| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 27: |
Line 27: |
| | | | |
| | Have fun with it... --[[User:Knockwood|Lord Knockwood the Mad]] 21:44, 17 May 2005 (PDT) | | Have fun with it... --[[User:Knockwood|Lord Knockwood the Mad]] 21:44, 17 May 2005 (PDT) |
| − |
| |
| − | == Topic Creep ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | I've noticed some topic creep going on. As I understood it, this project was for the collection of ''humorous'' definitions, but I've noted a fair proportion of ''serious'' definitions creeping into the list. Before I just go stomping about in the petunias, I thought I'd ask if anyone objects. Does anyone object?
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Alternately, are we sure this is being handled in exactly the right way? It would seem to make sense to me to move these terms to their own pages in the main namespace, and create to subcategories under [[:Category:Terminology|terminology]]: Jargon and Lingo.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Jargon is the correct term for specialized vocabulary used in a profession or hobby because the denotative definitions of the words only apply (or are only used in that sense) within the field in question. The Jargon category would therefore contain all "serious" definitions -- i.e., the ones we all learned from some rulebook or other.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Lingo is the proper word for that collection of slang and myth/legend references which mark one as a member of a culture or subculture. The Lingo category would be home to the humorous definitions and stories of their origins.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Any comments on this idea?
| |
| − |
| |
| − | [[User:Adalger|Adalger]] 18:28, 3 Jun 2005 (PDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == Re: Topic Creep ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Well, you got me on the 'serious' definitions... the main reason many of them are there is because they're referenced in other definitions which fit the theme better. (NPC is a good example.) On the other hand, one of the reasons this is called the Lexica project (as opposed to just a Lexicon) is because it's supposed to be a bunch of lists... jargon and lingo, as you said. Right now we've got a link to the Category in the main page, it might actually be better to have a place for the more formal definitions and migrate a few entries there, with links.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | As for individual pages for each definition, I can't help but think the overhead of that many pages would be far too high. For now I think it'd be better to keep it in the letter-group setup. Later on, if the lexicon gets much larger, maybe we could split it up into 2-letter groups (like the old Gamer Jargon site had) or even individual letters.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Some definitions--or more to the point, 'gateway' entries--could have links to their own pages, if there's a need for lots of explanation on a topic. Say, maybe an entry on 'character archetypes', or a list of Movies You Must See To Understand Us. :)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | BTW, Adalger, thanks for the tweaks you've done... I'd been meaning to put in 'Previous' and 'Next' links.
| |
| − | --[[User:Knockwood|Lord Knockwood the Mad]] 19:23, 3 Jun 2005 (PDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == Dividing (& Conquering) ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Two thoughts on various topics:
| |
| − |
| |
| − | '''Pages.''' Having a lot of pages might seem excessive, but you could keep the namespace of the wiki fairly clean just by maintaining the Lexica category (e.g., Lexica:TPK). I ''think'' searches will still do the fairly rationale thing.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Beyond that you could keep it easy to find stuff by putting each element in the Lexica Category.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | '''Seriousness.''' If there are references to more serious entries, like NPCs, why not just link to the more serious Terminology definition already out there? [[NPC]] That's one of the joys of a Wiki, being able to bounce off of other people's work.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | In any case, this is clearly a good topic because it's one of the first projects really getting group input!
| |
| − |
| |
| − | -ShannonA
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == Re: Dividing ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Well, there's actually one more reason to keep this together in blocks: that way it can be ''browsed''. You can learn new words by just looking over the page! :)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | But Shannon's definitely right about using the existing Lexica for standard terms. In that case, the next step will be pulling a few entries out in favor of the formal definitions.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Although, there may be a compromise possible, if the wiki can use HTML anchors... that way a link can go straight to the entry rather than just to the page, as I've been doing. Is that workable?
| |
| − |
| |
| − | --[[User:Knockwood|Lord Knockwood the Mad]] 20:33, 3 Jun 2005 (PDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===Technically unworkable===
| |
| − | This can be done from within the page, but not from another page. This is a strength of putting each definition on its own page. This does not lose the "browseable" advantage, either. People would still be able to browse by visiting the appropriate category page.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | [[User:Adalger|Adalger]] 20:46, 3 Jun 2005 (PDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Perhaps an abbreviated definition can be put on the Lexica pages and the word itself can be used as a link to the more complete definition?
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ;[[Module]]: A store-bought adventure.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Something like that? What say you?
| |
| − | [[User:Argyle|Argyle]] 22:20, 6 Jun 2005 (PDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | I stand by the logic of my original suggestion: the formal and informal terminology are both subcategories of terminology, and would work better with discrete pages for each definition. That way, wiki links to, for example, Borgstromancy or Rule Zero would work. I've seen a couple of attempted links to "Lexica" terms already, and think it would work more like everyone will expect it to if we give each term its own page.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | That said, I'm not trying to ''impose'' this view on anyone. If nobody else wants to do it that way, that's fine by me. But what you suggest seems almost exactly like having a Category page artificially created instead of using the built-in mechanism MediaWiki provides.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | [[User:Adalger|Adalger]] 04:57, 7 Jun 2005 (PDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == Notability ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | I'm not sure what criteria shold be used for adding terms to this lexica, but I noticed a google for the term "OGL Heartbreaker" only provides a link back to this page. Should we have some standard that ensures relatively notable terms are added. [[User:217.43.211.241|217.43.211.241]] 09:32, 11 Jun 2005 (PDT)
| |
