Talk:Sir Ellis Ellis-Griffith, 1st Baronet

This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Politics of the United Kingdom

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles

More information:
/
	This redirect has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Biography: Peerage and Baronetage

	Biography portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This redirect is supported by WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage.

Election tables

I would suggest that the election results be restored as they are relevant. The article needs to be extended so that they do not overwhelm the text Macs15 (talk) 16:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Macs15 that the tables are relevant and that just because the information is contained elsewhere on wikipedia does not mean that they should be excluded from this page. I also agree that the issue of overwhelming the text is a matter for the text and not the tables and that ideally, the article needs extending from a text point of view. I note that the article is rated by the projects as only a 'Start' class so there is clearly room for further development. I have therefore reverted the previous edit. Graemp (talk) 18:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a WP:CONTENTFORK; identical tables do not need to be presented in two interlinked articles.

If the tables are going to be included (contrary to guidelines), they should at least be in a separate section so that the few short paragrpahs of text can be read without scrolling past the tables. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have just moved the tables to a separate section. The text can be now be read without having to look for it in between big tables. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I need you to help me out a bit here by explaining why you think this is undesirable with regard to WP:CONTENTFORK. I would point out that the tables used exist on three different wikipedia pages and are brought together only once on this page as they relate directly to the subject of the article. I don't know of anything that says that it is against any guidelines for tables to be used in such an article as this and would be grateful if you could direct me to such guidelines. With regard to you moving the tables to the foot of the article, personally I do not like this as I feel this disrupts the chronological flow of the article. This requires the reader to continually scroll up and down the page to follow the narrative. Graemp (talk) 19:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The general style guidance (which I can't locate now) is that an article should flow as a narrative, and engage the reader. Breaking it up with big blocks leaves fragments of text interspersed between the tables, which dominate the section, and makes the reader strain to find the text. It might be different if the tables were compact blocks which the text flowed around, but they aren't.

In the version, I have just created, the text takes up about 2cm or 3cm of vertical height. It is easy to speed-read, and clear. Per WP:EMBED, Prose is preferred in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, in a way that a simple list may not. Prose flows, like one person speaking to another. It is best suited to articles, because their purpose is to explain

If I want the full details of the vote counts, that should be available without breaking up the flow of the narrative. I think it is quite sufficient to have the tables in linked articles, for the benefit of readers who want that much detail ... but if you do insist on having them on this page, they should not disrupt the flow of the prose. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:24, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS You write that the reader to continually scroll up and down the page to follow the narrative. No they don't; tables are data, not narrative. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is a shame that you can not point to any relevant guideline to this case. With regard to the tables, these were developed from standard templates used by the relevant wikipedia project rather than what you describe as compact blocks. I am not aware of any table templates on wikipedia that allow text to flow round them. This may be because wikipedia style guidelines did not want text to flow round tables as you suggest. The use of tables to convey the information is far better thn using prose as that prose would be dominated by numbers. It is far better I think to provide the full information in table form and then use prose to draw out any particularly important facts. I am not sure that the wikipedia style guidelines for an article should have as their priority the enabling of speed-reading. Clumping all text together in an unbroken form is also visually unattractive. Seperating out the tables from the text disrupts the chronological flow and narrative of the article. This article, rated Start class is clearly one that is in development and can be further improved. If it were, you perhaps might not have the criticisms you have raised. Graemp (talk) 19:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your ps where you state that tables don't form part of the narrative. Narrative is not defined by text only but by anything that assists the telling of a story.Graemp (talk) 20:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Please read what I wrote, and note the link to WP:EMBED. And once again, tables are not narrative. Prose is narrative. The narrative does not need to repeat every number, merely to summarise the important points. You do appear to be confusing the concepts of data and narrative.

As Ironholds noted in a similar discussion at Talk:Norman Birkett, 1st Baron Birkett, other similar articles either omit these tables or place them in a separate section. The article cited as examples there are way beyond start class.

If you want to persist with this, contrary to WP:EMBED, we need an RFC. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have read all you wrote. Prose is not narrative but a part of narrative. You have quoted from WP:EMBED which does not sufficiently resolve the issue in my view and I would certainly not conclude that my edits are contrary to it. I would refer you to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Tables which details the issues more thoroughly. I can not find anything there that would lead me to conclude one way or the other. I think we have different aesthetic views on this issue and I don't think this matter is helped by you trawling around other articles such as Sir Francis Edwards, 1st Baronet. If you insist on taking this further, it might indeed be best for you to raise this as a RFC on the UK politics project. Graemp (talk) 20:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Tables refers to tables in general. The guideline I quoted, WP:EMBED, refers specifically to the desirability of embedded tables and lists, and takes precedence of a guideline on how to present lists and tables.

This is not a matter of aesthetics. It is about readability, and about the duty of a writer to construct a narrative by summarising and explaining, rather than to bombard the reader with raw data. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see the argument here. A table containing election results should be part of a chronological narrative? What we need is a more detailed narrative which will be informed by results in the form of tables? It would be useful to have a fuller dicsussion. Macs15 (talk) 23:26, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An illustration floated to one side, with the text flowing around it, enhances the narrative.

In this case, the tables form a solid block with no text wrap, which as the opposite effect: it breaks up the prose into small fragments, which are dominated by the bulky tables. The tables supplant the narrative.

Compare the current version, where the 5 paragraphs of narrative take up about 1/3 of the height of laptop screen, and are easily read ... with Graemp's last version, where the text is chopped up into small fragments, each separated by a large table, stretching out the section over 3 screenfulls. That is massively less readable. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]