Reorganize the documentation so that functions have a logical order

[rcap107]

Describe the issue linked to the documentation

The current ordering of the functions in the documentation does not make much sense:

• DatetimeEncoder
• ToCategorical
• ToDatetime
• StringEncoder
• to_datetime
• TextEncoder
• TableVectorizer

It would be better to instead group objects by function, for example (all Joiners together, all Encoders together etc.). At the moment, there aren't so many functions for this to become an issue, but it may be a problem down the line.

Suggest a potential alternative/fix

No response

[Neilblaze]

@rcap107 Fair point. Do we have a set of group names that I can potentially use to create the grouping, for example:

1. Datetime Processing

   • ToDatetime
   • to_datetime
   • DatetimeEncoder

2. Categorical/String Encoders

   • ToCategorical
   • StringEncoder
   • TextEncoder

3. Table/Composite Transformers

   • TableVectorizer

... etc.

Something like this? Or we go ahead and create suitable names (of our own)?

[rcap107]

Hi @Neilblaze, thanks for checking this out!

I think that the categories that are already used in https://skrub-data.org/stable/reference/ ("Joining eataframes", "Encoding a column"... etc.) would already be an improvement. We can always iterate on that later, if needed.

[Neilblaze]

@rcap107 Fair point, I was thinking whether it'd be better if we do categorical grouping here on the Section Navigation pane itself,

I believe this should significantly improve documentation readability. Let me know your thoughts!

[MarieSacksick]

To join Section Navigation in submenus in API page, one has to modify this page.
Example in skore.

[rcap107]

Note that this issue is partially being worked on in #1460

[Vincent-Maladiere]

Hey @rcap107, is this closed by #1460?

It would be better to instead group objects by function

It's pretty much what we've done in this PR, but there might be further improvements?

[rcap107]

Hey @rcap107, is this closed by #1460?

It would be better to instead group objects by function

It's pretty much what we've done in this PR, but there might be further improvements?

I think #1460 addressed this

The only change I'd make is moving DropUninformative and Cleaner to the "cleaning' section, but it's really not a big deal

[Vincent-Maladiere]

Ok, wanna create a quick PR for this?

[rcap107]

Ok, wanna create a quick PR for this?

Maybe it could be a sprint issue 🤔

[Vincent-Maladiere]

Yes sounds good 👍