Forum:SH:NOTOC usage

Forums > Senate Hall archive > SH:NOTOC usage
This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments or questions on this topic should be made in a new Senate Hall page rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. EcksBot (talk) 21:56, April 19, 2018 (UTC)

At the recent Mofference, a proposed rule on __NOTOC__ placement was rejected. From what I can see, we currently have absolutely no rules on NOTOC usage and this is an oversight that definitely needs to be corrected. Basically, there are two issues here:

  • When should NOTOC be used?
  • Where should NOTOC be placed?
    • Concerns were raised that placing NOTOC under the infobox will generate an extra blank line before the introduction.

For those who don't know, __NOTOC__ is a MediaWiki magic word that allows you to hide the Table of contents. Normally, a TOC is generated when a page has four or more second-level headings (== headings ==) Currently NOTOC is used on short pages that don't have any IU sections but a TOC is generated due to four OOU sections (Behind the scenes, Appearances, Sources, and Notes and references). People active on the CAN will likely have encountered this. 1358 (Talk) 04:44, March 4, 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Usage

I think the current practice of using NOTOC when only the four OOU sections mentioned above are present is working pretty well, but it could be argued that some CAs with a History section don't need a TOC either since the entire article is basically visible without needing to scroll at all. 1358 (Talk) 04:44, March 4, 2018 (UTC)

  • Another way of codifying its usage could be that it should only be used on articles under 200 words, with the exception of those where the majority of content is in the BTS, at which point it's up to user discretion. Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:37, March 4, 2018 (UTC)
    • Out of curiosity, why 200 words? 1358 (Talk) 21:31, March 5, 2018 (UTC)

This is still an open issue. Another idea would be to use NOTOC when only one "content section" is present, whether that be a Bts or History or whatever. Practically, this would mean that NOTOC would only be used when the Bts is the only present content section. (That is, in a status article. Some articles don't have a Bts yet but they do have a History section, in which case NOTOC would be acceptable until a Bts is written) 1358 (Talk) 18:35, March 15, 2018 (UTC)

  • I think NOTOC should only be used on status articles and/or articles being nominated for status. On any other article, TOC serves as just another motivator to expand the article. Imperators II(Talk) 23:29, March 15, 2018 (UTC)
    • I agree with eck's idea here, but not Imperators'. Surely Stub, Expand etc can motivate this?—Tommy-Macaroni Imperial Emblem (TAKE A SEAT) 20:35, March 17, 2018 (UTC)
      • I agree with Imperators. It's a useful motivator and also just structurally helpful for readers, IMO. I can understand wanting status articles to look sleeker so that's fair, but overall there's not really any compelling reason to remove a TOC so I'd keep it for all non-status articles. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 20:46, March 17, 2018 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure if having a different LG for status articles is something I want to see. I was smashing the random button and came across Chav tea and it's not a status article but I cannot see who would benefit from making the TOC visible on that page. The entire article is visible without any scrolling needed and showing a useless TOC isn't helpful imo. 1358 (Talk) 21:17, March 17, 2018 (UTC)

Placement

My suggestion is either above everything, even {{eras}}, or if integration into eras is possible, a |notoc=1 parameter would be pretty nifty. 1358 (Talk) 04:44, March 4, 2018 (UTC)

  • I like the idea of the Eras parameter if we can do that. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 07:45, March 4, 2018 (UTC)
    • Eras certainly seems the most preferable. Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:37, March 4, 2018 (UTC)
      • Placement wise, I prefer placing NOTOC right under Eras, but integrating it into Eras itself would be the ideal outcome. - AV-6R7Crew Pit 10:39, March 4, 2018 (UTC)
        • I've typically placed it right under eras. If we could integrate it right into eras, that would be the best solution imo. Supreme Emperor (talk) 16:34, March 6, 2018 (UTC)
          • Grunny has added a notoc switch to {{eras}} as a proof-of-concept and since people seem to agree on putting it in eras, that's probably what will be going into a future LG amendment. (don't start replacing them just yet, please) 1358 (Talk) 18:35, March 15, 2018 (UTC)
            • I also agree putting the functionality inside eras would be ideal. I don't know what the guys above are talking about, I've always put NOTOC just above categories. :P Imperators II(Talk) 23:29, March 15, 2018 (UTC)