Talk:Glossary: Difference between revisions

From MEpedia, a crowd-sourced encyclopedia of ME and CFS science and history
m (→‎Split?: reply)
(→‎Split?: ahem)
Line 9: Line 9:
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? [[User:Guido den Broeder|Guido den Broeder]] ([[User talk:Guido den Broeder|talk]]) 21:43, September 11, 2019 (EDT)
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? [[User:Guido den Broeder|Guido den Broeder]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Notjusttired|notjusttired]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 10:51, September 16, 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. [[User:Notjusttired|notjusttired]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Guido den Broeder|Guido den Broeder]] ([[User talk:Guido den Broeder|talk]]) 11:08, September 16, 2019 (EDT)

Revision as of 15:08, September 16, 2019

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)

Split?[edit source | reply | new]

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)