- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- The consensus was not to merge. -- AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 08:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
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 22.214.171.124 (talk) 17:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose --: I would have thought that there is a need for scientific jargon and scientific terminology and technical 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)
126.96.36.199 (talk) 09:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC) I think you should do it 188.8.131.52 (talk) 09:31, 29 May 2009 (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 closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.