Help talk:Introduction to tables with Wiki Markup/1

Help:Wikitable

Help:Wikitable (most recent version) was redirected to this page (MfD, decision: "Redirected to Help:Table/Introduction to tables. The content will remain in the history, if there's anything someone wants to merge.")

I don't think any merging has been done - just noting it here in case it's useful, and so the existence of the old page is not forgotten. --Chriswaterguy talk 02:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Introduction to tables/2

It would be helpful to have the sample table, shown here in layout format, actually shown as it would appear. As is, it is not clear what exactly is text and what is formating instruction.--174.7.56.10 (talk) 01:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Sortable and collapsible?

I am working on the Dead Sea Scrolls article. Does anyone know if it is possible to create a table that's both sortable and collapsible? Mercy11 (talk) 12:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Possible other sections

The tabs currently present are just the ones that Ironholds completed when he first made the page in 2012.

• Intro
• Creating tables manually
• Sortable tables
• HTML

At the same time were created stub pages for the following, though they were never completed and have now been deleted:

• Collapsible tables
• Colour
• Creating a table
• Other formatting
• Table placement

The above list is probably a bit too much detail, but if people have opinions for what the important topics to add the current set could be expanded. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 08:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Having though about it, I reckon 'HTML' should be renamed to 'advanced formatting', since that's the important part. We should also have a section on tools to convert spreadsheet data (e.g. CSV) to wikimarkup, since that'll be a pretty common requirement. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 10:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

NB: add Wikipedia:Advanced table formatting to eventual summary tab.

"Dumbing down" of guide

@Evolution and evolvability: why are you removing lots of necessary detail from this guide? You're making more difficult to follow if anything, these details are very necessary to explain. Please stop from removing details, which in my view are very necessary. Also moving the basic markup to page 4 makes no sense to me. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 12:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I'll stop editing for the moment whilst we discuss. I've been trying to bring it into line with the level of detail of other "introduction to" pages. A lot of the information was repeated on multiple sections, and much of it was superfluous to a new user's understanding of how to actually use of format a table. In the same way the intro to pages for references or editing don't explain how heading wikimarkup is really a set of HTML formatting. I reckon that that level of detail is better left to the more detailed help pages (e.g. Help:tables, Wikipedia:Advanced table formatting, Help:HTML_in_wikitext#Tables). What are your thoughts on what the intro to table pages should cover? T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 13:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I think it is best explained if we examine what's happened here:

1: too short on details for my liking. Why make the intro so short?

2: it is confusing to show alternate table formatting without some rudimentary explanation of basic markup, which has been moved to page 4.

3: No changes here really.

4: this table is too late in the explanation. Also no examples on that page, the user would have to flick between page 2 and 4 to see how these examples are used in practice.

5: Now I originated the "HTML and tables" section. The basic idea was to fully explain how HTML attributes are inserted into tables. Now you've removed some of the details, which as a new user I found extremely confusing. There is no explanation of inserting HTML attributes on single lines with multiple contents. There is no explanation of adding HTML attributes with contents on new lines. The purpose of this section has been subverted. You're adding other HTML attributes, which I feel is unnecessarily for this section as it complicates things. I deliberately used a single attribute to keep things simple. These should be added to a new section at the very least.

--Jules (Mrjulesd) 14:10, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback Jules, I appreciate the thought you've put into it. A actually agree with a lot of it so I'll also respond point-by-point.

1: I'd intended it to be vaguely inkeeping with Intro to images and editing pages, providing a basic background for someone almost entirely unfamiliar with what to do (e.g. new editor only wants to add a single table)

2&4: I agree that sections /4 and /2 should be merged. I was aiming at a user that may just want to change a single cell in an existing table, or add a new, simple table. However, you're right that the information does fit logically together. The reason that I think that explanations of the individual components should be after the whole table, is that a lot of newcomers to markup edit by pattern recognition, rather than understanding the functions of the elements, e.g. a lot of people add a table row by copy-pasting a the one above and editing it.

5: I think this section was a bit too long and detailed before. My aim was to remove some of the alternative equivalent formatting options to do the same thing, to show what markup to use, even if you don't understand it's function. E.g. ! HTML | header1 makes it look like you literally write "HTML" (oldID). For people that just want to colour in some table cells but have no knowledge of HTML, I had intended to make it more fool-proof. That all said, I realise that maybe it swung too far into oversimplification, and a middle ground could be found!

Your help here is really helpful. It's easy for a page with too few contributing editors to end up skewed by one person's angle. I hope at least now it's clear what content level I was attempting so that we know whether we disagree over the aims or implementation! Let me know what you think of my suggestions.

As a final note, I think the only remaining sections really need to still be added are placement (inc. floating and collapsing, parhaps as the new section/4) and a final summary (inc. links to the more thorough help pages). T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 11:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

1 I see: you're trying to make all the guides look the same. And making it worse as a result.

2&4: I'm glad you see your mistake. How about just changing them back to how they were?

5: how the heck were they too long and detailed before? They were about one issue: how to insert HTML attributes into content, headers, captions, tables and rows. And to remove details of this is going to cause confusion. This is a BASIC TOPIC that is FUNDAMENTAL TO TABLE CONSTRUCTION. Introducing further attributes is a MORE COMPLEX TOPIC that is explained in great detail at Help:Table. JUST REDUCING THINGS BECAUSE THEY "LOOK TOO LONG" is not a good way to approach these issues at all. I included HTML in the descriptions because this is what the section is about: ADDING HTML ATTRIBUTES.

Look this guide has been built up over a long period of time, and reflects consensus and the input from a good many editors. How about just reversing these changes and starting again. For major overhauls you need build consensus otherwise you're just going to piss people off. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 12:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that you feel the guide has been made worse through my edits. It's not so much that I was trying to make the pages simply look the same, but rather to provide similar levels of detail and aimed at similarly new editors. Either way, hopefully it will be possible to improve upon both the version present before I started editing, and the current version. The reason that I think the previous version of the HTML section (oldID) needed some improvements were the following:

• Hidden comments (uncommon) introduced before colour formatting (more common)
• The first paragraphs of how to add HTML attributes to cell content were repeated from previous sections
• I think that markup such as ! HTML | header1 adds an unnecessary step of understanding what should be written in place of "HTML", whereas ! style="" | Header C1 more clearly links in with the different style parameters listed just after which all work in the same way. I'm happy to split it into two steps with background example first, then color, text-align & width.

Although the intro to tables guide was built up over a long period of time, I'm not sure it reflected a final consensus position. When I started editing them in November, 5 of 9 sections were blank, the enhanced editing toolbar has been the default for some time, some headers were capitalised, the series had no end summary and abruptly ended, had repeated sections so I thought it could do with some attention and improvements. I think that it's not really worth starting over again, since adding older info back in deliberately will give an opportunity to think again about what needs to be explained unless my opinion is in the minority. I agree that it'll be good to get some other perspectives on the content though. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 12:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Deciding on tutorial content

It would be good to decide on what we think the content of the tutorial should be and its target audience.

The table below is a hopefully useful quick reference to the versions pre-November vs now (December).

pre-Nov	Dec
Introduction to tables	Introduction to tables
Creating tables manually	Inserting new tables
Sortable tables	Sortable information
Table placement (blank)	Positioning and layout (to come)
HTML and tables	Advanced formatting (HTML)
Creating a table (blank)
Collapsible tables (blank)
Colour (blank)
Other formatting (blank)
	Summary (to come)

My opinions on the previous pages are in the discussion above. I'd be useful to have other editor's opinions on the following:

• What level should these tutorials be pitched at
• Is it worth trying to have consistency between Intro to tutorials
• What level of detail should be in a tutorial vs a full help or policy page (e.g. Help:table, Help:HTML, WP:Advanced_table_formatting, MOS:TABLE, Editing Wikitext/Tables at Wikibooks)
• How long/concise should the sections be
• What additional sections (if any) should be (blank orphan pages from 2012 currently nominated for deletion)

Of course, any other observations are welcome! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 12:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

IMO "Positioning and layout" and "Advanced formatting" don't sound like they belong in an "introduction". Talking about collapsing tables also requires people to understand MOS:COLLAPSE, which is also more advanced. I think that it might be more appropriate to focus on the simplest case – basically, the information needed to be able to create the table above, and to edit its contents (change the contents of an existing cell or add a new row to the bottom). What do other people think? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)