Talk:Glossary

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. --Karia Icehawk 22:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Better presentation

 

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? --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). 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. --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. --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. --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™ 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). --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.--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. --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. 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. MailDeadDrop 17:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

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. 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

  --ingenting 23:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)