Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial

Row with blank data
I created a table, which has became the subject of an edit war between admins and an anon editor. The table is as below (prior to the edit war):

The following is the edit that is made, which has been reverted.

Does the template N/A conform to the MOS for a table such as this? Should it be used or not?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I couldn't find any recommended styles for empty cells. Maybe someone else might find something? I found a similar unanswered question here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Tables. If the intention is to indicate that the data wasn't overlooked as a blank cell might suggest, then using either one seems sufficient to me. Template:N/a, which displays an em dash, is used on approximately 47,000 pages, so in a way you could say it is an acceptable option. I don't know the number of "N/A" uses, but N/A indicates that it is a "common abbreviation in tables". Using one over the other seems more like a preference since to me they both indicate the same thing. Regardless of which one is used, it should match the same usage in other tables found on the same page and follow consensus.
 * Just to see what other manuals of style suggest, I searched and found the Chicago Manual of Style suggested using an em dash, ellipsis, n/a, or n.d. with some rules around the latter two abbreviations (see ). Note, the Chicago MoS doesn't dictate Wikipedia's MoS.
 * Section 3.65: Empty cells. If a column head does not apply to one of the entries in the stub, the cell should either be left blank or, better, filled in by an em dash or three unspaced ellipsis dots. If a distinction is needed between "not applicable" and "no data available," a blank cell may be used for the former and an em dash or ellipsis dots for "no data" ... If this distinction is not clear from the text, a note may be added to the table. (Alternatively, the abbreviations n/a and n.d. may be used, with definitions given in a note.) A zero means literally that the quantity in a cell is zero.... Jroberson108 (talk) 13:46, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * As an added note, the "N/a" template uses the "data-sort-value" attribute, so sorting it versus the "N/A" text may order them differently unless the same attribute is used on the text version. Jroberson108 (talk) 14:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the in-depth response on this. I played around with the table, although it is very limited, and both seem to sort in the same manner. I guess with the widespread use of the template and outside style manuals saying that is more preferable, I think I can end the edit war with using that template.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Does this violate accessibility guidelines?
Recently, I edited List of feature films with gay characters to change the chart from a format where all the countries are bunched together into one column, as the below example shows:

I changed it to this:

One user reverted this, saying "Do not add rows just for countries. Don't muck up the list and its formatting. Don't make the table more complicated for editors to edit" while I said that "putting all the countries into one row makes the chart inaccessible... and I'd argue it violates WP:ACCESSIBILITY. And it doesn't add too much complexity and it can be easily followed". Instead of changing anymore of the page, I decided to post here. If this isn't the right place, then I'd be glad to post this somewhere else instead. Is the change I did in line with MOS for a table such as this? Should it be used? Historyday01 (talk) 19:50, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Both are accessible, but the second one is more complex for the screen reader to read making it more difficult to understand, so simpler table structures are always preferred. In addition, the simpler comma delimited list better follows MOS:NO-TABLES recommendations when comparing a comma list to cells. Jroberson108 (talk) 20:29, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmm. That makes sense. I will admit that I've done the second option more than the first as I believed that using the commas would mess up the "country" category. But, I'm totally ok with a simpler table anyhow, as it makes it easier to edit. Historyday01 (talk) 21:38, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

MOS:COLHEAD potential workaround?
Can MOS:COLHEAD violation in this case be worked around by adding "id=colX is empty. In row13 you can found...." or a hidden comment with a similar message to indicate to screen readers that more content can be found in the next row instead of rearranging the rows? Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)


 * That whole table is messed up so trying to workaround one bad part of it, won't really "fix" it. Look at the "Career statistics" section, 5 of the 9 rows have cell content unrelated to the column headers. Separate the tables, make better column headers, remove bad usage of bold. Not everything needs to be in one giant table. Gonnym (talk) 06:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Gonnym, I proposed an improved version (pinging those involved in creating the new design ) which passes MOS:COLHEAD in my project's community, but people are used to one design, prevalent in 100s of tennis BLPs. The new look meets accessibility criteria WCAG for screen reader users but offsets the sighted who are used to the old design...a balancing act.
 * Maybe remove the rows and replace them with or ? Qwerty284651 (talk) 16:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, not surprised. There are some places I'll never touch just because I don't want to deal with that type of editors. Gonnym (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Gonnym, I get you. I am going to make a push in favor of the visually impaired. Hopefully, it sticks. The minority needs to be tended to as well not just the ones blessed with the gift to see. Qwerty284651 (talk) 16:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That is something I originally proposed, but you know, some kinds of compromise have to take as this is Wikipedia. :) Unnamelessness (talk) 06:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I know. It is the bitter sweet truth. You can't please everybody. Qwerty284651 (talk) 10:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Cells on multiple rows
Hi, are the cells spanned on multiple rows accessible? E.g., DC Extended Universe: the correct way is to split the "Zack Snyder" cell into two cells with the same date or are they just fine as they are? Redjedi23 (talk) 14:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I state that because if I try to read the Batman v Superman row, the Apple VoiceOver skips the director's name Redjedi23 (talk) 15:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * They're fine as they are. VoiceOver isn't that good with this kind of thing. Graham87 (talk) 15:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Graham87 I get the same result with NVDA Redjedi23 (talk) 16:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Same, but also those sorts of tables aren't meant to be read linearly ... they're supposed to be read with table navigation commands (control+alt+arrows in NVDA's case), which works as expected. Graham87 (talk) 17:39, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * But in this way the header column loses its meaning, right? Redjedi23 (talk) 18:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Not really. Screen reader users will just get used to having a blank cell (with information hopefully about the row spans) and things will be fine. Graham87 (talk) 18:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)