This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of standardized, informative and easy-to-use resources about languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
It seems to me that technical terminology and jargon are both trying to describe the same concept, and should be merged. I propose they be merged to this article (technical terminology), because jargon has several meanings: although "technical terminology" is one of its definitions, it also has an implication of deliberate obfuscation. -- SCZenz (talk) 20:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I propose that the usable parts of scientific jargon be merged here at the same time, for the same reasons. It's not clear that there's anything unique about the idea of technical terminology in science per se. -- SCZenz (talk) 20:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
They shouldn't be merged, its' good separate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 17:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --: I would have thought that there is a need for scientific jargonandscientific terminologyandtechnical terminology; and the first and most obvious reason for this would be the very fact that one of the meanings of "jargon" is pejorative. It's a fine point, but well worth emphasizing. An additional reason for maintaining both articles would be, in my view, the advantages which flow from retaining the parallel structure with mathematical jargon. This promises to become an interesting thread; and I'm glad to have stumbled across it. --Tenmei (talk) 13:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. First, a naive comment of a Wikipedia beginner. I feel that
Wikipedia by no means have enough qualified writers, and that
if a page received a bulky contribution from one writer, and that page survived quality checks then that page becomes "semi-personal" page of that author. This means others will patch it but not rewrite, leaving the original presentational style mostly untouched.
Coming back to merging Scientific jargon.The problem comes after reading the pages to be merged. "Technical terminology", etc. are written by linguists and are abstract, "Scientific jargon" is written by scientist and is intended to be very practical and straightforward. Thus, yes, theoretically, they could all be merged, but in practice, the language, purposes and coverage are too much different. Regards NIMSoffice (talk) 05:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
On the other hand, I do not see a problem with giving the page "scientific jargon" a better name. As I wrote, I could not cover all sciences there, and thus the page is rather on physical sciences. "Scientific terminology" might be appropriate, but as a separate page, i.e. not merging with its current redirect page "international scientific vocabulary" which is a very different story. Regards NIMSoffice (talk) 23:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Jargon is a concept that needs its own article. Technical terminology and other specific examples are not identical, interchangeable concepts. This is particularly evident where 'jargon' may be a negative view of overly technical language, a concept clossr to bullshit than to the useful concepts embodied in technical and scientific terminology. ProfDEH (talk) 09:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Jargon and technical terminology should be merged.
1. Redundancy. According to M-W, "jargon is the technical terminology or characteristic idiom of a special activity or group." More: "jargon refers to the special, usually technical idiom of any social, occupational, or professional group." See Garner's Modern American Usage by Bryan A. Garner, pg. 486-88. "Jargon covers a broad span of vocabulary." id. So, there is no support for distinguishing the two; technical terminology *is* in fact the usual form of jargon.