MediaWiki talk:Toc

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

TOC should be called "Contents"[edit]

I hope I'm not opening a can of worms or making a Frequently Rejected Suggestion, but I think that when you look at a Table of Contents, you should see just "Contents", not "Table of Contents". After all, you can tell it's a table. I've just checked several books in different fields, and their TOCs are headed simply "Contents" (or some slight variation).

--JerryFriedman 16:32, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Good point, sounds good to me. :-) Frecklefoot | Talk 19:19, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • I have no objection to this, but I think it should wait a week before the change is made since it isn't something that should keep changing, so I'd like to see if there is consensus on this first. Angela. 21:05, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • With issues like this, you can pretty much guarantee that people won't start complaining (if they complain at all) until the change is implemented. Personally, I am in favour. Pcb21| Pete 21:18, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • No objections here. [[User:Mike Storm|MikeStorm]] 22:54, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Logical move. Moriori 02:05, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. — Matt 02:35, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, this is pretty standard. siroχo 03:40, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

Comment only. If the name changes, what do we do about __NOTOC__, {{compactTOC}}, and other internal references to "Table of contents"? -- Netoholic

It's still a Table of Contents, just the title is changed to Contents. No need to change any of those. --ssd 02:19, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Why didn't I think of that? -- Heron 08:16, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. But the prove Pete right, I'll complain after the change is made. *grins* - UtherSRG 14:04, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Reasonable. General rule: keep it short when short is also clear and unambiguous. Jallan 17:04, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Short and sweet, less formal/techie. Zoney 19:44, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • No real objections, but my own casual and unscientific perusal of books within my reach while I read this discussion revealed the following contradictory evidence:
"Table of Contents"
Dynamic HTML: The Definitive Reference, 2nd Ed.
SQL Instant Reference
Writing Excel Macros
Web Client Programming with Perl
"Contents"
Teach Yourself Java 2 Platform in 21 Days: Professional Reference Edition
"Contents at a Glance"
Domino 5 Web Programming with XML, Java, and JavaScript
Other
"Directory": Once Upon a Telephone: An Illustrated Social History
"List of Cicero's Works": Cicero XVI: De Re Publica / De Legibus
No title for TOC
The Decline and Fall of Practically Everybody by Will Cuppy
No table of contents
The Mystery Science Theater 3000 Amazing Colossal Episode Guide
I admit to a bias toward programming texts and an odd non-fiction eclecticism, but I doubt anyone can say authoritatively that either "Contents" or "Table of Contents" is more prevalent. But who cares, as long as the intent is clear? And I definitely agree that brevity is desirable (by definition!) in the abbreviated TOCs. — Jeff Q 15:05, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Interesting. I took a longer look through my office collection (mostly physics, some math, some education, and The TeXbook), and didn't find a single TOC headed "Table of Contents". I'm now working on a theory that only programming books, and not all of them, have a "Table of Contents" so labeled. Oh my gosh, found one! My employer's Student Handbook. Maybe I'll send someone an e-mail.--JerryFriedman 16:56, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm implementing the change using {{MediaWiki:Toc}} in all the Templates like Template:CompactTOC2.

[[User:Sverdrup|Sverdrup❞]] 20:47, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Most cunning and efficient :). Pcb21| Pete 07:09, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I'd support this change as well. -Sean Curtin 20:56, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)