| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
The References Group: please help me with some problems
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. |
|
#2
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
|
The References Group: please help me with some problems
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" wrote: 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. |
|
#3
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
|
The References Group: please help me with some problems
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. "EPIjb" wrote: 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" wrote: 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. |
|
#4
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
|
The References Group: please help me with some problems
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. -- Suzanne S. Barnhill Microsoft MVP (Word) Words into Type Fairhope, Alabama USA "Aliera2" wrote in message ... 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. "EPIjb" wrote: 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" wrote: 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. |
|
#5
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
|
The References Group: please help me with some problems
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. "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote: 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. -- Suzanne S. Barnhill Microsoft MVP (Word) Words into Type Fairhope, Alabama USA "Aliera2" wrote in message ... 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. "EPIjb" wrote: 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" wrote: 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. |
|
#6
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement,microsoft.public.mac.office.word
|
|||
|
|||
|
The References Group: please help me with some problems [Fun with Biblio]
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 a - 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, inaddition to two Microsoft articles on modifying the underlying XML/XSL files, Joonhwan may be working on tools to do that as well. ================ "Aliera2" wrote in message ... 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* |
|
#7
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
|
The References Group: please help me with some problems
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!) On Mar 30, 11:31*pm, Aliera2 wrote: 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. "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote: 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. |
|
#8
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
|
The References Group: please help me with some problems
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" 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_ can be published by the Press. (Mrs. Turabian would not be pleased!) On Mar 30, 11:31 pm, Aliera2 wrote: 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. "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote: 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. -- Suzanne S. Barnhill Microsoft MVP (Word) Words into Type Fairhope, Alabama USA "Aliera2" wrote in message ... 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. "EPIjb" wrote: 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" wrote: 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.- |
|
#9
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
|
The References Group: please help me with some problems
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.) On Apr 12, 10:53*am, "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote: 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" 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_ can be published by the Press. (Mrs. Turabian would not be pleased!) On Mar 30, 11:31 pm, Aliera2 wrote: 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. "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote: 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. -- Suzanne S. Barnhill Microsoft MVP (Word) Words into Type Fairhope, Alabama USA "Aliera2" wrote in message ... 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. "EPIjb" wrote: 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" wrote: 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!) |
|
#10
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
|
The References Group: please help me with some problems
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 "grammatim" wrote in message ... 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.) On Apr 12, 10:53 am, "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote: 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" 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_ can be published by the Press. (Mrs. Turabian would not be pleased!) On Mar 30, 11:31 pm, Aliera2 wrote: 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. "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote: 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. -- Suzanne S. Barnhill Microsoft MVP (Word) Words into Type Fairhope, Alabama USA "Aliera2" wrote in message ... 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. "EPIjb" wrote: 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" wrote: 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!) |
|
#11
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
|
The References Group: please help me with some problems
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. "grammatim" wrote: 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!) On Mar 30, 11:31 pm, Aliera2 wrote: 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. "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote: 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. -- Suzanne S. Barnhill Microsoft MVP (Word) Words into Type Fairhope, Alabama USA "Aliera2" wrote in message ... 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. "EPIjb" wrote: 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" wrote: 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.- |
|
#12
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
|
The References Group: please help me with some problems
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 "grammatim" wrote in message ... 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.) On Apr 12, 10:53 am, "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote: 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" 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_ can be published by the Press. (Mrs. Turabian would not be pleased!) On Mar 30, 11:31 pm, Aliera2 wrote: 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. "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote: 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. -- Suzanne S. Barnhill Microsoft MVP (Word) Words into Type Fairhope, Alabama USA "Aliera2" wrote in message ... 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. "EPIjb" wrote: 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" wrote: 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!) |
|
#13
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
|
The References Group: please help me with some problems
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.) On Apr 12, 2:21*pm, "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote: 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. |
|
#14
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
|
The References Group: please help me with some problems
grammatim wrote:
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 |
|
#15
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
|
The References Group: please help me with some problems
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 "grammatim" wrote in message ... 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.) On Apr 12, 2:21 pm, "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote: 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 "grammatim" wrote in message ... 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.) On Apr 12, 10:53 am, "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote: 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" 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_ |
|
#16
Posted to microsoft.public.mac.office.word,microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
|
The References Group: please help me with some problems [Fun w
Thank you.
"Bob Buckland ?:-)" wrote: 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 a - 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, inaddition to two Microsoft articles on modifying the underlying XML/XSL files, Joonhwan may be working on tools to do that as well. ================ "Aliera2" wrote in message ... 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* |
|
#17
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
|
The References Group: please help me with some problems
On Apr 12, 6:44*pm, Lem wrote:
grammatim wrote: 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. 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 ... |
|
#18
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
|
The References Group: please help me with some problems
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/...ious-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 "grammatim" wrote in message ... On Apr 12, 6:44 pm, Lem wrote: grammatim wrote: 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. 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 ... |
|
#19
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
|
The References Group: please help me with some problems
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! On Apr 12, 11:31*pm, "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote: 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: athttp://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 "grammatim" wrote in message ... On Apr 12, 6:44 pm, Lem wrote: grammatim wrote: 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. 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 ... |
|
#20
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
|
The References Group: please help me with some problems
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 "grammatim" wrote in message ... 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! On Apr 12, 11:31 pm, "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote: 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: athttp://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 "grammatim" wrote in message ... On Apr 12, 6:44 pm, Lem wrote: grammatim wrote: 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. 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 ... |
|
#21
Posted to microsoft.public.mac.office.word,microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
|
The References Group: please help me with some problems [Fun w
I bought this computer to help me with my school work it is a horror to know
this citation part is a joke.You spend all this time putting in citation and referencing only to find you are finish and no citation or referencing in your work.Now i supose you have to buy some other parts which will cost you to buy another computer and the money list goes on and on with no productivity. Point bland this is deceiving at best. Thanks for nothing.I am stuck ,have to be hand writing my citations and referencing I should sue microsoft if I fail my paper. "Aliera2" wrote: Thank you. "Bob Buckland ?:-)" wrote: 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 a - 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, inaddition to two Microsoft articles on modifying the underlying XML/XSL files, Joonhwan may be working on tools to do that as well. ================ "Aliera2" wrote in message ... 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* |
|
#22
Posted to microsoft.public.mac.office.word,microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
|
The References Group: please help me with some problems [Fun w
On 23 nov, 20:31, angry lucie3 angry
wrote: I bought this computer to help me with my school work it is a horror to know this citation part is a joke.You spend all this time putting in citation and referencing only to find you are finish and no citation or referencing in your work.Now i supose you have to buy some other parts which will cost you to buy another computer and the money list goes on and on with no productivity. Point bland this is deceiving at best. *Thanks for nothing.I am stuck ,have to *be hand writing my citations and referencing I should sue microsoft if I fail my paper. What do you mean by "no citation or referencing"? If you click on "Insert Citation", in the dropdown list, are there any citations listed? If not, and if you click on "Manage Sources", do you see anything in the left or right listbox? If there is only something in the left listbox, you can use the "Copy -" button to copy sources to your current document. Do you have a sources.xml file on your computer? That file would contain all the citations you entered so far under one user account on one computer. The file can be found in "%appdata%\microsoft \Bibliography". To check if it is there, in Windows XP try typing that in Start - Run. In Vista you can find it by typing that in the "Start search" box on your start menu. The directory should contain a file named "sources.xml". If you want to look at other tools because you don't like the built-in functions, you might be interested in Zotero (free) and EndNote (commercial). Yves -- http://www.codeplex.com/bibliography |
|
#24
Posted to microsoft.public.mac.office.word,microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
|
The References Group: please help me with some problems [Fun w
The master file that you refer to is for an individual document. When I
click on bibliography, I see :Insert Bibliography"," an active link and "save selection to bibliography gallery," not an active link. How do I create a Bibliography Gallery? I use many of my sources repeatedly for different papers and online discussions. Kimega "CyberTaz" wrote: Rephrasing what Yves has already offered: Assuming you've used the Citations Palette [View Citations], the citations you've typed are stored in a Master File. They automatically appear in the Citations Palette, but the palette is cleared when you close that document or create/open a different document. If you open doc that already has citations in it they will be listed in the Citations Palette. In the case of a new document or one with no citations or to add additional entries to the palette: At the lower right corner of the palette click the button & select the Citation Source Manager. In that dialog you should find all your existing entries in the left column (Master List). Select the ones you need & click the Copy button to copy them to the right column (Current List). Those will be in the palette when you close the Source Manager. HTH |:) Bob Jones [MVP] Office:Mac On 11/23/08 2:31 PM, in article , "angry lucie3" angry wrote: I bought this computer to help me with my school work it is a horror to know this citation part is a joke.You spend all this time putting in citation and referencing only to find you are finish and no citation or referencing in your work.Now i supose you have to buy some other parts which will cost you to buy another computer and the money list goes on and on with no productivity. Point bland this is deceiving at best. Thanks for nothing.I am stuck ,have to be hand writing my citations and referencing I should sue microsoft if I fail my paper. "Aliera2" wrote: Thank you. "Bob Buckland ?:-)" wrote: 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 a - 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, inaddition to two Microsoft articles on modifying the underlying XML/XSL files, Joonhwan may be working on tools to do that as well. ================ "Aliera2" wrote in message ... 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* |
|
#25
Posted to microsoft.public.mac.office.word,microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
|
The References Group: please help me with some problems [Fun w
Hi Kimega;
Please see the inline responses below: On 12/4/08 10:56 AM, in article , "Kimega" wrote: The master file that you refer to is for an individual document. No, it isn't. The Master List is available in order to select from it for any new documents to which you need to add citations already accumulated... That's why it's called the Master List. All citations you add or remove via the +/- buttons in the Citations button are added to the Citations List for that document as well as to the Master List. Read the second paragraph of my response to which you are *replying*. When I click on bibliography, I see :Insert Bibliography"," an active link and "save selection to bibliography gallery," not an active link. The Bibliography group in the Elements Gallery does not store any specific entries. The choices there simply generate a bibliography based on citations in the document. If there are no citations inserted those bibliography formats don't do much of anything. Just like a Table of Content you must have entries "marked" in the document in order to generate the TOC. How do I create a Bibliography Gallery? I use many of my sources repeatedly for different papers and online discussions. As already described, you need to add your citations to the Master List using the Citation Source Manager, *not* the Elements Gallery. Once you have the Master List compiled you use the CSM to select which citations are to be included in the current document to build that documents Citations List. IOW, the Master List _is_ the "bibliography gallery" you're looking for, but I get the impression that you haven't followed the directions to where it is located - once again, click the button at the lower right corner of the Citations Palette & choose Citation Source Manager from the dropdown. Kimega Also, for future reference, please don't insert your enquiries as a REPLY in an existing thread. If you're not offering a suggestion or solution for the original poster start a New Message & state all details particular to your versions & issues of concern. HTH |:) Bob Jones [MVP] Office:Mac "CyberTaz" wrote: Rephrasing what Yves has already offered: Assuming you've used the Citations Palette [View Citations], the citations you've typed are stored in a Master File. They automatically appear in the Citations Palette, but the palette is cleared when you close that document or create/open a different document. If you open doc that already has citations in it they will be listed in the Citations Palette. In the case of a new document or one with no citations or to add additional entries to the palette: At the lower right corner of the palette click the button & select the Citation Source Manager. In that dialog you should find all your existing entries in the left column (Master List). Select the ones you need & click the Copy button to copy them to the right column (Current List). Those will be in the palette when you close the Source Manager. HTH |:) Bob Jones [MVP] Office:Mac On 11/23/08 2:31 PM, in article , "angry lucie3" angry wrote: I bought this computer to help me with my school work it is a horror to know this citation part is a joke.You spend all this time putting in citation and referencing only to find you are finish and no citation or referencing in your work.Now i supose you have to buy some other parts which will cost you to buy another computer and the money list goes on and on with no productivity. Point bland this is deceiving at best. Thanks for nothing.I am stuck ,have to be hand writing my citations and referencing I should sue microsoft if I fail my paper. "Aliera2" wrote: Thank you. "Bob Buckland ?:-)" wrote: 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 a - 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, inaddition to two Microsoft articles on modifying the underlying XML/XSL files, Joonhwan may be working on tools to do that as well. ================ "Aliera2" wrote in message ... 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* |
|
#26
Posted to microsoft.public.mac.office.word,microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
|
The References Group: please help me with some problems [Fun w
Thanks, Bob
You have made it much clearee. I appreciate your help. Kimega "CyberTaz" wrote: Hi Kimega; Please see the inline responses below: On 12/4/08 10:56 AM, in article , "Kimega" wrote: The master file that you refer to is for an individual document. No, it isn't. The Master List is available in order to select from it for any new documents to which you need to add citations already accumulated... That's why it's called the Master List. All citations you add or remove via the +/- buttons in the Citations button are added to the Citations List for that document as well as to the Master List. Read the second paragraph of my response to which you are *replying*. When I click on bibliography, I see :Insert Bibliography"," an active link and "save selection to bibliography gallery," not an active link. The Bibliography group in the Elements Gallery does not store any specific entries. The choices there simply generate a bibliography based on citations in the document. If there are no citations inserted those bibliography formats don't do much of anything. Just like a Table of Content you must have entries "marked" in the document in order to generate the TOC. How do I create a Bibliography Gallery? I use many of my sources repeatedly for different papers and online discussions. As already described, you need to add your citations to the Master List using the Citation Source Manager, *not* the Elements Gallery. Once you have the Master List compiled you use the CSM to select which citations are to be included in the current document to build that documents Citations List. IOW, the Master List _is_ the "bibliography gallery" you're looking for, but I get the impression that you haven't followed the directions to where it is located - once again, click the button at the lower right corner of the Citations Palette & choose Citation Source Manager from the dropdown. Kimega Also, for future reference, please don't insert your enquiries as a REPLY in an existing thread. If you're not offering a suggestion or solution for the original poster start a New Message & state all details particular to your versions & issues of concern. HTH |:) Bob Jones [MVP] Office:Mac "CyberTaz" wrote: Rephrasing what Yves has already offered: Assuming you've used the Citations Palette [View Citations], the citations you've typed are stored in a Master File. They automatically appear in the Citations Palette, but the palette is cleared when you close that document or create/open a different document. If you open doc that already has citations in it they will be listed in the Citations Palette. In the case of a new document or one with no citations or to add additional entries to the palette: At the lower right corner of the palette click the button & select the Citation Source Manager. In that dialog you should find all your existing entries in the left column (Master List). Select the ones you need & click the Copy button to copy them to the right column (Current List). Those will be in the palette when you close the Source Manager. HTH |:) Bob Jones [MVP] Office:Mac On 11/23/08 2:31 PM, in article , "angry lucie3" angry wrote: I bought this computer to help me with my school work it is a horror to know this citation part is a joke.You spend all this time putting in citation and referencing only to find you are finish and no citation or referencing in your work.Now i supose you have to buy some other parts which will cost you to buy another computer and the money list goes on and on with no productivity. Point bland this is deceiving at best. Thanks for nothing.I am stuck ,have to be hand writing my citations and referencing I should sue microsoft if I fail my paper. "Aliera2" wrote: Thank you. "Bob Buckland ?:-)" wrote: 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 a - 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, inaddition to two Microsoft articles on modifying the underlying XML/XSL files, Joonhwan may be working on tools to do that as well. ================ "Aliera2" wrote in message ... 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* |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| cannot group objects | Microsoft Word Help | |||
| Problems updating fields in cross-references when printing (Wd 200 | Microsoft Word Help | |||
| Which Group please | New Users | |||
| Won't Group | New Users | |||
| Group By | Tables | |||
Linear Mode
