Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Tables: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 06:07, 3 March 2010

Example table

For something as simple as an album lsiting, I really think the following is more appropriate:

1980 - Ultra Wave (Warner Brothers)
1988 - What's Bootsy Doin'? (Columbia)

... etc

-- Tarquin 14:17 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I totally agree, actually... I used that mainly because it was a practical example, rather than the abstract "first heading/first cell" stuff that was there before. I wanted the first example to be simple, since it's introductory. If you could supply a better example that is equally simple, that would be great! Feel free to revise the "when tables are appropriate" section, also. -- Wapcaplet 16:37 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I put a multiplication table in for the first example. Seems like a better use of tables, and it's not overly complex (aside from the abundance of td elements). What do you think? -- Wapcaplet 16:48 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I disagree, album listings should be in tables.174.3.101.61 (talk) 00:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've revised the when tables are appropriate section.174.3.101.61 (talk) 00:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

End tags

Why does this page recommend using the end tags </th>, </td> and </tr>? They are not required by the HTML 4.01 specification, and I don't know of any browser that needs them. They are the biggest cause of HTML errors in tables, because it's so easy to get one wrong. --Zundark 19:13 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Partly because the old section about tables (which used to be at Wikipedia:How to edit a page) recommended using them; partly because the W3C, and other web standards bodies, in general recommend them, partly because they are required by XHTML 1.0, which Wikipedia may one day switch to (and it would be nasty if all the tables suddenly broke). Other reasons include: because I think it's a good idea; because it is less ambiguous and (IMHO) less error-prone; because some browsers do need them (in particular, tables without proper end tags seem to get messed up in Lynx, though I have not done much testing on it). I've seen no evidence to suggest that their usage causes additional errors; yes, it's easy to get one wrong, but it's just as easy to get any other HTML tag wrong, and in my experience it's easier to find (and fix) errors if the end tags are explicit. -- Wapcaplet 00:32 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I'm very surprised that you haven't seen any evidence to suggest that using unnecessary end tags causes additional errors in tables. I've fixed many HTML errors in tables on Wikipedia, and almost all of them were clearly a result of using such end tags. (However, I haven't tried to fix the tables used in chemical element articles. These tables have invalid TD attributes, and this obviously has nothing to do with using end tags.) In any case, I've added a suggestion to check tables using the W3C validator - if people would do this (and do it again every time the table coding is modified), then their tables should be free of HTML errors even if they use end tags.

I don't think we need to worry about XHTML compatibility, because if Wikipedia converts to XHTML everything will have to be run through a conversion script anyway. For this reason I think the remark about XHTML in the article is misleading and should be removed. --Zundark 12:21 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've removed the XHTML comment, and rephrased that section to better indicate the optional stuff. -- Wapcaplet 12:40 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Possibly the sample w/o the optional closing tags makes it easier to grasp. -- User:Docu

Wait. I don't get your question... Lemme see here.

"Why does this article suggest that closing tags such as </th>, </td> and </tr> should be used?"

Right? You seem to be suggesting that these should simply be left unclosed. That's pointless in my opinion, and using closing tags makes everything look more formal. :-) I'd rather have messy code be rejected than accepted. (In short: Go go XHTML!) --Ihope127 02:07, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you're replying to a two-year-old question, but anyway, the point I was making, as I had already explained, was that end tags were causing lots of invalid HTML, because people get them wrong so often. But things have changed since then. In particular, Wikipedia now has wiki markup for tables, so editors no longer need to mess around with HTML for tables. Also, the Wikipedia software now fixes some common mistakes in HTML/XHTML table markup before putting it in the output page, so getting the end tags wrong no longer matters as much as it used to. Of course, tables with lots of end tags are still hard to read (without syntax highlighting), especially if some of the end tags are wrong, but this is a relatively minor point. --Zundark 16:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Images

I can't get the <div> thing for images to work right. It sizes itself to the text rather than to the image, which is understandable, but becomes a layout issue if I need to use a large caption. Instead, I've resorted to the use of tables with width= attributes, which have problems of their own. -Smack 20:54 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Ah, that is a good point. The only solution I know of for this is to explicitly set the div width, like so:

<div style="float: right; margin: 0 0 1em 1em; width: 200px;"> ... <div>

(Where the pixel width is equal to the width of your image). CSS also supports a "max-width", which would really be better (so the width could be flexible to a certain extent), but it doesn't seem to work in some browsers (namely MSIE). I will put a comment about this in the article too. Thanks! -- Wapcaplet 00:32 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

What do the other parameter values mean? This really belongs in the wikipedia:Image use policy, maybe even the wikipedia:Boilerplate text. -Smack

Yeah, good point. And now that I check Wikipedia:Image use policy, I see that it's already mentioned:

It seems like some browsers may need to have the explicit width of the image specified, i.e. width:250;, the inclusion of this specification is optional, but recommended if you have a caption longer than a few words. For large amounts of caption text, take out the text-align:center; to make it left-justified.

Wouldn't hurt to be more explicit on that point, though. As for the other parameters, float:right obviously causes the image to be floated to the right; the margin parameters are a shorthand for margin-top, margin-right, etc., and are, in order, top/right/bottom/left (clockwise order). That could also stand to be mentioned somewhere, too. The "1em" specifies that the margin at that point should be one "font size" unit (something like 12 point with most fonts, but of course will be proportional to the font size that the user has chosen), and works in most browsers that I know of (except MSIE 3.0 which supposedly interprets it as "1 pixel", but who uses that anymore :) If you are interested in more info, the CSS2 Specification has probably more than you would ever want to know about the subject. -- Wapcaplet 10:24 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

( moved from User talk:Docu )

In recent days I've been searching out and repairing broken table HTML, and I just noticed that you undid my repairs over at Berlin Film Festival. Removing all the closing tags from the table (</td>. </tr>, etc.) may make it seem nicer on the eyes when editing, but in reality that's not valid HTML anymore. Please leave the closing tags intact. Bryan

Bryan: Please discuss your changes first on Wikipedia talk:How_to_use_tables, otherwise leave tables intact as they are. Before replacing characters with their HTML named character entity, see Wikipedia:Special characters. Both make it more complicated to edit pages. -- User:Docu

What's to discuss? Wikipedia talk:How_to_use_tables uses closing tags in all of its examples, and mentions that they're optional - meaning I can put them in if I want to without violating any of Wikipedia's standards. As for the special characters, they're recommended against only because of a bug in the current Wikipedia code that causes difficulty searching for them. The HTML tidy program I'm using automatically substitutes special characters, so I figured I'd leave them in where they occur. I'll take that eactue out of the Berlin Film Festival table, though, in the spirit of compromise; it's just lack of closing tags that I'm going about fixing. Bryan

I don't mind if you add them to tables you or someone else made, but I prefer that you leave them out from tables I made, it makes it more complicated to maintain them, if they are in. User:Docu

Alright, I'll quit nagging on this particular article - it makes no difference to the end user, after all, and it's largely just an aesthetic hangup of mine that motivates me on this. Bryan

It's just that eventually you may want to add them to List of capitals of subnational entities -- User:Docu

(/moved from User talk: Docu)

Alternative: Data objects

Most of the examples above could be handled by having a "data view class". This is not a short-term solution, though, nor will it cover all possible uses of tables. See my suggestion at http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki_markup_tables --AndrewKepert 01:31, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I'd like to revisit the issue of div vs. table. It's clear the div syntax is easier on HTML neophytes, but I've run into so many image align problems with div on various browsers, especially IE on Macintosh, that I wonder if table might be easier and better in the end. Anyone else see this problem with div a lot? It seems to happen almost all the time on certain browser/OS combinations when the image should be aligning left or right amid wrapping text (the image will just sit there in the center). JDG 05:34, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Other options

Possibility to convert CSV data to wiki-(HTML)-tables
Offer a series of choices in the stylesheets, instead of using, e.g. <table border=1 cellpadding=3 cellspacing=1 style="border-collapse: collapse">

--User:Docu

Sorted tables

From my very limited understanding of both Wikipedia and scripts, it seems that Java scripts, etc. cannot be enabled or script files uploaded at Wikipedia, at least by regular users. However, I was wondering whether there could be some way to allow in code to make sortable tables. Although the ones I have seen online do not all seem to work for all browsers, it would be a wonderful resource I think--particularly for the almanac-type page (see List_of_reference_tables) to be able to have tables sortable (i.e., circumvent the need for adding interactive databases). Would Wikipedia (and Wiktionary also) be willing to allow such a script to be addable (preferably with a simple alias activation code) to allow such sortable tables? To give an example of such code (though I don't know if this one would be ideal for Wikipedia), I found one at http://builder.cnet.com/webbuilding/pages/Programming/Scripter/080999/?tag=st.bl.7264cd3.plbl Thanks! - Brettz9 20:20 Apr 20, 2003 (UTC)

I think human sorting makes more sense - keeps markup simple and obvious, and it's not massively difficult to keep things in order. If it's not worth the effort to keep a list sorted... is it worth the effort to keep the list? Martin

I don't think I understand your comment. It involves an extraordinary amount of work to sort a list manually. And requiring it will mean that pages are not created that could be useful. For example, at the Wiktionary site, we have started a Swadesh list of 207 English words translated into about 8 languages per page. It would be nice, I think (and others have said so also), to be able to sort this in different ways. For example, you could click on one column heading to view the page in the traditional order Ogden placed them. You could click another heading to view them alphabetically by English (or any other language). Another column could be clicked to view them sorted by category, etc. It is too much work to create separate pages for each of these sorts. And even if someone did, then any changes made to one, would need to be made to all. - Brettz9 00:04 Apr 21, 2003 (UTC)

You can always use a text-processing tool to sort the list offline. -- Tim Starling 03:52 Apr 21, 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, that can be useful for things like adding columns when you are editing, but it is cumbersome to do this for any table a person just wants to view in a different manner. I think it can also deter people who are not familiar with the possibility or know-how to use this technique to enable them to do so (and again, it places added steps for everyone). After all, the user-friendliness of Wiki is not only its draw, but also allows its content to grow. And different sorts might be seen as their own kind of content. - Brettz9 15:24 Apr 21, 2003 (UTC)

On most sites when you click a thumbnail image you get taken to a larger copy on a seperate page. We could make it so that users can click on a table to get it on a sperate page that can be sorted any way. Then there wouldn't be an problem with javascript or dhtml (which I think are both undesireable in this site). Cgs

You're thinking of having multiple sorts of the same list? Ok, in that case I can see your point. I still wonder if the benefits outweight the increased markup complexity, though... Martin

Yes. Well, that's why I was hoping that if it were possible, that some abbreviated wiki alias code could also be assigned to minimize all the extra mark-up. I agree though, seeing a page beginning with a lot of scripting code would be intimidating to many potential contributors. - Brettz9 15:24 Apr 21, 2003 (UTC)

For a table like List of countries by population density it would be nice, we could dispense with separate tables for area and population, thus avoiding redundancy, hence facilitating updating. - Patrick 17:44 Apr 21, 2003 (UTC)

Similar to the option "&printable=yes" [2], wikipedia could offer a version allowing sortable tables "&sortable=yes", e.g. a with a link like [3] (sample from above). It should be possible to convert simple <table> <tr> <th> <td> markup to such tables. --- User:Docu

However it can be done, I also think it would be nice--if it is possible--to be able to have the different sort configurations show up somehow in the URL, so that a person could share the specific sort configuration with others without them having to re-sort the list manually. It wouldn't be essential, but I think it would be nice. Of course, these are all "unfunded mandates", since I am not able to bring this into fruition... :) - Brettz9 00:06 Apr 22, 2003 (UTC)

User:Hyacinth/How to use tables - Hyacinth

For those interested Bug 2001. Discordance 03:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Script to convert to new table syntax

from the Wikipedia:Village pump

Please where can I find the script to convert to the new table sysntax ? Kpjas 22:29, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm not aware of a script. The new markup is described in MediaWiki User's Guide: Using tables. Elf 23:40, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It is in the Python Wikipedia Robot Framework, http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/pywikipediabot/pywikipedia/. The bot itself is table2wiki.py, but to have it work you also need wikipedia.py, config.py and and a reasonably recent version of Python. Also download and read CONTENTS, and create user-config.py as described there. Subscribing to the pywikipediabot mailing list (see http://sourceforge.net/mail/?group_id=93107 ) would also be useful, as would getting permission to use a bot first. Andre Engels 02:08, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There is a robot used on de: to convert the tables - but it must be human-monitored as HTML-tables can contain many mistakes but still get rendered by the browsers correctly - for example a missing </tr> is just ignored. However if the robot misses it it can destroy the table. You might ask User:Head, as he is one of those who used to run that robot on de:. andy 09:28, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree - you can use the bot to do the conversion for you, but you should still check the page afterward to see whether it has not made any errors. Still, it's a nifty bit of programming. Andre Engels 19:29, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

See http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/tables.html#h-11.2.5 : The end tag for TR is optional. -- Hankwang 09:43, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Is it useful to convert all tables? The new syntax may be suitable for some of the tables, but for many tables, the simple five tags <table>, <tr>, <th> or <td>, and </table> are much easier to use. Given that the software supports both, Wikipedians should keep the choice. -- User:Docu

html is very hard to work with. When using html to make tables, it requires a lot of pasting, where wikitables are just fill-in-the-blank. We should not use html.174.3.101.61 (talk) 08:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

about id&#61toc

from the Wikipedia:Village pump

What's the meaning of id=toc of the table params (apears in Template:JanuaryCalendar and other tables). Guillermo 12:39, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It applies the formatting defined in the style sheets [4], [5] for the automatic TOC to the table. The CSS don't offer another selection of styles for tables. -- User:Docu

Table captions

Is it possible to get effect of the caption in wikicode? HTML equivalent of wanted result would be:

Some caption
first	second
third	fourth

Note that Some caption appears without borders while the cells are bordered. This is how typical countries of the world are formated. --Romanm 19:28, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yep! Check out m:MediaWiki User's Guide: Using tables. -- Wapcaplet 02:07, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Lack of explanation about width of columns

I'm feeling pretty grouchy about the fact that apparently it's not possible for me to set the width of the individual columns in a table. After screwing around for several hours with the tables, plus reading the so-called "help" over and over, I finally discovered that the columns readjust themselves in width according to how many letters are typed into one of the cells. Thanks a lot for making this so obvious to beginners -- I've only used spreadsheets for about 15 years now, and this is the first time I've ever seen one in which the width of the columns cannot be set to whatever figure I want it.

If I'm wrong about this -- and it's entirely possible, I admit -- then I wish someone would go to my new article Professional Tennis Championships and do a little editing so that I can see how the width of columns can be adjusted.

And, of course, someone can delete the paragraph I just inserted at the top of the Help article about tables....Hayford Peirce 03:37, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You can specify cell widths. I've added a new section to the page explaining how. See Wikipedia:How to use tables#Setting parameters. Angela . 14:17, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've made this request elsewhere before, but is there any chance Wikipedia could allow sortable tables? There is some javascript code on the web which can be used to allow tables to become sortable (by clicking on a column header) if that would help. I think this would be tremendously useful for many sites (also for Wiktionary, etc.). Brettz9 15:54, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you have requested it before, but it doesn't seem to be at SourceForge, which is the only place developers are likely to see it. I suggest you add it there. Angela . 21:20, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks! [[User:Brettz9|Brettz9 (talk)]] 19:39, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Table with solid borders?

Why no td bg?

1	2
11	22

How do you make a solid border table when global css is turned off and this doesn't work?

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tr>
<td style="font-size:20px;"><strong>Why no td bg?</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td bgcolor="#660000">
<table border="0" cellspacing="10" cellpadding="2">
<tr bgcolor="#EFEFEF">
<td>1</td>
<td>2</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td bgcolor="#FFFFCC">11</td>
<td>22</td>
</tr>
</table>
</td>
</tr>
</table>

This may be one way where an extra blank row (tr) is added: List of bridges by length

coloured columns

Is there any way (with the wiki-syntax) to make a whole column coloured (the way illistrated only makes one cell coloured)? The bellman 03:58, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC)

A new way to edit tables / Separate table namespace

(I've crossposted this a few times and received no response. Maybe this is the right place for a discussion?)

I think tables should have their own namespace, as they are fundamentally different from articles and clutter up the markup.
I have an idea for a new kind of editor specifically for the table namespace, to make tables more easily editable in the spirit of a wiki.

Please see the discussion on Wikipedia:Proposal for intuitive table editor and namespace - Omegatron 15:29, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Some Help?

Could someone please help me format the table on page: Ajhs?

Thanks, Mickeyreiss 01:20, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What's the question? Noisy | Talk 08:01, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

I'm just trying to get that Table on top to look nicer. Mickeyreiss 21:56, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hello! My name is the Collector!

{| border=1 align=right cellpadding=4 cellspacing=0 width=300 style="margin: 0 0 1em 1em; background: #f9f9f9; border: 1px #aaaaaa solid; border-collapse: collapse; font-size: 95%;"
|+<big><big>'''République française'''</big></big>
| align="center" colspan="2"|
{| border=0 cellpadding=2 cellspacing=0 style="background:#f9f9f9; text-align:center;"
| width="130px"| [[Image:france_flag_large.png|125px|Flag of France]] || align=center width=130px|[[Image:France_coa.gif|115px|France: Coat of Arms]]
|-
| width="130px"| ([[Flag of France|In Detail]]) || align=center width=130px| ([[Coat of arms of the French Republic|In Detail]])
|}
|-
| align=center colspan=2 | <small>''National [[motto]]: [[Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité]]<br>([[French language|French]]: Liberty, Equality, Brotherhood)''</small>
|-
| align=center colspan=2 style="background:#f9f9f9;" | [[image:LocationFrance.png|Location of France]]
|-
|'''[[Official language]]''' || [[French language|French]]<sup>1</sup>
|-
|'''[[Capital]]''' || [[Paris]]
|-
|'''Largest City''' || [[Paris]]
|-
|'''[[President of France|President]]''': || [[Jacques Chirac]]
|-
|'''[[List of Prime Ministers of France|Prime Minister]]''': || [[Jean-Pierre Raffarin]]
|-
| '''[[Area]]'''<br> - Total<sup>2</sup><br><br><br> - [[Metropolitan France]]<sup>3</sup><br><br><br><br> - % water
| [[List of countries by area|Ranked 42nd]] <br> [[1 E11 m2|674,843 km²]] <br> (260,558 sq. mi.)<br> Ranked 47th <br> [[1 E11 m2|551,695 km²]]<sup>4</sup><br>(213,011 sq. mi.)<br>[[1 E11 m2|543,965 km²]]<sup>5</sup><br>(210,026 sq. mi.)<br> 0.26%
|-
| '''[[Population]]'''<br>(January 1, 2005)<br> - Total<sup>2</sup><br> - [[Metropolitan France]]<sup>3</sup><br> - [[Population density|Density]]<sup>3</sup>
| [[List of countries by population|Ranked 20th]]<br><br> 63,044,000<br>60,560,000<br>111/km²
|-
| '''[[List of countries by GDP (nominal)|GDP]]''' ([[Purchasing power parity|PPP]])<br>  - Total ([[2003]])<br>  - GDP/head
| [[List of countries by GDP|Ranked 5th]]<br>$1.661 Trillion<br>$27,600
|-
| '''[[Currency]]'''
| [[Euro]] (€)<sup>6</sup>, [[CFP Franc]]<sup>7</sup>
|-
| '''[[Time zone]]'''<br> - in [[European Summer Time|summer]]
| [[Central European Time|CET]] ([[Coordinated Universal Time|UTC]]+1)<sup>3</sup><br>[[Central European Summer Time|CEST]] ([[Coordinated Universal Time|UTC]]+2)<sup>3</sup>
|-
| '''[[National anthem]]'''
| ''[[La Marseillaise]]''
|-
| '''[[Top-level domain|Internet TLD]]'''
| [[.fr]]
|-
| '''[[List of country calling codes|Calling Code]]'''
| 33
|-
| colspan=2 | <small>
<sup>1</sup> See [[#Demographics]] for regional languages<br>
<sup>2</sup> Whole territory of the French Republic, including all the overseas departments and territories, but excluding the French territory of Terre Adélie in Antarctica where sovereignty is suspended since the signing of the [[Antarctic Treaty]] in 1959<br>
<sup>3</sup> Metropolitan (i.e. European) France only<br>
<sup>4</sup> French National Geographic Institute data<br>
<sup>5</sup> French Land Register data, which exclude lakes, ponds, and glaciers larger than 1 km² (0.386 sq. mi. or 247 acres) as well as the [[estuary|estuaries]] of rivers<br>
<sup>6</sup> Whole of the French Republic except the overseas territories in the Pacific Ocean<br>
<sup>7</sup> French overseas territories in the Pacific Ocean only</small>
|-
| colspan=2 align=right style="padding: 0 5px 0 5px" | <small>{{edit|Template:France infobox|}}</small>
|}

{| id="toc" style="float:right; width:210px; margin-left: 1em;"
|+ style="font-size: large; margin: inherit;"|'''Adlai E. Stevenson High School'''
|-<!--Do not wikify items in the school profile table as they are already wikified in the article!
This table was created for the Adlai E. Stevenson High School article and is edited from the Moanalua High School article.-->
|colspan="2" style="text-align:center; background:ffffff;"|
{| id="toc"
|- style="text-align:center;"
|[[Image:Stevenson_Main.jpg|210px|Adlai E. Stevenson High School]]
|- style="text-align:center;"
|}
|-
|bgcolor=lightgrey|'''Name'''||bgcolor=lightgrey|Adlai E. Stevenson High School
|-
|bgcolor=darkgray|'''Address'''||bgcolor=darkgray|1 Stevenson Drive
|-
|colspan="2" style="text-align:center; background:ffffff;"|
{| id="toc"
|- style="text-align:center;"
|[[Image:Stevenson_Aerial.jpg|210px|An aerial photo of Adlai E. Stevenson High School]]
|- style="text-align:center;"
|}
|-
|bgcolor=lightgrey|'''Town'''||bgcolor=lightgrey|Lincolnshire, IL 60069
|-
|bgcolor=darkgray|'''Phone'''||bgcolor=darkgray|847-634-4000
|-
|bgcolor=lightgrey|'''Established'''||bgcolor=lightgrey|[[1965]]
|-
|bgcolor=darkgray|'''Type'''||bgcolor=darkgray|[[Public education|Public]] [[Secondary education|Secondary]]
|-
|bgcolor=lightgrey|'''Superintendent'''||bgcolor=lightgrey|Dr. Timothy D. Kanold
|-
|bgcolor=darkgray|'''Principal'''||bgcolor=darkgray|Dr. Douglas Domeracki (since [[2004]])
|-
|bgcolor=lightgrey|'''Religion'''||bgcolor=lightgrey|None
|-
|bgcolor=darkgray|'''Students'''||bgcolor=darkgray|Coeducational
|-
|bgcolor=lightgrey|'''Grades'''||bgcolor=lightgrey|9 to 12
|-
|bgcolor=darkgray|'''Enrollment'''||bgcolor=darkgray|4505
|-
|bgcolor=lightgrey|'''Students per Teacher'''||bgcolor=lightgrey|16.2
|-
|bgcolor=darkgray|'''Average Class Size'''||bgcolor=darkgray|20.7
|-
|bgcolor=lightgrey|'''District'''||bgcolor=lightgrey|District 125
|-
|bgcolor=darkgray|'''Mascot'''||bgcolor=darkgray|Patriot
|-
|bgcolor=lightgrey|'''Colors'''||bgcolor=lightgrey|[[Green]] and [[Gold]]
|-
|bgcolor=darkgray|'''Distinctions'''||bgcolor=darkgray|[[Blue Ribbon Schools Program|1987, 1991, 1998, and 2002 National Blue Ribbon School of Excellence]], [[1998 New American High Schools Award]],  ranked among the top 100 high schools in America by [[US News]] and [[World Report]]
|-
|bgcolor=lightgrey|'''Average [[SAT]] Scores'''||bgcolor=lightgrey|Verbal: 602<br>Math: 651
|-
|bgcolor=darkgray|'''School Website'''||bgcolor=darkgray|[http://www.district125.k12.il.us/ Home Page]
|-
|colspan="2" style="text-align:center; background:ffffff;"|
{| id="toc"
|- style="text-align:center;"
|[[Image:Stevenson_Staff.jpg|210px|The staff of Adlai E. Stevenson High School]]
|- style="text-align:center;"
|}
|}

WHY!?! --Ihope127 15:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Said: Rursus ☻ 07:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

should this page be deprecated?

with a big bad link at the top saying to go to the meta page instead of editing this one? - Omegatron 20:26, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Link to my Table: namespace proposal

I'd like to link to my Wikipedia:Proposal for intuitive table editor and namespace as a potential solution to some of the things in "Possible problems" section, but I don't know if such links are really appropriate on style pages. Add if you think it's good. - Omegatron 13:54, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

even and odd CSS

Is there a way to implement even and odd CSS styles in the wiki table markup? Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 22:51, 2005 August 29 (UTC)

wikitable?

where is class wikitable defined? I looked at main.css and commonPrint.css but couldn't find it. dab (ᛏ) 10:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediawiki:Common.css — Omegatron 17:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should this be renamed?

Should this article be renamed? It really seems to be more of a "Table use policy" than a "how to use tables". The laster suggests more of a technical how-to. Irrevenant 08:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Needs more examples

This article is not very helpful for newcomers to Wikipedia and HTML tables.

It has a section entitled When tables are appropriate, which lists a lot of typical uses for tables, but gives no examples of how these uses can be implemented.

It has a section on When tables are inappropriate, and gives very nice examples of what not to do.

A newcomer generally comes to this section looking for advice as to how to edit a table. For that it would be very helpful if editors experienced in working with tables considered the various parameters used in designing a table (e.g, line type, line style, table location, column width, row height, line color, background color,...) and wrote up a brief discussion (with a clear explanation and an example) showing how each of these parameters functions.

Sorry if I sound cranky but I just edited a table, made a mess of it, and couldn't find the answers to my questions in either How to use tables or Meta:Help:Table. --SteveMcCluskey 17:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What were your questions that you couldn't find answers to? — Omegatron 18:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply.

The main issue was the syntax for the opening section where the format of the table was set up and how to set line type and line style. whenever I try to insert them, everything else goes to hell in a handbasket, e.g, the table moves from the right side to the left.

If you want to see the table I'm working with it's at Talk:Atomism/Temp; the table I started with is at Atomism. I'd like to restore the lines framing the table and separating the rows and columns of the table -- preferably as thin hairlines.

--SteveMcCluskey 20:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help!

I'm utterly confused about how to make the kind of simple tables that are used on such pages as Homosexuality and religion. The coding text is so simple that it seems like it might be a template, since it seems to be linking to another page. Are these properly called tables, and how do you make them!?!? user:Whoistheroach

The tables on the page you mentioned are in fact templates, but Help:Tables has a guide on how to create tables using wiki markup which can be simpler and cleaner to use than html. --Daduzi ^talk 09:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Table formatting (Don't do this)"

What is the preferred wiki way (if any) for "named lists". I basically want to have something which looks like this (where G1, G2, G3 could for example be the standard names for specific axioms in mathematics):

G1.	Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.
G2.	Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.
G3.	Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.

This was created with a two-column table, which appears to be recommended against on Wikipedia:When to use tables. Something similar to this can be done with a definition list, like this:

G1.: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.
G2.: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.
G3.: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.

But this looks ugly if the "defined terms" are very short and also conceals the enumeration character of the list.

The recommended way on this Wikipedia appears to be to use bulletted lists, like this:

G1. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.
G2. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.
G3. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.

But this again looks ugly to me. — Tobias Bergemann 10:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was just a recommendation. Use your common sense: the table looks better, then use a table! Said: Rursus ☻ 07:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tables defaulting to white

Does anyone know why tables are now defaulting to white if you don't declare a style="background-color:#xxxxxx"? It has made me had to fix a lot of problems on my userpage! I much prefer the old behaviour where tables not having the code style="background-color:#xxxxxx" default to transparent. --tgheretford (talk) 11:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Make Table" template

Hey guys, I made a template the other day to prompt where a table needs to be made when you can't be stuffed. the template is {{make table}}. Hope you like it. Hope you use it. It adds to a category, so if you feel like creating tables, you can check out the category and create for any that are there (there's none as I type this, mind you, since the category and the template are both new). --linca ^linca 15:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cell alignment

Is there any policy against the use of the "style=text-align:center" tag? This article does not necessarily imply that (I believe only the use of standard HTML tags such as

, etc, is discouraged. -- Ishikawa Minoru 21:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've changed the page so it states plainly that HTML should not be used.174.3.101.61 (talk) 00:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate sortable tables

Now that sortable tables are possible, is there any reason not to encourage their use to the greatest extent possible? Are there many users who will have JavaScript disabled, or worse, not available? If that is an issue, it should be mentioned in the guidelines. If it is not an issue, then we should aggressively merge most instances of duplicate tables sorted by different characteristics, such as

I was going to add these to Wikipedia:Proposed mergers but I thought I'd check here first. jnestorius^(talk) 12:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I support the merger. We really don't need so many articles if all these data can be combined into one table.174.3.101.61 (talk) 06:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About to fix shortcuts

This page was moved from How to use tables to When to use tables, and How to use tables became a kind of signpost or disambiguation page, but the shortcuts weren't fixed: at the moment, WP:HTUT still redirects here, there's no WP:WTUT, and WP:TABLE and WP:Table redirect to two different pages. I'm about to fix all that, let me know if I miss anything that needs doing. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 17:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An objection

The section about "When tables are inappropriate" says:

If a list is quite long, or is relatively simple, use one of the standard Wikipedia list formats. Long lists can be hard to maintain if they are inside a table, and simple lists do not need the row-and-column format that a table provides. Here are some examples of things that might be better done with lists instead of tables.

It must be stressed that it is still possible to use tables for long lists, and that they are still maintainable. The trick is to use headings inside tables in order to get the edit buttons:

Spinky	Spanky
Flergh
Megaflurp	Flaxx
Spniff	Spnonk
Flaakput
Spiffy	Spookey
Clintstone	Washingsponge
Flaughuerghues	Spastro

(Press the edit link to view source!)

Care must still be taken that the global parentheses are balanced. Such a solution might be considered when tables are necessary and subdivisible. If such a table is too hard to maintain, ask someone about a suitable table generating template to use instead of a table. Using tables for very long lists should be avoided just because it is hard to maintain - it's not a matter of style or such. Said: Rursus ☻ 08:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've adjusted the guideline so that it is more applicable to both short list and long list situations.174.3.101.61 (talk) 06:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with large tables

I work mainly on energy-related articles and we have many articles which are just data tables (eg, List of onshore wind farms in the United Kingdom, History of photovoltaics) or have large tables inserted in them (eg, Photovoltaics, Wind power in the United States). I think the tables are too large and complicated in many cases, sometimes make the article slow to load, and often disrupt the readability of the article. Wondering what others think. Johnfos (talk) 02:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked at your articles, but, generally, tables are good.174.3.101.61 (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CSS versus Tables

Everywhere on the internet you can find articles that state you shouldn't use tables for layout, but that you should use CSS instead.

This is repeated is this article. AND IT IS TOTAL NONSENCE!!!

CSS is about using style sheets it is not about abolishing the TABLE and replace it with DIV !!!!!

I have even found people stating that XHTML specs are against using TABLES for non-tabular data.

However CSS-2.1 and XHTM-1.0 say nothing about abolishing TABLES as a layout tool for non-tabular data!!!!!

Pure CSS-positioning can be done with DIV as well as TABLE, and TABLE even works often much better, easier and more intuïtieve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.168.243.40 (talk) 18:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done.174.3.101.61 (talk) 00:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Change On Guideline

I've looked at several above discussions and it seems to me the my version is an improvement. For example, the current version limits the use of tables.174.3.111.148 (talk) 19:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More examples illustrating the improvement:

Sentence	Problem	Reason
often a list is best left as a list	POV	Gives weight to lists
simple lists do not need the row-and-column format that a table provides	vague	Does not explain why the row-and-column format is nonconstructive to lists, and in cases, tables are constructive to lists.

.174.3.111.148 (talk) 19:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence	Problem
If the information you are editing is not tabular in nature, it probably does not belong in a table.	"tabular" undefined

The other improvements is providing examples.174.3.111.148 (talk) 20:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tabular defined. I don't understand how the other sentences are POV or vague, respectively. Nifboy (talk) 20:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Including "tabular" would be a circular argument. For both sense 2 and sense 3. It would be saying "If the information is not in a table, then it probably does not belong in a table." which defeats the purpose of this page. Wikipedia:Restoring_part_of_a_reverted_edit.174.3.111.148 (talk) 21:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, data that naturally fits into a table should be tabled, and lists should be used elsewhere. I don't see the circularity. Nifboy (talk) 23:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I said that the argument is circular, it mean it defining itself.

Ok, refering to your wiktionary entry: If the information you are editing is not tabular in nature, it probably does not belong in a table.

Sense 2: organized as a table or list

Sense 3: calculated by means of a table

Both of these definitions are great. These definitions are very applicable but in an article discussing WHEN TO USE TABLES, it is not very helpful. The sentence says: "If the information you are editing is not tabular in nature, it probably does not belong in a table.". When I said that "tabular" is undefined, I mean that the wikipedia article does not define it. And this is a wikipedia article saying how to use tables!174.3.111.148 (talk) 01:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The key phrase is "Tabular in nature". What the guideline is saying is that, unless the content is already in a table-esque format, it shouldn't be in a table. that's why it shouldn't be used for simple lists; we have a variety of WP:LISTS for that. Nifboy (talk) 03:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not what the guideline is saying. So then what is "table-esque"? Your second sentence doesn't have relvance to our topic.174.3.111.148 (talk) 05:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tables are good for organizing and sorting data that is both extensive and concise in nature; a great deal of dates, numbers, etc, relating to an equally large number of items in the table. They're really bad for providing context because tables split the data into individual cells. Therefore, we shouldn't put stuff in tables when a list or prose will suffice. Nifboy (talk) 07:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What changes are proposed, exactly?

This is a widely used wikipedia guideline. I don't think this is the right place to be BOLD. Any change should have consensus first. IP 174.3.111.148 has some strong ideas for major changes to the guideline, which have not been properly discussed and for which, as far as I can see, there is no consensus as yet. Note especially the official template right at the top of the page which reads:

Please ensure that any edits to this page reflect consensus.

This is a part of the manual of style, and should therefore discuss the changes first, rather than being bold. You should describe any proposed changes clearly so that others can see what you are suggesting. Thanks. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 02:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Positions

I noticed that I had some things to fix on the page:

Things that I fixed are here.

I noticed that example was creating wiki sections in the article. And you can edit them (that's the edit bluehyperlink).

I think that's what the problem the article had people objected to.174.3.111.148 (talk) 07:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nifboy's Latest Revert

In Nifboy's latest revert, it seems the only problem he has is the problem I stated right about this section (==Positions==). I will try to incorporate the better flow in my version. I concede that there were problems.

Some edits that where good where the compromise that I incorporated: I did not change the sentences that he did not understand. But everything else I changed. When I get the version finished, I will improve this article.174.3.111.148 (talk) 08:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a part of the wikipedia manual of style, and as a formal guideline, you are expected to work for consensus before "improving" the article. That is, you need a broad agreement that the changes actually are improvements. Given the discussions that have taken place already, it is clear that you do not have much support for this. I refer you particularly to the section for content changes of the formal wikipedia policy on guidelines:

Content changes

Talk page discussion typically, but not necessarily, precedes substantive changes to policy. Changes may be made if there are no objections, or if discussion shows that there is consensus for the change. Bold editors of policy and guideline pages are strongly encouraged to follow WP:1RR or WP:0RR standards. Minor edits to improve formatting, grammar, and clarity may be made at any time.

If the result of discussions is unclear, then it should be evaluated by an administrator or other independent editor, as in the proposal process. Major changes should also be publicized to the community in general; announcements similar to the proposal process may be appropriate.

If wider input on a proposed change is desired, it may be useful to mark the section with the tag {{underdiscussion|section|talk=Discussion Title}}. (If the proposal relates to a single statement, use {{underdiscussion-inline|Discussion Title}} immediately after it.)

Editing a policy to support your own argument in an active discussion may be seen as gaming the system, especially if you do not disclose your involvement in the argument when making the edits.

— This text is copied from WP:GUIDELINE#Content changes

I have not looked at all the history of this dispute, but it looks to me that there has been a history of disagreements over the use of tables in other pages before the changes to this guideline were first made. Is that correct? That's an honest question. If there is a prior involvement in discussion over the proper use of tables in other pages, that should be declared here. It may also serve as a useful case in point to see the changes proposed in practice. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 09:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For prior discussion, see in particular Talk:Touhou Project#Page Layout and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Series article - table or prose?. You can see the Touhou Project table implementation here (compare current version). --TheSinnerChrono (talk) 09:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undiscussed major changes reverted

As mentioned above, this is a formal wikipedia guideline. As explicitly noted above, Talk page discussion typically, but not necessarily, precedes substantive changes to policy.

174.3.111.148 (talk), your desired changes are very significant. You are also already involved in prior discussions on the use of table, which makes your change seem to be a case of Gaming the system, as described in the above extract on how to modify guidelines. Given the background to this, your changes are most definitely in the category of change that should only be made AFTER discussion. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 05:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guideline Cleanup

Regarding Table Formatting

The reason I used a table that you can use in toolbar is to encourage a more widespread use of tables (the button in the toolbar increases access and ease-of-access) in the toolbar. ~~The reason I used merge was so it can help demonstrate the use of merge.~~

I do not know what this is referring to, or what change is proposed. This has been a consistent problem with the changes being proposed. It's not sufficiently clear what change is being suggested. This appears to refer to now reverted changes which were made without adequate discussion and without consensus; but we can't really tell. What "merge" is being referred to here? You can't get consensus without being clear on what change you are proposing.

On encouraging a more widespread use of tables; one major considerations in the current guidelines is to discourage overuse of tables. Tables have at times been used to obtain certain formatting features which are not particular to tables, and (according to the guideline) would be better obtained by other means. The specific examples given in the guideline are the use of tables to obtain a right floating block (Guideline section Layout of images) and to obtain features like borders or multicolumn layout (Guideline section Visual layout). (I am giving links are to the guideline version established 27 Aug and restored 23 Nov.)

Both these sections provide nice clear examples showing where a table is not necessary, and the guideline deprecates use of tables in such instances.

What is meant by "encouraging a more widespread use of tables"? Generally speaking, although tables are very useful in many cases, I would tend to prefer encouraging simple layout conventions as far as possible, as a way of helping keep articles easier to maintain, more accessible to new comers to the encyclopedia, and more robust. I don't mind at all having a credibly justified change to the guidelines, but I think we should maintain the general tenor that tables are for showing data that is intrinsically tabular in nature, and not as a way of obtaining other visual effects. I have the same feeling about all kinds of markup; with a preference for what is most simple or straightforward. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 01:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the diff in question.

Proposed version:

1980	Ultra Wave
1988	What's Bootsy Doin'?
1994	Blasters of the Universe
1994	Fresh Outta 'P' University

Current version:

1980	Ultra Wave
1988	What's Bootsy Doin'?
1994	Blasters of the Universe
1994	Fresh Outta 'P' University

Proposed version markup:

{| class="wikitable"
|1980
| Ultra Wave
|-
|1988
|What's Bootsy Doin'?
|-
|1994
|Blasters of the Universe
|-
|1994
|Fresh Outta 'P' University
|}

Current version markup:

<table border="1">
<tr><td>1980</td><td>Ultra Wave</td></tr>
<tr><td>1988</td><td>What's Bootsy Doin'?</td></tr>
<tr><td>1994</td><td>Blasters of the Universe</td></tr>
<tr><td>1994</td><td>Fresh Outta 'P' University</td></tr>
</table>

Reasons for change:

As you can see, wikimarkup is more robust and integrated with the other wikimarkup in formatting then the html. (Specifically, the "::" makes the html change the appearance of the html table where as "::" does what we want with the wikimarkup.)
With html, the formatting is lost when we indent (using the colon, at the start of a line (":")). In our illustrated case, the boarders are lost.
Wikimarkup is simpler and easier-to-use.
Help:Table#Other_table_syntax says "All three are supported by MediaWiki and create (currently) valid HTML output, but the pipe syntax is the simplest.".
According to Wikipedia:When_to_use_tables#Table_Coding_.E2.80.94_Reduce_clutter, it says html should not be used when wikimarkup is available.

Regarding my elaboration:

The toolbar is not unlike a toolbar that you find in many office programs. In wiki, the toolbar is located above the edit window. This toolbar is composed of squares with background swagways from the top in a light blue to a darker blue descending. In the foreground are graphics:

The first one on the left shows a capital "B" in times new Roman in bold (Boldface). Clicking on this square will insert '''Bold text''' with "Bold text" highlighted.
The second one from the left shows a capital "I" in times new Roman in italics. Clicking on this square will insert ''Italic text'' with "Italic text" highlighted.

I can go on and on but if you need more clarification, please do not hesitate to ask.

With all this in light, we can understand why having the table function in the toolbox can encourage users to use tables:

What I mean is not to OVERUSE them, but many editors do not know HOW to use them.
It is easier to use a table that is easy at hand; thus using this function in the key on the guideline is an example of using them on pages.
Help:Table#Other_table_syntax says "All three are supported by MediaWiki and create (currently) valid HTML output, but the pipe syntax is the simplest.".
According to Wikipedia:When_to_use_tables#Table_Coding_.E2.80.94_Reduce_clutter, it says html should not be used when wikimarkup is available.

I looked back when I was mentioning merging ("The reason I used merge was so it can help demonstrate the use of merge."). That was totally a mistake on my part. I should have took that out. No cells in my table were merged ("If you use single bars, then what might appear to be the first cell is in fact a format modifier applied to the cell, and the rest of your "cells" will be merged into one:" I don't know how to use the :wb so this will have to do).174.3.102.6 (talk) 19:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I waited a day or two before commenting again, as this really isn't something that interests me a lot... but since no one else is commenting I may as well continue to say what I think....

Sure; switching this example to the wikitable format is a good idea; not that it makes much difference. The page will still look the same, but it will use the same table coding that it recommends, which is more consistent. Good idea. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 06:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Additional Clarification

Also, when compared with computer-/wikisyntax, computer-/wikisyntax is more flexible, easier to use, and less exoteric than tables when used for desktop publishing/page elements and page orientation & page positioning.

This helps to explain and clarify the use of tables: when not to use them, comparing easier modes of markup, and explain disadvantages of page design when using tables by using comparisons with code.

Just to be clear; the first paragraph above is a sentence you propose to add to the guideline. The phrase "computer-/wikisyntax" is not an established term. The proposed sentence mixes up the syntax used for tables with the idea of tables themselves.

The existing section on syntax for tables in the guideline reads as follows:

Table Coding — Reduce clutter

Where a table is genuinely necessary and desired, use the preformatted class="wikitable" format, or one of the related formats, instead of manually coding a complex HTML table directly in the article. This will make the table, and the article itself, much easier for other people to edit in the future.

This uses the more standard term for the preferred syntax: "wikitable". I think it could be useful to add a link to Help:Tables, which goes into a fair amount of background on the syntax of wikitables. I've personally found this a useful resource. The heading of this section might be better as Recommended table syntax. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 02:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this Name change. But according to the content of the section, and having the usage of table established in above sections, the phase "Where a table is genuinely necessary and desired," needs to go.174.3.102.6 (talk) 19:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do you feel about this change:

Also, when compared with wikimarkup, wikimarkup is more flexible, easier to use, and less exoteric than tables when used for desktop publishing/page elements and page orientation & page positioning.

?

The other alternative is

Also, when compared with wikisyntax, wikisyntax is more flexible, easier to use, and less exoteric than tables when used for desktop publishing/page elements and page orientation & page positioning.

Please comment.174.3.102.6 (talk) 20:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel it is much better as it stands, using the proper term wikitable for the syntax in question. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 06:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little confused: How do you like "Also, when compared with wikimarkup ... " or "Also, when compared with wikisyntax ... "?174.3.102.6 (talk) 23:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Deleted Redunancy

, and is not really what tables were designed to do

According to wp:guideline#Content, it says that guidelines "should ... emphasize the spirit of the rule. Verbosity is not a defense against misinterpretation. Be unambiguous and specific: avoid platitudes and generalities.".
With the addition of "Also, when compared with computer-/wikisyntax ... ", we no longer need this text because "Also, when compared with computer-/wikisyntax ... " already explains it's use of tables, offering alternatives to tables.
- According to wp:guideline#Content, it says that guidelines "should ... emphasize the spirit of the rule. Verbosity is not a defense against misinterpretation. Be unambiguous and specific: avoid platitudes and generalities.".

Again, you are not clear about what you are proposing. Be specific. For example, "I suggest deleting the following phrase:" following by the phrase you want to delete. However, I don't think there's a problem here. The full paragraph in the existing guideline is as follows, with the disputed phrase in bold:

Tables should not be used simply for layout, either. If the information you are editing is not tabular in nature, it probably does not belong in a table. Try not to use tables for putting a caption under a photograph, arranging a group of links, or other strictly visual features. It makes the article harder to edit for other Wikipedians, and is not really what tables were designed to do.

I don't see any problem with the phrase; it helps underline that this is not what tables are really designed to do, which is a good reason for not using them in this instance. It is a useful phrase to retain in the guideline. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 02:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is useful, but the issue is not the issue of the design of tables, it just has to do with what tables are used for. Table can really be used for formatting, but because there are other ways of formatting, that will be easier for editors that are not as well acquainted with html, the addition of this phrase is moot.174.3.102.6 (talk) 20:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since it is useful, it should be retained. My feeling on this phrase remains as I have given, for the reason given. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 06:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But the design of the table (whatever it may be, weather true or false), the history, the origin of tables, has nothing to do with the application of tables.174.3.102.6 (talk) 23:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Deleted Redundant Sentence

If the information you are editing is not tabular in nature, it probably does not belong in a table.

According to wp:guideline#Content, it says that guidelines "should ... emphasize the spirit of the rule. Verbosity is not a defense against misinterpretation. Be unambiguous and specific: avoid platitudes and generalities.".
Because of the addition of "Also, when compared with computer-/wikisyntax ... ", we no longer need this sentence.
Per "This helps to explain and clarify the use of tables ... ", it explains when and, in those cases, why tables should not be used.
- According to wp:guideline#Content, it says that guidelines "should ... emphasize the spirit of the rule. Verbosity is not a defense against misinterpretation. Be unambiguous and specific: avoid platitudes and generalities.".
According to wikt:tabular, it defines "tabular" in English as:

having a flat, plane surface

organized as a table or list

calculated by means of a table

(geology) tending to split into thin flat pieces, such as slate

Only Sense 2 and Sense 3 applies to our casehere. Both of these definitions are great. These definitions are very applicable but in an article discussing when to use tables, it is not very helpful.

- This guideline page does not define the word "tabular" for the purpose of using tables.
  - This lends confusion to readers, and editors when when applying this guideline.
- In a page discussing when-to-use-tables, it is confusing and contradictory when it is ruled that a table should not be used when it is not in a table.
- Nifboy says "Well yes, data that naturally fits into a table should be tabled ... ". This would be helpful if parameters were set, i.e.: when tables should be used.
  - His argument is circular.
Nifboy says "Well yes, data that naturally fits into a table should be tabled ... ". This would be helpful if parameters were set, i.e.: when tables should be used.
This argument is circular.174.3.102.6 (talk) 10:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are apparently proposing to delete the sentence quoted in the start of this section. The claim of circularity is false; it is entirely possible to have information that is tabular in nature, but which is expressed in other formats; or information that is not tabular in nature and is expressed as a table. There are already examples in the guideline of where tables are using for data or information that is not tabular in nature; as in the cases where you try to use a table in order to add borders or floating or captions. There are better ways to do all these things. The sentence is in fact a key part of the existing guideline; tables should be used when the nature of the information is intrinsically tabular; and not simply for a way to get visual effects or a way of adding certain layout rules.

The guideline is not a formally prescriptive phrase which can be unambiguously define what is and is not information that is tabular. This is appropriate for a guideline. The key point is that you should be looking at the nature of the information itself, and whether it is naturally arranged as information in rows and columns.

This is a very important sentence in the guideline, and it is weird that you call it circular. As Nifboy correctly points out, it is no such thing. The sentence should be retained. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 03:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I understand now: I have one small retrospective proposal. It is just a change of punctuation:

... belong in a table. Try not to use tables for ...

to

... belong in a table: Try not to use tables for ...

.174.3.102.6 (talk) 20:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is inferior punctuation. The guideline reads better as it stands. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 06:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain why that is "inferior punctuation"? As it now stands, I do not agree with these two sentences, because the 1st sentence (" ... belong in a table.") does not have a relationship with the 2nd sentence ("Try not to use tables for ... ").174.3.102.6 (talk) 23:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. I do not think it helps to have endless explanations or demands for further justification of everything you disagree with. If there was any indication that anyone else agreed with you, it would be different. As it stands, I am content to give this as my personal subjective judgment on good writing. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 23:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarificantion

Please decide on ==Guideline Cleanup==.174.3.102.6 (talk) 10:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

", and is not really what tables were designed to do." (own emphasis)

When was this decided? This needs to be go. Failing that, "were" needs to be tagged {{citation needed}}, failing that, {{when}}.174.3.102.6 (talk) 00:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Punctuation Proposal

... belong in a table. Try not to use tables for ...

to

... belong in a table: Try not to use tables for ...

.

Rationales

"Try not to use tables for ... " is an expansion of the previous sentence.

- According to Wikipedia style manual: "Sometimes, more in American than British usage, the word following a colon is capitalized, if that word effectively begins a new grammatical sentence, and especially if the colon serves to introduce more than one sentence.".
  - This is an Amereican article
- According to Colon (punctuation)#Use of capitals: "In English, a colon may be followed either by a capital letter or by a lower case letter, depending on usage.".

- - Thus, both cases accept the camel case in the sentence.174.3.102.6 (talk) 20:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"wikisyntax" or "wikimarkup"

What is more appropriate:

Also, when compared with wikimarkup, wikimarkup is more flexible, easier to use, and less exoteric than tables when used for desktop publishing/page elements and page orientation & page positioning.

or

Also, when compared with wikisyntax, wikisyntax is more flexible, easier to use, and less exoteric than tables when used for desktop publishing/page elements and page orientation & page positioning.

?174.3.102.6 (talk) 00:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neither is appropriate. Wikisyntax redirects to wikimarkup, so presumably the latter is preferred. In either case, though, the proposed wording is unacceptable: "when compared with wikimarkup/wikisyntax, wikimarkup/wikisyntax is more flexible..." is virtually nonsensical because it's comparing something to itself. Also, exoteric is not a word. Rewrite pending...~~gimme a sec~~ and done. I changed the sentence to read: "Also, when compared with tables, wikimarkup is more flexible, easier to use, and less esoteric when used for desktop publishing, page elements, and page orientation and positioning." If this obscures the intended meaning in any way, please advise. Rivertorch (talk) 07:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC) (via RFC)[reply]

Oh, thanks. I missed "esoteric". It was something that I had wanted to changed. Forgot about it because noone would comment.174.3.101.61 (talk) 02:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More undiscussed changes

This is horrible. The guideline has become a mess. To take one example, why the heck is there any mention of CCS??!!&%# This is wikipedia, not an html tutorial. We don't HAVE ccs. Sheesh! There's a lot more that's degraded the guideline as well. Does anyone else think the undiscussed changes have for the most part made this guideline much worse? —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 16:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain the why CCS should not be included/how is CCS atopical to this page? I haven't changed any policy related text. I've only changed the placement of sections, naming of sections, and if you are concerned that it was an html tutorial, I took out that irrelevant information as well.174.3.101.61 (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The policy verbatim established above in this talk page has not changed.174.3.101.61 (talk) 21:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The IPs edits have been reverted. No idea what they are up to, but their changes go completely against actual community consensus. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Community consensus ≠ consensus on this page.174.3.98.236 (talk) 07:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Content

[6]

"**match the table contents;":

I have seen the headings of rows and columns not match the contents of the cells, or the cells have information, that would seem unrelated to the title of the table, row, or column. This should be included. If you need examples, ask.

"**not be too narrow or too broad;"

Some titles (of tables, rows, or columns) are too long and become irrelevant to the table.

cf.: Wikipedia:Mos#Article_titles.2C_headings.2C_and_sections

This is a guide to writing, and specifically, naming, articles and sections. Tables are similar: It's table name, rows, and columns name the contents on its table, row, and columns, respectively.174.3.98.236 (talk) 23:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel those points should be taken out, I'll leave them be.174.3.98.236 (talk) 01:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guideline Conflation

A discussion about the conflation of wikipedia:lists, wikipedia:stand-alone lists, wikipedia:embedded lists, and wikipedia:WTUT is occuring at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Lists. If you decided to contribute please contribute there.174.3.98.236 (talk) 23:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moving

This page needs to be moved to Wikipedia:Tables, or Wikipedia:Manual of Style (tables). I'm not sure which one.174.3.98.236 (talk) 04:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From "{{for|help with creating tables using Wiki syntax|Help:Table}}" to "{{dablink|For help with creating tables using Wiki syntax, see [[Help:Table|Help:Ununsortable tables]] and [[Help:Sorting|Help:Sortable tables]].}}"
- User friendlyness.
Addition of "==Format==[line break]There are 2 table formats:[line break]*sortable tables[line break]*unsortable tables (this includes tables with merged cells)[line break][line break]The reason there is a clear division between these two types of tables is because even when just 2 cells are merged in any direction, the table becomes unsortable.[line break][line break]*There are tradeoffs for both formats, so use the one that:[line break]**conveys the most information[line break]**is the most clear
- Harmonizing article with other wikipedia article
- Guidance to use when choosing the format to use
Removal of " and"
- Clarity
Delinking sortable
- Included in the hatnote
"a, an, or the" to "a, an, or the"
- If the template changes, the text does not get altered.
html to wiki
- Established on talk

174.3.98.236 (talk) 08:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted yet again. You should not be making all of these changes that have absolutely no consensus and when you clearly disagree with the usage of the term lists on Wikipedia and are arguing that all lists be deleted, including tabled lists, in other places. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are some agreements with the points
I did not argue to have tabled lists deleted. That was the beginning of a discussion.
I am not arguing to have all lists deleted.174.3.98.236 (talk) 04:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you did. "we really need to get rid of lists for all and for once"[7] That is an argument to delete ALL lists, and then you argued specifically against lists that are "tabled" claiming they aren't real lists. You've already been blocked once, and your filing a "30" without bothering to reveal that you were blocked by administrators for your edits is not showing any well meaning behind your cross page attacks on lists. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although it is an argument to delete all lists, you still have yet to prove that I made even one vandalizing edit. Your vitriolic language and edits are in bad faith.174.3.98.236 (talk) 07:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

I came here due to a request posted on Wikipedia:Third opinion. Here goes:

The third opinion plea referred to WP:DRNC. This is an essay that doesn't have the weight of a policy or a guideline. Anyone can write an essay on any subject. Someone can just as easily write an essay in opposition to WP:DRNC.

Official Wikpedia guidelines such as Wikipedia:Manual of style and associated child articles such as this one became official guidelines through consensus. While editors are encouraged to be bold in articles, official Wikipedia documents that serve to govern how all editors work on Wikipedia are another matter. One should not unilaterally make a substantial change to an official guideline. The proper way to make a change to such a document is to propose the change on the talk page.

The changes have been proposed, above. That's good. Making those changes unilaterally without prior discussion isn't. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protected

Due to the recent edit warring this page has been protected for 1 week. Please use the time to discuss the matter here and come to a consensus on what should and shouldn't be included on the page. If an urgent edit needs to be made during the protection, please place the template {{editprotected}} here with details of the edit that needs to be made and justification for the edit, and an administrator will come by to make the edit. If you have agreed and resolved the dispute before the expiry of the protection, please make a listing at requests for unprotection. While it is also possible to make such requests on my talk page, it would be quicker for you to use those previous methods. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 11:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was a version that was not even edited by me. And this version was made after the rfc expired. So:

I did elicit comment.
You are reverting (mind you, at least) an edit that was not only agreed on by consensus, but was not selfwritten.
Protecting this page for 10 days... shorter than when I left BOTH requests for comments up, before I made an edit. If I need only 10 days to wait, then why was I blocked, and why was this blocked?174.3.98.236 (talk) 17:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the protection. 174, you were making large edits without consensus (while you claim that consensus was established at the talk page, the only people I see discussing it are you and Collectonian, and Collectonian did not agree with your edits. As for my opinion, I think your edits introduced a lot of material that was unnecessary both because it was already obvious (stuff like "columns should have clear labels") and beyond the scope of what this page is. If you want to write a new MoS page for tables, you are welcome to do it (although I can't guarantee it would be kept, since personally I don't think such a page is necessary). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You even helped me write a few of the sections. Ok. I've already put in a message at wp:policy and guidelines.

Even if I had no consensus for any changes, there was no consensus to promote this into a guideline in the first place.174.3.98.236 (talk) 16:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines always have the possibility of being renamed.

I've encountered a lot of tables with very extraneous and long-winded titles. I'll give you a few examples:

[8]:

The problem with this table is it's title: "Top twenty green coffee producers — Tonnes (2007) and Bags thousands (2007)" and here is the revised version: "2007 Top twenty green coffee producers". The title is more succinct; both "Tonnes" and "Bags thousands" are already column headings, so it is just redundant to include them in the title; The time sensitive information common to both titles and columns of data are combined in the title. This helps to make the title more READABLE.

Here, the title is "Attacks on Oil Pipelines, 2001-2004" instead of "Attacks on Oil Pipelines". The latter is preferred because it is obvious by the information in the lower hierarchy (that is, the column headings) which years will be presented. It is a kind of generality, (good faith though it is) and redundant.174.3.98.236 (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[9]

This is one reason why the clause about determiners ('do not use a, an, the')~~and 'do not end titles with a period'~~ is important.174.3.99.176 (talk) 23:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is one reason why the clause 'do not end titles with a period' is important.174.3.99.176 (talk) 23:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revision

I've looked carefully at the edits. There is one objection that I have with the version:

The section == Content forking == should be taken out because it can not be categorized as what should be combined into one table and what shouldn't. Sometimes, there are so many parameters to a topic that a set of more related criteria should have their own article.174.3.98.236 (talk) 16:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The content forking section isn't in the current version of the page. Is anyone lobbying to put it back in?--Father Goose (talk) 00:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually the person to write that section.174.3.98.236 (talk) 16:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I don't understand what it is you're suggesting.--Father Goose (talk) 06:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm just suggesting we shouldn't have that in my version.174.3.98.236 (talk) 09:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's no longer protected, at any rate. If you've got some ideas for changes in the guidance, pitch them. If you've got minor fixes in mind, make 'em, preferably with edit summaries (summaries are that much more important on guideline/policy pages given how skittish people are about changes to them).--Father Goose (talk) 09:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to give just that much more time. I'm working on another project currently. I really exhausted ~~all the discussion boards for comment~~ wp:dr. The only one I haven't tried is centralized discussion.174.3.98.236 (talk) 13:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, dispute resolution starts with talking directly to those with whom you have a dispute. Your ideas for changes may prove to have consensus, but you need to persuade those who are watching this guideline and talk page why they're a good idea.--Father Goose (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No Consensus To Have This Essay Promoted Into A Guideline

Here is the diff of this essay's promotion in to a guideline.

Here is the talkpage that proves no discussion took place about policy.174.3.99.176 (talk) 05:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Be aware of the principle that silence often equals consensus. In the three years that it's been marked as a guideline, no one has apparently sought to contest its status as a guideline.

I take it that you feel it would be better for Wikipedia if this were an essay page instead of a guideline. Why?--Father Goose (talk) 06:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This page is great as a guideline, but the only reason this page exists is to limit it's use. If this was a guideline, we should see more clear guidance on tables.
If this guideline just limits the use of tables, then we should just scrape this page and put a notation in one of our broader guidelines.100110100 (talk) 06:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if everyone followed the essay you linked. All of them reverted my changes even though changes were built upon my changes. Also, the essay is not binding, so noone listens to it. Thanks for the encouragement tho.174.3.99.176 (talk) 06:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we could rename it to Wikipedia:Tables, along the lines of WP:LISTS or WP:LINKING and have option of broadening its scope. What more do you think ought to be said about tables -- bearing in mind that Help:Table is the right place for technical guidance?

One thing that you should also be aware of is the general principle that Wikipedia's rules are meant to be "descriptive, not prescriptive" -- ideally, this means that they describe existing community practices, and that they should not be used to try to compel everyone to do something according to your personal notion of how things should be done. (WP:UIAR is a good page to read for more details on this subject if you're interested.) That said, it is sometimes possible to pitch a new idea that just about everybody agrees with right away. Possible, but rare.--Father Goose (talk) 08:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great point!:-) Here, I've mentioned the problems of this page, which were same as your concerns:-). I'm just taking a lot more time on this guideline b/c I am trying to read other guidlines to see if a move/changes would be appropriate for this socalled guideline.174.3.99.176 (talk) 15:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move

Anybody got a problem with renaming this page Wikipedia:Tables? I'll leave the question open for a week to see if there's opposition before attempting to perform the move. (I intend to import a bit of the disambiguation text at the current Wikipedia:Tables page into this one when performing the move.)--Father Goose (talk) 23:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Wikipedia talk:How to use tables 174.3.99.176 (talk) 04:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Objections?

Are there any objections to the inclusion of:

==Format== There are 2 table formats: *sortable tables *unsortable tables (this includes tables with merged cells) The reason there is a clear division between these two types of tables is because even when just 2 cells are merged in any direction, the table becomes unsortable. *There are tradeoffs for both formats, so use the one that: **conveys the most information **is the most clear ==Contents== *The title of a table, row or column should **be unambiguous, specific, and terse; **be [[noun]]s or [[noun phrase]]s ({{xt|Effects of the wild}}, not {{!xt|About the effects of the wild}}); **not explicitly refer to one another, unless doing so is shorter or clearer; and **not use {{!xt|''a''}}, {{!xt|''an''}}, or {{!xt|''the''}} as the first word ({{xt|Economy of the Second Empire}}, not {{!xt|The economy of the Second Empire}}), unless by convention it is an inseparable part of a name ({{xt|The Hague}}). *The final visible character of a title should not be a punctuation mark, unless the punctuation is part of a name ({{xt|[[Saint-Louis-du-Ha! Ha!]]}}) or an abbreviation is used ({{xt|[[Inverness City F.C.]]}}).

?174.3.99.176 (talk) 06:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]