Numbered Lists in Tables (Word 97 SR2)

Topic

New Reply

When I work on projects, one of the things that we do is maintain Issue Lists in a Word document as a table. We use reference numbers in the first column of the table to track aspects of the Issue Resolution. This works well as long as we add issues at the end of the list. Sometimes, however, we want to keep associated Issues together and it would be nice if there was some way to set up a system so that if I inserted an issue between number 41 and number 42 that it was numbered 41.1, etc. That way we do not lose the original numbering of the Issues and can still refer to these inserted Issues by a unique number. Any thoughts, insight that anyone might have on how we might do this is greatly appreciated. Thanks.

Ron M

Reply | Quote

Replies

Auto-Numbering has some gotchas, but let’s start with the quick and dirty.

Assumption: when you first create the 2-column table, you are highlighting the first column and using the Numbering button OR the menu FORMAT, BULLETS & NUMBERING. You are not using a style that includes numbering.*

Insert a new row, select the cell with the “incorrect” number, click on the INCREASE INDENT (DEMOTE) button. Numbering changes to “Outline Numbering”

If this image below comes through, the indent buttons are the 3rd & 4th buttons (I use a Mac at home so the buttons look slightly different

If the image doesn’t come through then you are looking on the FORMAT toolbar for a buton that looks like it has a left or right arrow next to a bulleted list. I believe you may also hit CTRL-M to increase the indent.

For controlling the style of numbering, you really want to take a look at the menu FORMAT, BULLETS & NUMBERING and click on the OUTLINE numbering tab.

*at work (law office) we use styles with numbering, because of the complexity and structure of our documents. Depending on your needs (how often you change your tables, how long they are, if they are copied from doc to doc, etc), you may well prefer to learn about styles with numbering. When auto-numbering goes bad, it can be a small nightmare to fix.

Reply | Quote

Thanks. I am actually using styles with numbering, maybe that makes it more interesting to deal with. I have a Style I call Table Number 1, and it is used to number successive rows 1., 2., etc. I am thinking there is some sort of solution using SEQ fields, but I am also thinking that it is very messy solution to implement.

Ron M

Reply | Quote

Yes you can do with SEQ fields. I ‘d have to look it it up whereas I can modify styles in my sleep. Your table 1 style should be formatted to include outline numbering at level 1, and your table 2 style should be formatted to include outline numbering at level 2. I find it easier to work it all out if I use the FORMAT STYLE menu, since under MODIFY there is a numbering option. I tend to format the table 1 to “keep with next” but I also make sure that I turn off “ALLOW ROW TO BREAK” on the TABLE ROW HEIGHT.

Here is the format style dialog. If you click on MODIFY, you would get to the numbering options. Note that the description of the style includes “Level 2, Outline numbered…”

Below is the outline numbering customization dialog. Notice that the first item on the extreme left is LEVEL. Here I have selected level 2, so it is showing the formatting options for level 2

One of the weird things about the numbering is that when you customize the outline level numbering, your customization can bump one of the 6 preprogrammed schemes “out of position”, Keep in mind that your second level style should use the same scheme as level 1.

Reply | Quote

Hi Ron:
Just to add something to what Eowyn suggests, this post lists a method for making the numbered styles & making sure they are all part of the same list template (scheme).

Cheers,

Reply | Quote

Thanks guys. Let me see if I understand this correctly. I need to create a Style “Table Number 1” and make it an Outline Level 1,then create a Style “Table Number 2” and make it an Outline Level 2, etc. for Table Number 3 and 4… then when I insert numbered items in a Table, I can use these to assign correct sequence numbers and my original numbers do not change. Cool, if that is the way it works. I need to try this. Thanks again for the help.

Ron M

Reply | Quote

Hi Ron:
NO!!! If you do it that way, each of your styles will use a different list template & you’ll end up with a mess. Reread the post that I suggested earlier by Gary Frieder. Create each of the styles first without any numbering (Table Number 1, Table Number 2, etc.). Then go back & put your cursor in a paragraph with Table Number 1 style. THEN go to Format/Style/Modify/Format/Numbering & assign an outline style that you link to Table Number 1. Then, WITHOUT CLOSING THE DIALOG BOX, go to level 2 & assign Table Number 2 style to it. Finish assigning ALL the levels before closing the dialog box.

That’s what Eowyn was talking about in his/her excellent post about using the same scheme.

Cheers,

Reply | Quote

Phil, I did read the other post and did figure it out (same scheme) and got it working. So, many thanks to you and Eowyn .

The neat thing is that I can use this for all kinds of numbered things.

The other thing is about adding to this numbering system. If I understand this correctly, I could create a Table Number 3 and a Table Number 4 style without formatting their numbering styles and then link them into this by placing the cursor in a Table Number 1 paragraph, going into the Format/Style/Modify/Customize and adding the third and fourth levels like I added the 2nd level. Correct?

Ron M

Reply | Quote

You’re welcome & you are correct. Starting with the top level when you want to add or modify is the way to go. For what it’s worth, when I’m doing this, I like to give a name to the list template, like Table Heading. When you’re in the Bullets & Numbering/Customize… dialog box, after you click ‘More’, at the bottom, you’ll see “ListNum field list name”. That’s where you can assign a name & whenever you modify your list, you’ll know you’re in the right spot because of the name.

Reply | Quote

Thanks Phil. I appreciate the insight. This has opened up a whole new part of Word for me.

Ron M

Reply | Quote