Talk:table

The verb table in English generally means "hold off till a later time", not "put on the table for discussion". I think the first definition should be removed. RSvK 01:32, 21 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Problem is that table did at one point have this meaning—the other dictionaries list it too—and as we are trying to be comprehensive it has to be there. When I first came here it seemed people wanted to have the definitions ordered by how common they were nowadays (and thus put "hold off" above "put on the table") but lately I've seen the reverse, and putting original definitions first and derived or later definitions afterwards, as other dictionaries do. Since this word doesn't usually mean "put on the table", a note could probably be put in saying so (such as archaic or obsolete or UK, or whatever happens to apply).  —Muke Tever 02:04, 21 May 2004 (UTC)


 * The "put on table for discussion" usage is the normal usage in the UK, and as such should not be marked as obsolete. I believe "hold off till a later time" is the normal USA usage, so one should be marked UK and the other USA. I don't know which usage (if either) is standard in other English speaking regions. -User:Anthony Berent 2 September 2005


 * I see no difference between verb senses 3 & 4. May we combine them, deleting false regional distinctions?    D b f  i  r  s   22:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * But (obviously) keep the regionally distinct (almost opposite) sense 2 for UK & Canada. Which sense do Australians use?    D b f  i  r  s   22:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I too cannot see a difference between the two senses, I've marked sense three for deletion as redundant (as sense 4 is more generally worded). You may wish to comment at Requests for deletion. I can't offer any answers regarding Australia though. Thryduulf 23:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Legs
Does a table really need one or more legs? Some diner booths have a leg, others don't. Are they no longer tables? --Connel MacKenzie 20:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No, a fold-out table or a suspended table is still a table. Legs are not a factor. —Stephen 20:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Requests for deletion
As pointed out on the entry's talk page by User:Dbfirs, verb senses 3 ("To delay, or permanently postpone a motion before a meeting.") and 4 ("To hold back to a later time; to postpone.") are duplicates with the exception of the region label. Sense 4 is worded more generally, and so I've marked sense 3 for deletion. Thryduulf 23:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks.   D b f  i  r  s   23:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete agreed. Verb sense 3 is redundant. DaGizza 14:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Is sense 3 even correct as UK usage?  Both the MW3 and OED seem to think otherwise. -- Visviva 11:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. I agree with Visviva's concerns about sense 3. According to the "other OED", the Online Ety Dict, originally, in the UK, table only meant to put something on the agenda for discussion. Perhaps from the practice of killing things by referring them to committees or commissions where they often expired, the word also came to be associated with postponement, taking on that sense, according to the other OED, in the second half of the 19th century in the US. Longman's DCE shows the meaning split. The US meaning is something figuratively putting an agenda item back on the table instead of "moving" it for a vote. If so, that would suggest that it is not delay per se but a tactic for achieving delay. To me the question remains as to whether the word now means "postpone" without regard to the specific tactic. That would suggest that the remaining US sense needs to be RfV'd. Perhaps there are two senses: 1., tactical delay by postponing for discussion; 2. postponement, plain and simple. DCDuring TALK 16:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Sense removed.—msh210 ℠ 18:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Removed from entry
. I was unsure whether to reinstate the sense and rfv it, or delete it outright. So I did neither and moved it here.

Separately, the poker definition I've just written seems a bit weak, not least as it uses the word 'table' in the definition. I wonder if the lineup and the physical table need separate senses. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

RFC discussion: September 2015
How do you get rid of the wide-open space at the top of the English entry? It seems to be affected somehow by the illustrations. Donnanz (talk) 08:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing one. I use Chrome perhaps your browser displays it differently. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it's browser-dependent- it was definitely visible on the browser I'm using at the moment (MSIE 11). I seem to remember there was a problem with was wotd, but I thought it was fixed. At any rate, putting clear after it cleared up the problem I was seeing. : has that fixed it for you? If it worked, maybe someone needs to look at the css that the template is using. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, so WOTD caused the problem. Yes, it looks fine now, so the RFC has been removed. I'm using Windows 7 at present, which I prefer to Chrome. Anyway, thanks a lot. Donnanz (talk) 06:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Not fixed: [[table]] looks the same to me with both Chrome and Firefox browsers on Win 7: still broken.
 * IMO we need to get some advice on a generic fix to this class of problems (right-hand side display boxes preventing others and even text from displaying properly), that could be applied to all potentially problem-causing templates on all widely used templates, preferably with all commonly selected gadget combinations, eg, right-hand side table of contents. Has the problem been faced and resolved at other Wiktionaries, at WP, or other projects? DCDuring TALK 16:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you seeing a massive empty space alongside the boxes on the right? That's what I was complaining about, but (for me) it's now gone. Donnanz (talk) 17:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * BTW, I notice the kind of problem you're referring to does occur on the Norsk Wiktionary site. Donnanz (talk) 17:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I use rhs ToC. For [[table]] Etymology begins after the entire ToC and wotd. On pages without, The text sections run parallel to the TOC, normally with only one or two lines of unwanted space, though some display boxes demand full or nearly full width of the frame. The effect of such boxes reminds me of the problem with [[line]]. DCDuring TALK 19:24, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm, maybe we weren't talking about the same thing. I always have the ToC (Table of Contents) appearing above everything else, and I thought that was how it's meant to appear. Mind you, I would prefer it if the ToC did appear lower down. What happens when you hide the table? Does the text of the entry expand? Donnanz (talk) 19:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Funnily enough, the same thing happened with , but I dealt with it. Donnanz (talk) 08:58, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * We may not be talking about the same symptom, but we are likely talking about the same disease. Try using the gadget for displaying Table of contents on the right-hand side and looking at both of the entries mentioned. The rhs ToC gadget still appears above almost everything else, but utilizes the mostly unused whitespace on the right hand side of the entry. DCDuring TALK 14:10, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't realise what you meant by rhs ToC at first, but managed to find it in preferences and select it. I see what you mean now. Anyway I'm giving rhs ToC a trial. Donnanz (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It's swings and roundabouts (advantages and disadvantages) with rhs TOC. I'm getting poor search behaviour with linked words, when the word searched for happens to be alongside the right-hand TOC, and the search lands in the wrong place. I have also been experimenting with clear within entries (see ). With rhs TOC a gap appears, but with the default setting all is fine, no gap. I'm bearing in mind that most users will have the default setting, so it should be OK. Donnanz (talk) 12:14, 20 September 2015 (UTC)