Talk:Glossary

That is redundant.... add the short definitions next to the link. --Etenne (talk) 00:46, 9 April 2014 (CEST)

You've got it backwards, I think. The LINKS are redundant, and should be removed if they lead to the exact same text as that from the FAQ glossary. Don't you see that? User4 (talk) 01:07, 9 April 2014 (CEST)

No I don't think that... the links are the whole point of wiki. However, if you wanted to improve the text that the links lead to, that would be cool.--Etenne (talk) 01:21, 9 April 2014 (CEST)

Uh, oh...

If you don't see that the links exist ONLY to make the data in the database easily accessible, and that they are NOT the "whole point of the wiki", then I see serious problems in the future for BW. The links should NOT get in the way of the information.

The links are there only to make the information MORE accessible! BUT only when the links can be used to MAKE THE INFORMATION MORE ACCESSIBLE! Otherwise, the links are not just a nuisance and a distraction, but a threat to the existence of the wiki!

People are NOT patient. They will NOT put up with "being given the runaround" and being forced to click on link-after-link to access a very small amount of information.

I'm not sure you understand. The bureaucracy (the links) exists only for the PEOPLE - not the people exist only for the bureaucracy!

If the links don't make browsing the information easier, faster, and more informative, then they should be eliminated!

You really should do some reading on "good website design". Really. User4 (talk) 01:35, 9 April 2014 (CEST)

This is a wiki... perhaps you should follow your own advise and read a bit more on Wiki design and go look at how the profession wiki designers are doing it and maybe you will see that we not that far off. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_botanical_terms

--Etenne (talk) 01:47, 9 April 2014 (CEST)

I am (almost) ready to bet you that in the past month I have read more about wiki theory and design than you have in the past 18 months of working at BW! And the botanical page you linked to appears to have HUNDREDS of definitions, NOT just a few dozen. When we have hundreds of definitions, then that page will be a good model. But NOT when we have only a few dozen definitions!

I just did a rough count - there are around 800 definitions on that page! 800!!!!! User4 (talk) 02:14, 9 April 2014 (CEST)

I don't agree --Etenne (talk) 02:24, 9 April 2014 (CEST)

"I don't agree"

You don't agree that there are 800 definitions, or you don't agree that I have read more about wikis than you have? User4 (talk) 02:29, 9 April 2014 (CEST)

I don't agree that this is how this page should be structured... I think it would be better to add the short definitions next to the links like on the page with 800 links and improving the pages the pages they link to. --Etenne (talk) 02:48, 9 April 2014 (CEST)

See Test_Glossary. THIS is what I meant it should look like (no, it is not finished) Go ahead - tell me that it is not better! Oh, BTW - you could have asked me what I meant, in the first place. But instead I had to argue with you then eventually SHOW you what I meant. All of the argument could have been avoided. I was NOT "against the structure" - I was against not putting the info on the page, which I have now done. Before, I did not want to waste the time to integrate it properly. Now I have (it took over 1 1/2 hours, not including accessing the FAQ information earlier - and it is still only 70 or 80% done). You know, I have a lot of things happening at once - not just BW.

Look - I have seen many examples of how "Categories" and links are poorly or incorrectly used at BW. I have been trying to make the point that they should be used correctly, and in ways that "make sense" to the reader. Giving a bunch of links on a page, all needing to be clicked in order to read a few scraps of information, does not make sense. Haven't you read my comments on other pages about Categories and links? This was just one example.

See, now the page is more like a true glossary, but with links to other more-encyclopedic entries/articles. Those entries should have Category:Encyclopedia added to them. A few of them, though, really don't contain any additional information. I'm not sure what should be done with them - they may not actually benefit from being in the category "dictionary". Perhaps the links on the "Glossary" page to those should just be removed, but the category "dictionary" left in the entries in case another form of organization of those entries is developed later on. But I doubt that we ever will have a very large number of "dictionary" entries. User4 (talk) 05:16, 9 April 2014 (CEST)

Did you take a look at Test_Glossary? Do you still believe that this version here is superior?

BTW There is no such thing as the DSM-V. It does not exist. I don't know why you would want to include a non-existent publication in a (supposedly) "factual" article. But I suppose that just reflects the "standard of quality" here at BW. Or is that a lack of a standard of quality? User4 (talk) 13:42, 9 April 2014 (CEST)