Latest revision |
Your text |
Line 61: |
Line 61: |
| Beyond that you could keep it easy to find stuff by putting each element in the Lexica Category. | | 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. | + | '''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]] |
− | | |
− | 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)
| |