MLA 7th edition and bibliographical notes

So I’ve been trying to figure this out for a couple of days now but all I have managed to do is to lose two days of productivity.

Here is how the 7th ed. of the MLA guide instructs us to format our bibliographical notes when we want to cite a single source: “see Public Agenda Foundation 1-10 and Sakala 151-88.” or several authors: “see Taylor A1; Moulthrop, pars. 39-53; Armstrong, Yang, and Cuneo 80-82; Craner 308-11; and Fukuyama 42.”

Now, I feel like an idiot because I can’t seem to force EndNote to do this. I have downloaded the latest MLA output style from the U of Queensland site, but the only output I can get is either in the old format (footnote style), which transcribes the whole citation or a part of it (e.g., Smith, John. John Smith’s Book, etc.) or citation style (Smith 56), which also looks nothing like what MLA demands because it has those parentheses hugging it on either side.

As far as I can tell, the only way to go around this is to transcribe the bibliographical (formerly footnote) citations by hand, but then the sources I cite there do not show up in my Bibliography

What am I missing?

I would sincerely appreciate any help or advice as this dissertation has really already taken too long to write.

Thank you.

No one knows? Really?

If you do Edit>Output Style>Edit “MLA” then click the templates sub-menu below the Citations heading (on the left), you can delete the parentheses so that what prints is Smith 1-7; Jones 60-65 and so on.

Save the edited style file with a different name so that you can revert to the old one if you need to. 

Hi, thank you. This actually only sort of did the trick, though it definitely pointed me in the right direction. I actually had to instruct EndNote to use footnote formatting in my notes section (rather than citations), then I had to make the changes that you suggested to the template under my footnote preferences. If I had made the changes to the in-text citation template, I would have lost the formatting of my parenthetical citations, which was actually correct.

thanks again!