MediaWiki talk:Toc

TOC should be called "Contents"
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. :-)  &mdash; 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|Mike ∞ Storm]] 22:54, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Logical move. Moriori 02:05, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)


 * Support. &mdash; Matt 02:35, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Support, this is pretty standard.  &mdash; siro  χ  o  03:40, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

Comment only. If the name changes, what do we do about  ,   , 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)


 * Great idea. anthony (see warning) 14:42, 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. &mdash; 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 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)

Protected edit request on 21 June 2020
91.14.223.197 (talk) 18:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌ nothing to do here. — xaosflux  Talk 20:20, 9 August 2020 (UTC)