PING: Microsoft Word experts

[Yossarian]

I'm working on a report just now and I'm trying to compile a list of references.

I've been using the Insert->Reference->Footnote option and choosing to insert 'endnotes'.

Fine.

Except that where two items refer to the same paper / resource, Word is putting in a new endnote instead of sharing the number.

So instead of having:

"53% of cat's prefer Whiskers" ¹ and "no cats prefer deep fried mushrooms"¹


¹ my totally made up paper

i get:

"53% of cat's prefer Whiskers" ¹ and "no cats prefer deep fried mushrooms"²


¹ my totally made up paper
² my totally made up paper


Does anyone know how I can fix this?

Cheers,

[RendeR]

wow, no, I've never seen that before. I Got nothing dude, sorry.

[Ksyrup]

I'm still trying to figure out how to add page numbers, so no help from me.

I'm seriously thinking of going back to my old version of Word Perfect that's on my laptop for drafting documents, because I think the conversion problems would be easier to deal with then all of the bizarre/unnecessary/counter-intuitive crap I deal with typing docs straight into Word to begin with.

[Yossarian]

I'm having no luck with my google-fu so far.

It seems that some style guides address the issue not in the way I expected (re-using the same numerical reference) but by having seperate numbers as above, but in the end note, having "ibid" instead of the whole ref again.


"53% of cat's prefer Whiskers" ¹ and "no cats prefer deep fried mushrooms"²


¹ my totally made up paper
² ibid


I guess that's better but it's still messy where I have like, 10 references to the same source on a page, or even worse, a mix of two sources on the page, so I couldn't use 'ibid'.

[Yossarian]

Found it...

You do insert->referenc->cross reference

In the pulldown you choose 'endnotes' then choose the particular endnote you want to refer to.

[ThunderingHERD]

I wouldn't do it like that unless you've been instructed to do so. Use a new number and ibid if the reference is to the immediately preceding note--otherwise use something like "see n 2 above" or simply the authors name (if you're only citing one work from that particular author). Use a shortened form of the title for subsequent citations and, of course, if you're referring to different page #s you should include that in the footnote as well.

[JPhillips]

Are you using a particular style guide or a hybrid of your own creation? If you are trying to stick to a particular style you should consult an on-line style guide. This site, http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/557/01/
does a decent job of quickly summarizing MLA.

If it's acceptable to use your own style, fine, but keep in mind that just because something is technically feasible doesn't mean it's appropriate for a particular style.

[Yossarian]

Thanks for the tips.

I started looking for this because a colleague (who has just finished her PHD!) said "we can't have that". But the more I looked into it (as implied above and with your comments), the more it appears that the correct thing is, as indicated to use multiple references explicitely where necessary and without the numeral where you can (where you can substitute the author etc).

Cheers!

[flere-imsaho]

Yeah, the style guide matters a lot. When I did my master's thesis, for instance, the rule for the above scenario would simply be to combine the two references into a single footnote, separating with a semicolon, if necessary.