For a Web site of mine I am considering using indications for “same as previous line in this column” to make some tabulations less wordy.
I am familiar with a style that I was taught at school for such occasions (for German-language tabulations), but for purposes of English-language tables I am not sure if this would be considered correct style, or even understood by the readers. Of course we used typewriters then, when not hunting mammoths.
What I learned at school was that you can indicate such repetitions by the use of a double quote, mid-column or under each word beginning. So a table like
The Far Side of the World Paperback 0-00-649925-2 2003
" " " " " " " 0-00-715787-8 "
" " " " " " Unknown Binding 0-00-718079-9 "
" " " " " " " " 0-00-718080-2 "
" " " " " " " " 0-00-718081-0 "
" " " " " " Paperback 0-393-30862-6 1992
or (more simply to programmatically generate this way for non-monospaced display)
The Far Side of the World Paperback 0-00-649925-2 2003
" " 0-00-715787-8 "
" Unknown Binding 0-00-718079-9 "
" " 0-00-718080-2 "
" " 0-00-718081-0 "
" Paperback 0-393-30862-6 1992
was to be understood to mean (a section of this table):
The Far Side of the World Paperback 0-00-649925-2 2003
The Far Side of the World Paperback 0-00-715787-8 2003
The Far Side of the World Unknown Binding 0-00-718079-9 2003
The Far Side of the World Unknown Binding 0-00-718080-2 2003
The Far Side of the World Unknown Binding 0-00-718081-0 2003
The Far Side of the World Paperback 0-393-30862-6 1992
Where can I find a cite for the equivalent English-language style, if that is different?
I am an english speaker, and I do just the same thing. Looking at the check out clipboard at a bookstore I go to, it is obvious that other people do too.
I doubt that there is a canonical style. The distinction I would make between the first and second examples would be whether phrases can change regularly. Would you prefer:
Hmmm… this is enevitably going to involve opinions, so, I’ll get things started.
You’re not hunting mammoths anymore, so why would you use ditto marks to save on unnecessary typing? Copy and Paste is easy and common these days. When reading tables, it’s horribly, horribly irritating to have to leave the current row to cross-reference another row to see what the data is. And worse, after cross-referencing the other row, your eyes have to find the row you were originally on!
The examples in this threat are minimal so my warning can be discounted here. But imagine reams and reams of tabulated data in such a format! Ug!
Ewww, Balthisar, no, I would never want to wade through dozens of identical entries one after another. Ditto marks are much easier on the eye.
You’re quite right, though, that the “canonical” entry should be repeated often enough so that it remains clear what’s being dittoed. At the very least, it should be explicitly repeated on every new page. And this was standard practice back in those mammoth-hunting days of typewriters, too.
It’s also true that ditto marks are typically not used for numerical data.
The Far Side of the World Paperback 0-00-649925-2 2003
" " 0-00-715787-8 "
The Far Side of the World Unknown Binding 0-00-718079-9 2003
" " 0-00-718080-2 "
" " 0-00-718081-0 "
The Far Side of the World Paperback 0-393-30862-6 1992
That way, you don’t have to go scanning up different amounts to find the neccesary information.
I like Shalmanese’s layout, but in some circumstances, I would add dashes to indicate that the ditto marks underneath long entries extend sideways, so
The Far Side of the World Paperback 0-00-649925-2 2003
- " - " 0-00-715787-8 "
The Far Side of the World Unknown Binding 0-00-718079-9 2003
- " - " 0-00-718080-2 "
- " - " 0-00-718081-0 "
The Far Side of the World Paperback 0-393-30862-6 1992
Doesn’t come across very well in this font though - the dashes and the ditto marks should be horizontally in line
I sometimes use “id.” (idem) instead of the double quotes to indicate repeated values, but I don’t know if this is commonly understood in the US of A. I can’t remember seeing it used.
I’m sure I’ve seen it in footnotes for references, but not in tabular data. No, I don’t mean “ibid” which is what I’d normally consider “correct” – the “idem” stuck out.
BTW, the above compromises are kind of okay… I still hate dittos in general, though.
Using ditto marks (or leaving the repetitions blank) makes it much more obvious when something **does[/p] change. I do a lot of tabular reports at work and I quite often suppress repeats (i.e. leave something that’s a repeat of the preceding occurence blank). Where information is clustered (e.g. each patient was tested at several time points and several tests were done at each of those time points), suppressing repeats or using dittos makes the report much easier to follow. Where the software permits, I do not suppress repeats on the first row of each page (so you don’t have to go back to a previous page).
