Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2011 September 20
| Language desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < September 19 | << Aug | September | Oct >> | September 21 > |
| Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
September 20
[edit]Translation wanted over at the Science desk
[edit]See the thread "What is a chest node?", please. There is a short letter written in Japanese that could clarify an opera singer's medical condition, if translated. Card Zero (talk) 13:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Glossary of terms
[edit]The Wikipedia search intitle:Glossary terms currently gives 80 hits. intitle:Glossary -terms gives 158. Do we need all those names with "terms" at the end, and is there any system in when to include "terms"? Having one name saying Glossary of Hinduism terms and another Glossary of Islam appears arbitrary to me. English is my second language but "Glossary of ... terms" sounds a bit redundant when a glossary is generally of terms. Is it more formally correct or clear to include "terms"? WP:NAMINGCRITERIA says:
- Conciseness – Is the title concise or is it overly long?
Maybe the extra word isn't worth it even if it is more correct. Some of them would need modification of another word if "terms" was removed, for example Glossary of botanical terms to Glossary of botany. I know the requested move process but would like some general language input before considering whether to go further when so many articles are involved. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- 'Glossary of Terms' is a set phrase. This Google Search gets over 13 million hits. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- Sure, "glossary of terms" is widely used, but that doesn't mean it's good usage, or that it should be naively followed ;) I think there is value to consistency in naming conventions; it would be better if all glossary articles conformed to either choice, rather than have both forms. The OP has a pretty good point. Glossaries contain terms by definition. We could also consider the potential merit of including the extra/ superfluous word: is there any meaning change between "Glossary of Islam" and "Glossary of Islamic terms"? Would "Glossary of X terms" be more descriptive or communicative? SemanticMantis (talk) 20:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- True, and I do see the point. I am merely answering the OP's subquestion of whether it was formal to include the word 'terms'. It seems to be so. In any case, even though glossaries are restricted to only containing terms, I don't think the word 'terms' is redundant here. After all, gaggles exclusively contain geese, but we still say 'a gaggle of geese'. Anyway, if a vote was cast either way, I'd say go in favour of the current majority of cases (where the word 'terms' is not present). --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 20:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- Also, on second thoughts, glossary can also mean a 'bilingual dictionary' (see). In this case, the verb 'to be' and things like that would never be considered 'terms', so the full phrasing 'glossary of terms' actually clarifies what type of glossary it is. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 22:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. There should rarely be risk of confusion with a bilingual dictionary. Later this week I expect to post a mass move suggestion at WP:RM. I will omit a limited number of "Glossary of ... terms" where dropping "terms" would sound unclear to me, or I can find no good replacement for "...", for example in Glossary of nautical terms. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- Also, on second thoughts, glossary can also mean a 'bilingual dictionary' (see). In this case, the verb 'to be' and things like that would never be considered 'terms', so the full phrasing 'glossary of terms' actually clarifies what type of glossary it is. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 22:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- True, and I do see the point. I am merely answering the OP's subquestion of whether it was formal to include the word 'terms'. It seems to be so. In any case, even though glossaries are restricted to only containing terms, I don't think the word 'terms' is redundant here. After all, gaggles exclusively contain geese, but we still say 'a gaggle of geese'. Anyway, if a vote was cast either way, I'd say go in favour of the current majority of cases (where the word 'terms' is not present). --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 20:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- Sure, "glossary of terms" is widely used, but that doesn't mean it's good usage, or that it should be naively followed ;) I think there is value to consistency in naming conventions; it would be better if all glossary articles conformed to either choice, rather than have both forms. The OP has a pretty good point. Glossaries contain terms by definition. We could also consider the potential merit of including the extra/ superfluous word: is there any meaning change between "Glossary of Islam" and "Glossary of Islamic terms"? Would "Glossary of X terms" be more descriptive or communicative? SemanticMantis (talk) 20:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)