Did I miss something? Why is T317818 closed? "a way for the table of contents to be set to collapsed or expanded based on a given page" is pretty far from "adding configurability options". Also no findings are summarized on the other ticket. Regards

@Sj, good question, I personally wouldn't bother, because the side-bar-TOC is out of content bounds anyways (one reason I don't like it) and making this 'too' configurable would add only workload, but no benefit as far as I see it. But I might miss something and I see the idea of limiting/configuring it, see my reasoning above. My main concerns (things lost compared to legacy Vector) are "printout", "using the TOC in full width" and "using on the right hand side of the page". All three points have benefits, I personally would not want to miss. Though I do understand, that they are mostly if not completely irrelevant for displaying encyclopedic content. But other projects and community pages will benefit greatly from such a behaviour (at least the way I see it). Just take a look at template TOC right, which is used on thousands of community pages alone on english wikipedia. Regads

Then I'll add my ideas: I would like FORCETOC and NOTOC to work like the old behaviour; TOC → shows the TOC as it was in legacy Vector. This might even make sense additionally to the new TOC. They both have their benefits. I really would like the common template TOCright to work. The TOC should be able to be printed out. At least on demand. Anybody saying that isn't possible, I need to ask: why did this work until recently with "hiding" the TOC by accident, as it seems(?). Best regards

Putting aside mixing "articles" and "chapters", you seem to be coming from the impression of "flaw of content" which you judge from the table of contents, correct? That's another topic in my opinion. And it only works for rather short articles. Try https://de.wikibooks.org/wiki/Julius_D%C3%B6pfner_und_das_Zweite_Vatikanische_Konzil and see, how useful the original toc and the new toc are there. And Btw: because of the default fold-in toc your argument would kind of work for the new toc on the given link as well, at least if you are not interested in clicking the little arrows. Though I'm not totally clear, when the toc is folded by default, because in the tennessee-link it's not. Best regards

How exactly can a user decide how many sections are displayed? Could you point to a help page describing this? Use wikibooks as an example, perhaps: https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/History_of_Tennessee/Indigenous_%22Tennessee%22_(to_1800)? Perfect example I think because when switching the skins to legacy vector the original intention of the author becomes quite obvious and the idea is totally lost in V22.

While reading up on the discussion about vector22 I ran across this Task because it was recommended to User:Yomomo. While reading the above description I noticed something I'd like to share. I wasn't sure where to add it, but I think as it's mentioned above, here should be fine. Feel free to move the comment to a more appropriate place. Notification in this case would be nice.

Hi everyone, I had an eye on here for a contributor in german wikibooks. I kept him informed about the progress and he published his tests there: https://test.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Score&type=revision&diff=477408&oldid=477110

Hi, I just discovered, that this also seems to happen when transcluding Special:recentchanges. Another thing: It doesn't happen consistently, sometimes (really rarely) it works, but I wasn't able to figure out, on what occasions. I'm working on de.wikibooks.org with firefox 87, Linux. Hope I'm in the right spot and this helps somehow. Regards

@Jdlrobson yes and yes. But I was able to check a little more: ubuntu 16.4/18.4/20.4 Firefox 84. At first it happened only in 16.4, I was pretty puzzled, because I couldn't think of a reason for this. then I realized this is the lowest resolution display: I'm working on different displays, so the scaling is different. I was able to reproduce it by setting the font size to 12 in firefox (needed for the low resolution display). The problem doesn't seem to occur, when working with font-size 16/18, but I was able to reproduce the problem on the Hi-Res Displays with setting the font-size to 12. I also tried on a Macbook with Firefox 78ESR setting font-size to 12: same effect. Regards