
since Frame isn't Unicode-aware, I can't stay with it.)

 

[grammatim]

This is fun! (I wonder if anyone else is looking.) Your Compaq sounds
just like my Kaypro, which, however, has a metal case. It came with
PerfectWriter -- there are one or two things that PerfectWriter, using
64 K (not 640 K) RAM, could do that no modern word processor can --
and WordStar (or maybe WordStar came with my first DOS machine, which
was more the size of a small briefcase and had those newfangled 3.5"
diskettes). (What ever happened to WordStar? It was much better than
WordPerfect.)

Georgetown was, and still is, an excellent place for linguistics; plus
it has the largest school of languages anywhere.

Sounds like you're the perfect audience for my current editing
project, which is Phil Baldi's three-volume historical syntax of Latin
(well, some of the contributors failed to contribute, so now it's
"perspectives on" Latin historical syntax -- tho I don't know the
names of the chapters that didn't come in.)

BTW, I would not want to misrepresent myself as a linguist in the sense
being an expert in linguistics (at one time I was more of a linguist in the
sense of one who has command of more than one language). Aside from my
independent study, I've had only one linguistics course (at Georgetown
University in the summer of 1966 after graduating from Agnes Scott College).
But because I had essentially a second major in French, and because my
independent study director (Dr. Elizabeth G. Zenn) *was* a linguist, she
suggested that I do something that combined Latin and French, viz., the
transition from Vulgar Latin to Old French.

"To do this [according to my Foreword] I first spent seven weeks reading
Vulgar Latin texts beginning with Petronius and the Latin inscriptions and
continuing through texts as late as the seventh century, with emphasis on
those from Gallic areas. I then spent eleven additional weeks reading
nine-twelfth century Old French texts and several Provençal selections."

The remainder of the year was devoted to a detailed study of the first 50
verses of the "Lai du Chievrefeuille" of Marie de France (as much as I could
cover in the time I had) "in an attempt to bring all that I had learned to
bear on one piece of writing and demonstrate it in a written exercise.
I...tried to be as clear and complete as possible within the boundaries of
limited time and knowledge, and to increase the clarity of the paper with
indices, a set of phonological charts, and generous cross-references."

The entire opus is only 34 pages long (including a page of abbreviations and
one of sigla, an Index of Words Discussed and an Index to the Commentary).I
could easily reproduce it in a few hours (and I think at one time I actually
did at least a small sample). At the time, though, it was many days (or
nights) of labor just to type, quite aside from the study that went into it.
The "phonological charts," by the way, are entirely hand-drawn. <g>

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA


Linguist and Classicist! Kewl! The elsementioned Director of the O.I.
later on had a handsome wooden case with about a dozen Selectric balls
for such exotic scripts as Greek, Russian, Hebrew -- and Arabic. (The
Arabic font was a brilliant piece of design, managing to squeeze
everything needed into just the 80 or so slots available; you can see
it in lots of teaching materials published in the 1970s such as the
Michigan series of textbooks.) He let everyone borrow them. One
shudders to think what would have happened if one had gotten broken.

In the early 70s I edited the members' newsletter (being in the
Director's office), and it was typeset on an IBM machine about the
size of a sideboard that could produce a page at a time, two columns,
proportinally spaced, justified, in various sizes. In the summer of
1981 a friend who worked at IBM took me to see an immense machine
called a "word processor" -- it took up a wall of a room, with a small
monitor over a keyboard in the middle -- which, with the input of lots
of codes, would produce serviceable output _that could be edited
inside the machine_. (My first computer was a Kaypro 4/84 -- I got it
like a month before Apple introduced its academic-user program, but
the Kaypro was more sophisticated than those earliest Apples, which
had something like a 32 K limit on file size.) And from 1987 I was
typesetter for an advertising company using a VariTyper 6400; then
there was a fire, and ca. 1990 it was replaced with a Macintosh and
this brand-new thing called "QuarkXpress." (I got to go to the
Consumer Electronics Show at McCormick Place to evaluate the competing
products. Met the guy who invented Tetris.)

The publisher of my first book, meanwhile, was also working in Mac (PC
wasn't an option for desktop publishing at the time), and he
introduced me to FrameMaker (v.3) when I began work on *The World's
Writing Systems* (Oxford UP paid for the whole suite of hardware and
software), when at the same time I had to learn Fontographer, too! His
business is becoming a Mac museum because there's no OS X version of
FrameMaker (Adobe is not supporting it, having bought it to eliminate
competition for InDesign, which has far fewer book-building
capabilities) and newer Macs don't run OS 9.

(I'm now on PC because the job I had put the computer in my house;
since Frame isn't Unicode-aware, I can't stay with it.)

Computers make many tasks far easier and others more difficult. My college
independent study paper, typed on a manual typewriter, required many
characters (even some as basic as square brackets) to be inserted by hand;
since the subject was linguistics, there were actually *many* hand
insertions. My master's thesis (in Classics) was typed on an IBM Selectric
using three type balls: Prestige Elite, plus italic and Greek balls. At
least both of those papers permitted endnotes, but I typed many a student
paper with footnotes that had to be carefully estimated and allowed for;
if
I miscalculated, an entire page had to be retyped.

Some of the worst jobs I ever did were (a) a finance dissertation, with
many
formulas that had to be painfully built up with many half-line platen
rolls,
and (b) a business dissertation for a university that required "two
originals" (I don't know what they were thinking!). In the latter case,
even
using a memory typewriter (IBM Wheelwriter), the task of producing two
originals was excruciating; I had to type into memory until the end of a
page coincided with the end of a paragraph, then replay to get another
copy,
then start on the next chunk. In another case, producing "camera-ready
copy"
for an instructor's manual, I created boxed text (think of a paragraph
border in Word) with underlines and a vertical line character. Looking
back
on these jobs and thinking what a breeze they would have been on the
computer, I see how much more productive I could (theoretically) have been
with a computer.

And of course that's without even mentioning the drudgery of typing draft
after draft for one's thesis supervisor, each one from scratch (and
inevitably introducing new errors).

OTOH, there are times when one does long for the simplicity of just
rolling
the platen to a specific vertical location, tabbing or spacing to a
specific
horizontal location, and typing in place (and no, I don't accept "click
and
type" as a substitute, although it amounts to the same thing). And of
course
when one is doing everything "by hand," one has complete control over
formatting. Not to mention that typing is not nearly as exhausting as
keyboarding. As much as I resented having to pull one sheet of paper out
of
the typewriter and insert another one (especially when I was composing at
the typewriter and feared I'd lose my train of thought), that did provide
respite from typing and use a different set of muscles. On a computer,
typing on a single long page, there is never a need to stop, and I so
seldom
do straight typing any more that I find it especially wearying when I have
to.

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA

"grammatim" <[email protected]> wrote in message

I checked out StyleEase after Aliera2's posting a couple of weeks ago,
and it's clear from the documentation (Chicago version) that it can't
be used by a serious scholar. The first drawback is that it simply
doesn't allow you to have both in-text parenthesized references and
references in footnotes in the same document. The second is that no
scholar will ever have to prepare papers in only one (of just four
available!) formats, and the cost of the four (uncustomizable!)
different applications goes a long way toward the purchase price of
EndNote. (And it doesn't seem to have provisions for such arcane but
essential additions as both editors and translators of a single work.)
The most sophisticated such program I've encountered was Papyrus, a
Mac-only app whose developer gave it up when he realized that adapting
it to OS X would be an overwhelming task. (It probably doesn't have
the web-search abilities of the more recent generations of such
tools.)

Incidentally, "Turabian" and "Chicago" are not the same. "Turabian" is
for unpublished work, from the weekly essay through the term paper to
the M.A. thesis and the Ph.D. dissertation; "Chicago," which is based
on it, is for published work. Mrs. Turabian (who had retired by the
time I became involved with the University of Chicago Press ca. 1975)
was the Press's Chief Manuscript Editor; she _may_ also, or at one
time, have been the University's Dissertation Secretary, a single
person whose responsibility was to see that every dissertation
submitted in every department of the university adhered to the
specified format. (There were typists who made a good living typing
dissertations for Ph.D. candidates who were thus relieved of the
necessity of mastering the arcana.) During my whole 25 years in
Chicago, the Dissertation Secretary was Geoffrey Plampin, a delightful
gentleman whom I knew from his many, many theatrical appearances (for
instance, as the Butler in *The Importance of Being Earnest*; we were
in *Ionlanthe* together in 1973).

Alas I fear that in the day of electronic manuscript preparation, the
notion of perfectly uniform style may have gone by the wayside, just
as the University of Chicago Press itself now states in the Manual
that a manuscript that has been prepared with perfect consistency
using _some other style_

 

[Lem]

This is fun! (I wonder if anyone else is looking.)

I am.

And although it's completely off topic, your description of

an immense machine called a "word processor" -- it took up a wall of a
room, with a small monitor over a keyboard in the middle -- which, with
the input of lots of codes, would produce serviceable output

reminded me of one of my favorite authors. Either of you might be
interested in reading "The Great Automatic Grammatizator," a 1954 short
story by Roald Dahl.

--
Lem -- MS-MVP

To the moon and back with 2K words of RAM and 36K words of ROM.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Guidance_Computer
http://history.nasa.gov/afj/compessay.htm

 

[Suzanne S. Barnhill]

I think the Kaypro was a predecessor of the Compaq. One of the people I sort
of worked with (the daughter of one of my clients, who actually wrote some
of the instructor's manuals and "student study guides" I typed) had a Kaypro
originally.

There are a lot of WordStar alums, many of whom remain nostalgic about WS's
navigation keys (there were lots of add-ins and macros that emulated them).
You can find "A Potted History of WordStar" at
http://www.wordstar.org/wordstar/history/history.htm. The last version I had
was an ill-conceived Windows adaptation.

I didn't think WordPerfect transitioned to Windows very gracefully, either.
As many WP features as one can be nostalgic about (and I'll admit there are
some I still miss), I found Word so much more intuitive (for me) that I took
to it immediately. One of my clients hung on for a very long time (actually,
I think he still uses it, as does my husband for some things); I finally
tore him away by giving him a copy of whatever version of Word/Office I was
currently using it (and the fact that publishers started preferring Word to
WP didn't hurt). When I got a Windows 2000 machine and my last version of WP
wouldn't install on it, that was the end for me (though I still have WP
files on my HD that I can open in Word).

The course I took at Georgetown was one of two offered by Richard J.
O'Brien, S.J., and Neil J. Twombley, S.J., the authors of the Georgetown
University Latin Series (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1963), which
applied a sort of Audio Lingual Method to Latin. The more pedagogical of the
two classes was intended to count as an "education" course toward my
teaching certificate. Although I'd always intended to teach Latin, I hadn't
taken education courses in college because the teacher certification program
required a quarter of practice teaching in one's senior year (precluding any
other coursework that quarter), and Miss Zenn had said she would not direct
an independent study for less than three quarters. This choice was a
no-brainer for me; I opted for the independent study. I was advised that one
could take education courses cheaply anywhere, and in fact I did later get
most of them at Georgia State University, but I started with these summer
classes at Georgetown. As a result, I ended up using the O'Brien/Twombley
method in my first year of teaching (entirely without the blessing of anyone
in the school or school system). But of course the linguistics class was
lagniappe for me.

I taught Latin for four years, then went to Emory University and got a
master's. After that my life took a different direction (motherhood, among
other things), and I've been typing/editing/word processing/typesetting for
the past 33 years. Your curent project sounds fascinating, though I'm not
sure my attention span would stretch to three volumes!

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA

This is fun! (I wonder if anyone else is looking.) Your Compaq sounds
just like my Kaypro, which, however, has a metal case. It came with
PerfectWriter -- there are one or two things that PerfectWriter, using
64 K (not 640 K) RAM, could do that no modern word processor can --
and WordStar (or maybe WordStar came with my first DOS machine, which
was more the size of a small briefcase and had those newfangled 3.5"
diskettes). (What ever happened to WordStar? It was much better than
WordPerfect.)

Georgetown was, and still is, an excellent place for linguistics; plus
it has the largest school of languages anywhere.

Sounds like you're the perfect audience for my current editing
project, which is Phil Baldi's three-volume historical syntax of Latin
(well, some of the contributors failed to contribute, so now it's
"perspectives on" Latin historical syntax -- tho I don't know the
names of the chapters that didn't come in.)

BTW, I would not want to misrepresent myself as a linguist in the sense
being an expert in linguistics (at one time I was more of a linguist in
the
sense of one who has command of more than one language). Aside from my
independent study, I've had only one linguistics course (at Georgetown
University in the summer of 1966 after graduating from Agnes Scott
College).
But because I had essentially a second major in French, and because my
independent study director (Dr. Elizabeth G. Zenn) *was* a linguist, she
suggested that I do something that combined Latin and French, viz., the
transition from Vulgar Latin to Old French.

"To do this [according to my Foreword] I first spent seven weeks reading
Vulgar Latin texts beginning with Petronius and the Latin inscriptions and
continuing through texts as late as the seventh century, with emphasis on
those from Gallic areas. I then spent eleven additional weeks reading
nine-twelfth century Old French texts and several Provençal selections."

The remainder of the year was devoted to a detailed study of the first 50
verses of the "Lai du Chievrefeuille" of Marie de France (as much as I
could
cover in the time I had) "in an attempt to bring all that I had learned to
bear on one piece of writing and demonstrate it in a written exercise.
I...tried to be as clear and complete as possible within the boundaries of
limited time and knowledge, and to increase the clarity of the paper with
indices, a set of phonological charts, and generous cross-references."

The entire opus is only 34 pages long (including a page of abbreviations
and
one of sigla, an Index of Words Discussed and an Index to the Commentary).
I
could easily reproduce it in a few hours (and I think at one time I
actually
did at least a small sample). At the time, though, it was many days (or
nights) of labor just to type, quite aside from the study that went into
it.
The "phonological charts," by the way, are entirely hand-drawn. <g>

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA


Linguist and Classicist! Kewl! The elsementioned Director of the O.I.
later on had a handsome wooden case with about a dozen Selectric balls
for such exotic scripts as Greek, Russian, Hebrew -- and Arabic. (The
Arabic font was a brilliant piece of design, managing to squeeze
everything needed into just the 80 or so slots available; you can see
it in lots of teaching materials published in the 1970s such as the
Michigan series of textbooks.) He let everyone borrow them. One
shudders to think what would have happened if one had gotten broken.

In the early 70s I edited the members' newsletter (being in the
Director's office), and it was typeset on an IBM machine about the
size of a sideboard that could produce a page at a time, two columns,
proportinally spaced, justified, in various sizes. In the summer of
1981 a friend who worked at IBM took me to see an immense machine
called a "word processor" -- it took up a wall of a room, with a small
monitor over a keyboard in the middle -- which, with the input of lots
of codes, would produce serviceable output _that could be edited
inside the machine_. (My first computer was a Kaypro 4/84 -- I got it
like a month before Apple introduced its academic-user program, but
the Kaypro was more sophisticated than those earliest Apples, which
had something like a 32 K limit on file size.) And from 1987 I was
typesetter for an advertising company using a VariTyper 6400; then
there was a fire, and ca. 1990 it was replaced with a Macintosh and
this brand-new thing called "QuarkXpress." (I got to go to the
Consumer Electronics Show at McCormick Place to evaluate the competing
products. Met the guy who invented Tetris.)

The publisher of my first book, meanwhile, was also working in Mac (PC
wasn't an option for desktop publishing at the time), and he
introduced me to FrameMaker (v.3) when I began work on *The World's
Writing Systems* (Oxford UP paid for the whole suite of hardware and
software), when at the same time I had to learn Fontographer, too! His
business is becoming a Mac museum because there's no OS X version of
FrameMaker (Adobe is not supporting it, having bought it to eliminate
competition for InDesign, which has far fewer book-building
capabilities) and newer Macs don't run OS 9.

(I'm now on PC because the job I had put the computer in my house;
since Frame isn't Unicode-aware, I can't stay with it.)

Computers make many tasks far easier and others more difficult. My
college
independent study paper, typed on a manual typewriter, required many
characters (even some as basic as square brackets) to be inserted by
hand;
since the subject was linguistics, there were actually *many* hand
insertions. My master's thesis (in Classics) was typed on an IBM
Selectric
using three type balls: Prestige Elite, plus italic and Greek balls. At
least both of those papers permitted endnotes, but I typed many a
student
paper with footnotes that had to be carefully estimated and allowed for;
if
I miscalculated, an entire page had to be retyped.

Some of the worst jobs I ever did were (a) a finance dissertation, with
many
formulas that had to be painfully built up with many half-line platen
rolls,
and (b) a business dissertation for a university that required "two
originals" (I don't know what they were thinking!). In the latter case,
even
using a memory typewriter (IBM Wheelwriter), the task of producing two
originals was excruciating; I had to type into memory until the end of a
page coincided with the end of a paragraph, then replay to get another
copy,
then start on the next chunk. In another case, producing "camera-ready
copy"
for an instructor's manual, I created boxed text (think of a paragraph
border in Word) with underlines and a vertical line character. Looking
back
on these jobs and thinking what a breeze they would have been on the
computer, I see how much more productive I could (theoretically) have
been
with a computer.

And of course that's without even mentioning the drudgery of typing
draft
after draft for one's thesis supervisor, each one from scratch (and
inevitably introducing new errors).

OTOH, there are times when one does long for the simplicity of just
rolling
the platen to a specific vertical location, tabbing or spacing to a
specific
horizontal location, and typing in place (and no, I don't accept "click
and
type" as a substitute, although it amounts to the same thing). And of
course
when one is doing everything "by hand," one has complete control over
formatting. Not to mention that typing is not nearly as exhausting as
keyboarding. As much as I resented having to pull one sheet of paper out
of
the typewriter and insert another one (especially when I was composing
at
the typewriter and feared I'd lose my train of thought), that did
provide
respite from typing and use a different set of muscles. On a computer,
typing on a single long page, there is never a need to stop, and I so
seldom
do straight typing any more that I find it especially wearying when I
have
to.

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA

"grammatim" <[email protected]> wrote in message

I checked out StyleEase after Aliera2's posting a couple of weeks ago,
and it's clear from the documentation (Chicago version) that it can't
be used by a serious scholar. The first drawback is that it simply
doesn't allow you to have both in-text parenthesized references and
references in footnotes in the same document. The second is that no
scholar will ever have to prepare papers in only one (of just four
available!) formats, and the cost of the four (uncustomizable!)
different applications goes a long way toward the purchase price of
EndNote. (And it doesn't seem to have provisions for such arcane but
essential additions as both editors and translators of a single work.)
The most sophisticated such program I've encountered was Papyrus, a
Mac-only app whose developer gave it up when he realized that adapting
it to OS X would be an overwhelming task. (It probably doesn't have
the web-search abilities of the more recent generations of such
tools.)

Incidentally, "Turabian" and "Chicago" are not the same. "Turabian" is
for unpublished work, from the weekly essay through the term paper to
the M.A. thesis and the Ph.D. dissertation; "Chicago," which is based
on it, is for published work. Mrs. Turabian (who had retired by the
time I became involved with the University of Chicago Press ca. 1975)
was the Press's Chief Manuscript Editor; she _may_ also, or at one
time, have been the University's Dissertation Secretary, a single
person whose responsibility was to see that every dissertation
submitted in every department of the university adhered to the
specified format. (There were typists who made a good living typing
dissertations for Ph.D. candidates who were thus relieved of the
necessity of mastering the arcana.) During my whole 25 years in
Chicago, the Dissertation Secretary was Geoffrey Plampin, a delightful
gentleman whom I knew from his many, many theatrical appearances (for
instance, as the Butler in *The Importance of Being Earnest*; we were
in *Ionlanthe* together in 1973).

Alas I fear that in the day of electronic manuscript preparation, the
notion of perfectly uniform style may have gone by the wayside, just
as the University of Chicago Press itself now states in the Manual
that a manuscript that has been prepared with perfect consistency
using _some other style_

 

[Aliera2]

Thank you.

Hi Aliera,

I've crossposted this into the Word:mac discussion group as well as its present location in the Winword document management
discussion group.

It is my understanding that the Word:mac 2008 Citation & Bibliography (C&B) feature, while in a somewhat different User Interface,
is for the most part common to Word 2007 and Word 2008. Daiya Mitchell, Word/mac MVP, among others there has experience from both
the Word user point of view and from the academia view point on this topic (as can folks here in the WinWord group) and we can, I
hope, benefit from understanding, expanding and taming this feature through discussion of it and the clarity others can add to to
this that I may overlook (or mistake) <g>. There have been discussions in that group (as well as in the Word 'en Espanol'
discussion group on this feature

You bring up an interesting point about how Word formats the 'Works Cited' and 'Bibliography' items inserted in Word documents when
you mentioned that

<<Word formats the bibliography/works cited entries incorrectly
for Chicago/Turabian style. The first line of an entry should be flush left, but any additional lines must be indented 5 spaces.
It should be simple a simple matter of just indenting the text, but the program won't let me do it.>>

You also mentioned that you expected Word's bibilography feature to pickup footnotes to include as well, but the way the feature is
structured that isn't quite, as I understand, an intent.

As I see it, how Word 2007 does the bibliography creation is mainly 'behind the scenes' but you can do a bit of tweaking without
knowing how to XML or needing to work with the underlying XML. (One of the folks who frequents the Word:mac discussion group is
Joonhwan Lee - who has already done a bit of customizing of the underlying XML and is, to my understanding, working on additional
tools that will make that a bit easier to do for the average user.

To my understanding, the Word 2007
Reference Tab=>Citation & Bibliography (C&B) Group
use of C&B-styles relates primarily to how the content that is presented for each of the 10, Microsoft provided C&B-styles is
applied in three locations in Word:

1. The default fields shown for a specific Source reference type when you're in
Manage Sources=>Source Manager=>Edit Source dialog

2. The content selected to be inserted in a document when you use
Insert Citation (where Word is inserting a 'Citation' field)
when you select 'Insert Citation'

3. The content and basic text formatting when you insert a {Bibliography} field into a Word document by clicking on the
'Bibliography' dropdown choie. This is usually done from the out-of-the-box pair of Word Document Building block entries in the
Bibliography gallery, which are:

- Bibliography
- Works Cited

Side note: Document Building blocks are Autotext engine driven reusable content blocks of information accessible in several ways.
One of those ways includes the 'Bibliography gallery'. (There are 36 separately accessible Building Block Galleries in Word 2007).
All Building Block entries are managed and viewable from the Building Blocks organizer in
Insert=>Quick Parts=>Building Block Organizer.
If you visit that dialog you'll see the listing for the two basic entries mentioned above.

When you create a 'Works Cited' or 'Bibliography' in a Word document you are inserting a content control that in the out-of-the-box
gallery entries consist of two parts

a. The first part of the entry is a title, formatted with the 'Heading 1' Word paragraph style. It is not necessarily a 'silly
blue' <g> color that you mentioned, but rather it reflects the currently applied theme, Quick Style set and Font Major/Minor pair
applied to the document. You can also add your own entries to the Bibliography gallery, so that you can insert an entry with a
different heading, or no heading when you wish.

b. The second part of the bibliography field that takes on the formatting of Word's Bibliography style is a listing Word builds
by reading the 'cited' (used in document) checkmark in the Manage Source list and then each of the tagged entries there to create
individual elements of the Bibliography/WorksCited list. While you can apply a different Word paragraph style to the bibliography
field, when you update the field/bibliogray Word throws off that change and reapplies the currently active bibliography paragraph
style.

The 'Bibliography' paragraph style does not, out-of-the-box, appear to contain any paragraph indenting. You can redefine that
paragraph style in Word for all documents created from a single template or for just one document. If you believe that a 2nd line
indent is needed that could be part of a redefined Bibliography paragraph style.

The Bibliography paragraph style is based on Word's 'normal' paragraph style, and as it comes out-of-the-box it appears to be pretty
much the same as the 'normal' style.

When you insert either a Citation or a Bibliography/WorksCited entry into your document Word queries the underlying XML/XSL files
for that style and enters what it's told by those files to select for content for the currently chosen C&B-Style and the order it is
to arrange these in. For the bibliography it also applies on top of the Bibliography paragraph style any direct formatting needed
for
italics, bold, underline and note reference/numbering.

[Word does not appear to include a 'Citation' style out of the box for inserting individual Citations.]

Ideally, it would seem, prior to submitting a final paper, using the ability of the Works Cited and Bibliography content control
entries, to convert to static text (so it doesn't get changed by reviewers). Once it's static text you can certainly reapply a
different paragraph style, but would have to be careful to not undo the direct formatting applied as described above.

Joonhwan Lee has a tool that works, so far, only on the mac last time I looked, that allows you to drag and drop source entries
from BibTex onto the widget and it converts them to Word:mac 2008 sources. It is available at
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~joonhwan/personal.html
Word 2007 is supposed to have a similar ability that allows sources to be copied over using the reference pane, but that has to be
implemented by the provider of the content, as I understand it, and so far I haven't run across a research pane source that does
this. There are other 3rd party tools becoming available to convert from/to Word 2007 sources.

For issues where the underlying content fields or layout are considered to be wrong/missing etc (including 'where is Harvard
Referencing Style' <g>) that would probably best be discussed separately from the visual formatting. From what I gather, in
addition to two Microsoft articles on modifying the underlying XML/XSL files, Joonhwan may be working on tools to do that as well.

================
THank you so much for your quick reply.

I had tried to move the arrows, but was moving the wrong one, so your advice was helpful, thank you. I know other documentation
styles have similar formats, but I only have to worry about the Chicago/Turabian for now.

Is there any way to totally customize the Reference Groups default settings?

I still don't understand why footnote reference entries aren't added to the bibliography. There's no way to customize the Reference
group settings? Microsoft's formatting of the bibliography/works cited pages is erroneous in silly ways. For example, I can only
imagine submitting a paper to my professor for review that had a bold, blue "Works Cited" title. Luckily, that actually was easy to
fix.

The references group still has so many limitations, I just really wish
Microsoft had included in their 2007 version all the features offered by the StyleEase or Endnote programs. It's well within their
capabilities to have done so. If the Office Suite had only cost me around $40 I wouldn't be so demanding, but since I had to spend
$150 on it, I have higher expectations. >>
--

Bob Buckland ?
MS Office System Products MVP

*Courtesy is not expensive and can pay big dividends*

 

[grammatim]

I am.

And although it's completely off topic, your description of

an immense machine called a "word processor" -- it took up a wall of a
room, with a small monitor over a keyboard in the middle -- which, with
the input of lots of codes, would produce serviceable output

reminded me of one of my favorite authors.  Either of you might be
interested in reading "The Great Automatic Grammatizator," a 1954 short
story by Roald Dahl.

I guess he was better at predicting word-manufacturing than chocolate-
manufacturing.

I wonder if parents who give their children *Charlie and the Chocolate
Factory* and *James and the Giant Peach* know that most of his works
are rather naughty and perhaps not something they'd want them to pick
up based on him being a favorite author ...

 

[Suzanne S. Barnhill]

For some reason when you said that, what popped into my head was a book I
ran across sometime ago at a used book sale called "The Curious Sofa," which
proved to be rather naughty (perhaps). Not a Dahl book at all, but Edward
Gorey. Evidently I'm not the only one to make the association, however: at
http://geoffklock.blogspot.com/2006/07/edward-goreys-curious-sofa.html, one
comment says, "i always associate gorey and roald dahl together. i guess
beacause of there twisted take on children."

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA

I am.

And although it's completely off topic, your description of

an immense machine called a "word processor" -- it took up a wall of a
room, with a small monitor over a keyboard in the middle -- which, with
the input of lots of codes, would produce serviceable output

reminded me of one of my favorite authors. Either of you might be
interested in reading "The Great Automatic Grammatizator," a 1954 short
story by Roald Dahl.

I guess he was better at predicting word-manufacturing than chocolate-
manufacturing.

I wonder if parents who give their children *Charlie and the Chocolate
Factory* and *James and the Giant Peach* know that most of his works
are rather naughty and perhaps not something they'd want them to pick
up based on him being a favorite author ...

 

[grammatim]

It was Jules Feiffer who illustrated *James and the Giant Peach* -- I
don't remember *Charlie* having pictures (if they were Gorey, I
certainly would have!)

Part of Gorey's charm is that he was never explicit about anything.
Many of his little illustrated books are gathered in oversize volumes
called Amphigorey, Amphigorey Too, Amphigorey Also -- you definitely
need to know them!

 

[Suzanne S. Barnhill]

No, the association had nothing to do with Gorey having illustrated
Dahl--just one of those irrational, inexplicable, almost ineffable
associations that vanish under analysis.

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA

It was Jules Feiffer who illustrated *James and the Giant Peach* -- I
don't remember *Charlie* having pictures (if they were Gorey, I
certainly would have!)

Part of Gorey's charm is that he was never explicit about anything.
Many of his little illustrated books are gathered in oversize volumes
called Amphigorey, Amphigorey Too, Amphigorey Also -- you definitely
need to know them!