Talk:Glossary - Revision history

ingenting: Protected "Talk:Glossary" [edit=sysop:move=sysop]

2009-07-16T15:36:37Z

Protected "Talk:Glossary" [edit=sysop:move=sysop]

ingenting: /* Different Categorization */

2009-07-16T15:36:37Z

Different Categorization

New page

== To Do ==

Check true sec-status of 0.0 / null-sec / zero-sec (and add zero-sec as another entry)

Need to double-check what causes aggression and if there's anything else that you're prevented from doing while being in an aggressed state. --[[Contributor name:Karia Icehawk|Karia Icehawk]] 22:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

0.0's description is too long (see Hi-sec). Too many modules outside of the module abbreviation list (see RL). Corporation and alliance specific abbreviations need to be removed (see GBC). Actual descriptions of abbreviations (see Hot drop). Going over of all entries (see Neutral, Neut (whoever forgot that Neut refers to the Neutralisation of a ships cap needs to be shot)). Removal of general gaming abbreviations (see Leroy and FTL). [[Contributor name:Grez|Grez]] 03:13, 1 June 2009 (GMT)

== Better presentation ==

{{quote|Can anyone think if a way to better present this glossary? Perhaps an alphabetical categorization like the category pages could work. The huge list will just be annoying to read once people start submitting every little acronym [[Contributor name:Von Druid|Von Druid]] 08:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)}}
Have split the table as requested (first time I've ever done such a thing). Table requires at least a blank line in front of the first header otherwise the HTML does bad things to the whole page. (Karia Icehawk)

Thanks Karia! Any way we can eliminate the section numbers in the contents? I looked all over, and couldn't find any examples of how to do that. Also, someone labeled the page factually inaccurate, but there are no indications where those factual inaccuracies are. Any ideas? --[[Contributor name:Gridwalker|Gridwalker]] 03:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately the contents area is autogenerated by the wiki any time there is an article of four or more headings (refer to [[Help:Formatting|Help:Formatting]]).
On a semi-related note, it is my thought that where there are two or more meanings to a word or phrase, we should list them on seperate lines so as to reduce confusion, perhaps even numbering each meaning kind of like what a dictionary does? - I think we can do this (haven't tried yet) by starting a new line below the previous one without a |- in between, and nothing between the first | and the || ? - Karia

Check out what I did for the "RL" entry. Decided to try to use a numbered list to get the effect you suggested for multiple meanings. If you like this, I can go through the entire table and split out all multiple meanings this way. --[[Contributor name:Gridwalker|Gridwalker]] 20:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty easy about how it's done but that is an effective way of presenting it. While I may think it looks wierd (lol) we're looking to make it as easy as possible for others so yeah, I'd say do it the way you've just done. --[[Contributor name:Karia Icehawk|Karia Icehawk]] 21:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC) (finally found the signature thingy you've been using!! :)

Just had a thought as someone has just added an emoticon to the list - would it be a good idea (seeing as we have an index now) to seperate out the emoticons and put them at the bottom of the list? o/ for now. --[[Contributor name:Karia Icehawk|Karia Icehawk]] 17:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

:Hi guys, Elumiel is already creating a revised version of this page to make it more userfriendly. More to follow soon™ [[Contributor name:ISD Erilus Nex|ISD Erilus Nex]] 18:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Sweet. Hope he catches the latest changes too :) ... err except the unicorn that I snuck in - I don't remember there being any fantasy in this game except for the one where I fly an Estamels fitted Momship (ooo there's another thing to go in the glossary at some point). --[[Contributor name:Karia Icehawk|Karia Icehawk]] 09:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd be in favor of additional pages that take more than a sentence or two to explain. If it is a topic that is said enough in eve to short hand, there might be additional follow-on topics that might take some additional exposition. My personal example I noticed was '[[Intel]]'. Being a covert ops pilot for a time, I know it's an important topic, and methods of gathering it are varied. It opens a great page in the future, but for now, it's a stub, maybe to be rolled back in. It's more a question if we want stubs for the time being, with great pages later, or few pages now, with a ton of work to be done.--[[Contributor name:Kismeteer|Kismeteer]] 09:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, mercilessly merging tons of items in this list with very short explanations is not going to work well.. In the end many of these subjects will need their own page to explain it a bit better, having a stub for it now may be better than merging it now and making it's own page later... That is just a load of work you are doing for nothing from my point of view. The evelopedia is in it's younger stages and sure there is a load of work to be done, but the list of stubs will certainly be a good reminder of what actually still needs to be done.

For instance, Intel or Intelligence is a huge subject you do not want to make a part of something like this, sure right now it has little actual information but it will need to grow, especially to explain how this works now, and I am guessing it will be even more important when actual changes to ingame mechanics come. --[[Contributor name:sg3s|sg3s]] 01:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

:It really depends what it is, if it's something that can be expanded on then there's nothing stopping someone creating a page containing detailed information about it. There are already quite a few terms or abbreviations in there currently that link to a page detailing about it. [[Contributor name:ISD Erilus Nex|ISD Erilus Nex]] 22:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Would it help if this page were split into a proper glossary (i.e. Eve-specific definitions of words & phrases) and a separate page of acronyms (and initialisms; shaddup you pedants)? I'm thinking that a separate page of just the acronyms might be fairly likely to be bookmarked/printed by players. [[Contributor name:MailDeadDrop|MailDeadDrop]] 17:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I will attempt to copy this and work on it at some point so that all abbreviations of a similar type (for example: faction abbreviations) have a similar, if not the same, description. As it is right now, the grammar and descriptions of some of the entries need to be the same. Perhaps we should come up with a 'rule set' for them, as to what they fall under, and how they should be written (for example: Ark, should not contain "but in a different context", just "can also refer" would be fine). There is also FAR, FAR too much written for some entries, when they could, and should, be much shorter (see: 0.0). Also, entries like "GBC", need to be removed. This should be about game abbreviations, and not involve alliance/corp stuff.[[Contributor name:Grez|Grez]] 02:59, 1 June 2009 (GMT)

==General Update==
Well, more of a brief update than much else. We're still waiting to hear if parser functions are going to be enabled, if they are then a page design that we have will be implemented, if not then a more generic layout similar to what is currently there will be added. [[Contributor name:ISD Erilus Nex|ISD Erilus Nex]] 12:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

== Too much? ==

Seriously I have been playing eve for 2 years and not seen some of these abbreviations, especially the salvage and ore ones. I appriciate trying to cover everything, but its rather daunting and somewhat silly.

== Naming convention ==

{{warning|Too many articles is not following the [[Help:Naming_Conventions|naming conventions]]. I urge the moderators to do something about it.}} --[[Contributor name:ingenting|ingenting]] 23:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

== Removal of out of date /no longer in use terms ==

I propose removing the entry for BoB, as they no longer exist.

:They no longer exist but it can be said that the term is still relevant (and something that a new player may run into while talking in public channels.) I know my alliance continues to switch back and forth between RKZ, "Ken" and BoB when referring to the notable alliance.
:--[[Contributor name:Alezra|Alezra]] 22:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

:I removed all corporation and alliance abbreviations I could find. It should never have been put there in the first place. This page would be flooded with people claiming rights to put their alliance/corp abbreviations on the page. It should be about game -based abbreviations, not player-based. [[Contributor name:Grez|Grez]] 03:25, 1 June 2009 (GMT)

== Different Categorization ==

Do we really need the listing to be alphabetical? All modern browsers have a text-search feature. Instead wouldn't it make more sense to have the categories be meaningful to a person browsing the list? For example, breaking down the phrases into categories like "Fleet Jargon" "Ship and Module Abbreviations" "Corporate and Alliance Politics"

--[[Contributor name:Alezra|Alezra]] 22:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

there should be several sortings to choose from, imo. but until then ABC etc. is good. --[[Contributor name:ingenting|ingenting]] 15:36, 16 July 2009 (GMT)

== Links to Glossary - But not mentioned in Glossary ==

One example I just stumbled upon is [Director]. Whyever this links to Glossary...<br>--[[Contributor name:SentryRaven|SentryRaven]] 00:19, 11 July 2009 (GMT)

ingenting: Protected "Talk:Glossary" [edit=sysop:move=sysop]

2009-01-29T23:31:05Z

Protected "Talk:Glossary" [edit=sysop:move=sysop]

ingenting: /* Naming convention */

2009-01-29T23:31:05Z

Naming convention

ingenting: Protected "Talk:Glossary" [edit=sysop:move=sysop]

2009-01-29T23:29:41Z

Protected "Talk:Glossary" [edit=sysop:move=sysop]

ingenting: /* Naming convention */

2009-01-29T23:29:41Z

Naming convention

ingenting: Protected "Talk:Glossary" [edit=sysop:move=sysop]

2009-01-29T10:35:54Z

Protected "Talk:Glossary" [edit=sysop:move=sysop]

ingenting: /* Naming convention */

2009-01-29T10:35:54Z

Naming convention

ingenting: Protected "Talk:Glossary" [edit=sysop:move=sysop]

2009-01-29T10:33:53Z

Protected "Talk:Glossary" [edit=sysop:move=sysop]

ingenting: New section: Naming convention

2009-01-29T10:33:53Z

New section: Naming convention

New page

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:31, 29 January 2009
Line 45:		Line 45:
	== Naming convention ==		== Naming convention ==

−	{{warning\|~~Every other page i see~~ is not following the [[Help:Naming_Conventions\|naming conventions]]. I urge the moderators to ~~not aprove pages that dont follow it, or fix it, and users to please read~~ it. --[[Contributor name:ingenting\|ingenting]] 23:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)	+	{{warning\|Too many articles is not following the [[Help:Naming_Conventions\|naming conventions]]. I urge the moderators to do something about it.}} --[[Contributor name:ingenting\|ingenting]] 23:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:29, 29 January 2009
Line 45:		Line 45:
	== Naming convention ==		== Naming convention ==

−	Every other page i see is not following the [[Help:Naming_Conventions\|naming conventions]]. I urge the moderators to not aprove pages that dont follow it, and users to please read it. --[[Contributor name:ingenting\|ingenting]] 10:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)	+	{{warning\|Every other page i see is not following the [[Help:Naming_Conventions\|naming conventions]]. I urge the moderators to not aprove pages that dont follow it, or fix it, and users to please read it. --[[Contributor name:ingenting\|ingenting]] 23:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:35, 29 January 2009
Line 45:		Line 45:
	== Naming convention ==		== Naming convention ==

−	Every other page i see is not following the naming conventions. I urge the moderators and users to please read ~~it and follow~~ it. --[[Contributor name:ingenting\|ingenting]] 10:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)	+	Every other page i see is not following the [[Help:Naming_Conventions\|naming conventions]]. I urge the moderators to not aprove pages that dont follow it, and users to please read it. --[[Contributor name:ingenting\|ingenting]] 10:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

← Older revision	Revision as of 15:36, 16 July 2009
(No difference)

← Older revision	Revision as of 10:33, 29 January 2009
(No difference)