Talk:Wiki table markup discussion history

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

I'd prefer a format that is a bit more WYSIWYG. How about the following:

  • "[|" begins a table rule
  • "|]" ends a table rule
  • two table rules that follow each other directly belong to the same table

So a simple table would be:

 [| first column header || second column header
 || third column header || fourth column header |]
 [| first col.          || second col.
 || third col.          || last col.            |]

-- Jan Hidders

I want something (like the PikiePikie version) that allows nested tables. I think that ultimately we need a way to write matrix equations using tables, because only in this way will they be accessible to nonvisual browsers. Example:

<colgroup span="4"><colgroup><colgroup span="1"><colgroup><colgroup span="1">
123 1 = 1 + 4 + … + 9
45624 + 10 + … + 18
78937 + 16 + … + 27

using <colgroup> (which Phase III does not support), or

1 + 4 + … + 9
4 + 10 + … + 18
7 + 16 + … + 27

using nested tables (which is probably better).

The code for both of these is horrendous, but the HTML that they produce is much more legible to a computerised reader than

/1  2  …  3\ /1\   / 1 + 4 + … + 9 \
|4  5  …  6| |2|   |4 + 10 + … + 18|
|…  …  …  …| |…| = |       …       |
\7  8  …  9/ \3/   \7 + 16 + … + 27/

which also must be centred by hand (and may come out wrong if a browser doesn't know that "…" is a single character).

What can we do to clean this up and still make it work right? — Toby Bartels, 2002 August 1 Thu 20:47:18 PDT

I think this is where my "by column / by row" idea might prove useful. Matrices are often thought of as columns: geometric transformations are several basis vectors mashed together.

| 4
| 5
| 6
| 1
| 2 
| 3

would produce something like

4 1
5 2
6 3

I dread to think what contortions the script would need to perform to convert the above into a table. The "column_matrix" style would presumably put in left & right borders and maybe softer vertical lines between the columns.

I changed width="100%" into width="50%" from the table specs, it causes page widening when the left of the screen is used for the quickbar menu. - Patrick 11:38 8 Mar 2003 (UTC)

OTOH, once we have the LaTeX option, matrices are probably no longer a problem. -- Jan Hidders

However, the table proposal is much better along than the LaTeX proposal. I still vote for allowing nested tables — although I don't think that you disagree with this either. — Toby

I agree with both your points. Did you look at your example with Mozilla and Konquerer? When I do I see borders around all the cells (where border=1) which looks ugly. And about < colgroup >, the script still supports the attributes rowspand and colspan, so you could use that. -- Jan Hidders

Can I add my own table syntax proposal on this page ? Aoineko

Sure. --Brion VIBBER 04:26 Feb 14, 2003 (UTC)

Hello guys. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia but very interested in it and want to make some small contributions. I hope I'm welcomed (^_^). I want to suggest the following format for tables. It's begin with <table> and end with </table>, we can put any table attributes: border, bgcolor, etc in <table> tag. For <tr> and <td>, we use nested braces (curly brackets). Then, we could put attributes for <tr> and <td> after the closing curly brackets. For example: bgcolor, rowspan, colspan, etc. If we want to use <th>, we put triple apostrophes (''') outside the curly-brackets. This arrangement is much the same as the HTML so it will be easily converted into HTML, I think.

<table border=1 bgcolor=white>
{                                      <!-- tr --> 
  { '''lefttopheader''' }              <!-- td --> 
  '''{ topheader-1 }'''                <!-- th instead of td -->
  '''{ topheader-2 }'''                <!-- th instead of td -->
  '''{ topheader-3 }'''                <!-- th instead of td -->
  '''{ topheader-4 }'''                <!-- th instead of td -->
}(bgcolor=khaki)                       <!-- attribute for tr -->
{                                      <!-- tr -->
  { '''leftheader-1''' }               <!-- td -->
  { content-1-1 }                      <!-- td -->
  { content-1-2 }                      <!-- td -->
  { content-1-3 }                      <!-- td -->
  { content-1rowspanto3-4 }(rowspan=3) <!-- td with attribute -->
{                                      <!-- tr -->
  { '''leftheader-2''' }               <!-- td -->
  { content-2-1 }                      <!-- td -->
  { content-2-2 }                      <!-- td -->
  { content-2-3 }                      <!-- td -->
                                       <!-- will be rowspan-ed -->
{                                      <!-- tr -->
  { '''leftheader-3''' }               <!-- td -->
  { content-3-1 }                      <!-- td -->
  { content-3-2colspanto3 }(colspan=2) <!-- td with attribute -->
                                       <!-- will be colspan-ed -->
                                       <!-- will be rowspan-ed -->

lefttopheader topheader-1 topheader-2 topheader-3 topheader-4
leftheader-1 content-1-1 content-1-2 content-1-3 content-1rowspanto3-4
leftheader-2 content-2-1 content-2-2 content-2-3
leftheader-3 content-3-1 content-3-2colspanto3

Petruk 21:39 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I think I like the "Wookee" syntax best so far. We have things like '' for italics and [[...]] for links, I think we should make tables equally easy with just a few characters even for attributes like aligining (i.e. <, ^, >) and for colspan (using multiple |'s), rather than requiring to type "align=right" or "colspan=3". The Wookee description does not seem to talk about rowspans; well, we can certainly add some random character for that (say, _, so ||__ would create a colspan=2 rowspan=2 cell). Yeah, those are my thoughts.

However, I also like the "predefined table styles" idea -- I really like consistency. :) I think we should create a separate syntax for that. Maybe something functions-parameters-style? [[Table:taxobox]](pink, Owl, [[Image:whatever.jpg]], Northern spotted owl, [Animalia, Chordata, Aves, Strigiformes], etc.) something.

-- Timwi 12:14 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I think that we should definitely work on the preformatted tables for animals, elements, etc; then once that gets going, see what, if anything, we need further. It may be a complete solution, and it may not be; but it'll be useful in any case, so let's see.-- Toby Bartels 17:58 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

How horrible that we all should be caught in perpetual table formatting tennis. The proposed table format looks like it's months old, and wikipedia still is without basic table formatting. What's worse is that everywhere I've checked about wiki table formatting someone has another idea as to how to do it. "Let's do PixiePixie." Let's do "MoinMoin." If nothing else it's important to see that all these formats have a: | Cell | Cell | Cell | scheme. Anyway, enough ranting. I have been able to integrate Textile (as in Textism) tables into Wikipedia (it's a major blogging standard). I am only posting here because it took me a couple of hours to get it right, so I would be more than happy to relieve anyone else interested of the same burden.

Oh yeah. Drop me a line at misterredtape at yahoo dot com

Cheers. ciaran.

article looks quite fuxed in firefox.

tie related pages together[edit]

I assume there was a vote on this, much more discussion, etc. Can someone who knows fill in the see also section with related pages? People are suggesting we change the table markup on my en:Wikipedia:Proposal for intuitive table editor and namespace, and I assume there was quite a precedent for the pipe markup before it was actually implemented...

Maybe a short summary of each proposal and the benefits/costs of each should be listed here, too. - Omegatron 14:31, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Logical structure over layout[edit]

As per the discussion over at Wikipedia:

Why couldn't we just add new markup like,

 :Row1 Item1, Row1 Item2
 :Row2 Item1, Row2 Item2
 :Row3 Item1, Row3 Item2 :Row4 Item1, Row4 Item2
 [*Second Heading | background=red*]

Where the commas and colons are delimiters. The parsing is pretty simple, and there would be some restrictions, like no nested tables, no use of colspan or rowspan, and no commas or colons within a cell.

I'd like to point out a simplified table markup could help shift the focus from formatting to logical structure. That is, we should be able to think of a table as a list of lists, not a collection of cells. If I mark something up, I shouldn't think about the way the table is laid out, just as long as it preserves the logic. As an example, I could see the markup,

 :Picture, [[Image:A plant.jpg]]
 [*Scientific classification*]
 :Domain, Eukaryota
 :Kingdom, Plantae

Could be laid out as,

Picture (some image)
Scientific classification
Domain Eukaryota
Kingdom Plantae

But by simply passing a parameter, the editor could flip the orientation,

Plants Picture Scientific classification Domain Kingdom
(some image) Eukaryota Plantae


Plants Scientific classification
Picture Domain Kingdom
(some image) Eukaryota Plantae

Or, we could skip the table all together and have it output as,

Plants Picture: (some image).
Scientific classification Domain: Eukaryota. Kingdom: Plantae.

All of these convey the same information. Then the editor wouldn't have to think about layout, just logical structure. Well that's enough WikiPhilosophy for one night ;) -- 15:10, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) (standing in for Sean Kelly.)

Note that most of this discussion is from 2003. I don't know if anyone even watches this page. - Omegatron 18:00, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Der... do you think a RfC might be appropriate? --Sean Kelly 18:15, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Help me![edit]

Please help me... I installed mediawiki version 1.9 yesterday.(language:Korean)

I have big trouble in making table.

Unexpected result when using Wiki pipe{|...|} and ... tag at the same time.


<tr><td>name</td><td>Tiger Woods</td></tr>

No table shown. Installed my wiki system may not understand.

There is many Templates in English Wikipedia using Wiki pipe and HTML table tags.

What's the problem?

Help me please.... --Vansw 11:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]