Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Glossaries Information & Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Glossaries Links at HealthHaven.com

[edit] Coordinating Portal:Contents pages

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)

[edit] This project and WP:NOT

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)

[edit] Old threads

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

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 57#Glossary articles and WP:NOT (Nov 2008)
Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 22#Glossaries (Nov 2008)
Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 15#Wikipedia is not a dictionary (again) (Oct 2007)
Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not a dictionary/Archive 3#Glossaries! (May 2007)
Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 8#What glossaries are (NOT) (Nov 2006)
Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 7#Glossaries (Oct 2006)
Portal talk:Contents/List of glossaries#Mass deletion/move of glossaries to Wiktionary? (Oct 2006)
Category talk:Glossaries#Copy to Wictionary? (Oct 2006)
Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Candidate lists to be migrated to Wiktionary (Aug 2006)
Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 6#Slang glossaries (Aug 2006)
Talk:List of Latin phrases/Archive 1#Move to Wiktionary (Jul 2005)

[edit] Scope - word lists vs glossaries

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)

[edit] Chinook Jargon article issues re list/glossary

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)

[edit] Deleting subpages of Library of Congress Classification

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)

[edit] Are glossaries allowed?

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)