Take the 2-minute tour ×
TeX - LaTeX Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for users of TeX, LaTeX, ConTeXt, and related typesetting systems. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I have created a table, inspired by this guide: http://www.tug.org/pracjourn/2007-1/mori/mori.pdf

Here is my result

\begin{table}[tp]%
\centering%
\begin{tabular}{cccccc}
\toprule%
&Table &Light [L]  &$\zeta_0/2\pi$ [MHz]  &Flux [1/s]  &Dimensions [m] \\\toprule
&10    &3          &28.73                 &asd         &$(20\times 10)$ \\
&1     &3          &28.73                 &asd         &$(20\times 10)$ \\
&0     &3          &28.73                 &asd         &$(20\times 10)$ \\\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{Maximum load and nominal tension.}
\label{aggiungi}
\end{table}

I would like to hear what other people think of it. Personally I would like the distance beween the headlines and the lower toprule to be a little larger, but I'm not quite sure how to do that properly.

Any feedback and suggestions are greatly appreciated.

share|improve this question
4  
I would use \midrule between the heading and the data rows, rather than a \toprule. –  Yiannis Lazarides Dec 31 '12 at 13:15
1  
Hi Niles1710373. Note that you don't have to sign with your name since it automatically appears in the lower right corner of your post. –  Claudio Fiandrino Dec 31 '12 at 13:16
1  
It's not entirely clear if the unit of the product $20\times10$ is metre or sqare metre. I'm guessing it's the latter? –  cgnieder Dec 31 '12 at 13:16
    
It is 20m times 10m. Is my notation unclear? Do you have any suggestions for what i can change it to? –  BillyJean Dec 31 '12 at 13:29
1  
Maybe something like [$\unit{m}\times\unit{m}$] (with an appropriate definition of \unit or even better using siunitx and its \si which is a good idea anyway if you need units more often) –  cgnieder Dec 31 '12 at 13:48
add comment

2 Answers

up vote 6 down vote accepted

I like the dimensions in an own row to save some horizontal space which gives a better looking tabular:

\listfiles
\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{caption,array,booktabs}
\begin{document}

\begin{table}
\caption{Maximum load and nominal tension.}\label{aggiungi}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{@{}cccc>{$}c<{$}@{}}\toprule
Table &Light  &$\zeta_0/2\pi$ &Flux   &\mbox{Dimensions}  \\
      &[L]    & [MHz]         &[1/s]  &\mbox{[m]} \\\midrule
10    &3      &28.73          &asd    &(20\times 10) \\
1     &3      &28.73          &asd    &(20\times 10) \\
0     &3      &28.73          &asd    &(20\times 10) \\\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

\end{document}

enter image description here

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks for the suggestion. I tried changing the second midrule to a toprule, but then the distance between the units and lower toprule is decreased a little. Do you know how i can increase it? –  BillyJean Dec 31 '12 at 13:21
    
use \midrule[1pt] instead –  Herbert Dec 31 '12 at 13:39
add comment

You have a column too much. Moreover, units should be specified in parentheses, rather than (square) brackets, which mean a different thing (abstract dimensions and not units).

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{booktabs,siunitx}
\begin{document}
\begin{table}    
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccS[table-format=2.2]cc}
\toprule
Table & Light    & {$\zeta_0/2\pi$} & Flux          & Dimensions     \\
      & (\si{L}) & {(\si{MHz})}     & (\si{s^{-1}}) & (\si{m})       \\
\midrule
10    & 3        & 28.73            & asd           &$(20\times 10)$ \\
1     & 3        & 28.73            & asd           &$(20\times 10)$ \\
0     & 3        & 28.73            & asd           &$(20\times 10)$ \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{Maximum load and nominal tension.}
\label{aggiungi}
\end{table}
\end{document}

Using siunitx ensures uniform appearance of your units and also gives many tools for table processing.

I'm a bit dubious about the parentheses in the last column.

enter image description here

share|improve this answer
2  
For the last column's units (\si{m} \times \si{m}) would make it dimensionally consistent without obscuring the dimensions by turning it into \si{\square\m}. –  Ricardo Dec 31 '12 at 14:17
1  
@Ricardo Yes, I agree; but it also depends on the traditions in the field where this is used (which I don't know). –  egreg Dec 31 '12 at 14:35
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.