Wikidata:Requests for comment/Glossary: new version

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Discussion lasted only five days and no consensus reached after months. Proposal is to be considered rejected. --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 19:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has requested the community to provide input on "Glossary: new version" via the Requests for comment (RFC) process. This is the discussion page regarding the issue.

If you have an opinion regarding this issue, feel free to comment below. Thank you!

THIS RFC IS CLOSED. Please do NOT vote nor add comments.

I propose to adopt the pattern contained in User:Raoli/Glossary as next version of Wikidata:Glossary. Raoli (talk) 22:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pros and Cons about two different patterns of Glossary
Current pattern (Wikidata:Glossary)	Proposed pattern (User:Raoli/Glossary)
Anchor PRO less long page that may also be viewed on a single screen	Sections PRO sections show clearly the word described and make easy to read the content
Short technical definitions PRO short definition that is read more often than a longer and more detailed	Long and practical definitions PRO longer definitions that are more detailed and addressed to the practical aspects with the result that any user of any experience can understand the contents clearly even with the aid of examples
Lack of the o-index PRO none	O-index PRO content summarized in a few words at the top of page for a quick read of the contained words
Internal links only in English PRO anchors contain unique text in English that conforms in all languages the name of the section	Internal links different for each language PRO easy to use, you can translate them in their own tongue and link them from the outside of page without knowledge of English
Definitions of all the words PRO greater completeness of the glossary useful also for future developers	Definitions of only useful words PRO greater use and usefulness of the glossary that doesn't contain words of technical language that are not very useful to the users
Lack of a o-nav-template PRO the page looks shorter and the reading of the same is less dispersive	O-nav-template for help-pages PRO easy connection between multiple pages of the same purview with the possibility to take cues and understand the definitions also from other pages
Only one picture PRO reading that focuses only on the words and definitions which remain abstract and malleable ideas	More pictures and icons PRO reading more user friendly of definitions and understanding of them faster well as dynamic (use of Imagemap in the image to bottom of the page)

Support as proposer Raoli (talk) 22:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Erik1991 (talk) 08:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are some good points in this proposal. It uses more pics (which is very nice) and longer descriptions of the terms (makes the terms easier to understand). There are also problems with it, mainly that it does not support linking of explanation across languages (it will only be possible to link inside a specific language) and only a subset of terms are described (will imply that we need an additional glossary). I'm not sure but I tend to think that ordinary subpages (or help pages) would be a better choice over time because the number of terms will grow and the descriptive text will also increase. Still we need some kind of page for an easy oversight. Jeblad (talk) 10:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I asked few days ago about Glossary and Terminology. I believe that we need to pages: technical glossary as it is right now consistent between languages and part of Help pages named Terminology or so with explanations that could be up to language specific users. Some people in Russian speaking community agree with me. --Zanka (talk) 21:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Who could use a technical glossary as it is right now? Ie now is addressed to far fewer people than it could. Two pages, hmm... Raoli (talk) 01:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Jeblad has said it clear: the information will grow, and not only in the number of terms, but also in the size of the descriptions (in fact, Wikidata has just been born!). Examples are something I miss in the current page, anyway, although I imagine they also will be added over time. We need a place for an exhaustive list of definitions with plenty of details, because not only common users are going to search for information, and we need a reference somewhere. More images are good indeed. For those who don't like a sober style, creating a local spare page could be a solution, but that implies double work, and also a lot of care should be taken to prevent the content deviates significantly from the original, which I presume is one of the fears of the development team. Regards. --Dalton2 (talk) 06:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have four pointers. First of all the anchors need to be translateable. Making links like this one [[#Statement|déclaration]] (this one is from the french glossary) only makes the translations more difficult. Secondly, I agree with Raoli´s proposal. Thirdly, we should not have one Glossary page and one thermology page. Please improve the glossary page instead of duplicating the page. Fourthly, please keep the translation pages stable. Don´t overload translators by making minor changes.--Snaevar (talk) 18:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. @Jeblad: Could you name an use-case for links "of explaination across languages" ?

The problem is basically that item, property, claim etc is the only ones we (the dev team) will support. We will not support local translations. So to keep local versions as close as possible to the "official" ones we should link to them, and in such a way that it is completly clear what a specific description is about, even if the local translation changes. For example, if Norwegian (bokmål) changes its decission on datasett as a preferred translation of item then it should not be necessary to change all links referring to an item. Jeblad (talk) 10:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then we use the anchor in English and the section into the language of translation. --Raoli (talk) 12:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.