footnotes lost in export to Word

Using Scrivener 2.0.2. Exporting/compiling to rtf/word. Opening in Word 2008 for Mac, the footnotes didn’t number, didn’t become footnotes, still inline in the text in {brackets}. Help!

It worked ok for me with same apps, and settings shown in graphic.
(Some of that graphic is being chopped off so also see link)



Yes, footnotes definitely work fine in Word 2008 as long as you are using RTF, which you are. Did you process the document through a citations manager at all? You mention that the footnotes are in curly brackets, which they are not in Scrivener - were you using inline or inspector footnotes in Scriv?
All the best,

My compile page looks exactly like Geoff’s.
And yes, I’m using a citations manager that needs curly brackets, but footnotes that don’t have them don’t compile as footnotes either.

This in Scrivener:

Comes out in Word:

Thanks for any help!

OK, I think I figured out my problem. I was selecting text and using:

Format > Footnote

to create the footnote, instead of

Format > Inline Footnote.

So now I have a hundred or so “footnotes” of the comment/footnote variety that I need to convert to Inline Footnotes. Is there any way to do this? When I use:

Format > Convert > Inspector Footnotes to Inline Footnotes

it doesn’t convert the footnote but rather adds a new blank Inline Footnote at the end of each note.

Any quick fixes here?

(I love the program, but maybe the menus and UserManuel could be a little clearer about the two kinds of footnotes? Especially that Format menu!)


There’s no quick way, no, because you’ve added things in a rather odd way. Inspector footnotes - which you’ve used - create links to the text and the actual footnote in the inspector. When you created a footnote, the inspector would have appeared with a grey box in it saying “Footnote” and the cursor inside it ready for typing - I think this is fairly clear. :slight_smile: So even if you use the conversion features, it won’t do what you want. The only way is to go through and change them manually.

All the best,

Chapter 16 goes over these features in depth, and in fact there are about three pages merely discussing the differences and pros and cons of each method in a summary format (much of which revolves around the concept of how note content is or is not in the text stream itself), and then in each section discussing inline and linked (§16.1 & 16.2) there are a further nearly half a dozen pages of discussion on how they work, including some general tips and how to use them and what to expect with RTF. If there is a lack of clarity in these ten pages or so, let me know where it is so I can improve it.