Talk:Ford Model TT/Archives/2015

Production table
, I'm not quite sure why you keep reverting my changes but I'll try to explain my reasoning and see if we can find some common ground.

Firstly, the sentence fragment "Below are the numbers of Model T trucks produced" is redundant - with a suitable selection of column headings and maybe a caption, the table itself tells you that.

Secondly, by stating outside of the table that production is worldwide but not including Canada, you effectively limit the table to just that statement. If we manage to find the Canadian numbers or numbers representing other breakdowns (eg US only, Australian only, non N.American) then we can not easily add them to the table unless we remove your statement first. By putting "World-wide (minus Canada)" as a column heading we leave ourselves an easy way to add more columns for production figures like "Canada". Also, the reference should go with the data. If we find Canadian figures then the world-wide (minus Canada) figures should have the existing reference and the Canadian figures should have their new reference. This only makes sense if the references go with each column, not outside the table.

You rejected my first attempt at formatting the table by claiming the column heading made the column too wide. My second attempt was still wider than your original but only by a small amount and was still quite readable. And its not like the table is short of space - we have plenty of room to the right to expand into.

I should mention that I do appreciate that you went out and found the facts and figures.  Stepho  talk


 * Stepho, first of all, several of your recent edits did indeed fix issues with the article, and that's great. Some of the issues you fixed existed before I rearranged some of the sentences to make more sense as different sections. Having the table perform the addition of the starter and non-starter figures also is a good idea.  I intend to do more work on this article but it takes time.


 * Having said that, I disagree with you on several points. First, "Below are the numbers of Model T trucks produced for each year of production." is not a sentence fragment.  Second, the change I reverted was not your formatting of the table; it was simply the change to the heading and the removal of the sentence. Third, your edits to the headings did indeed make the column very wide by including information in the heading that didn't have to be there, and that was my original reason for reverting; as I have said, there is nothing wrong with an explanatory sentence, rather than trying to squeeze it into the table itself. The sentence can clearly explain the meaning of the table without concerns about how many words are needed. Then the table can do its job.


 * The objection about having to remove my statement first if Canada figures are found is spurious. If those figures are found, quite a bit of editing to the table will be needed.  Altering or removing a few words in the explanatory sentence is nothing in comparison. Omnedon (talk) 12:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)