[Island Girl]

Someone wanted each page of a document to have numbers incrementing from
106367. I'm sure there's a better way, but what I did was put it in the
place of page numbers as ={PAGE} + 106366. It worked, but now I'm wondering
what could go wrong, and what the real method of doing that would have been.
There still might be time to change it.

Thanks again and again!

[Stefan Blom[_3_]]

Although calculated page numbers work, they won't be used by Word in
cross-references or tables of contents. A better approach is to change the
"Start at" value in the Page Number Format dialog box.

--
Stefan Blom
Microsoft Word MVP



"Island Girl" wrote in message
...
Someone wanted each page of a document to have numbers incrementing from
106367. I'm sure there's a better way, but what I did was put it in the
place of page numbers as ={PAGE} + 106366. It worked, but now I'm
wondering
what could go wrong, and what the real method of doing that would have
been.
There still might be time to change it.

Thanks again and again!

[Island Girl]

Oooops! Thanks, Stefan!

"Stefan Blom" wrote:

Although calculated page numbers work, they won't be used by Word in
cross-references or tables of contents. A better approach is to change the
"Start at" value in the Page Number Format dialog box.

--
Stefan Blom
Microsoft Word MVP



"Island Girl" wrote in message
...
Someone wanted each page of a document to have numbers incrementing from
106367. I'm sure there's a better way, but what I did was put it in the
place of page numbers as ={PAGE} + 106366. It worked, but now I'm
wondering
what could go wrong, and what the real method of doing that would have
been.
There still might be time to change it.

Thanks again and again!


.

[Suzanne S. Barnhill]

But the reason that solution was offered is that Word cannot generate page
numbers larger than (at a guess) 106366.

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA
http://word.mvps.org

"Island Girl" wrote in message
...
Oooops! Thanks, Stefan!

"Stefan Blom" wrote:

Although calculated page numbers work, they won't be used by Word in
cross-references or tables of contents. A better approach is to change
the
"Start at" value in the Page Number Format dialog box.

--
Stefan Blom
Microsoft Word MVP



"Island Girl" wrote in message
...
Someone wanted each page of a document to have numbers incrementing
from
106367. I'm sure there's a better way, but what I did was put it in
the
place of page numbers as ={PAGE} + 106366. It worked, but now I'm
wondering
what could go wrong, and what the real method of doing that would have
been.
There still might be time to change it.

Thanks again and again!


.

[Island Girl]

Thanks, Suzanne! Looks like a do-over is in the works!

"Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote:

But the reason that solution was offered is that Word cannot generate page
numbers larger than (at a guess) 106366.

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA
http://word.mvps.org

"Island Girl" wrote in message
...
Oooops! Thanks, Stefan!

"Stefan Blom" wrote:

Although calculated page numbers work, they won't be used by Word in
cross-references or tables of contents. A better approach is to change
the
"Start at" value in the Page Number Format dialog box.

--
Stefan Blom
Microsoft Word MVP



"Island Girl" wrote in message
...
Someone wanted each page of a document to have numbers incrementing
from
106367. I'm sure there's a better way, but what I did was put it in
the
place of page numbers as ={PAGE} + 106366. It worked, but now I'm
wondering
what could go wrong, and what the real method of doing that would have
been.
There still might be time to change it.

Thanks again and again!


.



.

[Suzanne S. Barnhill]

I could be wrong about the specific number, but I do recall reading a thread
somewhere in one of these NGs in which this came up, and it was ascertained
that there is some limit to page numbering. Note that this is NOT a limit to
the number of actual pages (see, for example,
http://www.technologyquestions.com/t...-ms-word.html),
just the numbering.

Ah, here we go: according to http://support.microsoft.com/kb/212159, you can
have page numbers from 0 to 32,766 when using arabic numerals, 1-780 using
letters of the alphabet, and 1-32,766 using roman numerals. That article is
about Word 2000, but I feel sure there would be no change through Word 2003;
it might be different in Word 2007 (interestingly, there has been some
variation among earlier versions; see
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/176137/en-us).

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA
http://word.mvps.org

"Island Girl" wrote in message
...
Thanks, Suzanne! Looks like a do-over is in the works!

"Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote:

But the reason that solution was offered is that Word cannot generate
page
numbers larger than (at a guess) 106366.

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA
http://word.mvps.org

"Island Girl" wrote in message
...
Oooops! Thanks, Stefan!

"Stefan Blom" wrote:

Although calculated page numbers work, they won't be used by Word in
cross-references or tables of contents. A better approach is to change
the
"Start at" value in the Page Number Format dialog box.

--
Stefan Blom
Microsoft Word MVP



"Island Girl" wrote in message
...
Someone wanted each page of a document to have numbers incrementing
from
106367. I'm sure there's a better way, but what I did was put it in
the
place of page numbers as ={PAGE} + 106366. It worked, but now I'm
wondering
what could go wrong, and what the real method of doing that would
have
been.
There still might be time to change it.

Thanks again and again!


.



.

[Island Girl]

Could it be that I didn't phrase my question right? These numbers weren't
really page numbers at all; they were numbers the author wanted placed on
each page in sequence starting with that very high number for a totally
different reason. It's just that I didn't know any other way to get numbers
to increment from page to page, so I just used a page field. Thus, my "what
could go wrong?" question.

How should I have handled the situation? As usual, it was a "rush" document
and there wasn't much time to think. You know the drill: everything's a rush
in some offices! Given more time, I might have been able to research the
answer.



"Island Girl" wrote:

Someone wanted each page of a document to have numbers incrementing from
106367. I'm sure there's a better way, but what I did was put it in the
place of page numbers as ={PAGE} + 106366. It worked, but now I'm wondering
what could go wrong, and what the real method of doing that would have been.
There still might be time to change it.

Thanks again and again!

[Suzanne S. Barnhill]

Fair enough. To add a number to every page automatically, using the PAGE
field makes perfect sense to me. The alternative would be to use a SEQ field
(starting at 106366), but you'd have to place it on each page manually. I
think what you did was just right.

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA
http://word.mvps.org

"Island Girl" wrote in message
...
Could it be that I didn't phrase my question right? These numbers weren't
really page numbers at all; they were numbers the author wanted placed on
each page in sequence starting with that very high number for a totally
different reason. It's just that I didn't know any other way to get
numbers
to increment from page to page, so I just used a page field. Thus, my
"what
could go wrong?" question.

How should I have handled the situation? As usual, it was a "rush"
document
and there wasn't much time to think. You know the drill: everything's a
rush
in some offices! Given more time, I might have been able to research the
answer.



"Island Girl" wrote:

Someone wanted each page of a document to have numbers incrementing from
106367. I'm sure there's a better way, but what I did was put it in the
place of page numbers as ={PAGE} + 106366. It worked, but now I'm
wondering
what could go wrong, and what the real method of doing that would have
been.
There still might be time to change it.

Thanks again and again!