Talk:Table (verb)

message: What about in Canada and Australia, please? --James S. 10:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

message: The article has nothing to recommend it over the Wiktionary entry—I don't think it belongs in Wikipedia. —johndburger 11:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, because the discussion of when lay on the table is improper would not belong in a dictionary. That said, i'll rework the article to make it less definitional and more reflective of the term's real world usage. Jay Maynard 12:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There. How's that? Jay Maynard 21:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary|Wikipedia is not a dictionary]]!!! 

message: Are you serious? I'm once again deleting that bottom section entitled, "commencing discussion". It's generalizing. That's like me saying "This can of soda is confusing to men." Not to mention that it already discusses the British version of the word in the first paragraph. And what is "commencing discussion"? Why don't I just put that section at the end of every article on Wikipedia and just have it be a spot for me to give my general opinions and statements about the subject matter, like you have done. I mean, seriously, I would say just find a citation and get back to me, but one can't find a citation for that, because it's such a broad, general, vague, statement.--Zombiema7 19:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Citation for what?  The section header is clearly antonymic to the header of the preceding section.  I don't understand what you're getting at here. –EdC 23:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Commencing Discussion?

message: The bulk of this article concerns the parliamentary motion Lay on the table, and I propose to make that the name of this article and use Table (verb) as a redirect if necessary.  Table is a generic word with many meanings, as evidenced in the discussion above and in the article.  If there is not general consensus to rename this article, then I propose that a new article be created Lay on the Table for inclusion under Wikipedia:WikiProject Parliamentary Procedure
The article does need to be rewritten and include better references.  Too much is made of the difference in understanding what table means, and that should not be one of the focal points of this article, especially if references are not included to back up the claimed usages. 
Table originally refers to the clerk's table (or sometimes the speaker's table). To lay something on the table or table it is to give it to the clerk (of a Deliberative assembly).  Sometimes, especially in legislative or Parliament usage, it means to place a bill on the clerk's table as the first part of the consideration of a bill.  Other times, if a motion is under consideration and there is something more urgent that must be done, it can be moved to lay the motion/bill back on the clerk's table.  This sets it aside temporarily while more important matters are dealt with.
In general use, table has evolved to mean various things, postponing something, deep-sixing it, killing it, putting it aside temporarily, or 'bringing it to the table', introducing it as a subject, etc..   Discussing these various shades of meaning of the verb 'table' is more appropriate for a dictionary rather than an encylopedia.  Therefore, I would like to see this article concentrate on the legislative and parliamentary uses of 'table'.  That may mean one article to discuss 'lay on the table' and other parliamentary variations; another article to discuss bill/motion introduction; and a third, to discuss the generic use of the word 'table' as evidenced by the war-time quotation in the article.  These articles can cross-reference each other as appropriate. 
Therefore, I propose that we rename this article "Lay on the table" or "Table (parliamentary)" and keep the focal point of the article on the parliamentary aspects.  At some later time, it may then be necessary to split off into a second article: what it means to table when referring to the introduction of a legislative bill.   Again, if there is not consensus to rename this article and clarify the focus, then I propose that this article be kept as a generic discussion of what table means in the various English dialects, and move the Parliamentary procedure aspects to their own article.  Parlirules 19:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the concept.  I do think that the distinction between the use of "table" in the UK and US should be preserved somewhere, maybe in this article, but with all of the details of "lay on the table" moved to the new article and linked from here?  It would leave a fairly short article here but I think that is OK. Neutron (talk) 23:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether this article ultimately gets renamed to Lay on the Table or something similar with the focus being on the parliamentary meanings -or- a new article gets created for Lay on theTable and the detailed parliamentary meanings get moved there, depends on the wiki-community's desire to have an article about the generic meanings of 'table' and anglo-american differences.  An article titled table (verb) certainly invites that discussion.  To move forward under the Parliamentary Procedure Project, I am creating the article Table (parliamentary) with a parliamentary focus.  It can be renamed to  Lay on the table if that later becomes the consensus, but I like Table (parliamentary) better because the article will include non-American and legislative used of the word table as used in the parliamentary sense.  That will leave this article Table (verb) to concentrate on a wider focus, including the cultural differences of the word extending beyond the parliamentary arena.   
Parlirules 01:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to Rename this Article 

message: I have concerns about the proposed merger of Table (parliamentary) into this article, based on the discussion in the preceding section of this talk page.  If there is to be a merger, I think it would be more logical to merge in the other direction.  Neutron (talk) 20:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Without reading the previous discussion, i'll offer the fact that i made a cursory decision, based on either which article presently does a better job of covering both or distinguishing them, or on the confusion possible between "parliamentary" and Parliament. I invite my colleague to swap the tags (and move this discussion, leaving a note behind, to minimize confusion), as i give the merger much greater priority than settling on the ideal dab'n sfx that should survive. --Jerzy•t 21:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merger