Talk:DP Jargon

From DPWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

What do you think?

Which do you think is the more common term: Project Thread or Project Discussion? Should 'Project Thread' be the canonical definition, with a cross-reference to 'Project Discussion'; or should 'Project Discussion' be the main entry, with a cross-reference from there to 'Project Discussion'? I can't really decide, so I thought I'd ask for "votes". :) Kraester 20:26, 29 May 2006 (PDT)

Insert any votes/comments here.

Do you think CSS: Cascading Style Sheets should be on the long/general Jargon Guide, or maybe on the PP Jargon Guide only. The General Jargon Guide is labeled "LONG" for a reason, but I've been trying to keep it from getting "uber-long" by trying to put on it only terms that a DPer who does only proofing and foofing is likely to encounter in the Guidelines and/or Common Site Q&A, Common Proofing Q&A, and General Forums, and leaving the more "specialized" terms for the more "specialized" Jargon Guides. That's my idea anyway. Do you think CSS is something that an "ordinary" proofer/foofer is likely to encounter? What do you think? kraester 19:26, 1 June 2006 (PDT)

Insert any votes/comments here.


Since we're going to individual pages and a big transcluded list, I'm trying to plan a bit for dynamics. We've (at least I've) been editing the content of the individual pieces. I understand how we could build the pieces, then stick them together here via transclusion. But I'm a little concerned about what will happen when a new piece of jargon arises. Say newspapers are the big DP target of 2008; when we want to add "columnizing" to the jargon list, somebody will need to add an individual page, and then add a transclusion link to the list here? Or will we build the list programmatically, using some cue from the category or the jargon template? Vaguery 21:35, 24 May 2006 (PDT)

It would be nice to be able to automate this with a script of some sort, but since that is beyond me, I have created an article of instructions/suggestions on how to add and use jargon definitions/pages. For what it's worth. Kraester 20:26, 29 May 2006 (PDT)

Separate definition pages and/or FAQ-like Jargon Guides

If someone is looking for information on jargon term X, I can imagine that they might not come to this page, they might instead (attempt to) go to the wiki page entitled X (e.g., by typing X in the Search box and hitting 'Go'). And if some other page wants to cross-link to information-about-X, it's easier/more intuitive to say [[X]] rather than [[DP Jargon#X]]. So I think we should have a separate page for each of these terms.

Moreover, I'm inclined to think there shouldn't be any/much content on this page. It should just be a list of links to the separate pages. Jmdyck 17:50, 20 May 2006 (PDT)

Actually, we can have it both ways, using transclusion. See CP and the source of DP Jargon#CP. Mikeyc21 22:42, 20 May 2006 (PDT)

Feel free! Sounds like a good thing to do. Vaguery 18:05, 20 May 2006 (PDT)

Does this have to be all or nothing? I know when I first joined, I loved finding the Jargon DPWiki thread and reading it like a FAQ. I learned a LOT about DP and its various processes just by reading that one thread in the forum. I personally would have found it EXTREMELY annoying to have to click on each term in turn to see its definition. I can see the benefit of having the separate pages for search purposes, but once someone finds a Jargon list, I can't imagine they'd be content to read just that one searched-for definition, and not want to read at least some of the rest. Surely the search function in this wiki interface isn't so limited that it only searches for page names, and won't give "hits" for section headings. Just my thoughts. Kraester 22:44, 20 May 2006 (PDT)

We can have it both ways. TPTB could be an automatic redirect to this page. (Unfortunately, I don't think you can redirect to a specific section.) Or if there's enough to say to justify a separate page, include a link to this page, and to the category: Category:DP Jargon. Wwoods 23:29, 20 May 2006 (PDT)

More discussion related to this issue can be found on User talk:Kraester.

Have made a redirect from the term Glossary and from the term Terminology to make this easier to search for.--Chuck 05:48, 30 July 2006 (PDT)

Nice tool in Wikipedia

Just add this {{subst:navpop}} to your User:DPxxxxxx/monobook.js and you're the king.

Each link you hover over shows its own redirect and the first lines of the article. See an example in Wikipedia.

Now we'll try to make this work here, it must be more or less easy. Cheers! --DLL 13:48, 31 October 2006 (PST)

Dedicated jargon namespace

I strongly vote to move all the jargon stuff into an own namespace ("Jargon:"). At the moment, if you search for something (e.g., "harvesting" or "guiprep") you find lightweith definitions, but nothing actually "useful". No harvesting coordination page, no download link. --Keichwa 12:57, 26 March 2007 (PDT)

You can get around that by clicking "Search" rather than "Go" when doing a search. The Go button takes you to the article with that name, if one exists, while Search lists all the results.
I can see reasons for wanting to separate the jargon articles, but how do we know if someone is looking for a basic definition or not when they do a search? You want to avoid the definition pages, but other people doing searches for the same terms might be looking for that jargon page. Whether jargon pages are in a different namespace or not, some people will want to go directly to them while others won't, so I'm not sure how changing the namespace will help solve the problem. I could be missing something, though. --Acunning40 13:07, 26 March 2007 (PDT)
As has been said, leaving the Jargon definitions in the main namespace has been done intentionally, primarily for the benefit of newcomers. We do try to make sure that all the basic definition pages have links to pages where more detailed information can be found, which allows both the newcomers and old-timers to be served. Yes, that does require one more click for people who are looking for more detailed information, but as I said, we decided to "favor" the newcomers looking for information a bit here.
And then actually, I'm not sure I'm understanding what you specifically are looking for. The Harvesting page which is found via a simple search has a lot more than the basic definition pages for some terms do, and does contain a link to the harvesting effort coordination pages. And yes, the guiprep info in the Wiki is quite sparse, simply because no one has yet taken the initiative to really work on those pages. Right now, guiprep isn't even part of the "Jargon network," although there is a slot waiting for it when it gets developed a bit further. Would you like to take on that challenge in part?
In addition to the advice ancunning40 gave you on using Search instead of Go, another technique I'd recommend to you to finding the more detailed information (beyond definition) you seem to want is to use the Categories. You will likely find a lot of useful information in the Category: Content Providing and Category: Harvesting "index listings." HTH -- kraester 17:13, 26 March 2007 (PDT)
Most things will be fine, once there is more info in articles such as guiprep. The main problem with Harvesting is that pages as Harvesting/Google_Book_Search automatically link to it, but there is no obvious link back from Harvesting to Harvesting/Google_Book_Search. Maybe, we should move Harvesting/Google_Book_Search and similar pages to Coordinated_Scan_Harvesting/Google_Book_Search? --Keichwa 19:46, 26 March 2007 (PDT)
Feel free to do whatever re-organizing you want to do to the Harvesting pages, of course. Wikis are designed specifically to allow that. All the various Harvesting and Coordinated Scan Harvesting pages are definitely organized a bit inconsistenly, but you will likely want to discuss your ideas on a harvesting discussion page or some other appropriate page instead of here, since it really has absolutely nothing to do with Jargon itself. That way the folks who have actually created the Harvesting-related pages will have a clue what you have in mind. -- kraester 20:13, 26 March 2007 (PDT)