Computing desk
< March 8	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 10 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Computing Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 9

Word 2013: homogenous footers / headers

(I already wrote a closely related question, but unfortunately it just got archived...)

I'm still struggling with setting up a bunch of documents with homogenous footers and headers... which I can change economically whenever I wish, incl. content (e.g., exchanging text or a logo) and formatting (e.g., adjusting margins). Any ideas?

[Previous suggestions included a master document (from what I see, this transforms all files into one document, but doesn't allow to change the sub-documents?!) and Visual Basic for Applications (which would take me quite a bit of time getting into, so I'm exploring if there are less time-consuming alternatives). Finally, Microsoft InfoPath was recommended, but that doesn't appear to apply directly to Word documents.]

Relatedly, I'm looking for an easy way to update all fields in a document, esp. in the footers of the first page (which is different) and all subsequent pages. Word unfortunately requires fields to be selected before "F9" produces any results. And I don't manage to select all footers (incl. first page), let alone the entire document incl. headers and footers. I know there's a work-around (file > options > advanced... or something along those lines)... but is there really no quick way of updating fields?!

If you shouldn't know... can you recommend another forum to ask these questions? (I've tried the Microsoft site, but although I've set up an account, I can't sign in. Great company.) Thanks. Thanks. Thanks for answering (talk) 14:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You want to be able to change a header/footer once and have that change propagate across several documents, yes? I don't know if Word can do that, but LaTeX can. I know it's not necessarily helpful to suggest a different program. LaTeX does take a bit to learn but it is vastly flexible, powerful and free, and it can save you lots of time in the long run. I can point you to specific resources and tutorials if you are interested in trying that alternative. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:01, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also answered your previous question. Personally I would probably use PowerGrep (http://www.powergrep.com/) to (regex) search and replace in multiple Word documents. DOCX is basically a ZIP file with some XML in it. For more complicated operations you can make the change in one document and compare the old and new versions with something like Beyond Compare so you know what to do in PowerGrep. I believe this is also possible using InfoPath (maybe you can find an InfoPath expert to confirm or deny that). A simple Visual Basic for Applications script, like the one I linked to in response to your previous question, allows you to have one single text file with all the headers and footers, and if you change them then they will change in all the Word documents. Check out StackExchange for a (very) good Q&A site, we are an encyclopaedia that happens to have a reference desk, but we aren't a real Q&A site. Its probably not very difficult to create the header/footer you want with some VBA. If you would actually give an example of the kind of header/footer you want (use a fake name etc.) then it is not unlikely that someone will code it for you, and you can always try stuff like this. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 23:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Holy cow have you ever looked at the crap that passes for XML inside a word doc? This suggestion makes learning basic LaTeX seem like a reasonable suggestions after all :) SemanticMantis (talk) 16:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You want separation of presentation and content, which is generally a very good idea. Unfortunately, it's not what WYSIWYG software like Word is good at. That kind of software edits a single file for every aspect of the document, instead of reading different pieces from different manually prepared sources, and makes it easier to modify lay-out directly than through style files. It may be possible to use scripts to write the margins and standard footers into every document after each modification of those margins or footers. It may be easier to use some WYSIWYM software instead. SemanticMantis already mentioned my favorite. Of course, migrating from one type of software to a different is never easy. Note that I haven't used Word or any of its clones in a decade, meaning that I don't know everything about it, but also that it's possible to live without. PiusImpavidus (talk) 11:42, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an FYI, Word now does have some separation of format and content. In typical Microsoft fashion, it's clunky and often more painful than helpful, but it is there. :) Matt Deres (talk) 15:18, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Word has always, or for a very long time, supported sharing styles across documents that are linked to the same template (check "Automatically update document styles" in the "Templates and Add-ins" dialog, and check "Add to template" when you modify a style). As a last resort, you can probably add scripts to the template that will do practically anything to linked documents. -- BenRG (talk) 17:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not so much relating to the question but from my admitedly fairly limited experience a big factor why updating Word documents by change styles etc often doesn't work is because of how poorly people actually use Word. Okay this is probably partially relating to Word being WYSIWYG and/or UI issues, although I think training and a lack of understanding are the big factors. But for example, it's fairly common headings in the document (and other non paragraph text elements) aren't actually headers but rather just text that was made bigger and perhaps with a different font. Bullet points or numbered points may just be manually entered points or numbers. Heck many people just add lots of line breaks (by pushing the enter key) rather than using a page break. Even worse is when people just add lots of spaces to align stuff rather than using indenting or the various other alignment options. In fact mildly ontopic, a sometimes even headers and footers aren't actual headers and footers but just stuff someone added to the bottom of the page. Word does actually try to automatically recognise and fix these manual formatting as far as possible, but there's obviously a limit to what you can achieve without being too annoying or doing the wrong thing. Nil Einne (talk) 18:01, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does this answer help? It points out that there's a setting in the Print options tab to auto-update fields and links before printing. -- BenRG (talk) 17:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help, I'll look into everything; some already sounds very promising... it'll just take me some days due to my work schedule.
A little background to why I'm being difficult :) may be helpful: I'm taking over (partial) responsibility for these documents as part of a project at work, so switching from Word to a different, little-known software altogether wouldn't allow co-workers to work on these documents as well. Bummer. Using software to make changes to Word documents is okay (if I should be sick or leave the project, others can just revert to doing everything the old-fashioned way). Also, because most of the work on these documents is done, I'm very hesitant to put in a major effort and transform them to some other format (e.g., a wiki) as they include lots of screenshots and arrows between text and screenshots. (BTW, my employer will not pay for any programming being done in this context.) As for the intended use: These documents form a handbook, mainly about software, but possibly to be extended to processes at work in general. Most users will access the files without printing them (so unfortunately the print-related field update option won't work). I generally like the fact that the handbook's made of lots of single files (general usability and the "psychological" issue of people not dealing with a huge volume that they'll never need in full... and it avoids the messy job of having to merge all files into one document though the master document might help there), so I'm exploring ways of improving things with a reasonable input of time and effort. Right, and if I find a solution, I'd like to apply it also to tons of forms and working sheets I'm using at work and which so far I've also handled separately.

As for content of the headers & footers: Not just up to me, which is why I want to keep things flexible so that I can easily react to changes requested by others. Currently I'd like to have something along the lines of:

Header (first page): SoftwareXY Handbook: [Topic of section/document = unique to each document]

(This could also be on the first page in the regular text/outside of the header... but at any rate I'd like to keep it flexible. There's a good chance some day a company logo will need to be placed in the header...)

Footer: [field:FileName] - [field:Time (in lieu of a "version")] page [field:Page] of [field:NumPages]

(Suggestions and improvements welcome :) ... As I said, I'll start now looking into all suggestions... Thanks. Thanks. Thanks for answering (talk) 10:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The update-field command (Ctrl-A, then press F9 to update all fields) is not restricted to printing (if you use a bit of VBA). You can add a button to your version of Word that updates all fields when pressed, or update them whenever a file is opened [1]. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 22:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

YOLO

The WP:UAA bot is always reporting usernames that include the string YOLO or yolo with a note of Although this string is not a username violation in and of itself, it may indicate disruptive editing. What would "YOLO" indicate that would be correlated with disruptive editing? Some sort of odd computer term, or something else (sexual, perhaps?), or (going out on a limb) is it just the result of statistical analysis that demonstrates an unexplained relationship between this string in usernames and higher-than-average rates of vandalism? Nyttend (talk) 14:32, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

wikt:YOLO == "you only live once", often said before doing something stupid. I would agree with the There is low confidence in this filter test, please be careful in blocking. -- ToE 14:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is the right answer, but having spent some time there, I also worry about editors from YOLO :) SemanticMantis (talk) 16:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]