I hope I'm not opening a can of worms or making a Frequently Rejected Suggestion, but I think that when you look at a Table of Contents, you should see just "Contents", not "Table of Contents". After all, you can tell it's a table. I've just checked several books in different fields, and their TOCs are headed simply "Contents" (or some slight variation).
Good point, sounds good to me. :-)
—
Frecklefoot |
Talk 19:19, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
I have no objection to this, but I think it should wait a week before the change is made since it isn't something that should keep changing, so I'd like to see if there is consensus on this first.
Angela. 21:05, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
With issues like this, you can pretty much guarantee that people won't start complaining (if they complain at all) until the change is implemented. Personally, I am in favour.
Pcb21|Pete 21:18, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
No objections here. [[User:Mike Storm|
Mike∞Storm]] 22:54, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Reasonable. General rule: keep it short when short is also clear and unambiguous.
Jallan 17:04, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Support. Short and sweet, less formal/techie.
Zoney 19:44, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
No real objections, but my own casual and unscientific perusal of books within my reach while I read this discussion revealed the following contradictory evidence:
"Table of Contents"
Dynamic HTML: The Definitive Reference, 2nd Ed.
SQL Instant Reference
Writing Excel Macros
Web Client Programming with Perl
"Contents"
Teach Yourself Java 2 Platform in 21 Days: Professional Reference Edition
"Contents at a Glance"
Domino 5 Web Programming with XML, Java, and JavaScript
Other
"Directory": Once Upon a Telephone: An Illustrated Social History
"List of Cicero's Works": Cicero XVI: De Re Publica / De Legibus
No title for TOC
The Decline and Fall of Practically Everybody by
Will Cuppy
No table of contents
The Mystery Science Theater 3000 Amazing Colossal Episode Guide
I admit to a bias toward programming texts and an odd non-fiction eclecticism, but I doubt anyone can say authoritatively that either "Contents" or "Table of Contents" is more prevalent. But who cares, as long as the intent is clear? And I definitely agree that brevity is desirable (by definition!) in the abbreviated TOCs. —
Jeff Q 15:05, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Interesting. I took a longer look through my office collection (mostly physics, some math, some education, and The TeXbook), and didn't find a single TOC headed "Table of Contents". I'm now working on a theory that only programming books, and not all of them, have a "Table of Contents" so labeled. Oh my gosh, found one! My employer's Student Handbook. Maybe I'll send someone an e-mail.--
JerryFriedman 16:56, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I'm implementing the change using {{MediaWiki:Toc}} in all the Templates like
Template:CompactTOC2.
I hope I'm not opening a can of worms or making a Frequently Rejected Suggestion, but I think that when you look at a Table of Contents, you should see just "Contents", not "Table of Contents". After all, you can tell it's a table. I've just checked several books in different fields, and their TOCs are headed simply "Contents" (or some slight variation).
Good point, sounds good to me. :-)
—
Frecklefoot |
Talk 19:19, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
I have no objection to this, but I think it should wait a week before the change is made since it isn't something that should keep changing, so I'd like to see if there is consensus on this first.
Angela. 21:05, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
With issues like this, you can pretty much guarantee that people won't start complaining (if they complain at all) until the change is implemented. Personally, I am in favour.
Pcb21|Pete 21:18, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
No objections here. [[User:Mike Storm|
Mike∞Storm]] 22:54, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Reasonable. General rule: keep it short when short is also clear and unambiguous.
Jallan 17:04, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Support. Short and sweet, less formal/techie.
Zoney 19:44, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
No real objections, but my own casual and unscientific perusal of books within my reach while I read this discussion revealed the following contradictory evidence:
"Table of Contents"
Dynamic HTML: The Definitive Reference, 2nd Ed.
SQL Instant Reference
Writing Excel Macros
Web Client Programming with Perl
"Contents"
Teach Yourself Java 2 Platform in 21 Days: Professional Reference Edition
"Contents at a Glance"
Domino 5 Web Programming with XML, Java, and JavaScript
Other
"Directory": Once Upon a Telephone: An Illustrated Social History
"List of Cicero's Works": Cicero XVI: De Re Publica / De Legibus
No title for TOC
The Decline and Fall of Practically Everybody by
Will Cuppy
No table of contents
The Mystery Science Theater 3000 Amazing Colossal Episode Guide
I admit to a bias toward programming texts and an odd non-fiction eclecticism, but I doubt anyone can say authoritatively that either "Contents" or "Table of Contents" is more prevalent. But who cares, as long as the intent is clear? And I definitely agree that brevity is desirable (by definition!) in the abbreviated TOCs. —
Jeff Q 15:05, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Interesting. I took a longer look through my office collection (mostly physics, some math, some education, and The TeXbook), and didn't find a single TOC headed "Table of Contents". I'm now working on a theory that only programming books, and not all of them, have a "Table of Contents" so labeled. Oh my gosh, found one! My employer's Student Handbook. Maybe I'll send someone an e-mail.--
JerryFriedman 16:56, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I'm implementing the change using {{MediaWiki:Toc}} in all the Templates like
Template:CompactTOC2.