Talk:Glossary of invasion biology terms

message: This seems like a strong effort, but possibly a waste of time. Creating separate glossaries for scientific articles takes away from the purpose of having articles in Wikipedia by assuming a reader will just open a glossary as part of his experience in reading about a particular subject. I find that a good assumption for a book, but a rather poor one for an on-line encyclopedia. How would you envision connecting this to the article except by making a rather intrusive announcement that a glossary page is available for the article? This is a pointless claim considering that the beauty of on-line text is the ability to have hyperlinks to definitions and further reading on any important terms or subjects raised in the article.  A "terminology" page is both redundant and frankly contrary to the reason anyone would consult, read, or write an article online in the first place - Marshman 04:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wiktionary is an option for this page although we maintain that a good deal of the controversy that was originally presented on these wikipedia pages concerning invasion biology, introduced species, invasive species, invasive plants, and other related topics stemmed from the inconsistent use of terms in invasive biology as a discipline.  This assertion is backed up in our literature review of these subject areas. We still find the introduction to the terms on this page, and the terms included on this page, to have value when reading through the text in the related pages.  That said, we wouldn't be opposed to including this section in wiktionary if that is more appropriate.  Our experience with other online reference works is that many of them have hyperlinks to glossary terms of note or interest within the text, and wikipedia is no exception, as many of the pages within wikipedia contain no more than a dictionary definition anyway at this point in time. - PBG250
I understand your point, and your assertions are correct; but not really well served by having a separate "glossary" at Wikipedia as it requires the reader to know where to go when confronted with a "fuzzy" term.  Most expect terms to be defined where they read them, or at least within easy reach. I used your glossary at Wikibooks for the Ecology text, where the approach that you are attempting fits very well (it is a textbook). Here, even if you define a term in the glossary, there is absolutely no assurance that a person contributing to Invasive species or other related articles accepts, understands, or agrees with a definition in your glossary. - Marshman 22:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

message: I just today stumbled across this article, and I think it's an excellent start! I'm sure it could fit into Wikipedia very well; for ideas on how to improve it, try out List of glossaries and in particular List of cricket terms which is a featured list. In particular, I do not see a need to merge into Invasive species.
I'm not sure exactly what Marshman means about fuzzy terms, but he makes a critical point concerning cooperation with related articles. We should probably:
*Wikify: use internal links. List of cricket terms would be a good guide here.
*Meanwhile, look for conflicts with other Wikipedia articles. If any are found, compare references.
*Convert references to endnote style.
*Export the prose "introduction" section to a different article and/or inspect it for POV.
Melchoir 08:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I like it

message: --CopyToWiktionaryBot 05:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2007-02-1 Automated pywikipediabot message 

message: A glossary is inappropriate for a page dealing with 'Invasion Biology' because this is not a scientific field. It may be political, religious, or subjective, but it is not scientific, because it will forever be impossible to come up with a definition for any of the terms commonly used by invasion biologists that will stand up to scientific scrutiny; meaning non-subjective, repeatable, and falsifiable. The fossil record shows that species are naturally mobile, and naturally move vast distances into radically different ecosystems. The only thing about any ecosystem that remains constant is that it is always changing as new members arrive and old members leave.
Wiki skylace 03:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudoscience 

message: I am going to make internal links to the glossary headings to determine which have articles of exactly the same name. There may be others that use the terms, but not as title. There may also be near variants. I will try to remember to not make other changes so that this linking could be undone if it is not to editors' tastes. Please do not undo without a discussion. DCDuring 18:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Internal links to glossary terms

message: It's been a long time since the NPOV tag (18 months or so). I didn't see any substantive discussion. What is the procedure for removing it? DCDuring 18:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Isn't the NPOV dispute stale?

message: I noted that in North America there's the added point that the species must have been established by 500 CE. I've been unable to access the apparent reference. Could someone direct me or at least provide a synopsis? And let me know if this is a generally unacceptable or merely tolerated way to go about this. Kimbits (talk) 20:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Native Species definition

message: Link 
Color  Meaning
Red    No WP page
Blue   Page (may be disambiguation page)
Black  WP page doesn't mention concept in biological sense
Black  with "(See 'linked page in Blue')" - redirected to Blue page
Black  with "(See 'linked page in Black')" - WP page doesn't mention concept in a biological sense in Disambiguation page
DCDuring 19:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Note on Reading Links in Glossary

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Glossary of invasion biology terms. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070527143137/http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/ to http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Glossary of invasion biology terms. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051207021314/http://www.ucsusa.org/invasive_species/ to http://www.ucsusa.org/invasive_species/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051216010119/http://www.nrm.qld.gov.au/pests/ to http://www.nrm.qld.gov.au/pests/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051216131311/http://www.weeds.org.au/index.html to http://www.weeds.org.au/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051218001935/http://www.zin.ru/rbic/ to http://www.zin.ru/rbic/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)