Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Glossary of trucking industry terms in the United States/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 19:06, 11 July 2009 [1].

Glossary of trucking industry terms in the United States edit

Nominator(s): ErgoSum•talk•trib 05:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it is as comprehensive as its gonna get. I have been heavily editing the list for the past month or so, and all the definitions are referenced. ErgoSum•talk•trib 05:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the lead is too short IMO. Perhaps adding a paragraph about the background of some of those trucking terms. (also not sure if this violates 3b as merging this with Trucking industry in the United States is doable in my opinion)—Chris! ct 20:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was apprehensive about the intro as well, but there isn't much that can be said about it. Its a glossary of terms, what else needs to be said? The "history" of these terms is nonexistent. Most of these terms are self explanatory, "motor carrier" or "fifth wheel". Other terms are also self explanatory but documentation of their development is nonexistent due to their obvious nature, "glad hands" are a reference to the way they couple together like a pair of hands during a handshake, "lowboy" is pretty obvious but who knows where the "boy" came from, as is "portable parking lot". I will keep searching and see if I can dig up anything but I'm skeptical.
Are there any other featured glossaries that I can draw examples from? Also, this was originally part of Trucking industry in the United States, but was split due to length, and the split was also recommended by other users. Do you really think it can be added back? TIITUS is still being expanded, and it is already long as it is. Adding the glossary would make the article well over 70kb, which is not unheard of, but I think the glossary deserves its own article. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 22:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying absolutely that you have to merge with Trucking industry in the United States or this fails the criteria, but I am posting these questions here for others to think about since the length of the lead and whether this warrants a stand-alone list are both parts of the FL criteria.—Chris! ct 23:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I understand. This is my first attempt at a featured list, so I'm not exactly an expert... but I saw no mention of introduction length in the FL criteria. I realize the intro is sparse, I don't disagree with that assessment. However, given the nature of the subject matter (this being a glossary), I wasn't sure if the introduction should include anything more than an explanation of the content. I do however think this warrants a stand-alone list, as per WP:SIZERULE. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 23:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the Wikipedia:Featured list criteria does have something on introduction length. 2 says that lists need to have "an engaging lead that introduces the subject." 5 requires lists to conform with the MOS. Wikipedia:Lead section, which is a part of the MOS, has a section on length.—Chris! ct 00:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (glossaries) "If the glossary would be 25 terms or more, it is probably better to create a stand-alone glossary list article." I counted 87 terms. It also says "For a glossary list article that consists of a simple lead and a glossary, the form Glossary of subject terms is preferred... For an article that mostly consists of a glossary list but has well-developed material on the history and use of the terminology, or other such information (several paragraphs worth), the form Subject terms is preferred". I can expand the intro, but it will just be a summary of the terms, as history is not covered in the article. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 18:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, not sure if I agree with you entirely because the lead is too short according to my experience reviewing FLs. But there is no point for the two of us to debate this since it is not up to me or you to make the final decision. :) I am going to let others weight in on the lead issue before !voting. Though, I am now convinced that this should be a stand-alone list. Good work on the list, though.—Chris! ct 23:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm quickly glancing over this an one thing strikes me as very strange for a vocabulary-centered article: Why isn't is in alphabetical order? Circeus (talk) 05:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I could quickly change it, I just never got around to it. Should I get rid of the sections? I could alphabetize the whole list, and have each alternate/slang version with its own entry directing it to the standard term. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 20:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind the sections. It's really just the random order that seems weird. Circeus (talk) 22:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, well it wasn't really random for me, as I suppose I organized it in the manner that pleased me most (from most commonly used to rarely used terms). But it is all alphabetized now, and I changed the links to use the {{main}} template, cuz thats what WP:Manual of Style (glossaries) said to do. But as it turns out, it is only a working draft so I'm not sure there is much precedence for the styling of glossaries. Although I think it looks better. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 02:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • "Jargon used within the trucking industry in the United States" "within" could simply be "in".
  • "terms which describe"-->terms that describe
  • Sentence fragments should not have periods at the end.
  • "utilizing"-->using (shorter is sweeter)
  • "A method of shifting gears which optimizes"-->A method of shifting gears that optimizes
  • "A method of inventory control where warehousing"-->A method of inventory control in which warehousing Dabomb87 (talk) 21:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done, done, and done. I assumed that all the definitions should have periods at the end, but if you could tell me which ones or just delete the offending periods that would be fine with me, as I'm not sure which ones are too long to be considered fragments. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 02:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's more of a grammar thing than length, really (any phrase without a subject and a verb, simply put). I'll fix it myself.

Sources

  • This one is run by a bunch of companies, see here. It seems legitimate enough.
  • This site gives sources, and offers numerous different definitions. It is one of the best dictionaries I have seen on the web, and if you know of a better site then feel free to substitute another.
    • I assume you're referring to dictionary.reference.com. I've asked Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) about it, as she's the source guru at FAC. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a magazine see here. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 00:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Glossary_of_trucking_industry_terms_in_the_United_States/archive1&oldid=1143881416"