Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Glossaries

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcut:

Coordinating Portal:Contents pages[edit]

A group of editors is working on coordinating Portal:Contents and all of its subpages. This activity has two basic parts. The simplest part is to coordinate their presentation, such as page layouts. Most of the discussions about how to accomplish this are at Portal talk:Contents. The more involved part is to coordinate their substance, such as what gets linked from the pages and their classifications. Most of the discussions about how to accomplish this are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Contents and related projects such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists of basic topics, Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists of topics, Wikipedia:WikiProject Glossaries, Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals and Wikipedia:WikiProject Categories. Please feel free to join in on these activities. RichardF (talk) 12:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

This project and WP:NOT[edit]

How are we justifying the goals of this project, given the clear statement at WP:NOT that: Wikipedia is not a dictionary? What are the differences between glossaries and dictionaries? (to me they seem to be the same thing... am I wrong?). Blueboar (talk) 16:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Answering at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Glossaries. (Please link to ongoing threads when they are relevant. I only found that by accident!) -- Quiddity (talk) 19:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Wikipedia is not a usage guide "Some articles are encyclopedic glossaries...". Also see Wikipedia:Lists#Types of lists. Bubba73 (talk), 02:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Old threads[edit]

Please add anything relevant. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Updated with some entries by me.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  14:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Scope - word lists vs glossaries[edit]

In the old 2006 threads, we discussed the notion that "glossaries" and "word lists" were separate entities, and that "word lists" were suitable for transfer to Wiktionary:Appendices.

See Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 7#arbitrary section break inserted to aid editing 2 in particular, where I said something like: topic/field specific glossaries, such as Architectural glossary, Glossary of dance moves, Glossary of ballet, Musical terminology, and Glossary of poetry terms, belong at Wikipedia. But, word lists, such as Glossary of sexual slurs and List of online-gaming slang and List of Chicano Caló words and expressions and Australian rhyming slang should be moved to Wiktionary...

(not just get deleted, as was the fate of the former list of words ending in -logy when it was recently split into List of sciences ending in -logy and List of non-sciences ending in -logy (worth a deletion review to get it properly moved across, maybe? I have no time).

Discuss. ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 22:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Chinook Jargon article issues re list/glossary[edit]

Please see Talk:Chinook_Jargon#re_.7B.7Btl.7CWikiProject_Glossaries.7D.7D and in general other discussions on that page on the word list the article contains.Skookum1 (talk) 18:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Deleting subpages of Library of Congress Classification[edit]

I am thinking of proposing all the subpages at Category:Library of Congress Classification for deletion, as they are not encyclopedia articles, they simply repeat the classification. Wikisource has all this information:[1] as does the Library of Congress:[2]. Fences&Windows 00:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

But they link to the relevant wikipedia articles (for example, navigate down to Georgia and you'll get a link to the country or the US state depending on which category you are in). Isn't that the point? That makes at least as much sense to me as trying to invent our own classification (see Portal:Contents/Outline of knowledge) Kingdon (talk) 02:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
But this means they're not articles about the classification, they are a mirror of the classification. Wikipedia doesn't really need all its articles categorised in yet another way, surely? If someone wants to do that, they'd be better off as a Portal. Fences&Windows 00:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Are glossaries allowed?[edit]

A fellow editor has been busy working on the creation of numerous articles about the many types of (steam) boiler that have been designed. These have a great number of technical terms for describing common features in a succinct form. In any article, such terms need explaining, and most would not support a stand-alone article (hence links to a collection would be better). At my suggestion he created Glossary of boiler terminology and started populating it. That was yesterday, and before the day was out, another (experienced) editor had renamed it as 'Boiler terminology' (because "this is an encyclopedia" (sic)) and labelled it with {{cleanup}}.

So, can I move it back to "Glossary of..." with any hope of not being challenged?

How far has the project got with getting WP to accept that glossaries are allowed? (Bearing in mind they are still not mentioned as an exception on WP:NOT, and the link from 'types of lists' goes to your ' draft proposal' page.)

I am wanting to create a similar Glossary of steam engine terminology, for the same reasons, but want to be certain that I can count on the support of the project in doing so!

EdJogg (talk) 09:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The main portal for these articles, Portal:Contents/List of glossaries, is one link away from the sidebar/mainpage, and has been for a few years. However some editors have a [narrow?] interpretation of what Wikipedia should contain, and try to enforce that, so you can probably expect some discussion. But pointing out the history should be sufficient to bring them up to speed. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. The Experienced Editor has now, I think, had a change of mind. This was probably as a result of me adding your project banner to the talk page, and my Fellow Editor reverting the page move!
Good luck with getting the proposal ratified, as this should make all our lives easier!
EdJogg (talk) 23:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Any of the Glossaries a Featured List(FL)[edit]

Are any of the Glossaries a featured list? Would like to consider getting Glossary of chess as a FL but at this stage would like to see some other FL quality glossaries to see what standard is required. SunCreator (talk) 22:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination for List of Spanish words of Italic origin[edit]

Members of this WikiProject are invited to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Spanish words of Italic origin. I have jointly nominated both that page and List of Spanish words of African origin. Neither page seems to satisfy the definition of "glossary" at WP:LIST. Cnilep (talk) 17:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Aficionado[edit]

The word "aficionado" seems to be missing from the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.75.171.121 (talk) 18:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Wiktionary - copying[edit]

I was wondering if some people could copy over all the glossaries to wiktionary that haven't previously been copied, or copy over newer versions, if their companion version on wiktionary is out of date. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 12:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

See wikt:Category:Glossaries.
Eventually, all glossaries should be migrated from Wikipedia to Wiktionary where they properly belong. The fact that some glossaries remain actively developed here at Wikipedia is an unfortunate duplication of effort and probably just due to lack of awareness that Wiktionary compiles glossaries. --dab (𒁳) 12:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Glossaries at Wiktionary, are good for browsing/researching the etymology, concise meaning, pronunciation, etc, of those specific words.
Glossaries at Wikipedia, are good for browsing/researching article topics in depth.
At Wikipedia, they are part of the forest of navigational pages, which is comprised of the closely-related tree clumps: Portals, Categories, Books, Topic Lists, Lists of lists, Indexes, Outlines, Timelines, and Glossaries.
Compare the usability of browsing via Glossary of architecture with that of wikt:Appendix:Glossary of architecture. They're not equivalent.
This is one of the rare instances where it makes some sense to create, what might otherwise be seen as, duplicate work.
HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 23:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Mathematical jargon rename[edit]

I have proposed renaming Mathematical jargon to the glossary format. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Verbal chat 10:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

FAR[edit]

I have nominated List of English words containing Q not followed by U for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Glossary of phytopathology[edit]

This needs some attention - it's a list of words, very few of them defined, none of them linked to appropriate WP articles. Doesn't look very useful. PamD (talk) 22:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

AfD[edit]

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of English words of Italian origin. Although the article links to this project I don't think it's really a glossary since it is based on the origin of the words rather than on their meanings. Borock (talk) 19:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

New article: "List of foods and drinks named after people"[edit]

I created List of foods and drinks named after places. I later saw that three sections of List of words derived from toponyms overlapped with it. I think the independent article is worthwhile, but if editors prefer to merge, so be it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to change a section title[edit]

There's a proposal to adjust one of the main section titles used in "Wikipedia's contents", which will also affect the order in which the section titles are presented. See Portal talk:Contents#Proposal for main section title adjustment. The Transhumanist 02:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Glossary of military modeling and simulation[edit]

Hello Project!

I came across a glossary called Glossary of military modeling and simulation. It is quite painful to look at and it doesn't seem to come close to your current version of WP:MOSGLOSS (although I realize you all are currently working on it). Could one of the members take a look at it and see if it does fall into the scope of the WP:WPGLOSS project? Thanks! ChadH (talk) 17:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It's within scope, and yes, it's a mess. It's done up in 1995-style table markup.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  14:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:HighBeam[edit]

Wikipedia:HighBeam describes a limited opportunity for Wikipedia editors to have access to HighBeam Research.
Wavelength (talk) 18:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

RfC concerning glossaries[edit]

The acceptability of glosaries as stand-alone lists is the subject of a current RfC at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Glossaries. G. C. Hood (talk) 23:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

AfD for Glossary of terms in the Jean le Flambeur series[edit]

An AfD debate for this glossary is in progress at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glossary of terms in the Jean le Flambeur series. Readers here may wish to comment. The discussion is likely to close soon -- the AfD was initiated 23 February 2013. --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

List of Romanian words of possible Dacian origin[edit]

The List of Romanian words of possible Dacian origin article has been proposed for deletion. It is similar to the articles under Category:Lists of English words, particularly List of English words from indigenous languages of the Americas and Category:Lists of English words of Celtic origin, and could act as a precedent. Your opinions are welcomed.--Codrin.B (talk) 14:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Dear Codrinb, how could the deletion of this article serve as precedent for deleting the other lists? The title of those lists does not contain weasel word and those lists are based on peer-reviewed reliable sources. Borsoka (talk) 16:05, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

What is WP's alphabetization method?[edit]

Can't find any guideline on a definitive method to alphabetize glossary entries (I suppose the same Q applies to Lists as well, but my interest is re glossaries). I did find at WP:Manual of Style/Glossaries that numbers s/ occur before letters and that foreign lang letters are alphabetized by their Latin equivalents. But what about special characters? (Do they affect alphabetization, and if so how?) Here are three examples (the terms are related to chess):

Which s/ occur first?

open tournament
opening

How s/ these three be ordered?

light square
light-square bishop
lightning chess

And s/ lowercase occur before uppercase?

black
Black

(If there isn't any definitive alphabetization method on WP, do I pick my own?! (IMO the method used in Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide is the least confusing -- it ignores any introductory 'a', 'an', or 'the', ignores any special chars at all [including blanks], then alphabetizes the remaining sequence of letters. [But Maltin sorts numbers as if spelled out, and as mentioned I know that isn't done on WP.]) Thanks! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Apparently, there is not such a guideline at this time.
I have an interest in this matter, and I have my own preferences, although I hope that I would be able to accept whatever is decided by "consensus". In previous discussions where I was involved, there was little interest expressed by other editors. Perhaps there will be a greater expression of interest after a guideline is established.
Wavelength (talk) 17:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for responding, and for the links. (I need to read them. Meanwhile, it's surprising there's no definitive sort guideline yet. If the issue garners little interest, how will a guideline get to being established?!) Thx again, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC) p.s. Whatever methodology is chosen, please oh please nothing like what Quest uses for *telephone books*! (Has anyone ever figured out that methodology?! Completely unusable. I wonder how people ever find anything, especially those whose first lang isn't English!?)
I need to look into this too, but have other stuff on my plate. Please ping me about it at some point (a week?)  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  14:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet for Wikiproject Glossaries at Wikimania 2014[edit]

Project Leaflet WikiProject Medicine back and front v1.png

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:

Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 17:06, 27 June 2014 (UTC)