Template talk:CompactTOC

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Templates for deletion This template was considered for deletion on 2004-08-01. The result of the discussion was keep.

[edit] A custom message for flat alphabetical index?

Resolved. Just a recounting of the genesis of this template.
[The following was moved from Wikipedia talk:MediaWiki namespace text:]

Lots of lists grow so large they deserve an alphabetical index. That produces a silly TOC which most such pages switch off in favour of a flat, oneline index using anchor tags. I think that flat index might usefully be made into a custom message. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 06:59, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)

Good idea. Here's one but I don't know what to call it so I haven't made it a message yet. Angela.

__NOTOC__ [[#A|A]] [[#B|B]] [[#C|C]] [[#D|D]] [[#E|E]] [[#F|F]] [[#G|G]] [[#H|H]] [[#I|I]] [[#J|J]] [[#K|K]] [[#L| L]] [[#M|M]] [[#N|N]] [[#O|O]] [[#P|P]] [[#Q|Q]] [[#R|R]] [[#S|S]] [[#T|T]] [[#U|U]] [[#V|V]] [[#W|W]] [[#X|X]] [[#Y|Y]] [[#Z|Z]]

I noticed that the the ''__NOTOC__'' in the CompactTOC entry is not revealed on the main article by the <nowiki> tag (it is however revealed here: I assume this is because Talk pages behave differently). I actually got as far as trying to insert it into the explanatory text before realising this. Phil 15:21, Dec 9, 2003 (UTC)

This is semi off topic, but since the generatin subst message would have to be changed as well, what the heck. Um. At the Finnish Wikipedia I made one of those compact tocs from memory just because I didn't feel like hunting down one here. The alphabet is mostly the same, only a handful of differing letters. Anyway, as I did it from memory, I put the text: Go to letter → (well, obviously the equivalent in Finnish) in front of the toc. I am just wondering, if that might be a good idea here as well? Is the arrow symbol "safe"? If not, maybe -> might serve. -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 15:25, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)

Without objection I shall be implementing the above in a few hours, and then probably spend some time hunting down as many as possible of the compact indexes already created, to standardize. In the summaryline, "→" turns into a number code, which is quite curious, but I don't think applies to the subst tags. -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 05:53, Dec 11, 2003 (UTC)

Cimon, do you have an example? Maybe it's just because it's 6am and I'm not really awake, but I don't really know what you're talking about. Angela. 05:58, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I don't get it either :) Dori | Talk 06:01, Dec 11, 2003 (UTC)
The arrow converts to numbers because it's a Unicode glyph, if you were wondering. Perhaps it's not best to use Unicode since not all operating systems support it. Dysprosia 06:03, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I could see the error, but I just understood it. I think I like it better without the message, but if there should be a message I would prefer Go to letter: instead. Dori | Talk 06:07, Dec 11, 2003 (UTC)
Okay, in plain, which of the following is best?

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

Go to → 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

Go to -> 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

Go to > 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

Go to: 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

  • This one gets my vote. Phil 09:05, Dec 11, 2003 (UTC)

And don't tell me the larger than sign is a problem, because I know it can be escaped somehow, that it is not in danger of being interpreted as markup... -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 06:31, Dec 11, 2003 (UTC)

I prefer the original. The "go to" seems superfluous to me and implies that you are going somewhere off the page, rather than to a point on the same page. Angela. 14:33, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Maybe jump to: instead of go to:? Zocky 22:02, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think something like:

TOC: 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

Would suffice Ilyanep 19:40, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)~


[edit] Standard formatting

Resolved. Self-resolving notice.

Template:CompactTOC2 includes the standard TOC formatting. -- User:Docu

[edit] CompactTOC macros broken under new software

Resolved. Bug long since fixed.

There is a serious problem with all of the CompactTOC macros under the new software. They do provide the compact TOC, but they also show the very-uncompact full TOC as well, superfluously, and redundantly, too. Was there even a single person who tested these macros before the decision was made to cut over to the new version?! -- Jeff Q 03:30, 31 May 2004 (UTC)