Perhaps this is uncalled for, but just to state my intention with these section headings: they are to make articles readable by getting rid of what to many online readers appear as "walls of text" impossible to read or break down into manageable parts.
Long section headings are of course not an issue in the way that long article titles are – which the reader is expected to think out to search for an article on a subject and remember and type to access it – but I'm still afraid they will counter their purpose to some extent. An "endless string of text" in among others in the table of contents, which is supposed to give a quick overview, can also look too much. I tried here to pick out just one or a couple of the very major events in each section. But it's hard, I know. --IP (talk) 16:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
I didn't choose to make changes to how you had split them up, but to better summarise what was in them - I researched & wrote the original text. The revised headings are not too long and are more accurate to their content. Chrisjones (talk) 22:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- I see you respected the way I split them up. I just wanted to stress my point: readability, even for the not (yet) so interested.
- If you researched and wrote the original text, perhaps you are the best person to pick out what's really important? I had difficulty doing it while at the same time formulating something catchy. I still know people (not visually impaired) who would feel much more like reading the text if the headings were more concentrated and the table of contents easier to take in at one glance. --IP (talk) 22:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)