That’s exactly what the Copy ▸ Copy Special ▸ Copy Documents as ToC feature does, but if you can’t deconstructed how to do it from that, cross-referencing in general is discussed in §10.1.4, Compiling Document Links, under subheading Creating Cross-References for your Readers, pg. 215.
Not the first time I’ve come to this forum looking for info on basic functions only to see a lot of “if you don’t like the fact that Scrivener doesn’t have basic functions that nearly every other word processor has, then use some other program”.
This is not doing scrivener any favors. I realize that most of the people using scrivener are just your average fiction writer who probably only needs up to a certain level of functionality. But some of us are professionals. And you know what professional writers and editors tend to like in term of page numbers? To be able to actually view them on the page. Even before the layout is done.
Here’s what I need for my professional document. And yes, I have accomplished this pretty easily in WordPerfect…
1] I need the name of the document to appear at the top of each page as a header.
2] I need to have the page number in the format “[Page#] of [Total#]” directly to the right of the document name.
3] I need them to appear on every page. And if possible, not on the first page of each file.
In order to see what I am talking about, view the attached image.
All I really need to know is if this is possible in Scrivener 3 (Mac). And if so, how can I accomplish it. I don’t need to know that I need to use another program if it can’t do this. That is already obvious. I don’t need triggered fanboys telling me to use something else if I don’t like what scrivener can and cannot do.
The File → Print Current Document command is probably what you’re looking for. See Chapter 26 in the manual for details of how it works and the available options.
FYI, a significant number of Scrivener users, including several members of the support team, are in fact professionals. You’ll probably get friendlier and more useful responses if you can manage to avoid gratuitous insults.
Katherine
I probably would if I wasn’t told to stop complaining everytime I inquired about features Scrivener does not have. Last time I asked about why the linguistic focus tool hadn’t been added to the windows version and ended up getting a diatribe about how Microsoft was hindering software development, so I couldn’t expect too much from scrivener’s engineers. Doesn’t really sound all that friendly, does it?
By professionals I meant people who lay out content for clients who intend to publish them in specific formats rather than the professional who is pumping out their next novel and probably doesn’t have to cater to the whims of a boss.
In any case, I will look into your suggestion.
Nope. That won’t do, but thanks anyway. The closest thing to it is the inline annotation feature. But it’s limited and there is no way to automate it that I can find.
I read through all 12 of your forum posts, split over two subjects, and nowhere were you told to stop complaining. Even so, maybe you would get better answers if you asked about features that Scrivener has, instead of non-existing features? 
Well, this is not the only Scrivener forum I have used in the last four years or so, but thanks for at least demonstrating the usual response I get. I added screenshots of the last exchange I was referring to since you seemed to miss it how I was a bad programmer for not buying into the Microsoft conspiracy theory after I asked about linguistic focus.
My intent was to see if there was some features or technique that I was actually missing. I don’t believe it is a forum rule that I only ask about features that I already know exists and, and therefore don’t really need information on those.
I’m not trying to pour fuel on the fire here, but it really does help to realize that Scrivener is its own type of tool – it’s not just another word processor. It doesn’t have those features because they just aren’t a good fit for (or relevant to) how Scrivener was built and envisioned to be used. The developer has made it quite clear through the years that he has specific boundaries around what kind of additions he is willing to make to Scrivener.
And there is no shame if you give Scrivener a try and realize that it doesn’t fit your preferred workflow and that you’re not comfortable with changing your workflow to better fit Scrivener. After all, the whole reason Scrivener came into being was that the developer wasn’t happy with existing options and decided to write something that fit the way he wanted to work.
We may think Scrivener would be better with feature X or if it worked like Y, but at the end of the day, if KB isn’t convinced, then it’s not going to happen – it’s his program, and he doesn’t seem to be out to win popularity contests.
If someone started a fire, it wasn’t me. But then it seems that passions run so high on this forum that a small match can lead to a forest fire sometimes.
Yeah, no kidding. I mean really, does anyone not realize that after using it for any significant amount of time. And yet, we still have people who have been using it for quite a while asking if certain things are possible with it. It’s not about not understanding what Scrivener was made for, but seeing if there are ways in which to circumvent certain problems that may arise when using it.
I don’t agree that Scrivener doesn’t have certain word processing features because they aren’t a good fit for the program. I think the developers have just not gotten around to including those features yet. After all, if they include them, it is not as if you are forced to then use them. Doesn’t seem credible to me that they would intentionally be limiting their software by refusing to incorporate features that are pretty standard on many other software programs. Especially if those features don’t actually take away from Scrivener.
Version 3 introduced a few new features that were not present in 1. Pretty sure that wouldn’t have happened if the developers weren’t thinking about improvements and new design. Not sure any developer would be satisfied with the status quo for long.
And then when you talk about features that are present in the Mac version, but not the windows version, after they specifically said that the two version would all features in common, that argument makes little sense.
I’ve been using scrivener since the first windows version came out. I don’t use it exclusively, however, because about 80% of everything I do can’t be done on Scrivener, at least effectively and quickly. I mostly work with WordPerfect because of the strength of it s macros and control over formatting, InDesign, and CorelDRaw. But I keep checking back to see what I can do on Scrivener that may move me closer to using it exclusively on some projects.
I don’t think something like being able to view a page number on the actual page is going to send Scrivener spiraling into ruin.
No, but it would require Scrivener to become wysiwyg, which it is not and not meant to be. How could you add page numbers and page header/footer unless it formatted the documents according to some predefined output format, using the wysiwyg concept?
First off, Scrivener is already a wysiwyg interface, Just because its formatting isn’t always accurate between page and compilation, doesn’t change that in any way. No wysiwyg program touts 100% accuracy. Though, some get pretty close.
Second, “and not meant to be” sounds like some kind of dogma which I seriously doubt the developers had in mind in any way. But I’m curious. Have you actually seen them making such statements in regards to what Scrivener is “suppose to be”? I’d find that interesting.
Thirdly, having page numbers of the page would not force any non-wysiwyg program to be wysiwyg . That makes no sense. Even before wysiwyg, you could put page numbers on a page in a text editor or word processor. I know I am a bit long in the tooth, but surely you have heard of the 80s and early 90s where probably 95% of all word processors lacked a wysiwyg interface? AND had page numbers.
The writing software I used in the early 1980s didn’t have any pages, weren’t anything close to wysiwyg and consequently didn’t have page numbers. The first versions of WordPerfect and the MS-DOS version of Word are two examples. They both developed into wysiwyg but weren’t in the beginning.
There is a huge difference between simple formatting of the text (Scrivener) and “what-you-see-is-what-you-get”-desktop publishing layouting the way it is done by e.g Word. Scrivener doesn’t get to the “-what-you-get”-stage until after the text has been compiled for output, and yes this is explained in the manual.
As I’ve mentioned, I’m a long-time WordPerfect user. See image attached. There is a page number.
And my entire point was that they were not wysiwyg, hence the difference between that era and the current era when nearly everything is wysiwyg, regardless of the ideologies surrounding the software. But still…page numbers. You might think one of the improvements of moving to wysiwyg was to finally be able to put the page number right on the page itself. But you could also do that using the layout options in some of the non-wysiwyg editors. So Scrivener is actually retro in that respect. But it’s still wysiwyg.
I don’t know about you, but I have printed out a few pages from the program before, or converted a few to PDF, and usually get whatever is on the page after just tweaking one or two preferences. And you know what? It looks just like the page in the editor. All the text in the right spot.
So I am not sure what you think is the difference there, but you may be engaging in a bit of hyperbole. Just like I see it on screen. Except for the page numbers which I have to wait for.
Sorry, forgot photo.
My output looks nothing like what I have in the Editor. I compile to .docx, .rtf, pdf, epub, mobi, or simply copy-paste into some web page interface. It depends on what I am writing. A book manuscript for self publishing, a manuscript submitted to a scientific journal, something for a website, or something for the students, etc. And I am not restricted to Scrivener. I also use Pages, Word, Nisus Writer, Swift, Affinity Publisher, again depending on the exact circumstances.
“My output looks nothing like what I have in the Editor.”
^ You can fix that by just tweaking a couple of options in the preferences or the compile menu.
I’ve had more problems on Mac than I’ve ever had on Windows. I actually bought a Mac (second hand) just so I could use Scrivener 3. Was tired of waiting for the Windows version to arrive. But still, not really that hard to get the right output out of the program.
The software makes certain assumptions about what the average user expects. And probably, that is accurate 75% of the time. But I usually find myself trying to workaround certain issues. The page numbers just being the latest in a long line of “Scrivener can’t do that” issues.
I think what you’re missing, seedypoet, is that not everyone is like you, and that Scrivener isn’t even aimed at the average writer. It’s okay for software to be different, and to be aimed at people unlike you. Not everyone is going to want to make a few tweaks to make the input closer to the output. Some people want the opposite of that.
I write using LaTeX and Markdown both in and out of Scrivener. I have no interest at all in page numbers, and haven’t since I wrote using typewriters (where page numbers were more a necessity for keeping the storage mechanism functional). My input looks nothing like the output, and that’s the way I like it, that is how I work best.
That also makes very little sense, AmberV. At no time whatsoever do I even come close to suggesting that everyone is like me. Also, the idea that the Scrivener developers are only targeting a specific demographic that doesn’t include me is utterly ridiculous. How could such a business model be sustainable? You do realize they are in the business to make money, right? Otherwise, it would be open source. That means their software must appeal to at least a sizeable number of people in their particular market. They want as many people to buy it as possible. That means appealing to a broad spectrum of consumers.
Why do people keep making up these fantasies about what the company that produces Scrivener is? Maybe that is part of the problem. An unrealistic vision about what software is actually for. Here’s a clue: It’s not a cult.
Just because you have no interest in page numbers doesn’t mean that everyone who uses the software is drinking your particular mixture of koolaid. I am sure there are many members who have no use for linguistic focus. Does that mean that the developers need to remove that from the features?
You set the tone of this recent discussion when you directly implied that professional writers need these features. So yes, you did the start the fire, and wandering around bemused over why everyone else around you is so “passionate” is not doing your argument any favours.
It’s very simple, there are many ways in which people author content, and some of them have very little overlap with other methods. There are many people who write using org-mode, which is even less like WYSIWYG than Scrivener. A good business model does not imply attempting to reach the broadest possible definition, particularly when a grouping is so very large as “writers”. It may, but it does not always. Sometimes very specific implementations are what make a thing successful.
By ‘they’ you mean me? This is in part my project, and I do believe I can speak for its intentions. Making money isn’t the primary goal for us, and never has been. We’ve always been in this to make the best writing tool for people who are looking for a similar approach to writing as we are.
Yeah, yawn. More fire.
But as I said before, that is how my writing methods work best, as an example of how your suggestion that we should just tweak a few settings to get things working more like a word processor is the solution. That you read this as a statement of absolute declaration meant to be applied to everyone is indicative of your overall attitude here. You think there is a “wrong” and a “right” to this question, and therefore if someone disagrees with you are they are wrong, or drinking koolaid, or unprofessional, etc.
So thanks to your behaviour here I’m locking this thread. There is no further benefit to discussion that essentially boils down to an Emacs vs Vim argument. There will never be a resolution to that, nor will there ever be a resolution between those who think word processors are the best way to write vs those that think word processors make a poor authoring environment.
That is why there are choices!
I knew what you meant. As I said, many Scrivener users and several members of the support team fit that description.
Katherine