Category talk:Glossary

I note that the entries are sorted in a case-sensitive way, so 'SPAG' is put before 'Sack object', for example. We may want to change this, if we can. -- David Welbourn Jan 1/05

Reorganise?

I feel that some of the entries here don't really belong in a glossary - for example, names of software companies. Does anyone else agree? Jon Rob 05:14, 17 March 2006 (EST)

• Well, I haven't felt too strongly about the matter, but mostly I agree with you. I suppose I've been a bit resistant to change the Glossary category much since it's what the IFWiki started with, and supposedly it's to be used as the basis of an appendix for the IF Theory Book. The original entries came from another wiki, and that included a few names like Topologika; see Glossary. So people see that example and feel free to add obscure companies to the category, and the same with obscure authoring systems.
  
  So maybe the best compromise is to add Authoring system, Computers, Interpreter, and Publishers to the Glossary category as subcategories, and then we should be able to remove all the pages with proper names from the Glossary category, which should (hopefully) leave just the narratology and ludology terms. How do people feel about that? -- David Welbourn 06:29, 17 March 2006 (EST)
• So, there wasn't any discussion, so I just acted on my own suggestion. I also removed names of publications (like Invisiclues and The Status Line), and names of websites (like SPAG and Shadow Vault). That still leaves a few oddball named entries in the list with might logically have to go: Glk, Glulx, grue, xyzzy, Z-code, and Z-machine. For the moment, I'm gonna leave them in here, and give people a chance to say how they feel about this recent change before I consider doing any further mucking about with this category. -- David Welbourn 06:53, 14 June 2006 (EST)