Talk:Glossary

Capitalization
I learned that glossary entries generally begin with a lowercase letter. Now I have to go back and fix my glossary entries! See Wikipedia's Manual of Style for more info. Pyrrhus (talk) 13:42, December 20, 2019 (EST)

Spacing between entries
Hi User:Kmdenmark! I see you noticed the spacing issue with glossary entries, which I wrestled with quite a bit when I wrote the Glossary Entry template. When you add glossary entries in the Visual Editor, it doesn't leave any lines between entries, so it shows up as a normal bulleted list. However, if you prefer editing the page in the Source Editor, it makes it a little hard to read. We can either 1) leave no lines between glossary entries so that they show up as a normal bulleted list, or 2) add an extra line between entries so that people who use the Source Editor find it more readable, even though it shows up as a double-spaced bulleted list. What's your preference? (Just bear in mind that future editors are likely to only use the Visual Editor, not the Source Editor.) Pyrrhus (talk) 14:52, December 20, 2019 (EST)
 * Hi User:Pyrrhus, hope all is well. I found it easier to edit with a space between the entries, but I'm not married to it. I'll go with whatever you decide looks and works best. Kmdenmark (talk) 17:04, December 20, 2019 (EST)
 * Thanks for the feedback Kmdenmark. Since the glossary page is currently going through a lot of editing, feel free to add extra spaces if it helps you in the Source Editor.  Once the glossary page has stabilized, I can then go through and remove the spaces, so the list is single-spaced instead of double-spaced.  Or, you can try adding glossary entries in the Visual Editor instead of the Source Editor, which you may actually find easier!  (The only advantage to using the Source Editor is that you can put references outside the template tag, instead of inside, although it really doesn't make any difference whether the reference is outside or inside.)
 * And by the way, if the glossary entry doesn't have an MEpedia page, you can list the corresponding wikipedia page in "learn-more-url", in case people want to learn more.
 * Best, Pyrrhus (talk) 17:42, December 20, 2019 (EST)
 * Thanks! Kmdenmark (talk) 22:15, December 24, 2019 (EST)

Merging Glossary, Terminology, and Abbreviations pages
The Lingo Extension would allow this glossary to be used as tooltips for the rest of the site. This would mean awkward words / phrases could go here and would not need their own page, eg diurnial fluctuations just means fluctuating during the day. -- The Terminology page is in the correct format, so these pages need merging. The Lingo extension has been requested.

Do we merge Abbreviations into it too? Also I don't think there is much point keeping journal names as in Abbreviations - we don't normally refer to journals with abbreviations, and are creating pages for key journals that can be linked to instead, eg The Lancet. Thoughts? notjusttired (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2019 (EDT)


 * User:Notjusttired I made a first attempt to convert the first two terms in the Glossary page into Terminology style. You may have a better idea how to do this.  I think it's a great idea to merge Glossary, Terminology, and Abbreviations into one page.  As for journal abbreviations, there are only a few abbreviations I can think of that are commonly used, e.g. BMJ, PLOS, NEJM.  Hope this helps.
 * Pyrrhus (talk) 20:05, October 23, 2019 (EDT)


 * At the moment the Lingo extension means the Terminology page must but be edited in source editor only, which would be a problem for many / most editors. Lingo also insists each term is on a different line in bold, including upper and lower case for the same word so it doesn't look great. It's also possible to have the words used by Lingo coming from several pages - so if we convert Abbreviations we can keep the name and link it to Terminology so all are looked up as tooltips. It makes sense to merge Glossary and Terminology, but I would suggest protecting the pages to avoid accidental editing that breaks Lingo. I would be interested in others' views on this too.  ~Njt (talk) 20:28, October 23, 2019 (EDT)
 * User:Pyrrhus I had forgotten I originally suggested merging Glossary and Terminology. The "noglossary" class isn't work, but basically __NOGLOSSARY__ should be used on all glossary pages to avoid circulator references. I added this and an A-Z index and won't edit further tonight. So far looks good, interesting idea to hide the aliases. I believe there is a "hidden" class or similar that you could also use. ~Njt (talk) 21:28, October 23, 2019 (EDT)


 * User:Notjusttired I think I fixed the visual editor editing problem. Now users can use the visual editor to insert the "Glossary entry" template, which inserts a glossary entry in the correct format.  I tested it on the first two entries.  I also linked the Glossary and Abbreviations pages to the Terminology page.  All three pages are semi-protected.  Now we just have to merge all three pages somehow...
 * Pyrrhus (talk) 22:27, October 23, 2019 (EDT)


 * User:Notjusttired and User:Kmdenmark: I have finished merging all terms from the Terminology page into the Glossary page. Any new entries should now be added to Glossary according to the easy instructions at Help:Glossary, not on the Terminology page.  Please let me know if you have any questions.  Hope this helps!  (We still have to merge the Abbreviations page into the Glossary page, though.)
 * Pyrrhus (talk) 16:02, November 12, 2019 (EST)


 * Nice job! The Terminology page should be made read only except for admins, and LocalSettings.php will need changing to point to Glossary instead. Abbreviations should stay separate in my view, Lingo allows it to be formatted in the same way and can draw terms from several pages. However, certain terms like ME/CFS need to be excluded from the lookup in some way because otherwise they end up on every page. The "noglossary" class has not been working. ~Njt (talk) 23:19, November 12, 2019 (EST)

Split?
The glossary now contains many terms that are only relevant to either ME or CFS, but not to both. Would it not be more effective to have separate glossaries? Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:43, September 11, 2019 (EDT)
 * No. Users are unlikely to browse the glossary. It underlines words on pages where they are found so the user can get an expansion. It is a site-wide not a glossary for ME, so terms used in other illnesses or general research and medical terms will be here, and possibly slightly unusual or complex words for the average user eg iatrogenic, hypoglycaemia, p-values, biochemistry terms. The main idea of the glossary is to improve readability and to avoid having hundreds of stubs containing a 1-2 line explanation. notjusttired (talk) 10:51, September 16, 2019 (EDT)
 * So why again are nearly all the links blue? Is this not a page for readers? It's in mainspace. By the way, you're not adressing my point. Guido den Broeder (talk) 11:08, September 16, 2019 (EDT)
 * User:JaimeS User:Kmdenmark User:Sisyphus User:Pyrrhus I forgot this content was not merged with the Terminology (the tool tips popups page). Should I move the content not about ME/CFS out (as Guido suggested) - and put it on Terminology - although anything on that page cannot include links to other pages. Terminology pop-ups only appear when words aren't linked to another page, and many of these will be. Particularly the IOM report link, terms like somatic. The alternative would be to title the page as Glossary of ME, CFS and science terms or similar. notjusttired (talk) 12:35, September 17, 2019 (EDT)
 * That's not what I suggested, thanks. Guido den Broeder (talk) 13:47, September 17, 2019 (EDT)