I merged the information in one CSV-file (separated with semikolon) like this - you can take this into MS-Excel and filter there out your preferred editor : (unless, of course, the first column and the first row would be always visible) - CrazyTerabyte 01:42, (UTC) If all tables were merged in only one, it would be really confusing to look at them. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.193.63.155 ( talk This article is a wonderful resource, but surely some of these tables could be combined somehow, so readers didn't have to scroll up and down constantly to make comparisons. Hopefully I didn't introduce any problems. I've finished (and fixed) what IE started. The question is whether to carry through some or all of IE's changes to the rest of the tables, or go back to the way they were. You're correct that it would have to be handled carefully. I mean the edits starting at 12:03, 2 October 2006 and ending with 06:12, 5 October 2006 (a couple of edits by others are mixed in), plus another at 13:30, 13 October 2006. (IE ended up reverting at least one correction - maybe several - so it might take a bit of work.) - Smjg 15:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC) Sorry. And if we're going to revert anything, we should be careful not to revert any corrections/updates to the information itself. Heptite (T) (C) 23:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC) It would help to know which of IE's modifications you're talking about, and which version it is that you're claiming looked better. I hate to say it, but I'm tempted to revert IE's modifications of the tables, mostly because the modifications haven't been carried through to be consistent on all the tables, but also because I think they looked better before the modifications.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |