Users of screen readers expect the table of contents to follow the introductory text; they will also miss any text placed between the toc and the first heading." AmericanLemming ( talk ) 23:23, (UTC) Trailing punctuation, again What about punctuation marks in the following sentences. which is the name of a product: In 1997, amd introduced 3DNow! The introduction of this technology. Let's assume rephrasing isn't an option, as this is only an example for defining what to do in such cases. Would this be an option: In 1997, amd introduced "3DNow!". But again, what if a paragraph has multiple instances of such a case? quot;ng "3DNow!" each time would be somehow. — dsimic ( talk ) 02:56, (UTC) Just 3DNow!
Write a sentence for each word / phrase
Imo, it would definitely be inappropriate to have a toc floated harvard to the right sitting underneath an infobox, and definitely inappropriate when it forces the toc to appear beyond the lead to appears as if it is in one of the sections (in the case. Hwy43 ( talk ) 08:29, (UTC) As things stand I'd like to thank everyone who has commented on kdp my proposal, namely @ InedibleHulk, @ Knowledgekid87, @ Blueboar, @ Hwy43, @ Benkovitz, @ Doniago, @ wavelength, and @ hoary. I guess I proposed the addition thinking that it would be a fairly simple matter, but I think i didn't completely understand the issue at the time. You all have helped me to understand that the reason the toc is on the left because that's the default setting, and that there's nothing wrong with having it on the right. At this point in time i don't know if it's really necessary to add a guideline to the relevant subpage, and if I were to do so, i would first need to make surely i fully understand the wiki mark-up associated with floating the toc. (For example, i find it confusing that there is a difference between the default setting (having the toc on the left) and floating the toc left.) Again, i am grateful for your feedback, and I think i will study the issue more in depth before. AmericanLemming ( talk ) 23:48, (UTC) Addendum : Actually, there is a guideline on the position of the toc; it can be found on the subpage on the lead section. It states "The table of contents (TOC) automatically appears on pages with more than three headings. Avoid floating the table of contents if possible, as it breaks the standard look of pages. If you must use a floated toc, put it below the lead section in the wiki markup for consistency.
The book - an intelligent one, aside from the newly introduced claptrap on grammar and usage - is shot through with alternatives and invitations to use one's intelligence and override general guidelines where it is beneficial to. Additionally, what's likely to be a powerful reason why tocs are largely on the left is that this is simply where they are automatically generated (which, incidentally, is fine with me). Plenty of editors preferring them on the right for some reason (or even for no particular reason, just as they're normally on the left for no particular conscious reason) may not be bothered to locate and digest the recipe for moving them or may not. hoary ( talk ) 05:24, (UTC) Actually, i think there's a good reason why the tocs are on the left by default. Many articles have objects such as images and infoboxes that float on the right. Many of these continue below the introductory section and some are quite long (for example, see margaret xmas Thatcher ). It makes sense not to force the reader to scroll past all of that to get to the toc. Even if there is white space between the toc and infobox, it's a good visual separator between the lede and the main content. — sroc 07:47, (UTC)The observation that started this thread was a floating toc on the right, but stacked next to (left of) images/infoboxes.
If they argue over it (a rare event then let the side with the more convincing arguments win. As it is, i see no convincing argument above for enforcing a left-hand toc. The request starts in order to maintain consistency across wikipedia and affirm long-standing practice with no argument for either consistency or conservatism, which seem touted as virtues in themselves. The other voices largely echo the praise for consistency without saying why consistency here is helpful to anyone. Perhaps oddest: It's about a somewhat arbitrary choice of formatting, where consistency is important—the main concern of style manuals. Is consistency important as witnessed by the existence of ( inter alia ) a university of Chicago Press hardback grimoire of consistency? No, not least because "Chicago" makes no fetish of consistency, which is not its main aim. It does give you pretty clear prescriptions for the use of, say, en dashes; but then these are likely to be used in quantity.
Write an algebraic expression for each word phrase
I would accept that option, but still only reluctantly, because there are very many things that can be added essays to the already large page. Can you imagine what would happen if every addition were added as requested by an editor who considers his or her addition to be at least as important as the others? — wavelength ( talk ) 22:49, (UTC) Hmm, i see your point. Maybe we should just add a subsection to the layout subpage, then, and leave the main mos page alone? AmericanLemming ( talk ) 01:36, (UTC) That sounds perfect. — ben kovitz ( talk ) 07:27, (UTC) ( WP:thread ) It might be all right to add it there ( if it is deemed to be important enough but I suggest that you open a discussion about it at wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/layout, with.
— wavelength ( talk ) 03:56, (UTC) I warmly agree with Blueboar's sensible comment above. I can't immediately think of many overwhelmingly powerful reasons for putting the toc on the right, but I do remember having put it there and not out of mere capriciousness or the pleasure of getting up the nose of some wiki-cop. In List of photographers, for example, it's now on the left but would require less scrolling on a tablet if it were instead floated on the right, which is where i'd move it right now if it weren't for the minor risk that I'd then. Look, the toc goes near the top, on the left or the right. If you don't see it in one place you'll see it in the other - it's not as if (like a "featured article" logo) it's something you d) have to search for. Let it go where editors want to put.
To my mind that's non-intuitive. DonIago ( talk ) 19:43, (UTC)The main page of the manual of Style is already very large, and I prefer that it not contain a guideline about the position of the table of contents. A more convenient page for that guideline ( if it is deemed to be important enough) is wikipedia:Manual of Style/layout, to which wikipedia:Manual of StyleSection organization has a link. — wavelength ( talk ) 19:45, (UTC) I would be fine with that. Seeing as the layout subpage doesn't currently have a subsection under which my proposed guideline would fit, i think we would have to add one.
Also, i think it would be worthwhile to add a sentence like "For guidelines on the position of the table of contents, see the layout subpage" to the end of the first paragraph of section.2. That way it would be easy to find. AmericanLemming ( talk ) 19:54, (UTC) I consider the link that is already there to be sufficient as a directional aid. — wavelength ( talk ) 20:46, (UTC) Well, earlier in that paragraph it says see wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. Is there any reason why we can't put see wikipedia:Manual of Style/layoutTable of contents at the end of that particular paragraph? AmericanLemming ( talk ) 21:00, (UTC) It can be put in that same sentence and in the same italicized form, immediately after the wikified phrase "table of contents".
40 Useful, words and
Cheers, Hwy43 ( talk ) 10:08, (UTC) vegetarianism I took a look at that, but the top of the page says "This page explains the syntax of these elements." It's more of a page about what can be done with wiki markup than what should. AmericanLemming ( talk ) 19:22, (UTC) This does sound to me like the sort of guideline that belongs in mos. It's about a somewhat arbitrary choice of formatting, where consistency is important—the main concern of style manuals. Possible alternative to "a compelling reason "a special reason". — ben kovitz ( talk ) 01:10, (UTC) I don't seem to be hearing a clear consensus from other editors on whether or not a guideline should be added, and, if so, what that guideline should. Perhaps I should start a rfC on the matter? AmericanLemming ( talk ) 19:25, (UTC) I would support the addition of a guideline. I don't really know of a good reason to have the toc on the right.
guideline could help clear things. How about "The table of contents may be floated left or right, but general practice is to have it floated left (the default setting? AmericanLemming ( talk ) 04:48, (utc instruction Creep. This is one of those things that editors can decide all on their own, without a "rule" (or even guidance) to tell them what. Blueboar ( talk ) 05:30, (UTC). But the toc is one of the most visible aspects of an article, and the vast majority of the time it is floated left. Thus, when I first saw a fl that had a toc floated right, i wasn't sure if that was a mistake or if it was put their by choice. AmericanLemming ( talk ) 05:44, (UTC) I wonder if there is awareness that a guideline (of sorts) already exists. Has Help:SectionFloating the toc been reviewed?
A good, clear reason is a compelling travel one. But what reason could there be to move the toc to the right? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:20, january 7, 2014 (utc well, i asked that question at list of municipalities in Manitoba, and I was told that it "avoids the unnecessary white space that comes with the default left-aligned toc format, and allows the entire toc, or as much. AmericanLemming ( talk ) 04:27, (UTC). InedibleHulk (talk) 04:31, january 7, 2014 (utc i don't really see any big deal with it, an essay i could see working as advice but a guideline seems a bit too much here. Knowledgekid87 ( talk ) 04:38, (UTC). However, i saw a toc floated right and wondered whether or not the mos says anything on it, which it currently doesn't.
Phrases for, top-Notch Essays
Contents, adding a guideline on the position of resume the table of contents. I propose adding a guideline that states whether the table of contents should be floated left or right. The vast majority of articles have it on the left, while very few have it on the right. I think there's a couple of cases where having on the right works better than having it on the left, but there aren't very many. Thus, in order to maintain consistency across wikipedia and affirm long-standing practice, i suggest adding something along these lines to the end of the first paragraph of section.2 (Article titles, sections, and heading: Section organization The table of contents should be floated left unless. "Compelling" might be too strong, i suppose. Perhaps "clear "good or something else along those lines? AmericanLemming ( talk ) 20:20, (UTC). I don't see a problem with "compelling".