This probably isn't news to you, but... numbered lists seem to be 
spectacularly broken in Word 2003.

I mean, sure, they were always a little quirky in Word 97. But now I've 
upgraded to Word 2003, it seems just downright *broken*. I've got a 
couple of pages, each one with a numbered list on it. And I point-blank 
*cannot* make each such list start counting from 1.

I can make *some* of them count from 1, but then that makes the others 
reset to start counting from where it left off. Or, sometimes, makes 
them start counting from some seemingly arbitrary number like 138.

What in the name of God...?

Seriously, is this behaviour "normal" for Word now?

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Wed, 21 Nov 2007 15:02:32 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did  
spake, saying:

> This probably isn't news to you, but... numbered lists seem to be  
> spectacularly broken in Word 2003.
>
> I mean, sure, they were always a little quirky in Word 97. But now I've  
> upgraded to Word 2003, it seems just downright *broken*. I've got a  
> couple of pages, each one with a numbered list on it. And I point-blank  
> *cannot* make each such list start counting from 1.

Right click on the item you want to be 1 (and is showing as 5 or whatever)  
select Bullets and Numbering then Restart Numbering, if you've got a list  
starting from 1 you don't want to then do the same thing but choose  
Continue previous list.

However remember if you have two numbered lists and move items from one to  
the other it retains the original list's identity, they're linked so:

1. First point first list
2. Second point first list
3. Third point first list

1. First Point second list
2. Second point second list

if you move Second point second list to the 2nd position in the 1st list  
you get

1. First point first list
1. Second point second list
2. Second point first list
3. Third point first list

2. First Point second list

IOW Second point second list becomes the 1st point in the 2nd list and  
what was the 1st point renumbers itself. So trying to Restart a list  
becomes more difficult, if you select Second point second list and  
Continue previous list First point second list renumbers to 5. and they  
all become 1st list.

Does that make any sense?

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> This probably isn't news to you, but... numbered lists seem to be 
> spectacularly broken in Word 2003.
> 
> I mean, sure, they were always a little quirky in Word 97. But now I've 
> upgraded to Word 2003, it seems just downright *broken*. I've got a 
> couple of pages, each one with a numbered list on it. And I point-blank 
> *cannot* make each such list start counting from 1.
> 
> I can make *some* of them count from 1, but then that makes the others 
> reset to start counting from where it left off. Or, sometimes, makes 
> them start counting from some seemingly arbitrary number like 138.
> 
> What in the name of God...?
> 
> Seriously, is this behaviour "normal" for Word now?

I am teaching Word to my ninth-grade computer literacy class, and 
several students have noticed this.

I haven't yet figured out a consistent way to get Word to start the 
numbering exactly where you want it.  Our problems have popped up in 
tables; for some odd reason, at certain times the second row of a table 
picks up the numbering from the second row of the table in the previous 
page.  WTF?

There is an option to restart numbering if you select Format->Bullets 
and Lists from the menu; it will be applied to the selected text (unless 
Word is even buggier than previously known).

The other thing to do is to work from the end of the document upwards, 
selecting sections to be numbered and going up from there.

You also might want to switch to Outline view; in there, put the 
numbered sections at a given outline level, and make sure that each 
section is preceded by an empty line at a higher outline level.

Hope this helps,
John

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook wrote:

> Right click on the item you want to be 1 (and is showing as 5 or 
> whatever) select Bullets and Numbering then Restart Numbering.

Approximately 50% of the time, that particular box is disabled.

It's also on the context menu; sometimes it does nothing, sometimes it 
resets the *next* item to 1 (*not* the item I clicked), and sometimes it 
actually does exactly what I want.

> However remember if you have two numbered lists and move items from one 
> to the other it retains the original list's identity, they're linked so:
> 
> Does that make any sense?

Not really, no.

However, since every page is virtually identical and I created them all 
with a large cut and paste operation, presumably it is now impossible to 
unlink them and restore deterministic behaviour?

Anyway, I just finished downloading MiKTeX. I'm going to write the 
****ing test plan with LaTeX. At least that knows how to number things 
consistently. (Not to mention I don't have to spend 20 minutes tweaking 
the spacing to get a reasonably printout.)

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Wed, 21 Nov 2007 15:52:00 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did  
spake, saying:

> Phil Cook wrote:
>
>> However remember if you have two numbered lists and move items from one  
>> to the other it retains the original list's identity, they're linked so:
>>  Does that make any sense?
>
> Not really, no.

It's possible to mix two or more lists together each possessing their own  
numbering scheme. So you could have

1
  1
  2
2
  3
  4

with 1 & 2 being part of one list and 1,2,3 & 4 being a second list. I can  
move any items from 1234 around without changing 12's numbering. So if you  
get something like this with all the numbers at the same level it's  
difficult to see what item belongs to what list and Outline won't help you  
there.

> However, since every page is virtually identical and I created them all  
> with a large cut and paste operation, presumably it is now impossible to  
> unlink them and restore deterministic behaviour?

Reset to Normal Ctrl+A Ctrl+Shift+N or skip the Ctrl+A and just Normal the  
lists.

> Anyway, I just finished downloading MiKTeX. I'm going to write the  
> ****ing test plan with LaTeX. At least that knows how to number things  
> consistently. (Not to mention I don't have to spend 20 minutes tweaking  
> the spacing to get a reasonably printout.)

Oo doesn't the QA specifically state what package you have to use to write  
it up in? ;-)

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook wrote:
> And lo on Wed, 21 Nov 2007 15:52:00 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did 
> spake, saying:
> 
>>>  Does that make any sense?
>>
>> Not really, no.
> 
> It's possible to mix two or more lists together each possessing their 
> own numbering scheme. So you could have
> 
> 1
>  1
>  2
> 2
>  3
>  4
> 
> with 1 & 2 being part of one list and 1,2,3 & 4 being a second list. I 
> can move any items from 1234 around without changing 12's numbering. So 
> if you get something like this with all the numbers at the same level 
> it's difficult to see what item belongs to what list and Outline won't 
> help you there.

Oh good.

And this is a design *feature*?

>> However, since every page is virtually identical and I created them 
>> all with a large cut and paste operation, presumably it is now 
>> impossible to unlink them and restore deterministic behaviour?
> 
> Reset to Normal Ctrl+A Ctrl+Shift+N or skip the Ctrl+A and just Normal 
> the lists.

I'll give it a go...

>> Anyway, I just finished downloading MiKTeX. I'm going to write the 
>> ****ing test plan with LaTeX. At least that knows how to number things 
>> consistently. (Not to mention I don't have to spend 20 minutes 
>> tweaking the spacing to get a reasonably printout.)
> 
> Oo doesn't the QA specifically state what package you have to use to 
> write it up in? ;-)

Actually... no.

They will, however, almost assuredly complain about it being the wrong 
typeface.

...all of which is rather moot, since I am insufficiently talented to 
convince TeX to generate a box that fills all available space on the 
page! >_<

Let's face it, trying to do nontrivial layout with LaTeX isn't much fun 
either, is it? *sigh* I'm surrounded...

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> This probably isn't news to you, but... numbered lists seem to be 
> spectacularly broken in Word 2003.
> 
> I mean, sure, they were always a little quirky in Word 97. But now I've 
> upgraded to Word 2003, it seems just downright *broken*. I've got a 
> couple of pages, each one with a numbered list on it. And I point-blank 
> *cannot* make each such list start counting from 1.
> 
> I can make *some* of them count from 1, but then that makes the others 
> reset to start counting from where it left off. Or, sometimes, makes 
> them start counting from some seemingly arbitrary number like 138.
> 
> What in the name of God...?
> 
> Seriously, is this behaviour "normal" for Word now?


It is perfectly expected - there's rational behind how it all works.
It's easy once you figure it out.
Good luck in doing that ;-)


Tom

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Wed, 21 Nov 2007 16:55:45 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did  
spake, saying:

> Phil Cook wrote:
>> And lo on Wed, 21 Nov 2007 15:52:00 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull>  
>> did spake, saying:
>>
>>>>  Does that make any sense?
>>>
>>> Not really, no.
>>  It's possible to mix two or more lists together each possessing their  
>> own numbering scheme. So you could have
>>  1
>>  1
>>  2
>> 2
>>  3
>>  4
>>  with 1 & 2 being part of one list and 1,2,3 & 4 being a second list. I  
>> can move any items from 1234 around without changing 12's numbering. So  
>> if you get something like this with all the numbers at the same level  
>> it's difficult to see what item belongs to what list and Outline won't  
>> help you there.
>
> Oh good.
>
> And this is a design *feature*?

I can see why they'd need to link each item in a list together, but that  
it fails to break once moved out of the list - hmmm.

>>> However, since every page is virtually identical and I created them  
>>> all with a large cut and paste operation, presumably it is now  
>>> impossible to unlink them and restore deterministic behaviour?
>>  Reset to Normal Ctrl+A Ctrl+Shift+N or skip the Ctrl+A and just Normal  
>> the lists.
>
> I'll give it a go...

Should get rid of lists and links so you can re-number from scratch, just  
don't go moving items between lists.

>>> Anyway, I just finished downloading MiKTeX. I'm going to write the  
>>> ****ing test plan with LaTeX. At least that knows how to number things  
>>> consistently. (Not to mention I don't have to spend 20 minutes  
>>> tweaking the spacing to get a reasonably printout.)
>>  Oo doesn't the QA specifically state what package you have to use to  
>> write it up in? ;-)
>
> Actually... no.
>
> They will, however, almost assuredly complain about it being the wrong  
> typeface.

Comic Sans?

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook wrote:
> And lo on Wed, 21 Nov 2007 16:55:45 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did 
> spake, saying:
> 
>> Oh good.
>>
>> And this is a design *feature*?
> 
> I can see why they'd need to link each item in a list together, but that 
> it fails to break once moved out of the list - hmmm.

Hmm indeed.

>>>  Reset to Normal Ctrl+A Ctrl+Shift+N or skip the Ctrl+A and just 
>>> Normal the lists.
>>
>> I'll give it a go...
> 
> Should get rid of lists and links so you can re-number from scratch, 
> just don't go moving items between lists.

I didn't in the first place - just copy & pasting lists to duplicate pages.


>> They will, however, almost assuredly complain about it being the wrong 
>> typeface.
> 
> Comic Sans?

Arial. Possibly the world's ugliest typeface...

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Wed, 21 Nov 2007 19:08:51 -0000, Tom Austin <taustin> did spake,  
saying:

> Invisible wrote:
>> This probably isn't news to you, but... numbered lists seem to be  
>> spectacularly broken in Word 2003.
>>  I mean, sure, they were always a little quirky in Word 97. But now  
>> I've upgraded to Word 2003, it seems just downright *broken*. I've got  
>> a couple of pages, each one with a numbered list on it. And I  
>> point-blank *cannot* make each such list start counting from 1.
>>  I can make *some* of them count from 1, but then that makes the others  
>> reset to start counting from where it left off. Or, sometimes, makes  
>> them start counting from some seemingly arbitrary number like 138.
>>  What in the name of God...?
>>  Seriously, is this behaviour "normal" for Word now?
>
>
> It is perfectly expected - there's rational behind how it all works.
> It's easy once you figure it out.
> Good luck in doing that ;-)

Talking to an older guy who despairs of every 'getting' computers and  
bemoaning his own stupidity I point out he's not stupid it's just that  
computers tend to use their own rules of logic that he's not familiar  
with. "In Windows to stop the computer press Start" makes sense if you  
consider each action has to be initiated and the Start button is(can be)  
the beginning of all such actions.

Of course it doesn't help when they break their own rules; consider how  
windows open in Excel2k compared to Word2k, or in Andy's case they create  
invisible rules you can't see.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message