User talk:Andy Dingley/Archive 2009 October

Further to discussions elsewhere: the one that springs most readily to mind is

, with a further 100+ in subcats underneath -- ie plenty of precedents, so we should be on safe ground. I don't think there is a set format -- the various rail glossaries have elaborate layouts resulting from some very hard work by one contributor, and we could copy this format if wished.

In the case of boiler scale (sorry about 'limescale', suspected it wasn't right but forgot to check it!), for example, the usual method is simply to link to the 'S' section in the glossary, but there's no reason why we can't have as many redirects as we like to these sections.

The more I think about this, the more I am convinced it is a sensible move. I just have to resist the temptation to start it rolling as I know I can't really afford the time to see it through!

EdJogg (talk) 16:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS - also see

, which is utterly un-ratified at present, but suggests a few things including using a title of the form: "Glossary of xxxx terms". A substantial proportion already seem to do this. (There is an associated WikiProject - see talk page of glossary mentioned above for link.)

EdJogg (talk) 17:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've started one, based on the railroad glossary. Can't say I like the layout that much - looks pretty, but the HTML is ugly: no semantics, non-fluid layout. I might change all this tomorrow when I have computer access again (I'm typing this at home on some sort of kitchen appliance). Not a small job though! Andy Dingley (talk) 20:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't feel compelled to use that format. The MOS page (see above) includes lots about the list style, coding, etc, I think with a view to some kind of future automated retrieval. Worth a look before you get too settled in any particular style. EdJogg (talk) 23:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

day job

(although most of the tools aren't installed here, for reasons of performance).

I'm also going to make a

Huber boiler stuff in a lightweight manner. Andy Dingley (talk) 07:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

As semantic web is obviously 'your thing' it would be best to use your boiler terms glossary as the basis for the steam engine one - to keep the appearance and structure consistent. I should think either will be able to go 'live' as soon as they've got 10-15 terms, as we'll easily be able to expand them over time. (I don't mind starting the steam engine page once the boiler page is stable enough to work from.) -- EdJogg (talk) 10:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My, you've been busy! (I seem to be quite good at finding work for other people to do :o) ) That list of boilers is quite impressive, and I can see more clearly now why you wanted to do it. Good move.

Let me know when you remove the 'InUse' templates from the two pages, and I'll cast my eye over them. I don't want to do this too soon, or my watchlist will be swamped!

I know I suggested the table-based format, but are you happy with it? On seeing your lists it is clear that the format works better for very large glossaries and many entries per letter. I suspect the two boiler lists will have fewer entries, although we should expect to write a paragraph for every entry.

EdJogg (talk) 18:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]