Template talk:TOC right/Archive 1

Absolutely not appropriate
This should be done with modification to CSS, not through a template. Have listed on VfD and removed the stuff that shifts the TOC to the right. - Ta bu shi da yu 4 July 2005 05:59 (UTC)


 * I rolled back your edit. Your removal affects directly a series of pages. Please do it correctly, if you feel it should be deleted. -- User:Docu


 * My point in case: it should not affect a whole series of pages with one single edit. Page layout is also done through CSS on this site, not through templates. You also removed the TFD tag... have restored this. - Ta bu shi da yu 4 July 2005 08:21 (UTC)


 * Thank you for adding the tag properly. Depending on the edit, it's generally the advantage of templates that they affect directly all pages. -- User:Docu


 * Yeah, sorry about that. - Ta bu shi da yu 5 July 2005 08:06 (UTC)

Compromise?
On my talk page Ta bu shi da yu wrote: ''I'll concede the point entirely if a style guideline is created that makes people use that under the lead section. However, there is now a problem of the heading underline cutting the TOC, making it look unprofessional. If these things can be sorted I will drop all my objections to the template, and apologise for losing perspective on the whole issue.'' This sounds sensible to me, except that in the case of a very long lead section, TOCright might be better at the start of the article. DES 5 July 2005 04:20 (UTC)
 * Perhaps after the first paragraph? - Ta bu shi da yu 5 July 2005 08:06 (UTC)
 * That might well work. I think I would support a guideline or perhaps better a MOS entry to that effect. Like other guidelines or MOS entries, this would establish normal standard procedure while permitting particualr cases to be handled differently when there is good reason to do so. DES 5 July 2005 15:35 (UTC)


 * I adjusted the format to match what you would get with a floated image. They use classes "thumb tright", but those classes can't be used directly for this template. I pulled out the CSS elements which produce the desired effect. &mdash;Mike July 7, 2005 07:22 (UTC)

Discussion elsewhere
MOS guidelines for the use of this template in particular, and of floating TOCs in general, are now being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style. I urge anyone interested in this subject to read and comment there. Settling this with an MOS guideline is IMO the best way to proceed. DES 8 July 2005 16:11 (UTC)

TFD notice
This template was nominated for deletion. It sparked a lengthy debate with a number of suggestions and proposals, but no consensus to delete it. So it is kept, but it may be worthwhile to reword and/or reformat it. See Templates for deletion/TOCright or Templates for deletion/Log/Not deleted/July 2005 for details. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 13:01, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * In fact the voting was 14D, 31K, which might well be called a consensus to keep. Also, it seems this was the second time this template was on TfD, although I do not have a link to the log for the first discussion. Please consider this before renominating this template for deleteion . DES 13:54, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The TfD may have been missed and perhaps should be repeated after a while, when this abomination gets more known. Pavel Vozenilek 01:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm all for publicity. The more people who know about it, the more people who will use it. :) &mdash;Mike 05:47, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Usage in regular articles
This template is acceptable for non-standard pages like lists and dab pages. However, it should never be used in regular articles. If people want a prettier layout, they should edit their monobook.css pages, not hard-code a different layout in the articles. Zocky | picture popups 10:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Seconded. --&#160;Omniplex 11:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Bug (?) report
undefined (as is) has no effect with browsers not supporting CSS for various reasons. Please add at the end of the included section before to make it work also for older visual browsers. In WP:SIZE I've replaced it by the simple workaround: It's beyond me why anybody needs a template to screw with the consistent look and feel of most pages, but at least it should work. For most modern browsers any CSS should overrule the effect where necessary. --&#160;Omniplex 11:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. --CBDunkerson 18:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, works (this page as test case). --&#160;Omniplex 18:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

To an administrator colleague: Kindly add cs:Šablona:RIGHTTOC to the template page (noinclude section, of course:-). Thanks. –wiki-vr 21:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. — xaosflux  Talk  22:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Merging?
There is template:TOC float right. --Sheynhertzגעשׁ״ך 10:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting - I thought this one didn't float, but apparently it does. Stevage 12:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Demo on template page
It would be good if an admin could modify the template page to add some (noinclude) stuff like at template:TOC float right, so you could actually see the effect (and not just on the talk page). Stevage 12:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Interwiki link to vi:
Please add an interwiki link to the Vietnamese version of this template: vi:Tiêu bản:Mục lục bên phải Thanks. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 00:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * done, — xaosflux  Talk  05:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

MoS?
Could we have some usage instructions on the template page (using ), and perhaps a link to a MoS guideline? I know there's been a controversy - I like the template, but I don't want to use it in ways that cause unnecessary conflicts. --Singkong2005 talk 00:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * While this tempalte is protected, input and change are welcome, the best way to do this would be to write up a subsectino here on talk of what you want added, then put here, or ask an admin to add it.  This template is protected as a highuse template, and changes could adversely affect lots of pages if not done carefully. —  xaosflux  Talk  03:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggested changes
Hi folks. User:TonyTheTiger recently requested help putting his TOCright to the left of his userboxes on his user page. I helped him out by copying the source of the template and removing the "clear: right", but I think this would be better handled in the template. I propose changing the wikitext to the following (leaving out the portion):

It adds a "clear" parameter, defaulted to "right" that allows users to override the CSS clear property (e.g. with "none" in the case that you don't want clearing). It also allows the use of "width=..." in lieu of using the first unnamed parameter for the width. Mike Dillon 05:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Good ideas. All done. — Mets501 (talk) 15:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Overused
This template is incredibly overused. Only rarely does the TOC really get in the way of other content. Usually it just disrupts the standard appearance of articles with something which is overly cluttered at the beginning. Is there any way we could make some examples of where this template should be used and clearly deliniate those situations? Disambiguation and talk pages are the only example that really comes to mind for me. Articles with excessively long TOCs sometimes look better with the TOC on the right but often a better solution is to reduce the size of the TOC (perhaps by creating proper daughter articles). Almost the only articles which are justified in having such a long TOC (and thus floating it) are those that have a long list of countries. Also articles where the intro is too long (American Civil War). savidan(talk) (e@) 01:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I've never really noticed this being used except on talk pages, where it makes sense to me. Mike Dillon 02:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see it often. However, almost always I see it as wrong. MadMaxDog 07:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

please add
--Dispenser 07:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Convention of the documentation with Template doc page pattern
 * Done. -- JLaTondre 15:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you also complete the first part of my request as it has many benefits and allow documentation to be displayed and updated without sysops. --138.89.96.185 21:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. --CBD 23:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Please added interwiki
LUCPOL 15:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * be:Шаблён:Зьмест справа
 * de:Vorlage:TOCright
 * he:תבנית:תוכן שמאל
 * cs:Šablona:RIGHTTOC
 * mk:Шаблон:TOCright
 * pl:Szablon:TOCright
 * ru:Шаблон:Содержание справа
 * vi:Tiêu bản:Mục lục bên phải
 * The only one that needed to be added was the de: one and I have done that. The interwiki links are actually included via the doc subpage which is not protected. You can edit it at Template:TOCright/doc. -- JLaTondre 18:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Undecided and wondering
I'm undecided on my opinion of this template. It appeared at Films considered the greatest ever with limit equal to two. I can understand why the long TOC might have been cumbersome so it was moved to the right side of the page so text could wrap around it. Then it was limited to just the top level, which seems to undo the need for moving it to the right. This also leads me to wonder if there is a way to have a TOC just for a section. The sections in the film list are quite numerous, so it would be useful to have a TOC for the section by genre and section by country. If they are removed from the top TOC, can they be added back at each subsection? Another possibility might be to have a collapsible TOC (like the way Subcategories can open and close on category pages), or have the possibility of collapsing a section, or the entire article into the TOC. So for example, with the film list, when you got to the section about particular genres of film, it might start out collapsed as a list, each entry of which could be opened up. Navigating around this page is going to be more of a problem as the list of countries gets bigger. -- &#x2611; Sam uelWantman 07:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've always personally advocated against use of this template since it messes with the consistent site-wide style. It seem to have gain some popularity in the list based article but it generally removed where the text actually wraps around it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dispenser (talk • contribs) 00:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit request
Please use. 16@r 22:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. --- RockMFR 22:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)