Difference between revisions of "Template talk:TOClimit"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (1 revision) |
(Case for deletion.) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
This is a template I grabbed from Wikipedia that lets you set the table of contents to only include subheadings up to a certain depth. It's not working--I think it's trying to use a CSS class that isn't here on CWCki. Somebody who knows more about this stuff should go [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:TOClimit here] and figure out what to do. --[[User:MachPunch|MachPunch]] 01:38, 17 March 2009 (CET) | This is a template I grabbed from Wikipedia that lets you set the table of contents to only include subheadings up to a certain depth. It's not working--I think it's trying to use a CSS class that isn't here on CWCki. Somebody who knows more about this stuff should go [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:TOClimit here] and figure out what to do. --[[User:MachPunch|MachPunch]] 01:38, 17 March 2009 (CET) | ||
==Deletion Request== | |||
We have two of these templates: [[Template:TOClimit]] (no space) and [[Template:TOC limit]] (space). TOClimit was only being used on one page, and I just switched that page to use the other one. They both appear to function properly, so I don't think it really matters which one we keep, but since this one isn't in use, I'd go with it. [[User:Dethchemist77|Dethchemist77]] 17:43, 3 December 2010 (PST) | |||
Latest revision as of 20:43, 3 December 2010
This is a template I grabbed from Wikipedia that lets you set the table of contents to only include subheadings up to a certain depth. It's not working--I think it's trying to use a CSS class that isn't here on CWCki. Somebody who knows more about this stuff should go here and figure out what to do. --MachPunch 01:38, 17 March 2009 (CET)
Deletion Request
We have two of these templates: Template:TOClimit (no space) and Template:TOC limit (space). TOClimit was only being used on one page, and I just switched that page to use the other one. They both appear to function properly, so I don't think it really matters which one we keep, but since this one isn't in use, I'd go with it. Dethchemist77 17:43, 3 December 2010 (PST)