Help talk:Introduction/Archive 2
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Help:Introduction. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Edit request on 22 January 2013
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Edited to explain as requested: There is an image on a Wikipedia webpage (see below) and a wikicommons webpage (see below) which has been taken from my own website without acknowledgement or permission. I want the image to be removed, unless acknowledgemnt is made of its owner and source
The image DSCN9172.JPG featuring in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vimalnath and also http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jain_Vimalnath.jpg is mine, it was taken from my website which has on its homepage that all images and text are copyright - and this copyright belongs to me. It was taken from my weboage http://www.indianminiaturepaintings.co.uk/Jain_Vimalnath_190w.html. I will give permission for it to continue to be published on these two webpages on condition acknowledgement of its owner and source is given - i.e Peter Blohm of www.indianminiaturepaintings.co.uk. I can be contacted vis my website or by the following email address: [details removed]
- Since the image is hosted at Wikimedia Commons, the proper page to make this request would be the Wikimedia Commons help desk. However, my understanding of the position is that you have not acquired a copyright in the image, because taking the photograph did not add any creative input to the original work. This is set out more clearly at commons:Commons:2D copying. I may be wrong; please post at the Commons help desk for a second opinion. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Pointer to related discussion at MediaWiki talk:Edittools
See MediaWiki talk:Edittools#Sign your posts on talk pages for a discussion that has suggested linking this page, instead of the "Sign your posts on talk pages: ~~~~" instructions, when editing in Mainspace. –Quiddity (talk) 03:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Named reference
I'm editing a small article that needs better citations. A reference cited early in the article ought to be cited again later on. It was not originally given a "ref name" so I tried to add <ref name="[ref name]"> at the beginning of its reference. The hope is that this would allow me to use a "Named reference" in the ref list, but now I'm getting citation error problems. I'm going back to copy/paste the whole reference, but I'd like to know how add ref names to existing references from time to time if possible -- and can't find instructions about updating existing references such as I describe.
Thanks, GeeBee60 (talk) 00:53, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Neeever mind, I figured it out. (wheee!) FYI: <ref name= ...> begins a reference the same as <ref> except the reference name is added, I misread the coding thought I needed both <ref name ...> and <ref>, I didn't. GeeBee60 (talk) 03:58, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Comments
I would like to assert that the Wikipedia policy on reliable sources is not viable for certain types of content. One example of many is the field of open-source software.
In many cases, the source of authority for an open-source project will be the author/creator of the software. That author, and also avid supporters, will not have any published work that falls into the categories of " ...university textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers..." Many examples abound, one that just popped into my mind after I decided to post this, is the Classic Shell project. [].
I just reviewed the Classic Shell Wikipedia page, and it has not a single reference to " ...university textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers..." Yet, it is a very accurate and complete Wikipedia page. Must we wait for some university-Prof to write a scholarly paper on Classic Shell (a paper that will be outdated the moment it is published) to satisfy Wikipedia?
Wikipedia needs to wake up and realize that as we move toward the middle of the 21st century, a 20th century definition of "Reliable Source" is not going to serve us well for all fields of study. $tephen T. Crye (talk) 22:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- Then what would you suggest? From my point of view, any definition will have flaws and areas where it doesn't work perfectly. Ironholds (talk) 13:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
- I would stress that a reliable source does not have to be university texts, books from respected publishers, and so forth; those are merely examples of the types of sources that are usually the best. As long as you've got a source that fair, generally-educated readers would largely consider authoritative, you are usually okay. Scholarly essays, highly-established newspapers and such are again just examples of the sources that usually best fit these criteria. NTox · talk<l 18:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Problem reading/editing the page
There is a picture (drawing) in the middle of the first paragraph of this information article (at least on my browser}, and so the first thing I see when I read the article is the middle of a sentence (which starts with the hyperlnked words "reliable source"). I clicked "Edit source" to see if I could try to fix that, but all I see when I do that is some codes. I'm not sure why. Could someone try to fix the fact that an image is (or seems to be) in the middle of a sentence on this Wikipedia Help article? Thank you. GreyGoose (talk) 12:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
- @GreyGoose: Thank you for pointing this out! I think it occurred because of how the browser tried to order the picture, the 'shortcuts' box and the text on a narrow screen. I've rearranged these elements so that hopefully they arrange in a more sensible order, with the image first, then all the text together. You're correct that the source code for this page is far more confusing than most, since it transcludes most of its contents. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 01:06, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2018
| This edit request to Help:Introduction to referencing with Wiki Markup/1 has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
What is a reliable source? Is it a leftist source? Because your thought police seems to censor any non leftist/factual source. 47.147.16.228 (talk) 18:28, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Help:Introduction to referencing with Wiki Markup/1. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. JTP (talk • contribs) 19:03, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Typo
Could not proceed with a correction on mobile - transclusion activated and preventing edition:
- From: "(...) posts by readers are not usually considered reliable sources.)";
- To: "(...) posts by readers are not usually considered reliable sources)." - 5CR1PT3D1AN (talk) 20:53, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Typo
I just wanted to say that near the start it says "an inline citation", is it supposed to say "online"? TheMCMultitasker (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Sorry hold on nevermind TheMCMultitasker (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Mention of Preference setting for RefToolbar
Sdkb, you reverted my change, and the revision by Nick Moyes to mention the preferences setting for refToolbar. While you are correct that having it on is the default for new users, and what you get if you choose "Restore all default settings" I think it may be off for anyone whose account was active before the gadget was introduced, and i am sure it is off for anyone who ever opted out of RefToolbar ver 1, and perhaps in other cases. In any event I would like to restore the changes and then modify them to indicate that while active by default, if an editor doe snot see the toolbar, tht editor should check the preferences. I am, making this post in the spirit of WP:BRD. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 14:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC) By the way, if you intended a pink by putting my username in your edit summery, that doesn't work. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 14:47, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- DESiegel, WP:REFTOOLBAR states
Originally an opt-in Wikipedia Gadget, Reftoolbar was moved to a site-wide script on February 25, 2011, and to an opt-out gadget on April 2014.
So it seems it's been around for 6 years, which basically means the only users at this point who might have it off are power users, who are not the intended audience here. - And oh no, is the method at Help:Fixing failed pings#Edit summary method broken? If so, we should definitely bring it up there, since it's also at Template:uw-pingfix and likely elsewhere. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 15:55, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- I still think a brief mention that it can be turned off via preferences is warranted, Sdkb. As to the ping, I can only say that I did not receive a notification, although I was pined by Nick Moyes in the Teahouse about this matter. I wasn't even aware that a link in the edit summary was supposed to work. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:02, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- DESiegel, I saw the Teahouse thread after I replied. Since the editor mentioned
new to active editing
, I assume they must have an account that's older than April 2014, which seems like a very rare situation, but I guess if they're asking about it it happens. How about we link to Wikipedia:RefToolbar over "RefToolbar"? That will provide an option for the (presumably very few) editors experiencing issues to more easily troubleshoot without cluttering things for the majority who don't need the fine print. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 16:12, 25 July 2020 (UTC) - (edit conflict)I initially thought your edit yesterday was a sound one, DESiegel, and worthy of a further tweak by me, but I now also appreciate that RefToolbar has actually been activated by default since early 2011. The discussion yesterday at the Teahouse which initiated this change now seems to me to have been sufficiently unusual not to warrant a specific mention here that RefToolbar can be turned on/off in Preferences>Gadgets. If new users since 2011 have it by default, do we really need to tell everyone about activating it in this Help section? Yes, the questioner who didn't have the Cite button began here in 2009 (so maybe that was why they didn't have a 'Cite' button visible whilst editing, or they'd simply turned it off without appreciating its purpose) but I think most long-standing editors should either know enough to investigate Preferences to find tools for themselves, or know how to ask at a help forum, as that one did. Even just adding "'RefToolbar' can be disabled in your Preferences settings" would seem rather unnecessary. (Just to note that I've since made some further tweaks to add clarity and to this page, including a mention of 'Preview' which I suspect is of more value to most readers) I also think Sdkb's (edit conflicted) suggestion above of linking to RefToolbar is a good way to point to "turning it off and on again". Nick Moyes (talk) 16:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- DESiegel, I saw the Teahouse thread after I replied. Since the editor mentioned
- I still think a brief mention that it can be turned off via preferences is warranted, Sdkb. As to the ping, I can only say that I did not receive a notification, although I was pined by Nick Moyes in the Teahouse about this matter. I wasn't even aware that a link in the edit summary was supposed to work. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:02, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
"The Michigan Daily" example - "letter to the editor" by an author without established reliability?
I am surprised that this letter to the editor is considered a reliable source. The paper itself and anything written by staff, sure; but a letter to the editor can be written by anyone. I can't really find anything else the author has written other than that article, so it is not as though the author is a known authority on the matter. If the paper does its own independent fact-checking, then I could see calling this a reliable source, but I see no indications that that is the case. This seems to have the same issue as the "Forbes" example:
- "Not reliable. Forbes, a well-known American business magazine, might seem at first glance like a reliable source. And indeed, content written by Forbes staffers is considered generally reliable. However, this article was not written by a Forbes staffer, but rather by an unaffiliated contributor. Such articles have little editorial oversight and are considered generally unreliable."
Similarly, the letter to the editor was written by an unaffiliated contributor. That makes me think the answer to the Michigan Daily should be "not reliable". Ikjbagl (talk) 15:38, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Ikjbagl: Oh oops, I missed the letter to the editor designation. Yeah, we should probably find some other college fact to use as an example there. Any thoughts on what the best general-interest college fun fact might be? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 15:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Sdkb: How about, from this article, something like this: "Although Stanford has no official school mascot, each year a student is chosen to be the "Stanford Tree" and wears a costume of their own creation." Ikjbagl (talk) 18:37, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
The Los Angeles Times reference of the first example is identified as Reliable for the wrong reason.
The first sample reference is identified as reliable because "news articles from the Los Angeles Times are considered generally reliable." However, the reference is to a blog post hosted by the L.A. Times; it is not to a news article in that publication. As it happens, the blog post is by a writer who works for the Times, so it might still be a reliable reference, but the reason given for it being reliable is not correct. I lack the experience to make an actual correction here and am simply bringing it to the attention of more experienced persons who might feel more confident in correcting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diversitti (talk • contribs)
- @Diversitti: Yeah, I did notice that that article was to a "L.A. Times blog" when I added it. It seems that the L.A. Times tried out labeling some of their articles as blogs at some point, but as you noticed, they're still written by staffers and still look like they carry the same reliability as the newspaper itself. If it's tripping people up, we could try swapping it out for a different clearly reliable publication that covered the SOPA protest. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 16:42, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
language error in link to this page
Editing any WP page produces Encyclopedic content must be verifiable through citations to reliable sources. Where can i request correction of that text? Correct English is "references to" but "citations of reliable sources". --Espoo (talk) 05:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Espoo, see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_185#Changes_to_the_universal_editnotice. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:22, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
"Help:Refs" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Help:Refs and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 14#Help:Refs until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 23:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Information to be added if VE changes
I've made this intro-to tutorial with some starting information base don what's possible with VisualEditor in 2015. Currently VE has a few limitations so this tutorial will hopefully need to be updated in the coming years as features are added. Current main limitations:
- Not possible to designate a table as sortable
- Not possible to colour cell backgrounds (or any HTML attributes)
- Tables inserted from a .CSV are not formatted as class="wikitable"
- Not possible to move a row or column (must delete then re-insert)
If any of these things change, the tutorial should definitely be updated. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 11:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
- Hey, check again? I believe the cell background color is the only thing missing now? Looking forward to see this guide linked at Help:Getting_started#Editing_with_Visual_Editor! --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 10:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
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)
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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evolution and evolvability (talk • contribs) 12:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
"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 | header1makes 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 | header1adds an unnecessary step of understanding what should be written in place of "HTML", whereas! style="" | Header C1more 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)
- Some points:
- "but rather to provide similar levels of detail and aimed at similarly new editors." Well yes their basic guides to rudimentary facts. And you go and remove details of adding HTML attributes, which boils down to BASIC MARKUP.
- The original second page explained all the basic markup pertaining to tables. And the HTML section merely expanded with examples of adding HTML attributes, in case you couldn't follow the text. What the heck was wrong with that?
- style="" IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR HTML ATTRIBUTES. HTML attributes can be class, style, rowspan, collspan etc. . By the changes you're confusing things.
- Look before completely rearranging things for the worse, how about some discussion? You seem to have confusion about BASIC TABLE MARKUP versus more advanced topics. Build a sandbox and invite people in. The reason the guide was not longer is because it is a guide to BASIC MARKUP, and this should be distinguished from more advanced topics, which have no place in these guides. But basic table markup needs to be fully described and a groundwork for more advanced topics. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 23:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Mrjulesd: I've been editing Wikipedia articles for more than nine years, and I've never added HTML to any article page. I don't consider HTML code, in articles, to be basic, in any way, shape, or form, be that for tables or for anything else. In particular, I don't think discussion of HTML belongs in an introductory tutorial. The whole point of wikitext is to shield editors from the incredible variety of HTML that is possible, some of which will break Wikipedia page formatting.
- As I wrote in another section, below, the best way to move forward with the tutorial is to suggest specific language. Other than HTML, do you have any specific recommendations regarding the tutorial as now written? And by "specific", I mean specific suggested wording or wording changes, either made directly (per WP:BB), or suggested on this page. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Well that's were you're wrong. Basic markup for tables includes basic markup for including HTML attributes. What is the basic markup? Well this table will inform you:
|
{| |
Table start: it is required. |
|
|+ |
Table caption: it is optional. Only between table start and first table row |
|
! |
Table header cell: it is optional. Cells may start on new lines, each beginning with its own single mark. Cell contents may also be put on the next line. |
|
!! |
Consecutive table header cell: it is optional. Cells may be added on same lines separated by double marks. |
|
|- |
Table row: it is optional on the first row, but otherwise required. The wiki engine assumes the first row. |
|
| |
Table data cell: it is required for data cells on new lines. Cells may start on new lines, each beginning with its own single mark. Cell contents may also be put on the next line. It is also used to separate HTML attributes from cell contents (both data or header), or caption contents. |
|
|| |
Consecutive table data cell: it is required for data cells on the same line. Cells may be added on same lines separated by double marks. |
|
|} |
Table end: it is required. |
AS you may notice, the basic markup includes the single bar symbol. This bar symbol is used for separating basic markup from HTML attributes. Therefore it is basic markup to describe this. It not anything advanced, it is fundamental to table construction, as it belongs to the few symbols that are used to describe tables. How much more basic can you get?
You cannot get away from HTML attributes. class="wikitable" is needed in almost every table. class="wikitable" is a HTML attribute. Therefore every table contains an HTML attribute. It is basic. Very basic. Not advanced. Every table. Do you understand?
As for suggestions, go back to how it was, and start again. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 03:06, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Here's what I think is "basic" table markup:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Header text !! Header text !! Header text
|-
| Example || Example || Example
|-
| Example || Example || Example
|-
| Example || Example || Example
|}
- Others may disagree with me, but as far as I'm concerned, an "Introduction to tables with Wiki Markup" should cover very little that is not visible in that example.
- It doesn't really matter to me whether we decide that "class" is properly classified as HTML (because the same word is used in this context in HTML) or as wikitext (because that word is used in this context in MediaWiki core). All that matters to me is that editors understand how to make one of those and how to change them if someone else made one of those – and that they not get lost in details about hex codes or other "advanced" details that are only occasionally used in Wikipedia articles. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- (Also, |} isn't technically required at the moment. The parser is currently cleaning up after people if they forget to close the table. It's kind of messy/unreliable, and the parser won't support this forever, but closing a table is technically not required right now.) Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- Well I disagree. There has to be a bridge between Help:Table and an introduction. That could be described in a single page. To not describe the eight symbols used by table nomenclature, and then to expect them to dive straight into incredibly complex Help:Table is at the very best extremely shortsighted. Are you really expecting for people the jump easily? --Jules (Mrjulesd) 01:34, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
- (Also, |} isn't technically required at the moment. The parser is currently cleaning up after people if they forget to close the table. It's kind of messy/unreliable, and the parser won't support this forever, but closing a table is technically not required right now.) Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:10, 16 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)
- I agree with Whatamidoing (WMF) - the content should be relatively basic, in keeping with the word Introduction in the title, as well as other tutorials. So collapsing tables and html are, I also agree, a lesson too far. We have no need to duplicate all - or even the majority of - the information that already exists on other pages; we just need to provide links to that advanced material.
-
- I've added, to the second less, blank sections for adding a row - which I think is among the most common things that editors want to do - and deleting a row. A good argument could be made for moving them to a separate tab. For possible content, see the section below.
-
- I think the best way to make progress on this tutorial is with specifics. If something is missing (or you think was removed in error) from an existing tab, either add it directly, or post a note on this page suggesting the addition. Similarly, if something on a page seems inappropriate, either edit it directly or post something here. That way, we don't have to guess exactly what other editors find problematical. For example, I've been bold and changed two of the tab names. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:12, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- As a way of moving forward, one possibility is to revert to the original HTML page, but separate it from the basic intro to tables series. It could be kept as a help page in the same way as WP:Advanced_table_formatting and WP:Extended_image_syntax. That way we retain the depth and detail of the original, whilst retaining the newcomer-focus of the basic sections? T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 11:06, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- I think that's a reasonable compromise. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- As a way of moving forward, one possibility is to revert to the original HTML page, but separate it from the basic intro to tables series. It could be kept as a help page in the same way as WP:Advanced_table_formatting and WP:Extended_image_syntax. That way we retain the depth and detail of the original, whilst retaining the newcomer-focus of the basic sections? T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 11:06, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- I think the best way to make progress on this tutorial is with specifics. If something is missing (or you think was removed in error) from an existing tab, either add it directly, or post a note on this page suggesting the addition. Similarly, if something on a page seems inappropriate, either edit it directly or post something here. That way, we don't have to guess exactly what other editors find problematical. For example, I've been bold and changed two of the tab names. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:12, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Tables tutorial at Help:TMM
I'm going to add comments to the above section, but I want to mention a possible source for content:
I think there is far more content (that is, it's much more detailed) than what should go into introductory tutorials, but again, it's something one might look at. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Spaces
In {| class="wikitable", does that space have to be there? I'm one of those editors who prefers closing up the spaces between * content, so I was wondering if it had any purpose? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:14, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- To the best of my knowledge, there's no functional difference. I've tended to add spaces to aid human readability, but I've actually no idea which is more common, or if there's a style guide preference. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 03:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
