I suggested a new tag in 3 column layout in LaTeX (1st only graphics, 2nd and 3rd text)? It was subsequently removed/replaced with . However, in my opinion, there's some confusion as to the use of this tag.

The tag excerpt for relate specifically to that of :

is specifically about columns in (though often the latter tag will suffice). If your question is about documents or the package, use the respective tag instead.

However, what about a three-column (or more) layout that doesn't use multicol like in the above question? What about the columns and column environment of a frame in beamer?

Bottom line: We need to work on the tag. I'm soliciting some feedback on a shake-up of this columnar conundrum.

  • 1
    Yeah! And sorry for being that guy again, but both of those tags (multicol and two-column) are LaTeX-centric, like many others, without there being a catch-all tag for the general case covering all formats.
    – morbusg
    Apr 29 '13 at 17:12

I was the one who removed the new tag. Thanks to Werner for raising the issue here at Meta.

  1. As Werner correctly observes, there's no proper tag for a three-column (or more) layout that doesn't use multicol". Sometimes the tag is used for such questions (e.g., in Is a three-column footnote layout possible?), sometimes the tag.

  2. The tag wiki excerpt for the tag correctly describes its predominant use; this does not mean, however, that the creation of this tag was a sound idea. (Most, if not all problems are about "columns" in a way.) Note that there is a specific, though seldom-used tag "for questions concerning the formatting of table cells that span several columns".

My bottom line is that if a general tag is needed for case 1, I'd rather not create a new tag, but redefine the existing tag. In any case, this tag should be removed from questions also tagged with , and the tag added instead to those questions where it is missing.

  • I find @tohecz's suggestion to add the least amount of labour to housekeeping and it makes sense (the creation of a tag synonym column-typesetting. What's your opinion?
    – Werner
    Jun 4 '13 at 23:36

In my opinion, the tag serves the purpose of just right. The only problem is the name. Hence I suggest adding as its synonym. This would not create a new tag (which seems to be too much, because then would be a subset of this tag), yet it would make clear what the situation is. The tag wiki would get changed, too.

As for , breifly looking through its list of questions, it seems to serve a purpose as it is, despite being a subset of by nature. I would not change it, I would only add a notice to its tag wiki about .


I'll join @morsburg in being "that guy". I posted a question having to do with two-column (non-table) layout in ConTeXt. I couldn't find a tag that applied. The two- or multi-column tags I found were all specific either to tables ({multicolumn}) or to a particular LaTeX package ({multicol}, {two-column}).

The {two-column} tag would seem to fit best, except for the fact that its description links it to the twocolumn package. However it seems to me that the description could be changed; a tag specific to the twocolumn package should probably be called {twocolumn} anyway (no hyphen). IMO.

On the other hand, I'm not sure how much value there is in having separate tags for questions about dual-column issues vs. triple-or-more. From my point of view it would be ideal to have a generic tag for multicolumn (non-table) layout, regardless of the macro package used (LaTeX or otherwise). But that collides with the existing tags {multicol} and {multi-column}, so something would have to give. Maybe use {multi-column-page} to refer to this, as opposed to tables?

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .