Raising this separately off the back of Forum:SH:Pilot lists proposal as I think this could be a bit convoluted discussion.
One of my issues with that proposal, and tables in general, is the convoluted nature of the tables—similar issues have risen out of WP:Creators for those -ography tables. Those issues include when to use the tables, when and what columns can be used/not used and how we link and reference—precedent has been to link the first instance in the table (separately from the intro/body) and treat each row as a paragraph for referencing purposes, though this isnt noted anywhere. Theres also currently inconsistency with the type of table and whether they are sortable or not.
I think it needs to be captured somewhere in policy to refer to for all users so we have that consistency and ensure our readers are getting value for each table that is added.
To this end, I think it is worth capturing all this detail on the Layout Guide pages. General information such as type of tables, whether theyre sortable, linking and referencing would go on the main LG page, while specific table usage, what columns to use and exclusions would sit in a corresponding section in the IU/OOU pages.
My initial thoughts for general rules, based on my understanding of existing precedent:
- "Prettytable" is to be used (gives a nice header row)
- Tables with more than two rows should be sortable
- Each row should have at least one reference, adjacent cells can use the same reference on their right if able.
- A table should be linked separately to the rest of the article (eg a year would be linked the first time it is mentioned in the intro, the article body and a table).
I think is worth tackling the general nature of these tables first, then the specific usage of them such as that in the pilot SH (if its not resolved there) and creators (are there any other table usages at this time to be noted for future discussion?).
I'm sick at the moment and literally threw this together just now so I'd love to hear your thoughts on this, if theres any other general rules to be added and any suggested eording/alternatives to the above 4 or just comments in general! Manoof (he/him/his) (talk) 02:14, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Contents
Discussion on 1
- Having a think, we would simply have the base code for a table there similar to this Manoof (he/him/his) (talk) 03:15, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
{| {{Prettytable}}
|- bgcolor="#CCCCCC" align="center"
!'''Header 1'''!!'''Header 2'''!!'''Header 3'''!!'''Header 4'''
|-
|Cell 1||Cell 2||Cell 3||Cell 4
|-
|Cell 1||Cell 2||Cell 3||Cell 4
|}
- Actually, at present, the align="center" and the bolded titles are not being used. The template automatically centers and bolds without including that code. So it should really show: Jade Moonstroller (talk) 03:25, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
{|class="sortable" {{Prettytable}}
|- bgcolor="#CCCCCC"
! Header 1 !! Header 2 !! Header 3 !! Header 4
|-
|Cell 1||Cell 2||Cell 3||Cell 4
|-
|Cell 1||Cell 2||Cell 3||Cell 4
|}
- Heh, looks like its redundant as part of the pretty table. Didn't know that and that code was ripped from one of my status articles! Just more evidence we need this coding captured somewhere lol Manoof (he/him/his) (talk) 03:33, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Absolutely we do. I had wanted to get some of this stuff out here this year, and it's April. I'm a little behind on my to-do list. Jade Moonstroller (talk) 03:37, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Heh, looks like its redundant as part of the pretty table. Didn't know that and that code was ripped from one of my status articles! Just more evidence we need this coding captured somewhere lol Manoof (he/him/his) (talk) 03:33, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Discussion on 2
- Similar to above ae could simply say "adjust the top line of the table with the below to make it sortable
{| class="wikitable sortable" {{Prettytable}}
- Similarly to my above point, "sortable" is the same as "wikitable sortable". I think we can all agree coding is strange sometimes. Jade Moonstroller (talk) 03:36, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Why not just make every table sortable? Then we could just merge
class="wikitable sortable"into the {{Prettytable}} template, so all you would to do is include —Unsigned comment by Plume Tray (talk • contribs)
{| {{Prettytable}}
- That's actually probably worth doing, I guess is there a reason we SHOULDN'T have a sortable table? The only thing I can think of is aesthetics for very small tables, but I think it's worth having them sortable so it is easier if additional rows are added in future&hellips; Can we just do this or does it need a discussion? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Manoof (he/him/his) (talk) 08:49, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Firstly, the bullet points are doing weird stuff, and I don't care for it lol. Secondly though, it's almost muscle memory for me at this point to make every table I do sortable, even the ones with one row. This would allow for no changes to be made to the table in the future, so it is a benefit. Besides, clicking the arrows would do nothing on the tables anyway, so it's not like it would harm anything aesthetically speaking, beyond the appearance of the arrows. Jade Moonstroller (talk) 12:31, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- That's actually probably worth doing, I guess is there a reason we SHOULDN'T have a sortable table? The only thing I can think of is aesthetics for very small tables, but I think it's worth having them sortable so it is easier if additional rows are added in future&hellips; Can we just do this or does it need a discussion? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Manoof (he/him/his) (talk) 08:49, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Shouldn't we delete {{Prettytable2}} (seems to be only experimental, not used anywhere) and {{Prettytable3}} (only used on Star Wars: Tales of the Jedi)? Also, I would not mind having {{Prettytable}} documentation be updated to explain what it does in details. NanoLuukeCloning facility 09:10, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- It should be documented somewhere what Prettytable does. Jade Moonstroller (talk) 03:10, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Discussion on 3
- Alright, at present, and this can change, of course, we have two references on each row. The first one is the date ref. This can be pulled from the subject matter page, where some catalogue or website has confirmed the precise release date. It is just transferred. The second ref is placed at the end of the info it provides, so it could be the work itself if it specifically credits the creator, the name of the work, and the contribution. However, you wouldn't need to put this ref in multiple boxes, just as you don't need to put a ref after every individual sentence. This may be incorrect, but I believe it can get messy. Jade Moonstroller (talk) 12:35, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Discussion on 4
Other discussion points
- Regarding the specific columns we use in WP:Creators, I'll break it down as follows: Bibliography uses Year, Title, Contribution(s), and Notes. Some tables can be seen with Format after Title, but when considering what is essential to the creator's page, it may not be necessary. When there is an audiobook present, that should be noted in Notes, such as: "Responsible for the accompanying audiobook". A story that appears within a larger work should be addressed in Notes too. Filmography includes Year, Title, Series, Contribution(s), and Notes. Gameography is Year, Title, Contribution(s), and Notes. Again, some tables have Format, but after Contribution(s). I would again argue that is not needed. This may not be the proper SH to address this, but none of this is catalogued well in the Layout Guide either. Jade Moonstroller (talk) 03:19, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Better to focus on the foundation and work on the details later, on another SH. NanoLuukeCloning facility 09:10, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- True. Jade Moonstroller (talk) 03:10, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Draft CT
Prettytable has been updated per point 2 and, as discussed above, already incorporated point 1.
I've now drafted a CT to make updates to the relevant policy pages and this can be viewed here. Please give any feedback, particularly the note commentary on the table example which I was iffy about. Thanks! Manoof (he/him/his) (talk) 12:01, 13 May 2022 (UTC) EDIT Link to workbench removed as CT has been published Manoof (he/him/his) (talk) 13:11, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- Like I said on Discord, I think we've left tables enough time to be experimented upon, and they have matured enough for us to start the prescriptive process. I think however that the draft could use a little bit more fleshing out (I like my CT very neat :D). "table headers" should be renamed "column headers"; is the coldspan necessary? and if so, why not a rowspan example too? Proposition 3 "(with the exception of the introductory paragraph/s)" is redundant to the first rule of the Sourcing policy and can probably be removed. NanoLuukeCloning facility 09:10, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
CT now live
CT has been published after a few rounds of feedback and review and can be found here Manoof (he/him/his) (talk) 13:11, 24 May 2022 (UTC)