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

Well, I spent ages editing my Normal template to give me just the 
formatting I want. But then I tried to go edit another document, and 
every time I touch anything, the formatting just goes crazy. Stuff like 
I ask for a bullet list and I get a level 3 heading. (WTF?) And all the 
margins and alignments are all over the place and... basically the more 
I touch the document, the more screwed up it gets. It just randomly 
changes formatting on me.

Damn, I am *so* glad that using Word isn't my major job function! >_<

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Thu, 22 Nov 2007 15:19:09 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did  
spake, saying:

> Well, I spent ages editing my Normal template to give me just the  
> formatting I want.

Which is where you went wrong, you don't fiddle with Normal you create a  
new one.

> But then I tried to go edit another document, and every time I touch  
> anything, the formatting just goes crazy. Stuff like I ask for a bullet  
> list and I get a level 3 heading. (WTF?) And all the margins and  
> alignments are all over the place and... basically the more I touch the  
> document, the more screwed up it gets. It just randomly changes  
> formatting on me.

Because most of the templates are based on Normal.

> Damn, I am *so* glad that using Word isn't my major job function! >_<

If you want to start from scratch save your normal template under a  
different name then delete it. When it starts up Word will create a new  
untouched Normal.dot template. I'm trying to remember if this will wipe  
your dictionary additions or not, as well as any additional menu items you  
might have created so be warned.

-- 
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 Thu, 22 Nov 2007 15:19:09 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did 
> spake, saying:
> 
>> Well, I spent ages editing my Normal template to give me just the 
>> formatting I want.
> 
> Which is where you went wrong, you don't fiddle with Normal you create a 
> new one.

Hmm, I see.

So if I do that, how do I then use all my custom styles in new documents?

>> But then I tried to go edit another document, and every time I touch 
>> anything, the formatting just goes crazy. Stuff like I ask for a 
>> bullet list and I get a level 3 heading. (WTF?) And all the margins 
>> and alignments are all over the place and... basically the more I 
>> touch the document, the more screwed up it gets. It just randomly 
>> changes formatting on me.
> 
> Because most of the templates are based on Normal.

Interesting design choice. (But then, the paperclip is far more 
questionable, IMO...)

>> Damn, I am *so* glad that using Word isn't my major job function! >_<
> 
> If you want to start from scratch save your normal template under a 
> different name then delete it. When it starts up Word will create a new 
> untouched Normal.dot template.

OK. I'll do that then...

> I'm trying to remember if this will wipe 
> your dictionary additions or not, as well as any additional menu items 
> you might have created so be warned.

There are no such additions to wipe, currently.

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Thu, 22 Nov 2007 15:50:01 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did  
spake, saying:

> Phil Cook wrote:
>> And lo on Thu, 22 Nov 2007 15:19:09 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull>  
>> did spake, saying:
>>
>>> Well, I spent ages editing my Normal template to give me just the  
>>> formatting I want.
>>  Which is where you went wrong, you don't fiddle with Normal you create  
>> a new one.
>
> Hmm, I see.
>
> So if I do that, how do I then use all my custom styles in new documents?

You select File|New... which asks what template you want to use, or create  
a shortcut directly to it.

>>> But then I tried to go edit another document, and every time I touch  
>>> anything, the formatting just goes crazy. Stuff like I ask for a  
>>> bullet list and I get a level 3 heading. (WTF?) And all the margins  
>>> and alignments are all over the place and... basically the more I  
>>> touch the document, the more screwed up it gets. It just randomly  
>>> changes formatting on me.
>>  Because most of the templates are based on Normal.
>
> Interesting design choice. (But then, the paperclip is far more  
> questionable, IMO...)
>
>>> Damn, I am *so* glad that using Word isn't my major job function! >_<
>>  If you want to start from scratch save your normal template under a  
>> different name then delete it. When it starts up Word will create a new  
>> untouched Normal.dot template.
>
> OK. I'll do that then...

Remember you can't rename or delete a template currently in use in Word,  
so you can just find and rename Normal.dot to Andrew.dot when Word is not  
running. Sorry I'm so used to talking to people who only know how to work  
in Word ask them to go to Explorer and they panic :-)

>> I'm trying to remember if this will wipe your dictionary additions or  
>> not, as well as any additional menu items you might have created so be  
>> warned.
>
> There are no such additions to wipe, currently.

Then no problem.

-- 
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:

>>>  If you want to start from scratch save your normal template under a 
>>> different name then delete it. When it starts up Word will create a 
>>> new untouched Normal.dot template.
>>
>> OK. I'll do that then...
> 
> Remember you can't rename or delete a template currently in use in Word, 
> so you can just find and rename Normal.dot to Andrew.dot when Word is 
> not running. Sorry I'm so used to talking to people who only know how to 
> work in Word ask them to go to Explorer and they panic :-)

I just tried this. All my custom styles vanished, but I still *cannot* 
convince Word to format this damn report correctly! >_<

(Also, somehow turning on numbered lists activates the custom list style 
that should have been deleted...)

Damnit, as if writing the actual report wasn't already vastly too complex...

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Thu, 22 Nov 2007 16:21:04 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did  
spake, saying:

> Phil Cook wrote:
>
>>>>  If you want to start from scratch save your normal template under a  
>>>> different name then delete it. When it starts up Word will create a  
>>>> new untouched Normal.dot template.
>>>
>>> OK. I'll do that then...
>>  Remember you can't rename or delete a template currently in use in  
>> Word, so you can just find and rename Normal.dot to Andrew.dot when  
>> Word is not running. Sorry I'm so used to talking to people who only  
>> know how to work in Word ask them to go to Explorer and they panic :-)
>
> I just tried this. All my custom styles vanished, but I still *cannot*  
> convince Word to format this damn report correctly! >_<
>
> (Also, somehow turning on numbered lists activates the custom list style  
> that should have been deleted...)
>
> Damnit, as if writing the actual report wasn't already vastly too  
> complex...

Okay trying to remember if this is the same in Word03, but try  
Tools|Templates and Add-ins. The Document Template should be Normal and  
untick any Add-ins. Then You should have an Organizer... button. This  
should show what styles are available in the Normal template you should  
have (on the right), delete any that look like bullets.

-- 
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" <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote in message
news:op.t17cf5q8c3xi7v@news.povray.org...
>
> Okay trying to remember if this is the same in Word03, but try
> Tools|Templates and Add-ins. The Document Template should be Normal and
> untick any Add-ins. Then You should have an Organizer... button. This
> should show what styles are available in the Normal template you should
> have (on the right), delete any that look like bullets.
>

In addition... (based on Word 2000 and may have changed. I only have 2000
and 2007 here)

Format -> AutoFormat. Click the Options button, go to the AutoFormat as you
Type tab and play with the selections there. Unselect anything that it's
doing that you'd rather it didn't.

I'd suggest uncheck Automatic Numbered Lists, based on your earlier
comments.

Post a reply to this message

I have now reached the point where I wish I'd never ever touched Word. 
This is getting ridiculous!

I'm trying to edit two documents. One is a report template from HQ. 
(Note that it's not an *actual* Word template, it's just a normal Word 
document with lots of text you're supposed to edit.) The other is a set 
of test scripts.

Both are now utterly buggy. Any attempt to do any kind of formatting 
produces wildly unpredictable results. For example, I press the button 
for bullet list and I get a level 3 heading (??!?). Or I press the 
button for Bold text and I get a checkbox list.

(Interestingly, the checkbox list style was in that template I deleted. 
Yet this style keeps magically coming back to life in every new document 
I start... I can't get rid of it!)

I wish I'd never started with this whole thing. I have mere days to get 
these documents finalised, and I just...can't...make...Word...work!!

Man, as if the documents themselves weren't challenging enough...

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook wrote:
> 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.
> 

I don't think I made my sarcasm apparent enough.
I have not figured out how to use word myself.

Tom

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook wrote:

> invisible rules

Why thank you. :-)

Post a reply to this message

"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message 
news:474ad349$1@news.povray.org...
> Phil Cook wrote:
>
>> invisible rules
>
> Why thank you. :-)

L
O
L

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Mon, 26 Nov 2007 14:08:09 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did  
spake, saying:

> Phil Cook wrote:
>
>> invisible rules
>
> Why thank you. :-)

Oo taking words out of context to give them a new meaning... you ever  
thought about moving into media or PR? :-)

Oh and Brian seconded.

-- 
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:

> Oo taking words out of context to give them a new meaning... you ever 
> thought about moving into media or PR? :-)

Or politics? :^)

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Mon, 26 Nov 2007 15:46:40 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did  
spake, saying:

> Phil Cook wrote:
>
>> Oo taking words out of context to give them a new meaning... you ever  
>> thought about moving into media or PR? :-)
>
> Or politics? :^)

I assumed you still had some scruples left.

-- 
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

By the way... you didn't find Paranoid Cat amusing? ;-)

Post a reply to this message