Talk:Chiropractic/Timelines: Difference between revisions
imported>Larry Sanger No edit summary |
imported>D. Matt Innis (non-header demotion) |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
Well, a TOC might be helpful, but not if most of the items on the list are headings! Why not make headings only for decades, and demote everything else? --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 09:30, 26 July 2007 (CDT) | Well, a TOC might be helpful, but not if most of the items on the list are headings! Why not make headings only for decades, and demote everything else? --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 09:30, 26 July 2007 (CDT) | ||
I'll try that. They would obviously need to be demoted below a header level so they don;t chow up in the TOC. --[[User:D. Matt Innis|Matt Innis]] [[User talk:D. Matt Innis|(Talk)]] 10:00, 26 July 2007 (CDT) | |||
Revision as of 10:00, 26 July 2007
With the advent of timelines in the CZ subpages, I moved my research notes that I used to create the chiropractic history article to this space. It needs work to be article appropriate, but it is still experimental for determining the best way to create a timeline process.
This is from wikipedia, but is all my work from a talk subpage. --Matt Innis (Talk) 21:12, 16 July 2007 (CDT)
Definitely looks better without the TOC. --Matt Innis (Talk) 08:03, 26 July 2007 (CDT)
Well, a TOC might be helpful, but not if most of the items on the list are headings! Why not make headings only for decades, and demote everything else? --Larry Sanger 09:30, 26 July 2007 (CDT)
I'll try that. They would obviously need to be demoted below a header level so they don;t chow up in the TOC. --Matt Innis (Talk) 10:00, 26 July 2007 (CDT)