Extension talk:PSINoTocNum

--Dtsig 17:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC) Installed but am not seeing the numbering reduced. Have created the page, added to localSettings. I have tried putting the __NOTOCNUM__ in several places. If I am off in what I thought this would do just let me know

We have 'word' docs that have been converted but the section numbers were still there. So we have 1.0, 1.1, 1.2 etc.

With the extension added here is what we see ..

* 1 1.0 Scope & Requirements o 1.1 1.1 Product(s), Processes, and Scope + 1.1.1 1.1.1 Scope + 1.1.2 1.1.2 Other Processes Affected o 1.2 1.2 Justification and Benefits o 1.3 1.3 Requirements o 1.4 1.4 Dependencies and Impact o 1.5 1.5 Assumptions o 1.6 1.6 Risks o 1.7 1.7 User Profiles and Perspectives o 1.8 1.8 Security o 1.9 1.9 High Level Flow Chart(s) * 2 2.0 Notes o 2.1 2.1 Product Verbiage o 2.2 2.2 Revision Log o 2.3 2.3 Comments,Notes o 2.4 2.4 Questions
 * Take another look at what the extension does: it does not remove the numbers, it suppresses their display. Not really sure what you mean by "'word' docs that have been converted": if this means that you have converted the web-pages into Word, then the numbers are indeed likely to become visible. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 10:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Phil is right. The extension only supress the display of the number only in MediaWiki by adding .tocnumber {display:none;} to the css scripts if __NOTOCNUM__ is present anywhere in the article. I don't know, what your word doc converter does to toc numbering. --BeneM 11:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I just installed this extension. When I add the "__NOTOCNUM__" to an article, and preview it, the TOC does not include section numbers (so far, so good!). However, when I click "save" and then view the article, it reverts back to showing numbers in the TOC. Any ideas on why this and how I can fix it would be very appreciated.--Lost Student 18:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you please verify if it also shows numbers when you add "?action=purge" to the URL? If this solves it, than you have a problem with caching. --BeneM 13:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)