Template talk:CompactTOC2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Template:CompactTOC2 has been protected indefinitely. Use {{editprotected}} on this page to request an edit.

There is a problem with the coding of the TOC. It is not suppressing the normal TOC even though the "__NOTOC__" is present. My guess is that it needs to appear on its own line outside the table to work correctly. Mike 01:49, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed changes

Edit here

On 1 August 2004, Template:CompactTOC was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP. Rossami 04:48, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC) A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

Ugly and inconsistent. Should be replaced with Template:CompactTOC2 (that is, {{CompactTOC2}} should become {{CompactTOC}}). - Eequor

• Not a vote yet: wouldn't it make more sense to edit Template:CompactTOC rather than delete it and change all the references throughout Wikipedia to CompactTOC2? Bryan 17:23, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, CompactTOC is protected. --Eequor 17:35, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. CompactTOC is protected as part of the standard policy of protecting frequently used templates to minimize massive vandalism. If you want to propose a change to the template, propose it on the talk page of CompactTOC - if consensus exists to make the change, a sysop can make the change for you. A VfD, however, is not the appropriate method of trying to change this.Snowspinner 17:51, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Fix as per proper procedure if you think it needs repairing - David Gerard 17:55, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep as is. It's more compact than the non standard aligned compactTOC2. -- User:Docu
  • Would left-justification improve CompactTOC2? In my opinion, it looks better as it is. --Eequor 18:43, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

[edit] Hrmmm... a table?

Boo to improper table usage! :p ¦ Reisio 01:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] If anyone's watching ...

I've tried to activate the "top" link. It seems to work, but I'm not sure it's the most efficient method. User:Noisy | Talk 11:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

What's wrong with using [[#top|Top]]? —Mike 19:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Because there is no "Top" section name in any article. Is "Top" supposed to be a reserved word, because if so, it doesn't seem to work? User:Noisy | Talk 02:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Every rendered page has a hidden <a name="top" id="top"></a> above the sitenotice. That is was #top is going to take you to. Find a very long list which has the compactTOC mid-way or at the bottom. The top link will take you to the, well, top. -- Netoholic @ 04:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

No, that solution doesn't work, so I've set it back to mine, which does. User:Noisy | Talk 05:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, then you're the only one in months of this implementation to complain. How about you give some details rather than breaking it for the rest of us. What browser/OS are you using? What mediawiki skin? Any customizations? -- Netoholic @ 05:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Have you actually tried it? It doesn't work on the Template page because {{PAGENAME}} doesn't deliver the 'Template:' part, so it looks red and appears as an edit link in the Template space only. Please test before reverting! If you can deliver another solution that works – because the original solution doesn't seem to work for Firefox under XP with Classic skin and no customization – then I'll accept that. User:Noisy | Talk 11:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Textile manufacturing terminology is the page that didn't work. User:Noisy | Talk 11:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Yep, I confirmed that it is not working on Firefox using Classic skin. It works on IE with Classic and it works with Firefox using Monobook. I'd report this bug to the Firefox developers. It isn't strictly a skin problem, since the page source has the correct #top anchor. Firefox just doesn't want to jump to it.

All that said, it is best to leave it as my version. Your version cause the entire page to reload. How about we not do something to strain the servers just because .5% of readers have an issue with that one tiny link. I know the devs have complained about the lack of attention the non-Monobook skins have, and are even planning on removing a couple. Keep in mind that Monobook is the default the vast majority of readers see the site as, so developing/editing will always be concentrated on that skin. -- Netoholic @ 12:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

How can I put this: the old version doesn't work! Please come up with another solution if mine is wrong, but on Textile manufacturing terminology clinking top just takes you to the top of the screen, not the top of the article! It seems to be a problem if the quickbar is floating, because the "<a name="top" id="top"></a> above the sitenotice" takes you to the top of the quickbar. MS IE seems to be broken for me, because the quickbar isn't floating when I tried it. I've installed all MS XP updates, so I don't think my s/w is out-of-date. Please come up with some other solution that works for floating quickbars!!!! User:Noisy | Talk 12:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Floating quickbars are not supported by the wikipedia developers. Dont expect a fix for this anytime soon.  ALKIVAR™ 12:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Then why are they an option in preferences, with a preferences page all to themselves? They work perfectly for me in Firefox: no fix is required. Your argument actually supports my contention that it's a problem with the template using #top, when top doesn't refer to the article frame! When quickbars are eventually supported, the current solution will become ineffective! Is there anything similar to the 'section=0' – used for editing the section at the top of the article – that could be used instead? User:Noisy | Talk 13:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

To get it to work in other namespaces, {{NAMESPACE}}: needs to be added before the {{PAGENAME}} bit. Is that what was causing it to fail on other pages? User:Noisy | Talk 12:37, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] categorization

Can the administrator gods put this in the end of the code: <noinclude>[[Category:TOC templates]]</noinclude> —Mark Adler (markles) 22:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• Done. howcheng {chat} 17:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested change to category sort order

Please change the category from [[Category:TOC templates]] to [[Category:TOC templates|{{PAGENAME}}]] so that it sorts properly. Thank you! — Saxifrage ✎ 11:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] # instead of 0-9

Can the # symbol be used instead of 0-9? Some lists have entries starting with symbols. Ceros 03:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the 0-9 section is often inadequate, unnecessarily restrictive, and needs to be replaced with a Symbols section when this template is upgraded. But why not call a spade a spade? My proposal - simply call it Symbols:

Contents:	Top - Symbols A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

—Tokek 08:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)