Introduction
Hello all, as a number of you may remember, I started a discussion here last August regarding the proposed re-inclusion of squadron roster tables for battles in squadron articles. You can read the full case in the thread, including my reasonings, but to summarize the context:
- As many editors will remember, squadron articles used to include rosters of pilots for each of their battle, where you could see clearly who flew as what callsign and whether they survived, an easier navigational tool, essentially.
- The lists were later made tables where extra info like vehicles flown, flight groups, and astromechs.
- An admin then removed them all in March 2021 with the edit summary "Removing per group admin agreement. Please prosify this information instead."
Now most of the SH's contributors were in agreement with my proposal, with various recommendations regarding it being flown around. Plume Tray even tested out what the roster lists could look like on a workbench (see here). However the discussion ended there and was never continued, which brings us today, where I wish to float around some more solidified ideas of guidelines, based on what was suggested on the other thread, on how the tables can be brought back and handle whatever constructive criticism may come of it.
Proposal
First of all, I want to repeat what VergenceScatter stated in the last SH: "I know I've already expressed some opinions about this on discord, but for now I'd just like to emphasize that this isn't a replacement for prose, just a supplement. Also, unless we want to create something like "Category:Red Squadron members at the Battle of Yavin" (which I don't want to do) there isn't another way to quickly and easily view this information." Which is something that I still think applies here.
What could they look like?
Well here's my idea (note that this'll be familiar stuff for those who remember what the tables looked like prior to their removal):
At the bottom of every event section of a squadron where there is enough significant information about the squadron formation (I'll talk about what I mean on this part in the next section), there will be a Members subsection with a table which lists the all of the known pilots/fighters which participated in said event. The columns will go as before: Callsign, Name, Astromech, Vehicle, Flight group, Status, and Notes (the existence of the columns will also be further elaborated on in the next section). The Notes section can specify cases where a pilot is a part of or active in the squadron only at a certain point during the event.
Now the tables must be fully linked and every entry must be referenced (standard stuff). There will also be an option to collapse the section for anyone who doesn't want it visible, however it must be show first. Any table entry which cannot be filled can just be filled with a centred ndash (–) or Unidentified for the pilot's name. The table can also include members of the squadron who were grounded at the time since they're still part of the group.
Here are two examples from my favourite novel trilogy:
- The Y-wings of Hail Squadron—Battle at Chadawa.
- Riot Squadron—Attack on the Hellion's Dare.
| Callsign | Name | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Hail Leader[1] | Unidentified†[1] | KIA[1] |
| Hail Three[1] | Jaith Omir†[1] | KIA[1] |
| Hail Six[1] | Genni Avremif[1] | |
| Hail Nine[1] | Unidentified†[1] | Ejected[1] |
| Hail Ten[1] | Jiona[1] | |
| Hail Twelve[1] | Unidentified[1] | |
| Boyvech Toons[1] |
| Callsign | Name | Vehicle | Status | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Riot Leader[2] | Rununja†[2] | A-wing starfighter†[2] | KIA (final battle)[2] | |
| Riot Three[2] | Wyl Lark[2] | RZ-1 A-wing interceptor[2] | ||
| Riot Four[2] | Skitcher† | A-wing starfighter†[2] | KIA (final battle)[2] | |
| Riot Five[2] | Sata Neek† | A-wing starfighter†[2] | KIA (final battle)[2] | |
| Riot Seven[2] | Sonogari† | A-wing starfighter†[2] | KIA (2nd battle)[2] | |
| Riot Ten[2] | Chass na Chadic[2] | B-wing heavy assault starfighter[2] | briefly post-6th battle[2] | |
| Glothe†[2] | B-wing heavy assault starfighter†[2] | KIA (penultimate battle) | briefly post-6th battle[2] | |
| Heater†[2] | A-wing starfighter†[2] | KIA (post-6th battle)[2] | ||
| Kamala†[2] | A-wing starfighter†[2] | KIA (5th battle)[2] | ||
| Merish†[2] | B-wing heavy assault starfighter†[2] | KIA (final battle)[2] | briefly post-6th battle[2] | |
| Rep Boy†[2] | A-wing starfighter†[2] | KIA (3rd battle)[2] |
What warrants the existence of a table, column, or row?
This is where I see things being more up for debate. So my take on how things should generally be organised with their exceptions:
- In order for there to be a table in the first place, there should be at least four named members and information that can be part of at least one other column. Exceptions:
- If there members information absolutely dwarfs what can be written about the battle events (for example: you know that Biggs, Porkins, Nett, Antilles, and Dreis served in a battle together in X-wings with the same astromechs as in Yavin and the same Flights but nothing more than that) then that may was well just go in text only.
- If the pilot formation is relatively the same across a number of conflicts (notable examples being Alphabet Squadron, Vanguard Squadron, and Titan Squadron) then there's no point listing the table every time, you can just specify what has changed in prose if it comes to it.
- Columns: I feel like the relevancy of information is pretty straight forward, if there's information that can be filled in a column of an applicable table, then it should be there. Exceptions for this:
- If the information is all the same in the column, for example Red Squadron being formed of only X-wings at Yavin, then that can just be mentioned in the prose.
- Say you knew what models of fighters were flown but cannot attribute any to squadron members, then that is obviously gonna have to be in the prose instead.
- Rows: If there's information for a row, then it should be there. Realistically, we want to cover every example of a participant for the information that is being displayed, so leaving out one example because, say, we only know the astromech's name or the callsign, would be a bit redundant. There is an exception to this:
- A flight group is a grouping rather than a feature of the fighter. Apply the above logic to flight groups is like knowing that there's five more members of the squadron but nothing more so you just create five blank rows, only the example for flight groups will have the one thing filled at best.
So that's my proposed format. As for taking a finalised version forward, making it a precedent would be the easy way, though I feel like it's possible to codify it in the Layout Guide in a more proper form if the community were to back it. Either way, I'm keen on the roster tables returning, given how much I used to use them and other lists, and thus I leave the floor to the Wook community. Feel free to agree with it, destroy the hell out of it, or suggest some amendments, I welcome it all and will post any amended versions below here. Braha'tok enthusiast Hello there 19:27, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Drafts
Ok, update! So since I was last on this, Manoof has done the lovely job of codifying some guidelines for tables in general through the Consensus track, which fixes in how the tables will look by policy. Furthermore, I have made three examples, per OOM 224's suggestion, of roster tables. As follows:
- User:Braha'tok enthusiast/Sandbox 3 (Hail Squadron)—Personnel table at the bottom (Permalink)
- User:Braha'tok enthusiast/Sandbox 4 (Red Squadron)—Roster tables for engagements (Permalink)
- User:Braha'tok enthusiast/Sandbox 5 (Blade Squadron)—Both roster tables and a big personnel table (Permalink)
To give a quick run down on the personnel & vehicles section, it is a full list of named pilots in the squadron at the bottom, as coined below in the comments. I've provided a prose section summarising the changes in membership (whether it should stay or not is up to debate since it sort of repeats stuff in the history section in a way). I've also swapped Callsign to the second column since some members occasionally change position in their squadron (specifically members becoming squadron leader). The rows are ordered by last known callsign along with the point in time they held said position, which felt to me like the easiest way to do that. Fate is somewhat a place to say where the pilot ended up, whether it was into retirement, another squadron or a fireball. And finally, Vehicle, Astromech etc. still apply in these draft if it is applicable by my suggestions.
To give some personal observations on the looks of these drafts, I think the table at the bottom of Sandbox 5 draft is useful as a summary, but without the prose in the personnel section it does look like there is two consecutive tables, which I think is something to keep in mind about the look of roster tables plus a full members table at the same time. I also think the big final table is especially good for Sandbox 3, since Hail Squadron had only one engagement with more than three named pilots involved.
But anyways, I leave the floor once again to the rest of the Wook again to share their thoughts on this. Braha'tok enthusiast Hello there 10:27, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
To give a quick update on my proposal, I have looked into whether it the use of the tables could be codified in the Layout Guide. However, I've first chosen to discuss the absence of guidelines group-based articles as a whole in the Layout Guide in Forum:SH:Sectioning of articles for groups. Braha'tok enthusiast Hello there 21:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Proposal, part 2
Hi all, picking this up nearly a year later. I make a grand return with a proposal on how this is gonna look. For that, we must look to this section which I got voted in last year as a stepping stone for this proposal (and also because it sounded good to get that part codified as well). Specifically, I want to now amend these parts as follows
#History chronicles the known history of the group in chronological order. Ideally, all appearances of the group in canon are described here.
into
#History chronicles the known history of the group in chronological order. Ideally, all appearances of the group in canon are described here.
#*An engagement can have a supplementary table if:
#**It includes at least four distinct members with their own articles.
#**The table has multiple columns.
#**The table is necessary to distinguish differences in pilot formations from a previous table. For example, if the makeup of the squadron is the same as a previous engagement's, an additional table should not be used.
#*A supplementary table should be formatted:
#**Columns should be ordered Callsign, Name, Astromech, Vehicle, Flight group, Status, and Notes. Do not include a column if it is entirely empty.
#**Cells that are otherwise empty due to a lack of information should be filled with a centered en dash (–, generated with –).
#**A dagger icon (†, generated with †) should be used for any pilot, astromech or vehicle that is lost in the engagement.
#Members (or a similar title such as Commanders and crew, Leadership, Staff or Leaders and members) provides brief summaries of any individuals of particular importance that were part of, or led, the group.
and turn it into this
#Members (or a similar title such as Commanders and crew, Leadership, Staff or Leaders and members) provides brief summaries of any individuals of particular importance that were part of, or led, the group.
#*The membership can have a supplementary table if:
#**It includes different members across at least three different engagements.
#**The table has multiple columns.
#*A supplementary table should be formatted:
#**If multiple individuals shared a callsign, then they should be ordered chronologically.
#**Columns should be ordered Callsign, Name, Astromech(s), Vehicle(s), Flight group(s), Fate, and Notes. Do not include a column if it is entirely empty.
#**Cells that are otherwise empty due to a lack of information should be filled with a centred ndash (–).
#**A dagger icon (†) should be used for any pilot, astromech(s) or vehicle(s) that were ultimately lost.
(Courtesy of OOM for helping me write this)
The idea behind this is to provide guidelines on where we can introduce the tables. To fill in any gaps in consistency, we can start working off of precedents, starting with the examples I've made. This is specifically because I don't think we should tie ourselves down too much with policy on this part. Regardless, I welcome all feedback on this. Braha'tok enthusiast Hello there 21:54, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Discussion
- Personally, I think this is a great idea. We often tend to look at things strictly from the point of view of an editor, rather than the reader. Fact is though, that a roster table is what's best for the reader. It gives them a quick overview without forcing them to dig through multiple paragraphs of text. It's collapsable, so those who don't wish to see it don't have to. Supreme Emperor Holocomm 19:34, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'm a fan of this, too many tables is bad but concise ones are quite handy, especially since it is collapsible. Good stuff BE! Wok142 (talk) 19:38, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think that tables are a great way to quickly show information, which just makes our articles better. I don't really see a reason to limit ourselves just to prose when mentioning who's in a squadron at a particular time. VergenceScatter (talk) 19:40, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think we should note survivors and where information is not known (eg whether someone survived or not) then maybe we have the dash? I think we need something to differentiate when there is a lack of information for that cell at least I'm gonna raise a separate SH on a question of tables to keep the conversations seprate and clear, though theyre related. Manoof (he/him/his) (talk) 01:20, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- SH added to discuss standardising table usage in the LG is now up: Forum:SH:Tables in policy Manoof (he/him/his) (talk) 08:51, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- I don't mind listing an individual as a survivor. as for lack of information vs lack of feature, I think there are ways we could distinctly differentiate, like putting in "None" or "Unspecified" or something like that. Braha'tok enthusiast Hello there 13:50, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Organizing it this way will benefit our readers, so I'm in favour. Fan26 (Talk) 17:37, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- My opinions on tables and lists has really changed a lot over the last couple years as I've begun to focus more on how we can make ourselves more useful to the readers we serve. I think these examples look fantastic and could be very beneficial to readers. I'll need some more time to consider the requirements and other aspects of any potential policy, but I'm on board for the concept in general! MasterFred
(talk) (he/him) 18:31, 12 April 2022 (UTC) - I'm not really in support of this honestly, which I know may be a minority position but I think that keeping things in prose is better. An article like Red Squadron with many subheadings about battles is just going to be taken up by a bunch of tables, which I understand you can hide, but overall that's just something I'm not a fan of personally. I also feel like this may open things up into lists coming back again, so just having the rule of keeping everything in prose will keep everything consistent. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 20:50, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'm in agreement with Vitus on this, too many tables and it will not look good. Looking at the Legends Rogue Squadron page, it doesn't appear to suffer from not using tables. Lewisr (talk) 21:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah even if it can be hidden I believe it's just disruptive, and sticking with prose for our articles keeps everything consistent. It would be more beneficial to have a pilots section like the Legends Rogue Squadron article maintains. It also becomes extremely repetitive if tables with the same pilots, vehicles, etc appear in the same engagements with little changes, such as every element remaining the same except a pilot uses a different droid, or someone switches a vehicle, etc. It's just easier for everything to remain in prose and add additions to the manual of style/layout guide to add Members/Pilot headings. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 22:13, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- I can't see how it could possibly be disruptive. I almost exclusively use tables when looking at demographics on Wikipedia. See: Los Angeles. I think the tables above are even more informative and aesthetically pleasing than Wikipedia's, and if they default to hidden, they'd cause even less intrusion. It may even be possible to include them in-line with the prose like we do with images, similar to the population table in the Wikipedia link. MasterFred(talk) (he/him) 03:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- The difference here is that the Los Angeles article is dealing with statistics, when we are not. Data regarding industry and economy, demographics, etc, is highly beneficial to portray with tables, and then explain trends in those tables. We're not dealing with anything like that, simply the composition of squadrons. Since we're using Wikipedia as an example, it's more relevant to see how they write military formations and squadrons. The only times they use tables is when demonstrating the unit's order of battle like this, as well as having a table of all active units and important details that pertain to them, like this. I would be supportive of having that here. Again, since we're comparing with Wikipedia, I'll point out that Wikipedia only allows tables when presenting complicated data, complex figures and results, and when presenting detailed information in more than one language, which is why an article like Los Angeles would have tables but not, for example, a military fighter squadron's history (as we are doing here). I would not be supportive of adding a table under every engagement that a squadron participates in, especially when even when we have the table the information would still have to be presented in prose, and most of the information would be repetitive and only have a few changes. For example, Luke Skywalker consistently uses his X-wing and R2-D2, and most pilots retain their same vehicles, droids, callsigns, and most characters usually survive their battles, especially when we're documenting an entire unit's history with tables. Additionally, this incentivizes adding subheadings for every single engagement, even when they are not necessary. I can easily see two sentence long sections in articles showing up with a table on top. That's unprofessional and un-encyclopedic. This can be easily compared to the military unit templates that were trash compacted a while back. It benefits the reader to view all of those units easily organized, but like others have said, many of them are redundant to categories. This is not that different in a macro sense. These tables will be redundant to the prose. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 13:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- I don't really think this differs that much from those statistics tables in the sense that it's still displaying an overview of the subject for that section. For pilots that appear repeatedly in compositions, I don't think that's a redundant thing to include, I think it's useful information to know that a pilot is still in said position doing whatever. And also my drafted set of rules is written to avoid that case if it's more of a squadron wide situation. One thing you're missing out with that part as well is the pilot's status might not be the same eventually either. A pilot might survive through two battles and then eject or die in the next one. For the section headers, I would like to bring up Plume Tray's draft again (see here) where you can see that the members section is invisible for the table of contents. And for my final point, I really don't think that the table will be obstructive, unprofessional or un-encyclopedic. The ability to hide it very much keeps it from annoying the reader if it does does so and the table displays a simplified overview of the composition which would not be as easy to get from the prose. Braha'tok enthusiast Hello there 11:02, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, no I'm sorry but that all looks very redundant to me and some details too miniscule to even factor in. Is the fact that one astromech in the squadron was damaged during one engagement in a squadron's history? Not really no. And if there's two small battles with small amount of information, according to the draft and proposal they would need subheadings so that a table can be added for each one. Wikipedia is the template for how to approach online encyclopedic writing, and much of our site is modeled after it. The fact that they completely avoid adding tables to articles like these for this purpose is very telling to me. Plume's draft shows a lot of redundancy and superfluous information. It would make more sense to include a singular table in its own section on the article that covers the unit's members, equipment, engagement, and status for example. Adding a table under every single battle/conflict no matter how big or small is very unnecessary. I'm not against tables, I'm against tables used in this way. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 20:57, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- I was showing Plume's draft as to how a table would look when it's hideable. I understand that some of those in the draft are unnecessary and I will iterate that my draft guidelines are there to keep the tables from being as "superfluous" as they were when the admins decided to wipe them out. I understand your opinions have been partially guided by Wikipedia's methods, but I don't think our methods should just be a carbon copy of theirs, we're not covering the same range of information as they are, we're largely covering fictional lore. At the end of the day, lists and tables were what I went to first when looking for summarised stats and niche characters etc. and they can serve that purpose again, but in a more polished manner. Braha'tok enthusiast Hello there 12:15, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, no I'm sorry but that all looks very redundant to me and some details too miniscule to even factor in. Is the fact that one astromech in the squadron was damaged during one engagement in a squadron's history? Not really no. And if there's two small battles with small amount of information, according to the draft and proposal they would need subheadings so that a table can be added for each one. Wikipedia is the template for how to approach online encyclopedic writing, and much of our site is modeled after it. The fact that they completely avoid adding tables to articles like these for this purpose is very telling to me. Plume's draft shows a lot of redundancy and superfluous information. It would make more sense to include a singular table in its own section on the article that covers the unit's members, equipment, engagement, and status for example. Adding a table under every single battle/conflict no matter how big or small is very unnecessary. I'm not against tables, I'm against tables used in this way. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 20:57, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- I don't really think this differs that much from those statistics tables in the sense that it's still displaying an overview of the subject for that section. For pilots that appear repeatedly in compositions, I don't think that's a redundant thing to include, I think it's useful information to know that a pilot is still in said position doing whatever. And also my drafted set of rules is written to avoid that case if it's more of a squadron wide situation. One thing you're missing out with that part as well is the pilot's status might not be the same eventually either. A pilot might survive through two battles and then eject or die in the next one. For the section headers, I would like to bring up Plume Tray's draft again (see here) where you can see that the members section is invisible for the table of contents. And for my final point, I really don't think that the table will be obstructive, unprofessional or un-encyclopedic. The ability to hide it very much keeps it from annoying the reader if it does does so and the table displays a simplified overview of the composition which would not be as easy to get from the prose. Braha'tok enthusiast Hello there 11:02, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- The difference here is that the Los Angeles article is dealing with statistics, when we are not. Data regarding industry and economy, demographics, etc, is highly beneficial to portray with tables, and then explain trends in those tables. We're not dealing with anything like that, simply the composition of squadrons. Since we're using Wikipedia as an example, it's more relevant to see how they write military formations and squadrons. The only times they use tables is when demonstrating the unit's order of battle like this, as well as having a table of all active units and important details that pertain to them, like this. I would be supportive of having that here. Again, since we're comparing with Wikipedia, I'll point out that Wikipedia only allows tables when presenting complicated data, complex figures and results, and when presenting detailed information in more than one language, which is why an article like Los Angeles would have tables but not, for example, a military fighter squadron's history (as we are doing here). I would not be supportive of adding a table under every engagement that a squadron participates in, especially when even when we have the table the information would still have to be presented in prose, and most of the information would be repetitive and only have a few changes. For example, Luke Skywalker consistently uses his X-wing and R2-D2, and most pilots retain their same vehicles, droids, callsigns, and most characters usually survive their battles, especially when we're documenting an entire unit's history with tables. Additionally, this incentivizes adding subheadings for every single engagement, even when they are not necessary. I can easily see two sentence long sections in articles showing up with a table on top. That's unprofessional and un-encyclopedic. This can be easily compared to the military unit templates that were trash compacted a while back. It benefits the reader to view all of those units easily organized, but like others have said, many of them are redundant to categories. This is not that different in a macro sense. These tables will be redundant to the prose. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 13:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- I can't see how it could possibly be disruptive. I almost exclusively use tables when looking at demographics on Wikipedia. See: Los Angeles. I think the tables above are even more informative and aesthetically pleasing than Wikipedia's, and if they default to hidden, they'd cause even less intrusion. It may even be possible to include them in-line with the prose like we do with images, similar to the population table in the Wikipedia link. MasterFred
- Yeah even if it can be hidden I believe it's just disruptive, and sticking with prose for our articles keeps everything consistent. It would be more beneficial to have a pilots section like the Legends Rogue Squadron article maintains. It also becomes extremely repetitive if tables with the same pilots, vehicles, etc appear in the same engagements with little changes, such as every element remaining the same except a pilot uses a different droid, or someone switches a vehicle, etc. It's just easier for everything to remain in prose and add additions to the manual of style/layout guide to add Members/Pilot headings. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 22:13, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'm a big fan of tables, personally. They especially help mobile users, since looking at prose on phones can be quite annoying sometimes. But whatever (if anything) is implemented, it would make sense to have clear guidelines on what does and doesn't get a table codified, as said above.—spookywillowwtalk 20:32, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- I haven't given much thought about squadron tables since the last big discussion we've had about it on Discord, but I had the idea that an article could have one accompanying table that covers all the engagements involving the squadron in question, rather than having individual ones for every single fight, which some users (myself included) are reluctant about. OOM 224 21:02, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- I would definitely support having one table that covers this information, and we can incorporate it into the layout guide. For example, Whetstone (albeit an incomplete article) is a great example of a single table that covers information about one specific section. I can see this type of table used for military units and etc. But using multiple tables for the history section for every battle is unnecessary in my opinion --Vitus InfinitusTalk 21:08, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- True I'd second that, one table would be helpful to people without also cluttering (perhaps lower down in the article as well).—spookywillowwtalk 21:11, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- I've not ever considered a table like that for starships specifically. With a typically lower death rate with starship crews, it makes sense to combine crew stats for stuff like that in its own section. I'm unsure whether it would work the same way for fighter squadrons, though, since obviously their compositions are not always the same. It's easy for something like Alphabet Squadron since it's pretty much the same the whole time, but a situation like Red Squadron is what makes me more uneasy about it. Braha'tok enthusiast Hello there 15:29, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Good point. Big squadrons involved in lots of engagements would mean a really big master table at the end, so whether or not to supplement/replace the big table with multiple smaller ones might depend on the amount of info on a subject. Now that we've got several ideas, however, the whole thing would be hard to codify, so maybe the next step would be to implement some of these ideas on various articles and see what we all think of them? E.g. an article with a master table, another article with individual tables for individual engagements, and another one with both. OOM 224 13:00, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- That's very much do-able. I will work on making some drafts in my Sandboxes very soon. Braha'tok enthusiast Hello there 11:31, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Good point. Big squadrons involved in lots of engagements would mean a really big master table at the end, so whether or not to supplement/replace the big table with multiple smaller ones might depend on the amount of info on a subject. Now that we've got several ideas, however, the whole thing would be hard to codify, so maybe the next step would be to implement some of these ideas on various articles and see what we all think of them? E.g. an article with a master table, another article with individual tables for individual engagements, and another one with both. OOM 224 13:00, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- With the new drafts I can say that I do think the big table at the bottom is useful for all cases. As for having tables for individual engagements, they do look okay and the placement makes it so that they act as supplements to the prose, much like images, so I'd wouldn't be opposed to the idea. OOM 224 10:58, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Definitely a fan of the big table, less of a fan of the smaller tables but I'm not opposed to it :) Looks good! Manoof (he/him/his) (talk) 11:31, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- As some might now, I'm a fan of tables anyways, but trying to be unbiased here, I really like them as they provide good and quick overviews while not being disruptive (at least to me). CanePlayz (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- I think it would be a good way to get a quick overview without having to read multiple paragraphs of text. -ThrawnChiss7 (talk) 15:31, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- I like this. NBDani
(they/them)Yeager's Repairs 23:29, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
