Talk:Epicentre

Discussion of proposed merge into RCT

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)

I'm inclined to agree with defining the terms in a master article in most cases, along with a page for each important term that redirects to the master article, using subheadings for precise redirection. I'm not sure the glossary is nearly as useful as wiki links and search. Book (talk) 18:41, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

• A question: Is something wrong with having two or more different ways of presenting the same information? In this case, keep the small glossary pages for individual terms/ideas, and also have larger pages for different topics. I think either one is sometimes useful, depending on the reader/the circumstances. I'd suggest to not merge these glossary articles. Confocal (talk) 04:57, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with that, and sometimes its the ideal solution. Not a one size fits all thing. Book (talk) 17:02, 30 May 2022 (UTC)