Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linking to User:The wub/tocExpandAll.js

I had removed the link at the top of this page to User:The wub/tocExpandAll.js, but was reverted by User:Timeshifter. I do not believe a link is appropriate because that tool has nothing to do with tables. Do other editors have thoughts? House Blaster talk 02:01, 13 December 2023 (UTC) reply

There are still 15 expandable sections in the table of contents.
Note: Go here for a tool to fully expand/collapse the table of contents.
It's one line on a help page. It makes it easier to use this help page and many article pages with many subsections. I use it all the time. You don't have to use it. But others may appreciate the help in using this help page. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 03:03, 13 December 2023 (UTC) reply
I realize it is one line on a help page, but while useful I simply don't see why it belongs on this page. It is not related to tables, and thus does not belong on this help page.
To be clear, I use the tool. I agree it is useful. But I don't think it needs to have a link in the lead of a help page on tables. House Blaster talk 03:21, 13 December 2023 (UTC) reply
I agree that it should be removed since it's completely irrelevant to tables. It contributes to the information overload issue I spoke of in the "Compact this guide" discussion. Jroberson108 ( talk) 04:07, 13 December 2023 (UTC) reply
Houseblaster. You said: "It is not related to tables." It is helping people use this help page on tables. And you use it. So let's help other people use this help page more efficiently and quickly. Are you going to make them click 15 expand buttons before they find the specific help they need? Versus clicking one "expand all" button, and quickly skimming the table of contents. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 04:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC) reply
Nobody has to click 15 expand buttons. Let's say I want to put a border on every cell. I am going to skim the table of contents, see "whole table operations", and click expand. Then I would see Help:Table § Borders of every cell, and click on that. If everything else was expanded, it would needlessly clutter the interface. The KISS principle applies. House Blaster talk 16:46, 13 December 2023 (UTC) reply
Before I installed the tool, I often had to expand many TOC sections to find what I wanted on Help:Table and many other articles. The tool does not prevent you from opening sections individually. I also have some CSS installed to minimize the space between lines in the TOC. Both in Vector 2010 and Vector 2022. See vector.css and vector-2022.css links on my user page. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 17:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC) reply
Rounding back, I am not seeing anyone who agrees with you that content which has nothing to do with tables should be included. Respectfully, your response does not explain why adding to information overload and violating the KISS principle is justified in this instance. Anecdotal evidence is not particularly strong evidence. House Blaster talk 19:15, 19 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Having to open 15 Help:Table sections one by one is information overload, and violates the Keep It Simple principle. Cause it is slow, and not simple. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 21:42, 19 December 2023 (UTC) reply

My point is that people do not need to open all 15 sections. If I want to know how to set a caption using pipe syntax, I am not going to expand " Width", " Height", etc. I am going to expand Pipe syntax. HTML output, and then click " Captions". House Blaster talk 22:24, 23 December 2023 (UTC) reply
You are assuming people know exactly what they are looking for, or that the info they are looking for fits into a particular heading. I remember when I looked in many sections to find what I was looking for. And I sometimes needed info from multiple sections. And someone new to tables may just want to browse around all the headings before jumping in. I often do that on article pages with many nested sections. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 00:58, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply
I think it is clear that we are not going to come to agreement here, so I have started an RfC. House Blaster talk 22:31, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply

RfC: linking to User:The wub/tocExpandAll.js

Should there be a link to User:The wub/tocExpandAll.js in the lead? 22:31, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

  • No, because the tool has nothing to do with tables. Information overload is a real problem. House Blaster talk 22:31, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • No, completely irrelevant to tables. This has already been discussed and other editors agree, so why is concensus not being followed, which doesn't require unanimity? Jroberson108 ( talk) 23:06, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    To clarify, it should not be on this page anywhere. Jroberson108 ( talk) 03:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Yes. See my previous comments. Which HouseBlaster and Jroberson108 do not acknowledge as being true for me, or others. Thus removing a useful tool for some table editors. We are talking one sentence. Many people on the Village Pump and on Phabricator disagreed with the decision not to have an expand/collapse all toggle. So I know for a fact that many people want it. So let them have the choice, versus forcing your way on them. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 02:15, 25 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • No. This is unrelated to the topic of the help page. Every internal WP tool ever developed by anyone is probably useful to someone somewhere on random pages like this, but that is no reason to put links to them at the top of such pages.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    • SMcCandlish. Did you read the discussion? And there are many tools listed on the Help:Table pages. That's the point. They are help pages. I can move the tool link off the top of the help page. I will do that now. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 22:47, 29 December 2023 (UTC) reply
      Yes, I read it. The fact that you find some particular tool incidentally helpful for expanding/collapsing sections is no reason to put a link to that tool at the top of a random page just because it has a lot of sections. This is a help page – about tables, not about tools for sectional navigation and display alteration. The fact that you opened an RfC about this after meeting with unanimous resistance (i.e. there is already a clear consensus against your desire to "spam" this toCExpandAll.js script here) is a petty abuse of the WP:RFC process.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:41, 29 December 2023 (UTC) reply
      SMcCandlish. So I was right, you didn't read it all. Since I didn't start this RFC. So you insulted me due to your ignorance. Nice pathetic attempt at piling on. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 01:34, 30 December 2023 (UTC) reply
      Repeat: The fact that you find some particular tool incidentally helpful for expanding/collapsing sections is no reason to put a link to that tool at the top of a random page just because it has a lot of sections. This is a help page – about tables, not about tools for sectional navigation and display alteration. My substantive objection to your proposition stands. My non-substantive objection to what I thought was you opening a pointless RfC was also valid (just addressed to the wrong editor), and is neitehr an "insult" nor a "pathetic attempt" at any thing (nor does it have anything to do with whether I read and understood your arguments for spamming us with a toCExpandAll.js "advert", which I clearly did read and understand). I'm always amazed at the propensitiy of various people to claim butt-hurt victim status when they are not getting their way and then in particular make like someone was rude to them while the rudeness in the discussion is actually coming from them. From the "unclear on the concept" department. If you think the discussion is not as civil as you'd like, then using wording like "insult" and "pathetic" is absolutely, positively guaranteed to make it worse and to make it look like you are the problem. Cf. WP:HOTHEADS for pertinent advice along these lines.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:17, 30 December 2023 (UTC) reply
      I am not butt-hurt. I am amused again at your lack of reading comprehension. I had noted: "I can move the tool link off the top of the help page. I will do that now." Yet you are still talking about the link being at the top of the help page. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 08:20, 30 December 2023 (UTC) reply
      To be clear, I opened the RfC because I felt like we (i.e. Timeshifter and I) were talking past one another. There was a third (albeit minor) participant, which ruled out 3O. House Blaster talk 23:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC) reply
      Whoever: When a proposition lacks support, we do not need an RfC to confirm that it self-evidently lacks support, especially when it's about minor trivia. RfCs consume considerable amounts of community time and energy.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:17, 30 December 2023 (UTC) reply
      I am not one to start RfCs for the fun of it. Heck, I am the guy who BOLDly deprecated WP:A5 without an RfC. Some context: I was involved in two separate discussions with Timeshifter (one being the matter at hand), and neither of them have come any closer to agreement. At the other discussion, Timeshifter stated that 2 out of 3 is not a consensus. Get others involved. This discussion was likewise a two against one, so I requested further input. (Looking back, I should have tried leaving a note at Wikipedia talk:Help Project first.)
      I have withdrawn the RfC, given that this is increasingly looking like a WP:1AM scenario. I would rather not personally remove the link, but I support you (or anyone else) in doing so. House Blaster talk 05:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Request for comments concerning Template:Sort under

See:

Comment at the above-linked talk page. Comments are requested there specifically concerning whether the default class=sort-under should be centered sorting icons or right-aligned sorting icons. Or even left-aligned ones. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 21:51, 28 January 2024 (UTC) reply

For those who are interested. Someone at the technical Village Pump suggested going to this MOS discussion page since it is a style discussion, and not a technical problem. See:
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Tables#Template:Sort under
-- Timeshifter ( talk) 14:09, 4 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Help:Table/Accessibility or Help:Accessibility of tables

Isaidnoway, Houseblaster, and more. I think there should be a separate page with one of the above names. Or another name.

Could move or copy these to it:

What else could go in this new Help page?

I don't have the health, time, or energy to do this. Though I could do some cleanup afterwards. Houseblaster, are you interested? You have done these type of Help:Table spinoffs already. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 14:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial also exists. I don't recommend moving anything off of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility without first discussing it there. Jroberson108 ( talk) 21:09, 5 February 2024 (UTC) reply
I would be interested in helping out with something like this. However, I would oppose moving anything out of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility, because that is an official guideline. House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 23:12, 5 February 2024 (UTC) reply
It would be nice if all of the above was on a help page. I find "tutorial" and "manual of style" to be off-putting. On the other hand, people have little fear in trying to edit help pages. WP:BRD happens more often. Bold-revert-discuss.
"Data tables tutorial" is not a guideline or policy. Maybe change its name to Help:Table/Accessibility.
There is very little in the Tables section of the guideline page: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Tables. Maybe just copy it to Help:Table/Accessibility.
The rest of the stuff listed in my first post shouldn't be a problem to copy or move there too.
Then we can all edit the new help page. We now have a new history for all the consolidated material. We don't have to worry about losing anything. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 23:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC) reply

"See also" sections, and their inclusion of somewhat related links

  • Tool. to fully expand/collapse the table of contents. Help:Table TOC has many subsections.

See diff and HouseBlaster edit summary: "Undid revision 1205566101 by Timeshifter (talk) unanimous agreement against including the link at Help talk:Table#RfC: linking to User:The wub/tocExpandAll.js"

That was a 3 to 1 vote. That is for the link at the top of the article. The link was moved to the "See also" section. It has been there for awhile. Those sections allow somewhat related links. So that 3 to 1 vote does not apply. And Jroberson108 was one of those votes. He does not have a problem with somewhat related links being in the "See also" section.

See the revision history for Template:Static row numbers. See the 3 diffs starting at 01:34, 14 January 2024‎. The one at 11:24, 14 January 2024‎ says: "Clarified the relation. Undid revision 1195546324 by Jroberson108". User:Jroberson108 thanked me for that clarification, and left that somewhat related link. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 00:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Timeshifter: Please don't assume my opinion, just ask. I think the consensus clearly says that there is "no" relation, not even "somewhat". Since there is some question about my opinion, then I'll reclarify it in the RfC. Jroberson108 ( talk) 03:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC) reply
To keep the current discussion here, I oppose including the link anywhere on this page. It has nothing to do with tables. House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 03:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC) reply
HouseBlaster. You previously wrote: "To be clear, I use the tool. I agree it is useful. But I don't think it needs to have a link in the lead of a help page on tables." That is why I moved it to the "See also" section. As I said in another discussion. It is not about me. This is not a chess game between you and me. It is about what is best for the reader. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 04:46, 12 February 2024 (UTC) reply
I stand by that comment, because it certainly does not belong in the lead of a page on tables. But it also does not belong in the see also section on tables. I know this is not a game between us. What is best for readers is keeping it simple, which means only including information about tables. Just because you and I use a tool does not mean it should be on this page. House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 05:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC) reply
"Just because you and I use a tool does not mean it should be on this page." Why not? There is no rule that it can't go in the "See also" section. What does KISS principle have to do with one useful link being put in the "See also" section? It was there for weeks. How does it hurt anything? It obviously helps since both you and I use it. I am waiting for a guideline against it being there. Otherwise it is WP:IJDLI. See: WP:CIVIL says: "Editors are expected to be .. responsive to good-faith questions." -- Timeshifter ( talk) 05:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Timeshifter, I have said my piece. I am not required to WP:SATISFY you: I believe that it violates the KISS principle by including something that does not have anything to do with tables. It "hurts" because it is distracting from the table-related resources. That is my opinion. Please respect it. House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 05:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC) reply
HouseBlaster. How is it "distracting" from the table-related resources? It actually helps find them in the TOC. And how is it distracting at all? It is at the bottom of the page in the "See also" section. You didn't even notice it being there for weeks. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 05:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC) reply
I am not going to respond further. See WP:SATISFY. It is distracting. If you think I am being uncivil, feel free to file a request at WP:ANI. House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 05:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC) reply
I have not repeated myself. I have responded to your points one by one. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 05:35, 12 February 2024 (UTC) reply
I oppose including the link anywhere on this page. It has nothing to do with tables. Jroberson108 ( talk) 03:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Jroberson108. It helps to fully expand/collapse the table of contents. Help:Table TOC has many subsections. I use it all the time here. HouseBlaster uses it. Why not allow others to have that opportunity?
It may not be directly related to tables, but it certainly is a help. So since it is helpful with the long TOC here, then it should go in the "See also" section.
See: WP:CIVIL says: "Editors are expected to be .. responsive to good-faith questions." You have not addressed any of my points or questions in either talk section. Your position is apparently WP:IJDLI. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 05:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Please don't assume my opinion, my thoughts, or bad faith. Can the hierarchy of the sections not be simplified so you don't feel a need for the tool? That would benefit everyone. Jroberson108 ( talk) 06:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC) reply

See: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#"See also" section. There is nothing in there against having this kind of link. It says (emphasis added): "Links in this section should be relevant and limited to a reasonable number. Whether a link belongs in the 'See also' section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. One purpose of 'See also' links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics;" -- Timeshifter ( talk) 05:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment for others reading this. See Phabricator tasks:
T302426. ToC test "show all sub-sections" button
T333801. Vector 2022: consider showing closed sections of the TOC by default
Please comment there so that developers know there is a continuing desire for a TOC toggle that alternates between expand all and collapse all. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 03:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Consolidation ideas

Can the hierarchy of the sections not be simplified so you don't feel a need for the tool? That would benefit everyone. Jroberson108 ( talk) 06:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC) reply

We've already spun off 3 articles from Help:Table. They are all below the recommended prose size limit of 6,000 words. I updated the numbers below. See:
Wikipedia:Prosesize
Wikipedia:Article size - < 6,000 words < 40 kB.
Readable prose size:
Help:Table - Prose size (text only): 27 kB (4675 words).
Help:Creating tables - Prose size (text only): 18 kB (3336 words).
Help:Tables and locations - Prose size (text only): 16 kB (2805 words).
Help:Table. Advanced - Prose size (text only): 11 kB (1940 words).
-- Timeshifter ( talk) 08:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC) reply
I was speaking more in terms of organizing the sections on this page, not necessarily moving anything to another help page.
Consolidating can help with the size. In Basic table markup, the "Required" column can be removed and the bold word "Required" added to the "Usage note" column, which "Optional" is implied.
Examples can be consolidated to the essentials to illustrate how to do it. In Float table left or right, would two columns suffice and can the lorem ipsum text be reduced? Same for Centering tables, would two columns suffice? Should Nested tables be on this page given it's discouraged per the accessibility link, or should it be minimized since the link illustrates it already?
Pipe syntax tutorial, Simple tables, Classes, Other table syntax, and probably some other sections seem to duplicate a lot of what's already covered on Help:Basic table markup, so can they be removed/reduced to an essential overview. Basically, go here to learn the basics because this page gives an overview of the essential markup and the rest goes more in-depth on further customization.
If the sections were organized based on the reader's goal, then it might make it easier to find what they are looking for.
The sections could be:
  • Adding tables
    • Visual editing
    • Source editing
  • Table markup overview
  • Table styling
    • Alignment
    • Borders
    • Color
    • Colspan and rowspan
    • Floating
    • Width and height
    • Nowrap
    • etc.
  • Table templates
    • Row numbers
    • Tooltip
    • Diagonal split header
    • etc.
  • Table advanced usage
    • Image gallery
    • Indenting tables
    • etc.
Conditional table row should probably be moved to advanced. Jroberson108 ( talk) 18:51, 12 February 2024 (UTC) reply
I don't think we need to create any new pages, but I think the guidance at WP:Article size is not applicable here. "Prose size" leaves out everything in a table, which for these pages is much of the content. House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 15:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Table with page sections

FYI, I've come across a few pages where page sections were added to a table to divide it up into sections. I'm sure it's an accessibility issue that's worse than MOS:COLHEAD. If someone wants to try to fix them, feel free.

There's probably more. Jroberson108 ( talk) 21:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply

This is permitted by the HTML specs (because MediaWiki does not use the ARTICLE, ASIDE, FOOTER, HEADER, NAV and SECTION elements which would impose restrictions on page structure). Why is it an issue here? -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 15:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC) reply
I mentioned aaccessibility. It's very similar to MOS:COLHEAD except with "header" instead of "th" elements where you are visually separating a data table. Although using "th" might cause more issues, it's still "visual". MOS:COLHEAD recommends moving the header text to a column or spliting them into separate tables with the header text in the table caption. If it's not an accessibility issue for screen readers, then that's fine. Moving it to caption is an easy way to keep it accessibile. Jroberson108 ( talk) 16:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Styling background-color

I've come across several pages that have a sortable table's column header's background color changed using style="background: color;". This made the sort arrows not display. The help page should change the code examples to use style="background-color: color;" instead, which fixed the issue. Although the help page has one prose line that says use "background-color", every color example uses "background". Here's the latest two fixes: [1] and [2]. Jroberson108 ( talk) 21:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply

When used inside a style= attribute, they are, in most cases, interchangeable. However, the background: property will reset any background-image:, background-position:, background-size:, background-repeat:, background-origin:, background-clip: or background-attachment properties to their initial values. I don't think that this will be a problem for us. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 15:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC) reply
I'm aware that they can be interchangeable except when another background property is also set, but most people aren't CSS savvy. Setting a more specific "background-color" in the examples would help, especially when someone later adds sortable to a table that uses the less specific "background" (after following this page's examples) causing some sort arrows to be disabled. It's a recommendation for the less savvy. Jroberson108 ( talk) 17:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC) reply
I did a mass-replace of style="background: with style="background-color:
See diff.
Here is an edit summary for a mass find-and-replace for a whole article with multiple tables:
Replace style="background: with style="background-color: - See [[Help:Table#Colors in tables]] and [[Help:Table#Background colors for column headers]]
Replace style="background: with style="background-color: - See Help:Table#Colors in tables and Help:Table#Background colors for column headers
-- Timeshifter ( talk) 19:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Need wrapping of the "Announced" column

Note: This concerns the table here: List of iPhone models#Release dates.

See the top table in this article version:

All the other dates in the other columns will wrap when necessary. Scroll down the table to see. Narrow your browser window too, to see it more clearly.

The "Announced" column dates will not wrap. They use {{ start date}}. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 01:39, 16 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Looks like that template uses non-breaking spaces (&nbsp;) instead of spaces, which prevents the wrapping. It lists some alternative templates at the bottom. It looks like {{ start date text}} uses spaces, so it should wrap. Jroberson108 ( talk) 05:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Maybe there is a better template than that one. Also, that column doesn't appear sortable when {{ start date}} is used. I recall {{ Date table sorting}} needs to be used so it sorts correctly. It also uses normal spaces, so the date will wrap. Jroberson108 ( talk) 05:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Thanks. I switched to the abbreviated form of {{ Date table sorting}}. It narrowed the column a little, but it does not sort. Which is weird because I thought that was the reason for its title. It does not wrap either. I put a soft hyphen {{ shy}} in "Announced" text in header. That did not help. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 06:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Looks like the "nowrap=off" parameter has to be added to disable the nowrap style. That template sets data-sort-value= for each data cell, so you will need to remove data-sort-type="date" from the header for it to sort. I noticed some of the other columns don't sort either. Maybe add this template for the date part of them too: "June 29, 2007; 16 years ago". Jroberson108 ( talk) 07:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Thanks again. That did the trick for the "Announced" column. Parts of the {{ Date table sorting}} doc page are baffling, and poorly written. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 08:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The {{ start date}} template must not be used outside infoboxes. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 12:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Help table header

With all those links to main page's subpages one gets easily in the sea of links. To resolve that, I feel a help table header is long overdue, hence why I am opening this discussion. Qwerty284651 ( talk) 06:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I don't understand what you are asking. Please clarify.
A template would be nice. That would save me some work adding new table help pages. I may create a template. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 16:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I meant an actual header: Template:AWB, Template:Village pump page header. Qwerty284651 ( talk) 18:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply
What would you put in it? -- Timeshifter ( talk) 19:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply
These links categorized by tabs: basic, advanced. Haven't come up with a list of tabs of which like would go where. Qwerty284651 ( talk) 20:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply
What would you put it in? -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 20:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Inside a separate page header titled, for example " Help table header or Help table tab header and have that transcluded on all help table (sub)pages. Qwerty284651 ( talk) 20:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply
There are only four subpages, of which one is a template and another is the doc for that template. That leaves just two, Help:Table/Advanced and Help:Table/Width. Do we really need a header for those? -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 22:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Let me rephrase that. A table header...anything table related. There are many table help pages that could be structured in an organized manner with a header. These merit a banner: Help:Tables and VisualEditor, Help:Creating tables, Help:Wikitable, Help:Basic table markup, Help:Table/Advanced, WP:Advanced table formatting, Help:Tables and locations, Help:Sortable tables, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Tables, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial, H:TABLE, Help:Wikitable. Create a banner containing the aforementioned links. Qwerty284651 ( talk) 22:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I was thinking of putting a table or div around the links for now. And then putting that in a template. Such as: Template:Table help. 

<div style="border:solid 1px; padding-left:4px; padding-right:4px;">For more help, see [[Help:Table]], [[Help:Introduction to tables with VisualEditor/1|Help:Tables and VisualEditor]], [[Help:Creating tables]], [[Help:Introduction to tables with Wiki Markup/1|Help:Wikitable]], [[Help:Basic table markup]], [[Help:Table/Advanced]], [[Wikipedia:Advanced table formatting|WP:Advanced table formatting]], [[Help:Tables and locations]], and [[Help:Sortable tables]]. For style info, see [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Tables]]. For accessibility, see [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial]].</div>

It requires full internal links under any shortened labels. So that the link is black, bold, and unclickable when the template is on that page. If you use a shortcut in the template (such as Help:Wikitable) as the underlying link, it will be clickable on that page.

Example: Help talk:Table ([[Help talk:Table]]) link on this page. Talk ([[Help talk:Table|Talk]]). -- Timeshifter ( talk) 04:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I say go for it. And then replace all headers in the pages above with the template. Sort of a like a predecessor to the header. A transition. Qwerty284651 ( talk) 11:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Done, and added to table help pages: Template:Table help. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 19:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Help_talk:Table&oldid=1232406068"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE