Hi Rosemary
In Word 2003, Word's numbering works quite well, and the construction of a
Table of Contents is relatively straight-forward. But the functionality
depends on documents being constructed in a consistent way. Otherwise, Word
would have to read your mind, and it's never very good at doing that.
I think you have two choices here.
Option 1: Use a TC field.
In this option, remove Heading 4 from the Table of Contents. Mark the
Heading 4s that you want in the TOC with a TC field. And at Insert >
Reference > Index and Tables > Table of Contents tab > Options button, tell
the TOC to include Table Entry fields.
Disadvantage of this option: You might forget to include a paragraph in the
TOC, or, if you edit the text of the paragraph, you might forget to update
the text of the TC field.
Option 2: Use SEQ fields for the numbering
In this option, include Heading 4 in the TOC, but remove numbering from
Heading 4. Create a new style that looks exactly the same as Heading 4 and
call it, say, Heading4NotInTOC. Do *not* base it on one of the heading
styles. Base it on Normal, or Body Text, or nothing.
When you want to insert a "heading 4" style numbering, use a SEQ field like:
( { SEQ xxx \s 3 \* alphabetic } )
xxx can be anything you like: it's the name of the Sequence. Use something
like FakeHeading4Numbering. And, note that you can't type the {} braces by
hand. You must use ctrl-F9 and type between the braces that Word inserts for
you.
Save the SEQ field as an AutoText to make it easy to insert. Or, save two
AutoTexts, one using style Heading 4, and one using style Heading4NotInTOC
(make sure you include the end-of-paragraph marks if you do this). And
arrange your document like this:
I. Heading 1
A. Heading 2
3. Heading 3
(a) SEQ field. Paragraph in Heading 4 when you want it
included in the TOC
(b) Same SEQ field, but use the Heading4NotInTOC style.
Disadvantage of this method is that the SEQ fields don't update
automatically. Use F9 to update one field, or ctrl-a to select the whole
document. F9 to update all the fields.
Hope this helps.
Shauna Kelly. Microsoft MVP.
http://www.shaunakelly.com/word
> Hi,
>
[quoted text clipped - 47 lines]
> Thanks,
> Rosemary
Rosemary - 28 Nov 2004 13:05 GMT
Hi Shauna,
Thanks! I am going to go with your second suggestion, the SEQ fields. I
should have mentioned that we are in Word 2002. My guess is that there
probably isn't any difference in terms of using your instructions, though.
Regards,
Rosemary
> Hi Rosemary
>
[quoted text clipped - 104 lines]
> > Thanks,
> > Rosemary
Shauna Kelly - 28 Nov 2004 20:44 GMT
Hi Rosemary
You're right. These instructions would certainly work back to Word 97, and
probably in even earlier versions.
Hope this helps.
Shauna Kelly. Microsoft MVP.
http://www.shaunakelly.com/word
> Hi Shauna,
>
[quoted text clipped - 128 lines]
>> > Thanks,
>> > Rosemary