Talk:Stranger: Difference between revisions
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz (New page: {{subpages}}) |
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz (→My concerns are less than Peter's but still there: new section) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{subpages}} | {{subpages}} | ||
== My concerns are less than Peter's but still there == | |||
While I am very much in favor of "thickets", I see the key mechanism being the Related Articles pages, started with relatively short definitions in R-templates, and extended into articles as they grow in length. A definition as long as was written when this was only a lemma is hard to read on a substantial Related Articles page, or even at the top of a Talk Page. | |||
Lemmas were intended as a way to link to concise definitions, or slightly more lengthy definition that were never expected to be full articles (e.g., an expansion and explanation of a complex acronym or [[term of art]]). They evolved to be an adjunct to Related Pages. | |||
I do not believe that creating wikilinks for ordinary words, which need no more than dictionary definitions, either help contextualization or readability. | |||
Tom, I say this as having "walked the walk" of expanding lemmas that seem to have started as part of writing on mythology, and principally explore that definition. At the very least, then, if you must use a lemma, qualify it to be [[mother (mythology)]] or [[parent (Greek tragedy)]]; don't let it appear to be a general definition. If you would be general about a term with many meanings, start a full article and use subheadings for the various meanings; perhaps only a sentence or two under each. | |||
I generally dislike, if for no other than formatting reasons, to put sources in definitions. The restricted exception is when the definition comes directly, or with slight editing, from a controlled indexing vocabulary such as [[Medical Subject Headings]]. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 12:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 06:57, 17 April 2010
My concerns are less than Peter's but still there
While I am very much in favor of "thickets", I see the key mechanism being the Related Articles pages, started with relatively short definitions in R-templates, and extended into articles as they grow in length. A definition as long as was written when this was only a lemma is hard to read on a substantial Related Articles page, or even at the top of a Talk Page.
Lemmas were intended as a way to link to concise definitions, or slightly more lengthy definition that were never expected to be full articles (e.g., an expansion and explanation of a complex acronym or term of art). They evolved to be an adjunct to Related Pages.
I do not believe that creating wikilinks for ordinary words, which need no more than dictionary definitions, either help contextualization or readability.
Tom, I say this as having "walked the walk" of expanding lemmas that seem to have started as part of writing on mythology, and principally explore that definition. At the very least, then, if you must use a lemma, qualify it to be mother (mythology) or parent (Greek tragedy); don't let it appear to be a general definition. If you would be general about a term with many meanings, start a full article and use subheadings for the various meanings; perhaps only a sentence or two under each.
I generally dislike, if for no other than formatting reasons, to put sources in definitions. The restricted exception is when the definition comes directly, or with slight editing, from a controlled indexing vocabulary such as Medical Subject Headings. Howard C. Berkowitz 12:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)