Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/TOCright

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Wikipedia:Templates for deletion

Template:TOCright

  • Archived in
    Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Not deleted/July 2005


Absolutely not necessary, this is not the purpose of templates. If users want the TOC on the right hand side of the screen, they should edit their CSS file. Delete - it screwed up the

W. Mark Felt page and it looked awful! this is not the actual main reason why I want it removed: it's more that placement of a TOC should be a user preference. Default style should be sane - the way it is being used is clearly not. That said, if some like it by all means let them use it, however do not change the default style unless you decide to change the main default of Wikipedia. In other words: don't bypass it. - Ta bu shi da yu
4 July 2005 05:57 (UTC)

Can now see some articles that this might be useful for (
List of volcanoes). Wish to withdraw this, however others may want it deleted. I wish to make it perfectly clear, however, that in almost all cases it is inappropriate to use on normal articles. - Ta bu shi da yu
5 July 2005 03:54 (UTC)
  • Delete. Concur with TBSDY. Template appears to only work correctly in Internet Exploder anyway. I checked out the Ice age article; in Firefox, the template does nothing. In IE, it moves the TOC to the right as advertised. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 4, 2005 06:06 (UTC)
    • The template seems to function as advertised in Firefox 1.0.4, IE6.0, and Opera8. The HTML it produces seems to be valid, too. Perhaps you looked at the page in the period when TBSDY had blanked it? —HorsePunchKid→龜 July 4, 2005 07:14 (UTC)
      • This is true. I did, because it changed the default TOC style - that should be set in a style sheet. If this was wrong, sorry. Someone reverted back, which is fair enough I suppose. I have put the TFD tag back again. - Ta bu shi da yu 4 July 2005 08:13 (UTC)
        • Well, that's odd. I guess it works in Firefox. Someone must have reverted the template between my checks with the different browsers. Bad timing, is all. :-) My vote remains, however; layout should be consistent. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 4, 2005 18:01 (UTC)
  • Keep. If users believe "this is not the purpose of templates," or "it screwed up the W. Mark Felt page and it looked awful," they should simply not use it themselves.~ Neuroscientist July 4, 2005 06:52 (UTC) Edit - May I also add that the template fails to meet criteria for deletion: it is useful (especially to those users who don't know what CSS is, much less how to edit it, unlike your lordships) and it is used.~ Neuroscientist
    • Uh - if it effects the way I look at the page (as in, it messes up the default view), then it should be removed. Those who don't want this template inflicted upon them should not have to put up with it. And our default site look should not be compromised by these stupid tricks (because that is what it is). - Ta bu shi da yu 4 July 2005 07:58 (UTC)
      • Those who edit the page are entitled to edit for format as well as for content. If you don't like the format of a particualr page, yopu can change or try for consensus on the relevant talk page. Most users will not be able to do this with CSS changes, and the format change this provides is for thsoe users, IMO. DES 4 July 2005 23:07 (UTC)
        • So in other words, the small number of editors who don't like the current default, instead of using CSS to modify the layout of the page, force through a change that is NOT supported by consensus. And I am pushing a style change on them? The mind boggles! - Ta bu shi da yu 5 July 2005 02:09 (UTC)
  • Delete, concur with Tabu. Radiant_>|< July 4, 2005 08:12 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Tabu. This is not a matter of "it looks awful" so I shouldn't use it; this is changing the default layout for every user. If the individual wants the TOC to be on the other side, let them use CSS and leave it alone for everyone else. --
    khaosworks
    July 4, 2005 08:30 (UTC)
    • Very weak keep. On reflection, this may be useful in some articles, but being the paranoid soul that I am, I forsee possible abuse. I dread the edit wars to come when one side decides the layout is better if the TOC is on the right while another doesn't. Should sort this out in MoS. --
      khaosworks
      July 5, 2005 03:49 (UTC)
  • Limited Keep. The software gave us the __TOC__ tag in order to allow us to control how and where the TOC is placed. I can find nothing in the manual of style that says that right alignment is an inappropriate usage of that technical ability. As such the template seems permissible and at least some people find it useful. I take the fact it has existed for 7 months as suggesting that many of the places TOCright occurs, those communities are not actively objecting. That said, I agree with TBSDY that breaking with the standard appearance is problematic. I might well oppose right aligned TOC's if this were a manual of style discussion. Dragons flight July 4, 2005 09:05 (UTC)
  • Delete Weak Delete. Whether the TOC is left or right aligned should be decided on the
    Manual of style. --cesarb
    4 July 2005 09:29 (UTC)
  • Delete. I want space between the lead section and the article body, thanks. Fredrik | talk 4 July 2005 09:39 (UTC)
  • Strong keep If users want the TOC on the right hand side of the screen, they should edit their CSS file. That is not the point here. Some articles flow better and look better with the contents list on one side rather than the other. Do we have to change our CSS settings for every individual article? Do we have to leave a note at the top of some articles saying "Warning:Change CSS settings before reading this page"? Or do we simply use a template to do the job? As to problems with rendering with different software, IIRC one of the mantras of Wikipedia is so fix it. So... Grutness...wha? 4 July 2005 09:57 (UTC)
    • Changed from "keep" to "strong keep" after looking at some of the examples that TBSDY pointed out. 2 of the 3 looked fine, the third simply needed the position of an infobox changed. All would then have been far better than with an acre of white space down the right of the screen. Grutness...wha? 5 July 2005 02:40 (UTC)
  • Delete - Let's have some consistency. violet/riga (t) 4 July 2005 10:24 (UTC)
    • Keep. Changed my mind – can be used to good effect, but I hope it won't be overused. violet/riga (t) 4 July 2005 19:37 (UTC)
  • Keep -- It has been decided to allow selecting the placement of the TOC, so it's preferable to do this with a template (even one that calls CSS), rather than adding a table on each page.
    Obviously, the existence of the template doesn't require one to use it on every page nor does it mean that it should be used on the
    W. Mark Felt
    article. -- User:Docu
  • Absolutely not. This template completely defeats the purpose of having a standard wikipedia formatting. →Raul654 July 4, 2005 11:16 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Having the TOC on the right suits many articles. I don't care about consistency, what's right for that article is what matters. If you see an article that has TOCright on it and the presence of it cuts you to the very bone, making you cry tears of fiery rage because it's not in the same place as you think it should be, then
    t c
    4 July 2005 12:10 (UTC)
  • A prescription for disaster. Delete. JFW | T@lk 4 July 2005 12:41 (UTC)
  • Delete. There should be only one default TOC layout (apart from the option of collapsing it). If users are so determined to move TOCs around, then it is not unreasonable to expect them to learn how to do so. -Splash July 4, 2005 15:01 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fully trust TBSDY on this. JuntungWu 4 July 2005 15:42 (UTC)
  • Keep, I don't see why this template should be deleted, it is useful on lots of articles. Phoenix2 4th of July! 16:17 (UTC)
  • Delete. Should be user preference, and I rather have the articles consistent with the TOC on the left -- Chris 73 Talk July 4, 2005 16:31 (UTC)
  • Strong keep I agree with
    Proto and Grutness. Artiocles witha long TOC but not an overly wide one look better with the text flowing past, rather than a lot of white space taken up by the TOC. There isn't a prefernce setting to handle this currently, and editing the CSS is not a reasonable thing to ask of the average user -- and this template is to improve the reading experience for the users. DES
    4 July 2005 17:17 (UTC)
  • Comment - The votes here seem to be either delete so that TOC placement will be standard or keep to allow editor control of TOC placement in certain articles. IMO, unless there is a clear guideline in Wikipedia:Manual of Style for when the TOC should be on the right vs. the default any mechanism used within an individual article to put the TOC on the right is dubious. Even if this template is deleted, there is nothing preventing an editor from using other means to force the TOC to be on the right. My suggestion is that we keep this template for now, and resolve whether TOCs should be allowed to be placed on the right as a style issue. If we end up with a guideline for when right TOCs are permitted (and they're permitted more often than never) we should permanently keep this template. If the guideline is left TOCs only, then the template should have no uses and can be deleted. -- Rick Block (talk) July 4, 2005 17:47 (UTC)
  • Keep. I only recently discovered this template, and I like being able to choose where to put the TOC. Some articles look better with the template embedded on the right, which depends on the placement of the top photograph. Unformity of appearance isn't always a good thing: for example, it's sometimes good to have the top photo on the left, if the person is looking to the right, because photos are supposed to look toward the text, in order to draw the readers' eye to the text (because readers' eyes are known to follow the direction of people in photographs). Where you have the photo on the left, the template looks better on the right, especially embedded. These big gaps between the intro and the article don't always look good: publishers usually go to great lengths to avoid white space, and anyway there's no reason not to allow editors a small variation in layout. I've looked at this template with Firefox, Safari, and Netscape, and I haven't had any problems with it. SlimVirgin (talk) July 4, 2005 18:01 (UTC)
Comment: That is a good example, SlimVirgin, and since another user, Neuroscientist, suggested that "those who do not want this template should not have to have it forced upon them" is a weak argument, and since you make a good case for an example where the TOCright is necessary, I shall adopt your argument as part of mine. Thank you. See eg below.--GordonWattsDotCom 6 July 2005 06:58 (UTC)
  • Delete, existing formating works just fine and looks nicer. The original argument for this was that it reduces white space. A solution that didn't have a problem. Joe D (t) 4 July 2005 19:45 (UTC)
  • Keep. Having seen it used a couple of times, I find it makes articles easier to read. Jayjg (talk) 4 July 2005 19:47 (UTC)
  • Keep Articles look unimpressive when they welcome the reader with a few lines of text followed by a mass of empty white space. --Ian Pitchford 4 July 2005 19:58 (UTC)
  • Keep. Articles with long narrow TOCs flow better when there is not a screen or three of blank space between the lead and the rest of the text. This is a useful template when used wisely. --Allen3 talk July 4, 2005 20:00 (UTC)
  • Keep. -
    Talk:Intelligent Design
    page:
Correction: not ignored - not aware! - Ta bu shi da yu 5 July 2005 01:47 (UTC)
I think the opinion is fairly well divided. My issue with using some alternate to the standard form of TOC is three-fold:
1) If you dig into Talk:Intelligent design#false claims of vandalism you'll see where we successfully used TOC formating to help address the POV concerns of an Anon user. His opinion was that some rebuttal of ID MUST appear "above the fold", meaning on the inital screen. To do this without TOC formatting requires a rewrite of the intro that's already been fought with ID supporters. We originally used TOCembed, but it was left formatted, and many users couldn't stand it.
2) The TOC of ID needs to be longer than normal for navigation if the issues. Not everyone wants to read 10+pages. So to shorten the TOC too much may be a disservice to the readers.
3) You seriously prefer 3/4 of a screen of whitespace? Now it looks like a every newpaper in existence, so what's the hassle?
If you can't stand TOCright, give us a viable alternative. I don't think we should slash the size of the TOC too much. Should we use _TOC_ to move it beneath the fold?--ghost 4 July 2005 20:06 (UTC)
As you see, this isn't simply an issue of standardized appearence. This is also about if TOCs should be embedded at all, even if this is being done to control POV concerns. If we choose to remove this TOC control, we should remove all of them. At which point, we should provide a CSS tutorial in the Template:Welcome to gently teach the newbies how to set these options, as I never have. Otherwise, leave it in order to be gentle with the newbies.--ghost 4 July 2005 21:21 (UTC)
  • Comment (My vote above is to keep): The argument that "those who do not want this template should not have to have it forced upon them" is appalingly weak - the same can be said about virtually anything else (including left-sided TsOC). This may be defensible if there was a widely-held rule that right-sided TsOC are prohibited on Wikipedia (through, for example, the Style Manual). This is however not the case.
That is a good point, Neuroscientist; so, I shall add onto my argument. See eg below.--GordonWattsDotCom 6 July 2005 06:58 (UTC)
The important point is that there is little doubt that the right-sided TOC is useful for some articles, and the TOCright template simply makes it easier for editors - especially beginners who lack technical expertise - to affix a right-sided TOC in their articles. The proscription, that users who prefer a right-sided TOC for an article can just go learn CSS editing, and edit it for every page thank you very much, but shan't use a simple template because it's not the "default," is as appaling. What this amounts to is saying: "Yes, I know that there is nothing in the Wikipedia Style Manual that prohibits right-sided TsOC, and I know it's better for some articles, but I and a lot of others don't like how it looks (for various reasons, some better than others), and so we're going to make it harder for you to create one, even though it may indeed be better for the article." I do not find this a very commendable stance, and I'm not sure it accords with the spirit of a Wiki.
If a user comes across an article with a right TOC that he thinks is misapplied, there is a simple, widely-employed remedy. It's called editing the article and attempting to reach a consensus.
Finally, a move to delete a template has to satisfy requirements. This may be especially important with this particular template, which is currently in use in at least 130 articles, by my rough count.
Templates may be deleted
 if:
  • they are not helpful and noteworthy,
  • they are redundant,
  • they are not used.
None of these requirements are satisfied for the rightTOC template.~ Neuroscientist July 4, 2005 21:12 (UTC)
I dislike your implication that I added this to TfD without following template deletion criteria. I maintain that the template is not helpful, thus satisfying one of the criteria. Obviously I am not the only one who believes this. Others disagree, fair enough I suppose. However, if this template gets slapped onto any of the articles that I have worked on a great deal (like Windows 2000) I will need to review whether I will continue contributing to this site. I wish it didn't have to come to this over something like a "style" template, but if it becomes unnecessarily hard for me to edit a site then I must work out if there are better forums for me to contribute to. - Ta bu shi da yu 5 July 2005 01:52 (UTC)
My dear fellow, deciding whether working on a Wiki article is worth our time is a decision every single one of us makes, everytime we edit an article. You are perfectly welcome to leave if you think there are better fora than Wikipedia for your contributions. If you worked "a great deal" on an article, but find yourself compelled to leave because the Table of Contents is on the right side instead of the left side of the page, well, that decision is yours. Whether you leave, stay, edit, read, or do anything else has little relevance to the rightness or wrongness of deleting a template. That is a decision that must rest on the merits of the issue alone.
And in deciding the merits of the issue, reference must inevitably be made to the criteria for deletion. It does not concern me whether or how much thought you gave to the criteria. As an editor who has an interest in the issue, I'll reference the criteria myself - and if I think they have not been met, I'll point that out. I certainly don't think they have been met in the least. That the template is being used is not a matter of opinion - it is an empirical fact. That the template is not redundant, is not a matter of opinion - it is an empirical fact: there is only one rightTOC template, and it is the only one that does what it does. That the template is helpful is obvious for all to see: it may not be helpful to you, but that does not mean it is not helpful to other Wiki users - it demonstrably is, because so many of them are using it.~ Neuroscientist | T | C July 5, 2005 02:56 (UTC)
My dear fellow, I think you misunderstand that policy. There is no and in that list: there is merely an or. By my reading of it, not all the criteria must be fulfilled - if one criteria is objected to then the template may be listed here. Template:Substub was once listed validly. That was one on literally thousands of articles! As for my leaving: I am merely making my opinions known about how such a unilateral decision to change the default placement of the TOC - all without any discussion will potentially effect my decision to edit here!
I might note that Grutness has pointed out
List of volcanoes, and I would agree that this is a good idea on that page. However, this is only one example and should not apply to main articles. - Ta bu shi da yu
5 July 2005 03:40 (UTC)
On the contrary, you are quite incorrect.
Read the section
. It says, "Deletion of templates may be appropriate if the template does not conform to the following," whereupon the criteria are stated. There is no "or" anywhere in sight. It does not say "...may be appropriate if the template does not conform to any of the following." It says "...does not conform to the following," and then a list follows. "And" is the implicit operator.
Do note, however, that whether "and" or "or" is the operator, there is no prohibition to listing the template here, owing to the syntax of the sentence. I am not objecting to your listing it for deletion. I am telling you that it shouldn't be deleted because it fails each criterion for deletion. It is being used, it is not redundant, and, by your own admission, it is helpful to at least some editors and articles. The
List of volcanoes is not the only article where it is especially useful. There is an extensive "List of Schools" series to which the same applies. Not to mention the problems ghost pointed out above, to which I do not see any solution you've offered.~ Neuroscientist | T | C
July 5, 2005 05:32 (UTC)
  • 'Comment 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 04:19 (UTC)
    Can you point out where that occurs? All the articles that I see do not have any lines cutting the TOC. Can you also state what browser you are using? I have an idea that might fix it, but I need to know if it is maybe something that is only occuring with your own CSS. —Mike July 5, 2005 06:53 (UTC)
    That was in the Intelligent design article. I am using IE 6.0 at 1280 x 1024 pixels. I don't know what TBDY is suing, and he saw it too. DES 5 July 2005 16:07 (UTC)
    I added "background:inherit" to the style statement to hopefully correct it. If anyone finds that doesn't work, let me know. —Mike July 5, 2005 18:03 (UTC)
That article is an example of awful organization. If the article was written in proper summary style, the "Related articles & documents" list would be unnecessary because the TOC would take the reader directly to the relevant summary on the same page (which is better than sending the reader to a separate page) and the TOC would be significantly shorter because the details would be in the more specific articles. I can accept TOCright being used for lists which are inevitably long, but the problem here is with the article structure, and the use of TOCright misses the real problem. Fredrik | talk 5 July 2005 06:19 (UTC)
Then you are more than welcome to help us fix it. The reason that seperate pages were created is because of the overwhelming size of the article(s) and the stand-alone relevance of some of the subjects, such as the
Terri Schiavo is a controversial subject. The structure concerns you raise, while valid, are the result of compromise and debate by dozens of editors. And not all the editors play well with others.--ghost
5 July 2005 15:43 (UTC)
And not all the editors play well with others.Heh.~ Neuroscientist | T | C July 5, 2005 16:28 (UTC)
  • Delete. — Dan | Talk 5 July 2005 04:41 (UTC)
  • Keep I find it useful atleast once( which is enough) to make an article look better and more readable. All of the above comments about monobook.css fall short on two accounts. 1. Massive amounts of Anon readers. 2. WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?! is probably what quite a few people are thinking when you talk about monobook.css. I don't really use it, and I wouldn't be supprised if a lot of other people havn't the foggiest idea what it is either! 3. Rebuttal to consistency: If we don't have consistent spellings accross wikipedia, I think having inconsistent TOCs for better article readablility is just fine. But maybe thats just me.--Tznkai 5 July 2005 06:24 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, but it should be noted that I created it. Perhaps at least one advantage of having it listed here is that all the extra publicity will mean more people will be using it in the future! Optimism aside, it would be nice if the developers could include this feature in a future version of the software, and then this template could be removed at that time. I think it is rather silly for someone to assert the ability to use CSS as a reason to not use this template for these reasons: 1. The vast majority of users browsing this site won't be logged in and will only be using the default skin. This template was designed especially with these users in mind. 2. It is extremely difficult to get anyone to make corrections or additions to the default CSS for the skins on this website. The last time I tried this I only got a "don't complain, just change your own individual CSS" kind of response. 3. This template could be changed to be fully CSS driven, but only if those in authority would agree to making the necessary changes to the CSS in all the skins. Obviously individual users who write their own CSS and use MySkin will have to make changes as needed, if they want to see the right floating TOC. —Mike July 5, 2005 06:53 (UTC)
  • Comment Not everyone who contributes to Wikipedia knows or cares how to 'edit a CSS file'. I would imagine the number who do are in a vast minority; usually the people who know how to make templates do so, however, and so their presence is more noticeable on pages like this. I think this was addressed earlier. 'They should just edit their CSS file' is the lamest reason for ditching a useful template, ever.
    t c
    5 July 2005 08:47 (UTC)
  • keep with guidelines for usage (i.e. not without good reason). Is there a template to make the TOC float left, thereby avoiding the blank space to the right of it without breaking the convention as much? Rd232 5 July 2005 11:13 (UTC)
  • Very weak keep --AI 5 July 2005 11:58 (UTC)
  • keep as per Rick Block --MarSch 5 July 2005 15:34 (UTC)
  • Just noting that Ta bu shi da yu has taken this conversation over to Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Template:TOCright. —Mike July 5, 2005 18:20 (UTC)
  • Delete This template more than most others seems a way for a user to foist their own personal subjective preference for article organisation on the majority; perhaps irrespective sometimes of whether it might suit an article? Some users seem to prefer TOCright on all articles, reading discussion above seems to suggest some feel it benefits certain articles. Ian Pitchford comments above to state it improves articles but I assert this is subjective and thus better handled by an end-user CSS file if one feels strongly about it being generally "better". Admittedly, I'm newer than some users here but the arbitrary insertion of this template on a page I'd updated from a stub and carefully organised was simply bewildering to me village pump musing. Personally, I didn't think it was an improvement myself but didn't feel too strongly to revert. The wholescale insertion of the template across articles by some users points to a clear preference surely? On that basis a CSS file seems better as sole option. Note: As personal courtesy I'll also comment to Ian's Talk page shortly per my mention of him. Whitehorse1 | April 25 2024 22:24 (UTC)
    • Any edit to an article "foists" the editor's views on subsequent readers, any formatting choice "foists" that format on readers. Why is this choice mor evel than other choices? Also I haven't seen anyone say that this style should be used on all or even most articles. Ian Pitchford wrote Articles look unimpressive when they welcome the reader with a few lines of text followed by a mass of empty white space. This sounds to me as if it applied specifically to articles with short lead sections, and long, narrow TOCs. If so I agree that such articles are good candidates for floating TOCs. OTOH, articles with short or wide TOCs are IMO not good candidates, and there are other features which may make a floating TOC work poorly in a particular case. No style or editing tool is appropriate for every article, surely. Reforctoring an article that someone else has worked extensively on (surely appropriate under the Be Bold standard) could well seem "arbitrary" and "bewildering" to another editor. That is the danger of a cooperative project where no one owns any article.DES 5 July 2005 20:26 (UTC)
      • Then the lead section should be sorted out and the TOC shortened. That is the real problem. - Ta bu shi da yu 5 July 2005 23:38 (UTC)
      • DES, I didn't say he (or anyone else) stated "[that] style should be used on all or even most articles". However, I believe his contributions page - to further use him as an illustrative example, certainly gives clear evidence to reasonable doubt at least from his inserting it as sole change to many articles, that it is his preference for most or all articles? I've no principle of objection nor should I have to significant revision of any article I might work on, incidentally. The discussion Mike linked just above is also interesting. Whitehorse1 | April 25 2024 22:24 (UTC)
        • I just looked at
          TOCright}} on various articles. I found far more edits, both before and after, of articles that don't use TOCright. I didn't look at every edit in his history, there are far too many. But I don't think the evidence supports a suggestion that this user effectively wishes to transform every article to the TOCright style, nor that he is doing little or nothing but insertign that template widely and without makign other contrabutions. Perhaps i am misreading the evidence. Perhaps you would care to supply a list of articles on which you feel that TOC right has been oddly or wantonly inserted? In any case the behavior of one editor does not have much to do with the merits of the template, IMO. DES
          6 July 2005 06:44 (UTC)
  • Delete — I argue for keeping it because it can be useful in a very limited number of cases. However, I argue for deletion because those limited number of cases can be done manually in the article. Deletion would better serve the community to limit the over-use of beaking with a left aligned TOC. --metta, The Sunborn 5 July 2005 18:52 (UTC)
  • Keep as this is useful for the presentation of some articles. There also are tools for adjusting the presentation of images, tables, and other details. Sometimes you don't want 2000-pixel-wide-images in an article, and sometimes you don't want 20 short lines of TOC interrupting an article. (SEWilco 5 July 2005 19:02 (UTC))
  • Info The use of floating TOC's is now being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Template:TOCright This discussion might eventually lead to a consensus of how and when to use the formatting tools. DES 5 July 2005 19:25 (UTC)
    • Mike already linked that page, above. :P To clarify he linked a broader discussion on floating TOCs but it links to the {{TOCright}} talk page you linked, too. He iterated above that he was the Wikipedian who originally created the template as well. Whitehorse1 | April 25 2024 22:24 (UTC)
  • ANNIHILATE! —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason July 5, 2005 23:30 (UTC)
  • Keep - This template may prove useful, and if some editor doesn't like it, then he or she simply may not use it. This is the philosophy of the inclusionist, which I am. UPDATE: I read Neuroscientis's comments that "The argument that 'those who do not want this template should not have to have it forced upon them' is appalingly weak - the same can be said about virtually anything else..." ~ His argument is good, and I have read SlimVirgin's explanation above that sometimes you might need a Table of Contents on the right when the photo is best on the left. This is the example that I knew existed but couldn't think of. Therefore, my vote to KEEP is supported by the arguments of these to editors above.--GordonWattsDotCom 6 July 2005 02:04 (UTC)
  • Comment (My vote above is to keep): I misread Neuroscientist's post, and wish to apologize to all the readers here. The argument that he was challenging, "'those who do not want this template should not have to have it forced upon them," was actually an argument that the "delete" side might use; However, I (mis)read it to mean that the "keep" side might say that "those who DO want to keep this template should not have to have it deleted, since it's not really harming anything." Yes, I know I looked like a moron, but, hey, we all make mistakes, and I shall keep my comment, because, after all, prompted me to improve my edit; it's kind of late, and I've been up too long to concentrate. Well, that's all. Take care, and happy voting! (TOCright rocks; it rolls; TOCright rules!)--GordonWattsDotCom 6 July 2005 07:07 (UTC)
  • Comment (Already voted keep) Remember, there are more anon readers who don't/can't/won't fiddle with settings than knowledgeable wikipedians who do/can/will.--Tznkai 6 July 2005 18:19 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep I agree with Grutness's reasoning on this one.
    Inigmatus
    July 6, 2005 22:05 (UTC)
  • Keep. There is a valid use for the templates, and that is to improve the visual friendliness of Wikipedia, which is what sets it apart from reading dull scholarly journals. That said, they need to be implemented carefully, and I suggest that this is settled through the Style Manual Talk page. --Titoxd 7 July 2005 03:14 (UTC)
  • Keep - useful layout option - David Gerard 7 July 2005 09:58 (UTC)
  • Keep - some articles really needs it because it can give it a neat presentation. - microtony 7 July 2005 16:35 (UTC)
  • Keep, obviously. That's the consensus as of 8 July anyway, but here's my reasoning. The point of {{
    TOCright}} is to make it easier to get an effect that looks good on certain pages. It shouldn't be used everywhere, and it isn't — it's only used where it makes sense, just like the image-floating markup, the ---- markup, and the rest of the Wikipedia layout shortcuts. VfDing it makes no sense. --Quuxplusone
    8 July 2005 18:26 (UTC)
  • Keep - the existing default location of the TOC can disrupt the flow of articles. Placing the TOC to one side allows the reader to read the text in a linear fashion or quickly locate a particular section, rather than having to look at every section name before reading. The default setting is the equivalent of forcing a list of chapters into the face of a book-reader before they've even reached the first page.
    McPhail
    8 July 2005 22:41 (UTC)
TOCright vote as of 5 July 2005 21:27 (UTC)
Keep = 24
Delete = 14
Have we resolved anything?--ghost 5 July 2005 21:29 (UTC)
Not yet, too soon. --cesarb 5 July 2005 21:32 (UTC)
Concur it's too soon - if I may (being a non-admin). Whitehorse1 July 6, 2005 01:36 (UTC)
I would be more inclined to accept that "it's too soon" if the template had not already been reviewed, voted on and kept in the recent past, as ghost pointed out earlier. The editor who tabled this TfD says he had been unaware of the earlier decision before ghost pointed it out. Fair enough. But why then is this re-vote being continued, now that the earlier decision has been brought to our attention? And especially since a large majority is trending in precisely the same direction as the original vote? If this one also ends in a "keep" decision, should we expect a similar circus next week? Or are our decisions to have any meaning at all?
If this is to continue (beyond all reason), can we at least prospectively set a limit (temporal or otherwise) so that cries that "it's too soon" do not smack of a conflict-of-interests?~ Neuroscientist | T | C July 6, 2005 01:47 (UTC) Edit: Whitehorse, your time stamp templates aren't working - they're registering the same time for all your posts, and are also affecting users who post after you. May I remove them until you sort it out.~ Neuroscientist | T | C July 6, 2005 01:47 (UTC)
Someone pointed this out on my Talk page earlier - I thought I'd solved it though clearly haven't. Neuroscientist, not sure if by 'remove' you mean editing this page and removing the time stamp text from any comments I made and signed or some admin magic to bulk remove all timestamps. If poss. please clarify on my Talk page, will be online for a while.
Believed solved. Will sign this with four tildes, if working should link to my Talk page and date comment - edit time *properly* without updating after the fact. See also my Talk page if required. Whitehorse1 6 July 2005 03:20 (UTC)
Please point to previous diff. Also, might be worthwhile noting this on the talk page, else others will have no idea. - Ta bu shi da yu 6 July 2005 02:47 (UTC)
We have resolved that there is no majority in favor of deletion. Almost two-thirds of users feel that this template is useful, at least in certain, limited ways. Personally I am happy with it existing provided the MoS is updated to specify when it is acceptable, and I see this is being done. It seems that many other users are of a similar mind. It also seems like most users do not think this template should be widely used; it should not be the default. —Morven July 8, 2005 06:16 (UTC)

Keep Preview

Max E|C 05:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

TOCRight vote as of July 8, 2005 19:50 (UTC)
Keep = 32
Delete = 14
This counts cesarb's "weak delete" as delete, and Ta bu shi da yu's wish to withdraw the motion to delete as a vote to keep.Vote update~ Neuroscientist | T | C July 7, 2005 19:45 (UTC)Update~ Neuroscientist | T | C July 8, 2005 19:50 (UTC)

I take it that the proposer's withdrawal of a motion to delete effectively stops the vote; there is a discussion going on at the Style Manual Talk page that may settle the matter through the rule book (or lead to a new round of the festivities).~ Neuroscientist | T | C July 6, 2005 16:32 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Others may wish to delete this. Now I think of it, it would be best to let this run its course. - Ta bu shi da yu 7 July 2005 04:11 (UTC)
What a meaningless exercise... I don't think I've ever seen a more haphazard motion to delete. This vote is being run while ignoring an earlier precedent, it has not met deletion criteria, it has no basis in a MOS rule, it has no prospectively determined stop time, it was withdrawn, and then it was "unwithdrawn." The only thing that is clear from this exercise is that 100% more voters want to keep it than delete it (28 to 14).~ Neuroscientist | T | C July 7, 2005 04:51 (UTC)
My uderstanding is that by default TfD debates last for seven days. I presume that is the normal "prospectively determined stop time". I take it that TBDY changed his personal vote, but it is not clear that he 'withdrew" the nomination. I agree that it seems very unlikely that any consensus to delete will happen here, and I urge anyone who has followed this debate to read and comment on the discussion on the Style Manual Talk page. DES 7 July 2005 14:43 (UTC)
Like I say, hadn't seen this. If the vote is going to keep, then what is the problem? It won't happen again because of this subarticle, and because we can note it on the talk page of the article. - Ta bu shi da yu 7 July 2005 15:34 (UTC)
DES & Ta bu shi da yu, my concern is for fairness. This is, really, a small issue, so I don't think any of us is really upset or anything; I'm just trying to ensure that there is at least a token gesture to doing things right. Re the 7 day thing, I was not aware that this was a standard rule (which is why I asked, above); if it is, excellent. Re withdrawl, this is the note TBSDY wrote at the top of this page:
Can now see some articles that this might be useful for (List of volcanoes). Wish to withdraw this, however others may want it deleted.
That means he is withdrawing the motion to delete. There will always be people who want it deleted and people who want it kept, but for the vote to proceed the motion must be tabled. Finally, as I've pointed out before, while the criteria do not forbid tabling the motion, they do indicate that there are no grounds for deleting the template, because it defeats all criteria for deletion. If for whatever reason the template is deleted, then it will be done in contravention of the criteria - nothing new, I suppose, but there you go.~ Neuroscientist | T | C July 7, 2005 16:30 (UTC)
Keep This template provides added flexibility and one more way to improve the appearance and organization of a page. It will of course be up to each contributor's subjective sense of what looks good to ultimately decide when to include it or not. In general, it is my view that the more control and more options the user has, the better the overall quality of the design. We should also consider the fact that floating elements to the right side of a page (pictures, tables, etc.) was including in the HTML specification for a reason -- and in other publishing tools. The reason is that there are times when you need this option to perfect a layout. Providing our users with a limited set of tools will only frustrate them and weaken our ability to present nice looking pages. -asx- 18:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, See school counselor as a good example also. I had trouble getting the picture just right, and moving the TOC helped alot.whicky1978 18:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal

It seems there are very few people voting here who believe the template should never be used or widely used, rather it should be available in various special cases. Would people still have a problem with this template if before it could be used on an article it had to be proposed and justified on the talk page and only added to the article when people agree that it's justified? (I know, I know, more bureaucracy, but it needn't be a complicated system, and would save a lot of hastle in the long run I recon.) Joe D (t) 9 July 2005 00:02 (UTC)

  • I don't agree with the above idea, not as long as major edits for both content and format can be and are made without discussion. If someone isn't sure, they can choose to discuss on a talk page. If someone objects to the usage, consensus should be sought on the proper talk page. This is just the same as for any other editing dispute. In any case, this sort of proposal would be better discussed as part of the now ongoing MOS discussion, linked to above. At least one person there thinks we are ready to make an actual change in the MOS endorsing the sue of floating TOCs under some circumstances. DES 04:20, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Good Example of Right-Aligned TOC

Here is a good example of a right aligned TOC. Preview this page with the default TOC and you will see how much worse it is. This demonstrates very well the importance of letting the user control the placement of the TOC.

-asx- 19:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Archived in
    Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Not deleted/July 2005
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/TOCright&oldid=1146768705"