Talk:Table

2003

This article started from a redirect that nicely handled the most literal sense of "table", i.e. a piece of furniture. I took it further when i noticed the metaphoric uses it was linked by. My first attempt to turn the redirect into a disambiguation page spent a lot of text on explaining the distinctions; this made its disamb role inefficient.

But now i'm proposing more links, bcz my fix for that makes Table (information) IMO too general.

IMO, this article needs to have one of its 3 links, namely

table (information)

replaced by at least 4 new ones, namely

Note that link 4 is not known to have a purpose beyond SNOBOL4, which apparently names one feature "array" and another "table".

Links 1,2, and 3 would point to articles refactored out of the current table (information) article. I am entering some thots about that on Talk:table (information). --Jerzy 16:36, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

(My immediately previous edit reworded some of the 5 'graphs above (from 10 Oct 2003) to improve clarity.)

I also note that i'm reconsidering whether all 4 the above replacement links are really desirable, as i'll discuss on Talk:table (information) --Jerzy 03:43, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)

fixing cut and paste move

{{capmv|Table (disambiguation)}} Merged — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 13:18, Jan. 3, 2006

Article was copied, then redirected. I've moved/swapped this Talk page, so that both sides are in sync from the point of view of the readers. Now, the histories need to be merged, and both put back at "Table (disambiguation)" with the redirect at "Table", especially as this was an example in MoS:DP. --William Allen Simpson 12:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:DP

Where in the MOS:DP does it say that the linke to tables belongs at the top? Yes, apparently we are reading different pages. Tedernst | talk 20:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I was referring to the "may also" heading you eliminated.

The topnote/hatnote is in both WP:D and WP:HN, both of which are referenced by MOS:DP. This is a slightly unusual case where Table happens to be the disambiguation page for Tables, as you might have noticed had you actually looked at both pages! There are templates that almost match (Otheruses7 comes to mind), but not quite.

Since we're over here at a quieter talk page, I'm going to politely say it again — Ted, you should not just quickly rip apart pages. Folks are getting really annoyed at the hack and slash approach to disambiguation. You should check the history, at all the links, and all the "what links here", before changing anything!

Had you checked the history, you might have noticed that I'd already carefully worked on this page. And had the assistance of an admin to fix prior cut and paste problems. And discussed it at talk:disambiguation, as this is a CITED EXAMPLE THERE! And even the recent edit note "Link Tables (that links this page as a disambiguation page)" might have given you a clue.

All this information is important for careful and considerate disambiguation. Please, please, please, slow down.

--William Allen Simpson 01:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wikitable

hey, can anybody help me to tell me what a wikitable is? maybe it should be included on the article page?

Try WP:TABLE. And please remember to sign your posts with ~~~~ -- Alarob 23:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Manual of style

Several recent edits have repeatedly added a link to COBOL to the tables entry on this page. Please read the relevant section of the manual of style, specifically the second bullet here. Heavy linking is typically encouraged in articles, but a disambiguation page is not an article, it's a navigation aid. As that part of the MOS indicates, entries on disambiguation pages should have only one link. The idea is that a reader who has identified which entry matches their need can immediately see what to click on, with no confusion. In this case, I think an example is fine (as long as the entry is not too long), but it should not be linked, e.g.:

Arrays are called tables in some programming languages, e.g., COBOL

—johndburger 15:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 20:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Table → Table (disambiguation) – propose making Table (furniture) the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC which needs this location ~~- either via a redirect (or if others prefer a move instead, either way~~ DAB has a primary). Widefox; talk 22:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC) Shouldn't table join window, door, chair as primary topics? (and seriously I mean there's lack of other topics) I'm not even going to do page views. This proposal is just 1. move the DAB Table to Table (disambiguation), ~~A) redirect Table to Table (furniture). Please say if you want to go further than this and instead B)~~ 2. move Table (furniture) to Table.[reply]

All incoming links are for this primary: List of furniture types Table topic Anthro Corporation Four Rooms (TV series) Widefox; talk 22:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support wholeheartedly. The thing with four legs that I eat my breakfast off of is clearly the primary topic. Any other arrangement is just plain silly. Prefer option B - move Table to Table (disambiguation), then move Table (furniture) to Table. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

as it seems it is in fact that silly, yes, I'll switch to the obvious moving the furniture too. Widefox; talk 23:22, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

on the fence As in today's world, someone looking at a table may well be looking at a table of data. Will need more evidence on primarytopic.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

by that logic we'd have window -> Microsoft windows instead of real ones! Widefox; talk 23:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not really. Tables of data have been around a long, long, long time. I'm not sure that table (furniture) can trump table (information) in terms of primary topic. for example, look at search volumes here: [1], which shows mixed usage.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another set of searches, same thing, mixed bag: [2] --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

sure systemic bias. Say "table" to anyone and they know. We can tabulate stats or just do the obvious gut feeling on this. Widefox; talk 00:17, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – the furniture topic gets only a very small minority of the page views, and is not more important than the other topics about tabular information. Dicklyon (talk) 00:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

yup. http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/Table_%28furniture%29 has fewer hits than http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/Table_%28database%29. Both searches and views don't support table as primary topic.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support due to the other uses having derived from the furniture. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Being the source of derivation has never been a criterion for establishing primary topic recognized by the community. If it was, Mercury (mythology) would be at Mercury (among countless other examples). Is it your opinion that being the original source of other derivative uses of a term should be an absolute criterion for establishing primary topic? Since that's not in policy, guidelines nor adopted in practice by the community, are you invoking IAR? --B2C 17:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You overstate the role of written policy. There are no absolutes. There is a lot to what we do that is not well described. Multiple uses of Mercury are ancient. The derivative uses of Table are modern. A better comparison would be Avatar. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. First, the page views do not support making the piece of furniture the primary topic in terms of usage. Second, I do not see any evidence of long-term significance; yes, the concept of arranging data was named after the piece of furniture, but over the centuries since that was coined, I fail to see any "substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term" today in 2013 -- especially, for example, when I see other people and kids from all walks of life, either at school or at work, sitting at tables and creating tables of data. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: it's not a question of "What's the most common kind of 'table' in everyday life?" but "What is someone likely to be looking for if they look up 'table' in this encyclopedia?", and then "Is there one use of 'table' which they are overwhelmingly more likely to be looking for than all the others put together?". Yes, the furniture is common, and is what comes to mind if you say 'table', but on the basis of the other two questions this dab page needs to stay at the basic word. PamD 07:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment usage was completely discounted in Talk:TLS (and lesser Talk:TCP) so my thinking on this primarytopic was that usage would be secondary in thoughts to the commonly known item, but I may have misjudged how strong the "data topic" is (excluding usage) - this may be highly subjective. Clearly "the furniture topic" has a strong rival in usage (but factor in the systemic bias), but in expectations? My rational is dictionary based, which may or may not be useful. It would be good to capture the commonality between arguments in this and arguments in say Talk:DNS (disambiguation) , Talk:TLS , Talk:TCP (discount biased usage vs use usage) to try to give some framework for these primarytopic discussions (and of course review others too). Although it isn't obvious more guidance would be helpful as each case needs justifying on merits (and certainly as JHunterJ pointed out, bogus arguments such as sets of items are bogus, but dictionary based arguments for everyday objects that one learns the words to first in life/foreign languages is interesting, and I think trumped a clear "primary usage" at a previous discussion) I think I'll back away and put something together. Certainly most editors have left DAB links to the furniture topic, which indicates something about expectations/link usage/competent editors (as tech editors may be more likely to check the link). Widefox; talk 18:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: The derivative use is not the primary topic per ZZyzx11's page view count data. --B2C 17:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Question. User:Born2cycle, could you clarify what you mean by "derivative use"? Red Slash 03:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The use from which all other uses of "table" are derived - the topic of Table (furniture). --B2C 04:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per apple. Red Slash 03:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Looked as athers.

Две "ноги" под одной стороной стола обычные. Две другие - как если прикреплены к превёрнутым детским качелям.

Как качатьця если с другой стороны две ноги упёртые также как эти ?! )

P.S. Для "стремянок" было бы хорошо. (с широкими копытами, раскидными)))

176.59.203.223 (talk) 05:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]