You're on your way to the next level! Join the Kudos program to earn points and save your progress.
Level 1: Seed
25 / 150 points
1 badge earned
Challenges come and go, but your rewards stay with you. Do more to earn more!
What goes around comes around! Share the love by gifting kudos to your peers.
Keep earning points to reach the top of the leaderboard. It resets every quarter so you always have a chance!
Join now to unlock these features and more
Due to an audit, we have to number our SOPs with a specific type of numbering sequence system. Is it possible to change the pages from a default of a "bullet" to a numbered (i.e. 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.1.1, 1.1.2......) format?
Do you mean page numbering, or page content numbering (like applying the 1.1.1 format in a table of content, based on the various headings appearing in the page)?
@Bastian Stehmann has answered for page content already, but I would be a bad Adaptavist, being told off by our product manager, if I didn't mention that our Content Formatting Macros can do it too. There are a couple of others that include it too.
However, the page numbering is what I wanted to explain. There is no way you can do page numbering because Confluence is not a linear read, it's a tree. Whilst you could group things by branch, you can't have a meaningful number distinction within each branch.
Imagine a few pages structured as:
You could number them by layer, but that comes out as
But on each layer, the numbers are not unique, so they're not a lot of use. So maybe uniqueness within a layer:
This will not work either - the numbers will change every time someone adds a new page in a layer, and the whole point of page numbers is that they do not change. And there is a big question about how you select a unique number for the next page in a layer, or what you change when the first sub-page in a new layer is created.
TLDR: page numbering in a tree structure does not work.
(The numbering pages essay is a copy and paste of an answer I had to explain and then write up at my second ACE, so it's 18 years old. I'm quite proud that it worked then)