2,798
edits
Talk:Nature: Difference between revisions
→Rearranging the chart: Reply to Tiddlywinks
Tiddlywinks (talk | contribs) m (→Rearranging the chart: to clarify) |
Super goku (talk | contribs) (→Rearranging the chart: Reply to Tiddlywinks) |
||
| Line 535: | Line 535: | ||
|} | |} | ||
::::::::::Fun fact: the ''current'' table won't even sort to this order (I don't mean the default alphabetized order above). It only looks like it does initially, and never after. [[User:Tiddlywinks|Tiddlywinks]] ([[User talk:Tiddlywinks|talk]]) 11:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC) | ::::::::::Fun fact: the ''current'' table won't even sort to this order (I don't mean the default alphabetized order above). It only looks like it does initially, and never after. [[User:Tiddlywinks|Tiddlywinks]] ([[User talk:Tiddlywinks|talk]]) 11:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC) | ||
:::::::::::Before I continue, I would like to note that this is a debate about a table. Just saying. | |||
:::::::::::I have clicked on the words at the top of each columns in your table. They can be sorted into twelve layouts, one of them being the default layout. Looking at the table on the article, it can be sorted into twelve layouts plus an initial layout that must be refreshed to appear again. Both tables use almost the exact coding. The only difference that I can see is the lines called "data-sort-value=", which sorts your table into the table on the article, which I can admit would be a possible advantage. Am I correct to believe that sums everything up? --[[User:Super goku|Super goku]] ([[User talk:Super goku|talk]]) 03:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC) | |||