UESPWiki:Archive/CP Tamriel Dictionary Content

Tamriel Dictionary Content

On the Task List, I orginally said that the following needs to be done for all   pages:
:There are many other words that need to be added to the dictionary:
:* All names for all Races
:* All Gods
:* All Flora
:* All Places
:* All Animals
:* Name for all place types (i.e. ruin, cave, fort, dungeon, camp, etc.) 
Now that editors have started following my instructions, though, I've started to second-guess myself.  (Thanks everyone who's been helping!  And sorry for being inconsistent!)

My new thinking is that copying information from other pages onto the dictionary pages leads to duplicate information.  And duplication just causes headaches in the long run, because corrections/updates only ever get made to one copy.  So it's a lot of work that ultimately does not benefit readers.

What I'm now proposing instead is that the dictionary pages only contain words that are not listed anywhere else in the Tamriel pages.  So no creatures, gods, or flora will get listed in the dictionary.  We can add a statement to that effect on top of each dictionary page (via the Dictionary Header) so that readers do not expect those pages to be a comprehensive listing.  For people who want a complete list of every word that is defined anywhere in the Tamriel namespace, I've now put together the All Terms category.  So readers who come across a random word and have no idea whether it's a race, creature, god, or place can use the category listing to find the word.

So does anyone have any objections to me overhauling the scope of the dictionary contents half-way through the process? --Nephele  14:22, 17 November 2007 (EST)
:Not an objection so much as an... adjustment. A dictionary should really contain all words specific to the game but I'd agree that we don't want to see duplication. Wouldn't the best compromise be to have all words in the list but have just a "See (link)" entry for most of them? Apart from anything else, if some words aren't included we're just going to get people adding them. --Rpeh  15:59, 17 November 2007 (EST)

::Update: I've gone ahead and added a blurb to the top of each Dictionary page with a link to the new All Terms category.  The details can still be tweaked, of course, but I thought that advertising the category would only help readers.
::I have no objections to "see (link)" entries on the dictionary pages.  It's possible the entries would be somewhat redundant (especially if readers find the category listing helpful), but there wouldn't be any maintenance or other long-term problems introduced by adding such links.  Especially if the links use the redirects that have been set up (so that, for example, if someone later decides that Tiber Septim needs his own article, the link doesn't need to be fixed).
::So my reaction is if someone else wants to do the work to add those links, fine by me.  (But I'm unlikely to dive in and start doing it myself!) --Nephele  18:05, 17 November 2007 (EST)
:::I will be happy to add those links (that's what I like doing most), but I can't do it at once. It will take some time. Another thing, don't you think encyclopedia is a better word here than dictionary? --Mankar Camoran  08:53, 18 November 2007 (EST)
::::I just added one link:   . I would like to know, is this the correct way to go about it? --Mankar Camoran  09:34, 18 November 2007 (EST)

:::::I tweaked the entry you added in order to make it match the format used for the other dictionary entries and also added the information that it's a person's name, just so that readers get some idea of where they're going to jump to if they click the link.  I think that works somewhat better, although if there are any other opinions, it's probably best to sort out the format now before a few hundred of these have been created.
:::::As for encyclopedia/dictionary, that's probably part of the uncertainty with this project.  I suppose I'd say that the entire Tamriel section is like the encyclopedia.  But at this point at least, the dictionary section has been set up to be really dictionary-format entries.  I don't think we want to start adding lengthier information into the dictionary section; anything that requires a longer entry (i.e., an encyclopedia-style entry) I'd say should have its own article.  --Nephele  21:05, 18 November 2007 (EST)
::::::It looks really good now. The link I added didn't really look good to me, so I thought I would better ask what needs to be done. Thanks for showing the way.
::::::About that encyclopedia/dictionary thing, now I think dictionary is the appropriate word for the reason you have given. --Mankar Camoran  08:21, 19 November 2007 (EST)