Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 17

< Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style
Latest comment: 19 years ago by Titoxd in topic Template:TOCright
Archive 10←Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20


Template:TOCright

Latest comment: 19 years ago47 comments11 people in discussion

I would like to express my concern that this template is being used to the detriment of some editors - and to the delight of others. I feel that we should not be editing the placement of the TOC because a) being at the top of the page not good. From a style perspective, it is best to place an image on the right hand side of the page. Have a look at any advertisment - this is standard practice. Having the TOC on the right-hand side of the page at the very top of the lead section is, to put it bluntly, awful. Firstly, it goes some way to negating the lead section (it becomes less clear that it is a lead section, and besides which the TOC does not list the lead section anyway!). Further, one of our great advantages is to do with consistency. Applying this template to, say Windows 2000 would not be acceptable because it would kill off the infobox. This leads me to a further point: when does the template get used? Always at the top of the article? Under the last section (an extreme point, but must be raised)? What happens if someone makes a change to the template and adds _NOTOC_? That will effect all the pages that use it. Also - if we start applying it to every page, won't this cause a performance issue for Wikipedia? This may or may not be a valid point.

I would also like to express concern that people are trying to enforce a change to the default layout of Wikipedia without gaining consensus (I certainly was never told about this, and only noticed it when it was applied to W. Mark Felt - something I changed because as a reasonably major editor of that page - I sorted out the footnotes - I was never informed about such a radical layout change). If we are going to change the layout, then it should be done via CSS on the main monobook stylesheet - I doubt that consensus to change this would be gained, however. Put simply: if some editors dislike the TOC being on the left hand side underneath the lead section then they should modify their personal style sheet.

I would like to see something hashed out of this page that addresses this issue. Soemthing about changing default elements such as the TOC. - Ta bu shi da yu 5 July 2005 02:36 (UTC)

Call for MoS

Defaults are precisely that, defaults. they are what we get when we don't make changes. Editign tools are there to be used. if we souldn't ever change the TOC placement, then the software should not provide this ability.

Your argument that this should be changed by individuals in their personal CSS, or that it should be done by the default VSS stylesheet I think is invalid. It shouldn't be done in the main stylesheet because this isn't intended to be a change to the derfault, it is intended to be a formatting change to particualr articles. It shouldn't be done in indiviuduals own personal CSS because it is intended for all readers of a particualr articel, and because many of the readers for whom it is intended neither know how to, nor care to, make such adjustments, particularly on an article by article basis.

That said, this is a mater of style, and there should, IMO, by a style guideline on when and how to use Template:TOCright and Template:TOCleft. For example, placement of them so that the TOC crosses a section boundry is probably a poor idea. Template:TOCleft doesn't look well when the adjacent text is part of a bulleted list. More generally, these tempaltes are probably betr used when the TYOC is long but not wide, and probably better used after the lead section or at least a lead paragraph, in most cases.

I think this should be discussed here, we should come to a consensus if possibl;e, and a proper MOS section should be writtne on non-default TOC placement: when and how to do it. DES 5 July 2005 16:47 (UTC)

Page layouts

I like having this option. In publishing, photographs of people should always look into the center of the page, toward the text, because the readers' eye is drawn to the direction of the body, face, or eyes, and we want the readers' eye to move toward the text. We therefore shouldn't have a rule that photographs always have to be on the top righthand side, because it isn't always possible to find a photograph that looks to the left. If we only have a photograph that looks to the right, it should on the left of the page. With a photo on the left, the TOC might look better on the right, so that's a good option to have. It's also nice in some articles to embed the TOC on the right in the text, rather than have all that white space, especially with a long TOC. I therefore see these options for editors as enhancing the content, as well as the creative input of the contributors. SlimVirgin (talk) July 5, 2005 17:13 (UTC)
Thank you, I quite agree. That is why i created TOCleft, as an exact parallel to TOCright. DES 5 July 2005 17:25 (UTC)
Thank you for doing that. I find it makes editing more interesting, being able to make some layout decisions. I get a lot of satisfaction out of trying to make a page look good, and that makes me want to make the text better too. SlimVirgin (talk) July 5, 2005 17:46 (UTC)
The analogy of a web page, such as a Wikipedia page, to a magazine page is flawed— and the flaw is instructive. A bound magazine has an outer margin, desirable for images, and a central margin, called the gutter where the page disappears. An image in this central position is said to be "guttered", and its legibility and appearance are compromised. A web page is neither recto nor verso: it is perfectly neutral. People who insist that images "must" be on the right hand edge or in the upper right corner are misinformed. They are merely exercising their authoritarian training or their current position of authority, sometimes at the expense of a good layout. --Wetman 5 July 2005 18:07 (UTC)
The analogy is imperfect but not completely without merit. As I view pages[1] (Monobook plus a few user styles), they have a pretty clear recto feel. I suspect most people using Monobook would perceive it this way, though I may be wrong. Anyway, I agree that it's unreasonable to inflict some absolute standard on all pages. There should be a guideline, however, on when it is and is not appropriate to override the Wikipedia default. Pages that are essentially long lists without much introductory text would be good candidates for deviating from the standard. —HorsePunchKid→龜 July 5, 2005 19:43 (UTC)
Indeed, one may be wrong. For this editor then, even a notepad bound at the top would have a "recto feel." So, how about the magnets on the refrigerator door? Left-opening or right-opening makes a difference even there. The fact is, there are four focus points within any stable, isolated rectangular format; there the eye darts first, and a Wikipedia page is more like a rectangular painting— think of a travel poster, then— than a page bound into a book, with a gutter down one side. As one reaches the edges of one's competence, one might begin to rein in one's confidence.... but I could be wrong. --Wetman 23:16, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I guess I wasn't totally clear there. The page seems recto to me because there's a huge gutter on the left side. That's all I was getting at. I know my stylesheet is a little non-standard, but as I recall, the default Monobook style also has this huge margin on the left. The main content area is definitely not an isolated rectangle! —HorsePunchKid→龜 06:23, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
As one reaches the edges of one's competence, one might begin to rein in one's confidence.... but I could be wrong. — By the way, what exactly was the point of this comment? —HorsePunchKid→龜 00:33, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Floating TOC

  • Back on June 29 I created a section on the use of a floating TOC at Wikipedia:Section#Floating_the_TOC. You are welcome to comment and suggest any changes that might be needed. —Mike July 5, 2005 18:14 (UTC)
Mike, thank you for linking that discussion re floating the TOC. I'd already commented on the current templates for deletion proposal regarding TOCright. Your discussion regarding floating it seems quite level-headed and recommends scenarios where it might work well to position it on the right (or left) and where it may not. Currently, however, we have editors who - rightly or wrongly - feel a right-hand placement simply "looks better" generally; on an article. ...On any article. If a carefully thought-out style guidance document can be written on the template's use I am open to re-thinking my personal vote re template (currently 'delete'). I think such a document could only ever be a general guide since people above seem to concur a) personal subjectivity enters in (see Wetman) and b) on some articles it may will not only fail to improve the article at least in the view of editors other than the Wikipedian who re-positioned it, but will have potential to cause the page to 'look a mess' to a majority? Whitehorse1 | November 19 2024 15:28 (UTC)

A suggestion: Considering how long the discussion currently is at WP:TFD, and how long this discussion has grown already, it is probably best to copy both discussions to a separate Wikipedia article. Especially since this discussion will presumably end up setting some Wikipedia policy on the issue, that just another reason to have this discussion on a separate page.

My personal opinion on the issue is that I HATE the large amount of white space that results from long, narrow TOCs. I really don't care if the TOC ends up on the left or right, just as long as there is some way to "float" the TOC, either through the use of templates or through changes in the software. (If the WikiMedia software was changed, it would also be nice to be able to control the display of the levels of section in the TOC, so you could say only display the first and second levels—sure there are ways to fake that, but that's such a kludge). BlankVerse ∅ 5 July 2005 22:05 (UTC)

I agree 100%. Float that thing, and wrap the text around it leaving a crisp frame and a good clean white margin to set it off. (forgot to sign: Wetman 00:29, 14 July 2005 (UTC))

Initially I was against it, but saw some good examples of its use. I really think that it should be a last resort, and mainly only used for long lists with large TOCs. violet/riga (t) 5 July 2005 23:48 (UTC)

(Responding above, so as not to move the comment relative to teh next section divide) As I see this, the heading line stops short of the image, there is a little white space, and then the image. I am using IE 6 (from work) and AOL dial up (from home) and default wikipedia display. DES 6 July 2005 02:01 (UTC)
 
The heading line of monobook "cuts" the template
See the image on the right: the heading line "cuts" the template. How do we sort this out? If we could find out for this template, then I would also sort out Template:Islam, which does the same thing. - Ta bu shi da yu 6 July 2005 00:10 (UTC)
I'm beginning to think that you are "off your rocker"...no offense intended.  :-) Unless I misunderstand what you mean, I don't see any cutting. The TOC is whole and is not cut in that image. Maybe what you are really wanting is a margin around the TOC so that the heading line doesn't touch the TOC? I actually like the way it appears, but that is just my style preference. —Mike July 6, 2005 03:28 (UTC)
Sorry, it's sometimes hard to explain how things look :-) No offense taken (it's quite possible I am crazy...)! However, have the line go under the TOC looks like it's been slapped on as an after-thought... same with Template:Islam. I think the TOC is sorted now... - Ta bu shi da yu 7 July 2005 00:01 (UTC)
I think Mike has it exactly: a margin round the TOC would keep lines from appearing to run under it and similarly keep text from squashing up against it. Much better looking (and that is personal subjectivity!) --Wetman 00:29, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
The thing I've noticed is that when a floating TOC is used in a "Special" page (like a talk page or a WikiProject page), the margin is hardcoded to white, when the background is light blue, it just looks wrong. Is there any way to fix that? -- Titoxd 00:48, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
I fiddled with it before trying to get it to work and came up with the conclusion that it would require a CSS change for monobook. For some (silly) reason the monobook style is the only one that uses a different color for its "special" pages. On my notebook that light blue is almost indistinguishable from the normal white. (I have to tilt my screen at an angle to see the contrast.) —Mike 06:44, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

When and how to use

Let us leave the technical question of exactly how to properly implement this template, and return to the style questions: when and how to use it. Do most here agree that it is a good idea on some articles, and a bad idea on others? That it should not become the default style on all or almost all articles, but neither should it be banned? That it works particularly well on lists? That it tends to be a good idea on articles with a long, relatively narrow TOC, and a poor one on articles whose TOC is short, wide, or both? How about location? Should this template usually be used to float the TOC after the lead section, or at elast after the inital paragraph? And please note that the parallel template Template:TOCleft] is intended to work, and be used, in exactly the same way, except with the TOC on the left. When should this be sued? when there is an image on the upper right?

Both templates look better, i think, when they do not cross a section boundry, but that is often not possible.

Do people agree that there should be a MOS entry or section on thsi issue?

Coments on these style issues, please? DES 6 July 2005 17:26 (UTC)

Width definitions

First off, I agree that this discussion has gotten to the point where a MoS guideline has to be established. But before any debate starts ocurring, we should have at least a knowledge of what we agree on.

I agree with DES that there is a need to have these templates, and that they shouldn't be the default for Wiki's TOCs, and in my opinion, that they should be restricted to pages with images and lists (I'm flexible on this one).

If any changes are going to be made to the TOCs, I believe we all concur that they should be floated to maintain good aesthetics. So, a MoS requirement for the use of Template:TOCleft and Template:TOCright should be that they are implemented in a way that minimizes annoying whitespace. Are we all OK on that?

Now, let's start with the details... how about the templates not exceeding ~ 30% of the viewer's screen (not including the navigation sidebar) if they are used? If they exceed that, then the TOC is too wide and the default should be used. Comments are requested and encouraged. --Titoxd 7 July 2005 03:01 (UTC)

That sounds like a good plan. I have just added it to Space opera in Scientology doctrine. The TOC is long, but nessarily so. What do you think? - Ta bu shi da yu 7 July 2005 04:47 (UTC)
I think you understood perfectly my idea. --Titoxd 8 July 2005 03:34 (UTC)

I agree that non-default TOCs should normally be flaoted, and in any case I think this discussion is limited to floating TOCs. I wouldn't state absolutely that there is never a place for a non-standard, non-floating TOC, but I haven't seen one yet. I agree that the 30% width rule (I assume you meant that to apply to width, not height) is a good rule of thumb, but a user with a particularly large font size or low resolution or both may find that a TOC that occupies well under 30% for most viewers, takes up more in his or her particular case. The rule must say soemthing about an average or likely viewer, or somehow handle this case, I think. DES 7 July 2005 21:07 (UTC)

Yeah, I meant 30% width as a ballpark figure, so it doesn't obstruct too much text. So, if no one objects, then that should be placed in the MoS (I'd rather have someone with more experience and higher position do it, because I'm a Wiki newbie). But does anyone have any idea what the average Wikipedia user's screen resolution is? I use 1024x768, and I think the bare minimum nowadays is 800x600... --Titoxd 8 July 2005 03:34 (UTC)

I think that Space opera in Scientology doctrine looks good with your addition, nd this is an example where an article without an image nonethelsess is improved by flaoting the TOC. DES 7 July 2005 21:07 (UTC)

As 30% varies according to user settings, perhaps a comparison to more stable examples would help. How about comparing to the Wikipedia left-side navigation column, the width of top-of-page tabs, or the end of the "Edit summary" input field? (SEWilco 06:35, 10 July 2005 (UTC))

30% would translate to roughly 1 + 1/2 to 2 times the width of the left navigation bar, at least in my browser. I don't know if others with other resoultions have different results. -- Titoxd 07:14, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Draft proposal

Taking into account some of the issues that Mike brought from the discussion at the Section MoS, I'm submitting a draft proposal for an addition to that MoS. Please be free to put any comments, objections, or support below: Titoxd 22:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

This proposal was accepted (7 support/1 oppose). --Titoxd 20:34, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

The table of contents (TOC) can, in some instances, be floated either right or left using {{TOCright}} or {{TOCleft}}. Before changing the default TOC to a floated TOC, consider the following guidelines:

  • If an article will be benefitted by reducing unused whitespace, float.
  • If an article will be adversely affected by the change, don't float.
  • When floating a TOC, check if the page layout will be harmed if the TOC is hidden by the user.
  • The TOC should not be longer than necessary, whether it is floated or not.
  • The default TOC is placed before the first headline, but after any introductory text (unless changed by the page's editors). If the introductory summary is long enough that a typical user has to scroll down to see the top of the TOC, you may float the TOC so it appears closer to the top of the article. However, the floating TOC should in most cases follow at least the first paragraph of article text.
  • If the TOC is relatively long and narrow, the default TOC will produce considerable white space beside the TOC. In such a case you may wish to float the TOC. However, you may want to consider whether the TOC can usefully be shortened by compining sections or sub-sections.
  • Floating a wide TOC will produce a narrow column of readable text for users with low resolutions. If the TOC's width exceeds 30% of the user's visible screen (about twice the size of the Wikipedia navigation bar to the left), then it is not suitable for floating. (Percentges assume a typical user setup.)
  • If the TOC is placed in the general vicinity of other floated images or boxes, it can be floated as long as the flowing text column does not become narrower than 30% of the average user's visible screen width.
  • If the TOC is going to be placed in a long list page, it should be floated.
  • A left-floated TOC may affect bulleted or numbered lists. Where it does, float the TOC to the right, or do not float it.


Support

  1. I can support this as written, but I hope we will continue to suggest improvements. DES 23:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support: Give editors more control over TOC so it can be placed where it best fits, just as with images. (SEWilco 16:32, 22 July 2005 (UTC))
  3. Support... but see how a Wikipedian with an authoritarian training and no visual sense enforces this "Guideline" by reverting formatting, at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#July 30. It is always unwise to make too many "Guidelines", because instinctively aggressive Users will apply them aggressively. --Wetman 23:29, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
    I have commented on that page. DES 02:36, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  4. Strong Support The default layout is fine, and SHOULD be used, for most articles with a brief intro and limited size TOC. Beyond this, some flexibility in layout is required to help with readability and accessibility of the article. --Cactus.man 10:33, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support, and we can always go back and fix anything that needs fixing. --Titoxd 20:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support This is a useful template and manual addition. -- Sitearm | Talk 17:55, 2005 August 5 (UTC)
  7. Support.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 07:58:05, 2005-08-08 (UTC)

Oppose

  • Strong oppose to the first sentence (If an article will be benefitted by reducing unused whitespace, float). While the next ones try to bring some sence, the fisrt one is clear signal to put this abomination everywhere, disrupting reading flow to save few pixels. Pavel Vozenilek 02:04, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • This is instruction creep. If we want to make editors aware of the possibility of floating the TOC, all that needs to be added to MoS is the simple statement: "In some cases it may be appropriate to float a table of contents (TOC) to the right or left using {{TOCright}} or {{TOCleft}}." Detailed guidelines "for consideration" provide a basis for hardening into guidelines. If such ruminations are useful (and I can see why they could be) then they can be held in a separate article: Wikipedia:Floating tables of contents. —Theo (Talk) 16:07, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Why should this be in a separate page that editors may not know to look for? The MoS is already full of such detailed suggestions and guideline, on things like date formats, units, titles of address in biographic articles, etc etc. The MoS, or one of its sub-pages, is the place to discuss this IMO. The point is not so much to advertise the option of a flaoting ToC, but to help suggest when it might be and when it is not appropriate, and how to do it so as to enhance nd not detract from articles. DES (talk) 17:16, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Closing date

This discussion is now a month old. Does anyone object to closing the vote a week from now (and posting the proposal in the MoS and archiving this discussion if it passes)? --Titoxd 22:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I moved above comment from the "Misc" section below, where I thought it might get lost.DES (talk) 22:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • In fact I have figured that enough support had been shown that I was planning to simply create the MoS entry sooner than that, but since a formal closing date has been suggested, I accept it. DES (talk) 22:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments

  • Proposed by Titoxd 22:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I did a copy edit, and altered the suggestion for a TOCleft that interacts with a numbered or bulleted list to float left OR not flaot. I also added the sugestion that a TOC normally follow at least the lead paragraph. if the lead paragraph is more tha a screen long it should be rewritten anyway. DES 22:44, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree with the float-right suggestion. But sometimes, there is no plausible way to restrict the introduction to just one paragraph, so shouldn't the TOC (float or nonfloat) be placed at the end of the introductory section if that happens, instead of cutting it in half after the first paragraph? -- Titoxd 22:58, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
      • One of the test cases discussed in the TfD debate used TOCright to put the TOC after the first paragraph of the introduction, thus making the first paragraph full-width, but the rest of the lead section alongside the flaoting TOC. I felt that, in that case at least, this was better than a) a defualt TOC; b) a TOC flaoted after the lead section, or c) a TOC flaoted before any text at all. That is what i advise. I don't recall the articel involved off-hand, but I can probably find it if I dig through the archives. DES 23:04, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
      • In general I don't think the TOC looks better at the end of the introductory section IF that means that a typical user must scroll down to see the TOC at all. This was part of the point in creating the floating TOC in the first place, see Intelligent design. DES 23:04, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
        • Hmmm... good point. A floated TOC should be floated after the first paragraph, and the scroll-down problem is what we're trying to solve here. --Titoxd 23:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Looks pretty good, but I have two issues. First, can someone point to an example in which {{tl:TOCleft}} is actually useful or even just aesthetically pleasing? It seems to me that it would always be a bad idea and should simply be dropped entirely from the proposal. Second, just as a general comment, any statements based on assumptions about users' resolutions are bound to be contentious, in my experience. We all think we know what resolution "most" people use, but we don't. Perhaps we can find a better, more generic way of stating these constraints in order to avoid bickering later on. At my browsing size (800x900), they sound fine, though! —HorsePunchKid→龜 23:50, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
Personally, I can't think of an example in which {{TOCleft}} would be useful, and I won't use it, but there was discussion above saying that it could be in some pages with images, so that's why I drafted the proposal with TOCleft included. As for the resolutions, those are the reasons we stated the constraints by also comparing them to the Wikipedia left panel. -- Titoxd 21:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
If there is an image at the upper right of the article, TOCleft might well be the better choice. DES 16:42, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Unless it is a very small image or very small TOC, don't float the TOC otherwise some users may end up with a thin column of text between the two. —Mike 17:11, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Let me be clear, if the image is at the very top right, floating the TOC left after 1 or 2 paragraphs so it is entirely or largely below the image can work well, IMO. Take a look at Tony Blair for an example. DES (talk)

I think it might be worthwhile mentioning that the TOC should not be too long under any circumstances. Some articles have an overly long TOC and it should be cut down rather than simply floated. It might be good to have a more general discussion of the introductory layout, perhaps mentioning the use of an image to fill in some of the whitespace and advising people to check that the layout still works when the TOC is hidden. violet/riga (t) 00:01, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

  • I see this as a non issue. Users can set the TOC of an article to float with some very simple css, my css includes a floating TOC, and has for a long time. Let each user determine how they want pages to display, forcing specific formating is not good. Gentgeen 02:33, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I suspect that a tiny fraction of Wikipedia users take advantage of the CSS customizability and that a yet tinier fraction are both aware of it and capable of using it effectively. It would be irresponsible to brush this off by making users fiddle with their CSS. Perhaps MediaWiki needs a user preference that makes this particular preference explicit. I can't imagine it would be hard to code, though I'm not exactly volunteering my time... ;) —HorsePunchKid→龜 02:56, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
      • I suspect that a tiny fraction of Wikipedia users take advantage of the CSS customizability and that a yet tinier fraction are both aware of it and capable of using it effectively. It would be irresponsible to brush this off by making users fiddle with their CSS. Completely agree.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 08:03:45, 2005-08-08 (UTC)
  • Hmm. A discussion of introductory layout seems a bit out of the scope of this (since we just want to deal with the TOC issue) but I do agree that the TOC shouldn't be unnecessarily long (although there are times it's inevitable) and that editors should check if the whole thing works if the TOC is hidden. So, I went back and added those points to the proposal. -- Titoxd 21:28, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Noticing the already widespread misuse of the template, I would like to see a rule where these templates are not used if the TOC is less than 10 items in length. I have yet to see it use in such cases improve the article design, and in most cases it is to the detriment of the page. Joe D (t) 21:24, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • "Misuse" already, and July not out! Where the "Guidelines"on formatting ToC boxes are already being rigidly enforced as a "rule" by User:Steinsky aka "Joe D", the admission "I would like to see a rule..." bodes little good! The more general consensus seems to be that the ToC box belongs after the introductory material, which itself often has a leading image at upper left or upper right, as the image itself demands. For an unusual example where the ToC needs to go to the right, because of interference at left with an indented quote, see Gallaecia. Flexibility is the best "rule": let us all invoke flexibility as a "rule" to save us headaches from doctrinaire "formulists" invoking a catholic uniformity. Flexibility rules! --Wetman 23:43, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
    • They are being enforced because articles look better that way. You may disagree, but your support is limited. This template only survived deletion with the support of those who feel it should be used in extreme circumstances only, not thrown around on any old article. Continually making claims to which have responded is dishonest. Joe D (t) 23:49, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • None of these discussions has yet attained to the status of "guideline" and even when a MoS entry is agreed on (as opposed to a mere discussion on this talk page) the MoS is explicitly not binding on editors, and it is certianly overstating things to call something "mis-use" simply because it goes against a MoS entry. DES 02:35, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Also I think that Joe D mischaracterizes the TfD debate. There was nothing like an agreement that the template should be used only in "extreme circumstances". Some objected to it at all, some thought wide use a good idea, the closest to consensus, IMO, was the idea that it should only be used where there was some reason to think it would improve the particular article, and should not be applied automatically to any and every article. And can we have nore about the merits of the formatting, and less about the merits or flaws of particular editors, please? DES 02:35, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I have set up a comparison of formats, wrapped and unwrapped ToC, at Talk:Central Park, where User:Steinsky has repeatedly vetoed flexible formatting, emp[loying a number of characteristic rationalizations. --Wetman 01:19, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • As can be seen above, this is becoming contentious for some users. Can we agree on at least a first version to go into the actual MoS, in hopse that may help calm such storms? This proposal has been under discussion quite a while now, with little change and no significnat opposition. DES 16:57, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
    There already is a first version at Wikipedia:Section#Floating_the_TOC, so you might as well just go for the final version now. —Mike 16:51, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Misc

I wish to alert others who have been involved in the discussions to Wetman (talk · contribs) who is currently unilatterally adding {{TOCright}} to articles on which it is quite clearly not justified, and where its use goes against the majority feeling of those in the VfD discussion and subsequent discussions. I unfortunately don't have time to deal with it myself, but have asked the user to stop. Joe D (t) 21:38, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Most editing is done "unilatterally" and this need be no different. In many cases, major edits hould be discussed before or after they are put into an artilce, and consensus generally followed. This issue is no different. No one editor is entitled to "own" articles or to dictate their format, including whether or not the TOC should be floated. DES 17:01, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I came here from Titoxd's link on Village Pump and I am lost as to what you want to vote on. Is "left toc" the current article default and you want to make it "right toc" instead?? -- Sitearm | Talk 17:03, 2005 August 5 (UTC)

The default is thst the TOC appears after the lead section, and before all other sections, left aligned, with whitespace to the right of it. By using {{TOCleft}} or {{TOCright}} is is possible to have a "floating" ToC, where the article text wraps arround a left-aligned or right-aligned TOC. We are hoping to develoip consensus for an MoS entry on when and how to use, and when not to use, these templates. DES (talk) 17:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

This discussion is now a month old. Does anyone object to closing the vote a week from now (and posting the proposal in the MoS and archiving this discussion if it passes)? --Titoxd 22:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_17&oldid=1145851791"