Talk:Glossary

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 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)

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)