Template talk:TOChidden

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Templates for deletion This template was considered for deletion on 2007 May 22. The result of the discussion was Keep.
Templates for deletion This template was considered for deletion on 2007 March 26. The result of the discussion was No consensus.

Contents

[edit] Purpose of this template

This template is for utilization toward getting rid of large areas of empty space as commonly found in larger articles. Here is Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy article before usage of this template and here it is afterwards. Obviously a major improvement in terms of negating "dead lead space". This template is in need of documentation. I am planning on adding it shortly and it will be along the lines of Template:TOCleft/doc. (→Netscott) 08:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Code used

I suspect that the code used to make this template could do for additional finessing. Anyone with a bit of coding experience want to see if they can touch it up? Please do... it would be a pleasure to see this improve. :-) (→Netscott) 09:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Something isn't right. When the "[show]" link is clicked, under the word "Contents" a second "[hide]" link appears, which doesn't do anything and messes up the table. This won't do at all. I'm also not entirely convinced as to the need for this template at all. The solution to having two many sections in an article is to restructure the article, not try to hide the fact – Qxz 01:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, we're working on improving on it quite a bit. I've already heard from a few supportive folks who are quite pleased to see this type of a template come into existence. One female editor was saying that it was an improvement for accessibility for vision impaired folks as the blank space frequently found in article leads is an impediment. (→Netscott) 01:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] If you've noticed...

... clicking around the area of the [show] button takes you to Image:TOCspacer.gif. It happens when the mouse-pointer is just close enough, but not exactly on top of the [show] button for it to get underlined (as in this way [show]). Can this be fixed? --Bluerain talk 07:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Bluerain, thanks for the heads up. I've fixed this. Cheers. (→Netscott) 07:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bad idea

This is a really bad idea. Wikipedia already remembers if you have opened or closed the Table of Contents, and if one wants to have pages default to closed then they can modify their .js and .css files for the skin they have chosen so that it defaults to close for them and not for everybody. Additionally seeing Table of Contents on the top line and then contents on the second line and a box within a box is just ugly. See Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts, Wikipedia:Monobook to get started on editing your own script and cascading style sheets. --Trödel 20:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree this template is not a good idea, even for long articles. The TOC is one of the most important items on a page. We have to think from a new user's point of view. THEY want to see that TOC and see the important topics and shortcuts in a glance. I didnt know of this TOC template until I went to an article and I was looking for the TOC. Then I found out its hidden. The Usage of this template should say, please use this very carefully, if its really necessary. The TOC is there for a reason. --Matt57 22:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bugreport

This template contains bugs:

  1. It causes images to be misplaced (e.g. compare [1] with the TOC in it's expanded state with [2]).
  2. The font size of the TOC, when expanded, seems to be reduced.
  3. The show/hide button is misplaced (see image; might be due to the fact that I did not design the collapsible table script with this kind of usage in mind.)
  4. The caption of the TOC in de collapsed state doesn't match the caption of TOCs which aren't generated by this template.
  5. The caption and border are doubled when the TOC is in it's expanded state.

Could the developer please fix this ASAP. —Ruud 17:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Ruud, thank you very much for your report. So, #1 is going to have to be determined on a case by case basis. Article formatting isn't out of the question. I've addessed #2 and #3, on #4 are you referring to the word Contents? On #5 I believe I've greatly reduced this. Could you provide another screen capture shot on your setup because your browser's not rendering the code like mine is. Thanks. (→Netscott) 23:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other ideas to deal with white space

  • Make the font of TOC smaller, AND
  • Provide options to align left or right, while floating.

Thats really it. This is better than hiding the TOC. Always remember: any certain article is most of all made for NEW visitors to Wikipedia, who have not read the article before and they will always want to see the shortcuts and topics the TOC provides. --Matt57 23:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Matt57, you're failing to mention that the TOC is still there... you're just not used to the hidden aspect... visitors aren't stupid they can read ya' know? (→Netscott) 23:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not a new user and I went to a page and was wondering where the TOC went. Now imagine the new users. The tiny "Show" isnt exactly visible. --Matt57 00:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Matt57, you're used to the "traditional" setup... so it is normal that it'll take you a bit to become accustomed to it. Now you'll never have a problem recognizing a TOChidden in the future should you come upon one. You can't miss 'em they are always right under the lead section of article text. (→Netscott) 00:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
As I said, the TOC is an important part of an article and should not be hidden by default. I see many of the links to the TOChidden were put in by yourself. --Matt57 00:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh? Here User:SlimVirgin used it on the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals article with the edit summary, "toc hidden because it's so long". Here User:Armedblowfish used it with the edit summary, "I really would like a Table of Contents to aid in section linking. How about {{TOChidden}} as a compromise?" because another editor was using __NOTOC__ thereby preventing the TOC from showing. Here User:ThePromenader reinstated to the Paris article. Here User:Sefringle used it on the Ibn Khaldun article. Here are several other users employing it: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and there are 10-15 more where that came from. Fact is that where TOChidden has been put in place it has been kept about 80-90% of the time. (→Netscott) 01:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I oppose that template in some of the articles. The should should be very limited and used very carefully. I've made my points. This template although looks great to you, is not a great feature for new WP users. Thats what WP is for. --Matt57 01:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll give a simple example: Suppose you searched WP for something you didnt know about. Would you rather not see the TOC on that article? Answer in only yes or no. A TOC gives you a glance at what the article is about and the topics it covers.--Matt57 01:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for those links, David. The way ItaqAllah used TOChidden in Islam and slavery amounts to censorship. In this case, it is as somoene would want people to read as less of a material as possible. Those are great shortcuts. We dont want them to be hidden. It destroys the navigation of the article. --Matt57 01:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
You have zero clue what you are talking about. DavidYork71 was the first and he used it elsewhere too. (→Netscott) 01:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
In any case, my original argument has been the above where I asked you to respond to the yes/no question.--Matt57 02:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I am beginning to think that it is utterly pointless to discuss with you this topic when you do not acknowledge your utterly incorrect non-AGF statement about "censorship". (→Netscott) 07:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Could you just be rational and respond to the simple yes/no question I asked above which has nothing to do with my acknowledging anything for this specific issue? By the way, the TOC already has a "Hide" link, so I really dont know why its good to make it hidden by default. This is bad design. People should hide the TOC in articles only THEY use mostly, e.g. maybe on their user pages. If you look at the template from a new comer's point of view, they would always want to see the TOC. --Matt57 11:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Great idea!

(if 'Show' is prominent enough)

I got to this page by searching for what I assumed would be a tiny Wiki code that would switch the TOC default to hide. In my case this wasn't for Wikipedia, but for a corporate site using the Wiki software—and I don't have access to the CSS or JS. The work-around is to manually insert non-wiki headings. Then, of course, the user doesn't get the option of a TOC, but for the material I'm working with, that's far better than a vertical TOC pushing the content off the screen. Imagine you go to a site with pull-down menus accross the top, and all the menus default to being pulled down. That's the cluttered visual feel the TOC can give. (After all, on a web page the TOC effectively is a menu.)

I think it should be a switch like <wikitoc-default hide/> at the top of the screen. If users don't get that they can show the TOC by clicking on it, that's a visual usability design problem, not a function design problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.20.98.115 (talk) 16:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)