Replying to Forum:An update to the ImageTOC template to reflect more than one company name

So far, I like the ImageTOC change on the wiki, but its execution is pretty bad on some articles, specifically those where a company went through more than one name in its lifespan (e.g. 20th Century Studios was 20th Century Fox). When you take a look at the template, in order to make the links work, they have to exactly read what the section says. Because of this, there is an awkward and messy change in ordinals where 6, for example, goes to a section with no ordinals. What is also not helping is if the reader wants to go to a section starting with the company name rather than the logo section in order to guide themselves into which era they would like to read about. So, I have made this concept art to fix this awkward issue: [[File:ImageTOC Organization Concept.png|center]] As you can see from the chart, each logo that falls under the company name will be within a box next to another, both of which contain their logo names and are inside the same template. On the left examples, if there are two names that have multiple logos in their lifespan (or one has many and the other has just a few) then they should have their own rows. Otherwise, as the top right example shows, they should be on the same row if the number of logos under each name amount to a small value. The bottom right example is a similar case except Company Name C's amount of logos is merely A and B's amount combined, meaning the former should get its own row. Thoughts on my proposal? Is there anything that should change or is it fine without any further revisions?

I think this will work quite well, I'd like to see it in action before I form my final opinion

I actually like this idea, mainly beause it makes the article more organized and easier to navigate.

This is a wonderful idea. Makes navigation easier and is more in line with the normal TOC.

I agree with everyone else here. Better organized and easier to navigate.

To add onto my suggestion, this may seem minor, but the placeholder image for the ImageTOC (a picture of Dot) should be replaced with a more general one. People may not notice, but if this template appears on articles where one or more sections lack an image, than the Dot image will show and cause distractions.

Yeah, I don't really get using Dot as the placeholder image when a simple question mark or some other image would suffice.

I changed the placeholder image. What happened was that the original LP template used the dot.png filename, but on here a now blocked user uploaded the image of PBS Dot under that name for their user page

Closing and marking as {{Approved|successful}}! I think this is a great idea per everyone's reasoning!