Difference between revisions of "Talk:Epicentre"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Apple Bottom (talk | contribs) (Created page with "Re: the suggested merge, I'm all in favor of explaining related concepts in a more general article (RCT in this case), but I also think that the whole point of the ''Glossary'' section (which is conceptually based on the Lexicon, of course) is to have small, self-contained explanations of concepts and keywords, so unless we want to forego that and abandon this approach I'd suggest to refrain from merging. ~~~~") |
(Re to Apple Bottom) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Re: the suggested merge, I'm all in favor of explaining related concepts in a more general article (RCT in this case), but I also think that the whole point of the ''Glossary'' section (which is conceptually based on the Lexicon, of course) is to have small, self-contained explanations of concepts and keywords, so unless we want to forego that and abandon this approach I'd suggest to refrain from merging. [[User:Apple Bottom|Apple Bottom]] ([[User talk:Apple Bottom|talk]]) 16:37, 29 May 2022 (UTC) | Re: the suggested merge, I'm all in favor of explaining related concepts in a more general article (RCT in this case), but I also think that the whole point of the ''Glossary'' section (which is conceptually based on the Lexicon, of course) is to have small, self-contained explanations of concepts and keywords, so unless we want to forego that and abandon this approach I'd suggest to refrain from merging. [[User:Apple Bottom|Apple Bottom]] ([[User talk:Apple Bottom|talk]]) 16:37, 29 May 2022 (UTC) | ||
: Speaking for myself, I have been merging short glossary pages to make longer ones for a while. My opinion is that the fewer these term-defining pages are, the fewer page and time a reader needs to load when they want to learn about a field systematically, and also the neater, more elegant and less deterring our glossary as a whole appears (this is highly subjective though). | |||
: Potentially, there is an alternative organization plan if you don't feel like integrating all the keywords into a piece of explanation: create a "Reverse caber-tosser (16G)/Glossary" page and describe each concept in an individual section. [[User:GUYTU6J|GUYTU6J]] ([[User talk:GUYTU6J|talk]]) 17:34, 29 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:34, 29 May 2022
Re: the suggested merge, I'm all in favor of explaining related concepts in a more general article (RCT in this case), but I also think that the whole point of the Glossary section (which is conceptually based on the Lexicon, of course) is to have small, self-contained explanations of concepts and keywords, so unless we want to forego that and abandon this approach I'd suggest to refrain from merging. Apple Bottom (talk) 16:37, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Speaking for myself, I have been merging short glossary pages to make longer ones for a while. My opinion is that the fewer these term-defining pages are, the fewer page and time a reader needs to load when they want to learn about a field systematically, and also the neater, more elegant and less deterring our glossary as a whole appears (this is highly subjective though).
- Potentially, there is an alternative organization plan if you don't feel like integrating all the keywords into a piece of explanation: create a "Reverse caber-tosser (16G)/Glossary" page and describe each concept in an individual section. GUYTU6J (talk) 17:34, 29 May 2022 (UTC)