Page Numbering/Front Matter/Compile

I’ve run into a couple of stumbling blocks and can’t seem to find the info to help from my searches so I’m hoping someone can assist me with some points.

I’ve not set up a specific folder for Front Matter but have individual files dedicated to each of those pages. Is it possible to just move the pages into a folder and have Scrivener recognize the folder as Front Matter?

Secondly, if I just forgo a specific folder for Front Matter and just commence page numbering on a later page where do I go to set that up? I’m using the first (Default) style and can’t see where I can adjust page number (footer) fonts and their sizes and position, page to start numbering, etc.

Thanks in advance.

Have you read about front matter in the manual?
And about page numbering?
What information is it you don’t find in the manual?

Scrivener has a notoriously steep learning curve and yet you took your time to offer absolutely no help but instead a sarcastic message.
I don’t know about Sweden but in the English-speaking lexicon of reference materials that is the very definition of being a [profanity redacted – Mod.]!

Actually, no, lunk is trying to determine what you have already done and what information you already have, so as to zero in on the specific issue that is giving you problems. Since he is not an L&L employee, he is asking you to be respectful of his volunteer effort by not asking questions that you can easily answer for yourself. Your response – besides breaking the forum’s only rule – pretty much guarantees that he will be less helpful in the future.

I, on the other hand, am getting paid for this. So…

A number of Front Matter-related features assume that you have designated a Front Matter folder, so doing so is probably the simplest approach in the long run. It’s definitely recommended if you expect to need more than one set of front matter files. Create the folder at any convenient location in the Binder, drag the relevant documents into it, and then use the right-hand pane of the main Compile screen to tell Scrivener which folder to use. See Section 23.4.1 in the Scrivener manual for more information.

Whether you use a Front Matter folder or not, page headers, footers, and numbering are defined in the Page Settings tab of the Compile Format editor. Right-click on the Compile Format you’re using, then choose the Edit (or Duplicate and Edit) option. See Section 24.20 in the manual for a detailed discussion of the relevant options.


Thank you Katherine. I very much appreciate your help. It is exactly the specific information I needed. I didn’t have an actual Front Matter folder so creating one helped resolve that issue. After looking at innumerable videos and searching the forum I was confused when confronted with the “Duplicate and Edit” instead of a straight “Edit” but was able to get what I needed by tooling around the footer font/size areas sufficiently. Although, the front matter isn’t numbered (i, ii, iii…) for some reason but I’m fine with that.

As far as “Lunk” is concerned. I’m pretty sure my assessment was closer to what their intentions were - which obviously I had little patience or appreciation for. Especially in consideration of the seemingly interminable research I did (and always do) before reaching out to the forum. If, indeed, their intentions were so benevolent why not offer assistance? Because their thirst for sarcasm was a bigger priority I thought it only proper that I allow myself a little slight unravelling of decorum.

I apologize to you and the site. To them, my comment stands. Thank you, again.

“Duplicate & Edit” simply means that you’re trying to edit one of the Compile Formats that Scrivener provides, which you’re not allowed to do. So make your own copy and go from there.

(The wisdom of this limitation becomes obvious as soon as you make a mess of things and need to roll back to the format you started with.)


In my experience most users who ask questions in here with very few posts in their history, haven’t done the interactive tutorial and haven’t bothered to look in the manual. Instead they make a quick search in the forum, don’t find what they want and ask something that is explained in detail in either the tutorial or the manual. Spending a lot of time repeating information that is found in the manual is a waste of time for me, being a user.

Some have actually both done the tutorial and read the manual but still can’t find what they are looking for. In those cases it is very likely that a more experienced user can provide additional information, but only if the poster provide more detailed information on what he (she) has done or not done. What he (she) knows or doesn’t know. Most of us aren’t mind readers you know.

But don’t worry, you needn’t fear any future questions from me. Or answers.

PS. “…them…”? “…their…”? I’m not of royal birth. I always thought “he” or “she” and “his” or “her” were used for singular persons, but what do I know. Maybe your English lexicon says otherwise.

“They” is gradually displacing “he” as the preferred pronoun to use when the gender of the individual is unknown. Not-male people rightly view defaulting to “he” as sexist, and the gender-neutral singular “it” is objectionable for obvious reasons.


Thank you Katherine. I knew they would reveal themselves. Writing is always revelatory.

In Swedish a new, gender-neutral word has instead been introduced, to avoid confusion, especially for use in writing.

Hurrah for Sweden! Seriously. But the use of “they” as a gender-neutral pronoun actually has a long history in English, going back to at least Shakespeare. In later centuries agreement in number became more important, hence the use of “he” as default, but teachers always had to correct it in written language because in spoken language the use was maintained (at least in the dialect I grew up speaking :wink:.)

I like it better than made-up pronouns (I’ve seen some for English. Yuck.) or “he/she” or alternating pronouns in the text for indeterminate or unknown gender. It does echo the way native speakers handle this in live conversation.

Lunk is one of the consistently most helpful volunteers around here. When we have a worldwide group of members here all communicating from their various linguistic backgrounds, it isn’t useful to assume malice from the first missed impression.

Lunk, in particular, is VERY thorough about trying to assess people’s familiarity with the documentation so as to provide the specific needed pointers to the content in question that will help them answer their own questions – both now and for the future.

Re: Pronouns

I’m always reminded that “he” and “man” are related and that “man” has alternated over time to refer to males or all the people. Given that, “he” can be used without sexism or misgendering, or whatever the proper term is to avoid, um, misgendering someone.

“They” has the history you say, but it irks me, even as I use it. It’s a style thing, ultimately.

I suspect that we’ll have to agree to disagree on this.

And yet many of the same people who refuse to use singular they on the claimed grounds that it sounds wrong happily use both singular and plural you.

English has a gender neutral option built-in that allows us to stop centering men as the default. The centering of men happened in the past, it’s past time to reverse that change. I thought it was clunky and “a style thing” too until I became aware that I was friends and family with people to whom it matters quite a bit. Now, it’s no longer irksome. Singular they is just another word, one that lets people I care about know that I actively try to avoid hurting their feelings.

Same as I have several friends named David. Some prefer David. Some prefer Dave. Some don’t care. I make a little extra effort to keep track because it’s their name, it’s their identity, and it matters to them.

I’m sure modern English would “sound wrong” to Elizabethan ears for many reasons. Languages evolve to meet the needs of the people using them.


Sometimes, they’re manipulated. My point being that they being both plural and singular sounds weird to a modern English speaker only because we’re not used to it, not because it’s a unique construct – we literally do it every day in second person, just not in third person. :slight_smile: Sometime a while back, a small group of people decided it was wrong for some reason and helped veer us off to where we are today. I see this as just a course correction back to some tiny bit more sanity and pattern-conformity in this wonderfully contentious language of ours.

I would add that singular they doesn’t sound weird at all to a Costal Bend Texan. It may look a little strange written, but only because we’re not used to it.

What a wonderful forum, where my asking the OP a few simple question ignites a discussion about gender expressions in language. :smiley:

On the contrary, it was this aside that started the delightful discussion of a) English grammar as formally taught, b) English grammar both historical and in current spoken dialect, and c) formal English grammar as caught in the crossfire of gender politics. Until the last year or so, the singular “they” was not encountered in the past half century except as either a historical anomaly or as an example of dialect.

We’re writers. We love words. We’d rather argue about words than tend to dull old tech support questions… :wink:

P.S. I think it’s great that Swedish speakers can just accept a newly-coined pronoun and get on with writing. Now you know how to translate it to written English.