This page is within the scope of the Wikipedia Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the Help Menu or Help Directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.Wikipedia HelpWikipedia:Help ProjectTemplate:Wikipedia Help ProjectHelp articles
Please provide definitions for the following terms missing in the glossary. Feel free to make new requests. Please strike out the any term that you provide definitions for.
Wiki-irony (hmmm- doesn't sound right, but i couldn't come up with a better way of saying it..) when an article does a "don't do this" (see sea of blue) and read this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.183.188.99 (talk) 01:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reference The most important word in wikipedia is not listed!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acolombo1 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
MNAA 'maybe not an acronym'. The place where spokes go. -- Harvestman
TINC
The Internet Namespace Cooperative ; There Is No Cabal ; Three Illuminated Nudes Conversing ; &c. Harvestman
ITHAWO
My conclusion for these cases : STFG (same as RTFM, but replace read by search and manual by google). The sense 'I thought he already was one' was explained by one of the users found by search, either in Google, either in WP: search (user talk and WP talk). So please search, and take note that some acronyms and terms do not have their place in a specialized glossary. -- Harvestman
WikiSlang
The baffling array of abbreviations used at IFD. I've noticed AB, OB, NI, and OR - there may be others.
suitly emphazi'd - used frequently on the reference desks.
Just an in joke of the variety that if you're told exactly what it means, it's not interesting. The first rule of the reference desk is... Suffice it to say you don't need to know anything more about it than it is a joke to understand the meaning of anything it is used in. - TaxmanTalk 15:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
guerrilla marketing
An article or edit which carefully omits or plays down any company or product name but which is still nothing but advertising. Recent examples include: atmospheric water generator and everything by Puja seth, for example truck canopy.
I first came across this phrase in this article in reference to Beechdean although their advertising here was blatant rather than guerrilla. -- RHaworth 08:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
quickbar
As a relative newbie to Wikipedia, I've come across this term in a "how to" section. I assume I'll be able to find out what it means by further searching but I'd expected to find it in the glossary. If someone adds this, a comparison to the standard section of the page (i.e. where the navigation, search, toolbox, etc. live) would be helpful. -Jvasil 15:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
good hand/bad hand - as seen in [[1]] - what does it mean? PamD 16:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Found this used in Business Software Association of Australia. Oh, it's also in the WP:sock-puppetry page: direct shortcuts WP:GHBH & WP:HAND. I don't know if it's WP-only jargon, but I couldn't easily find it online as a standard idiom. I'll add it to the glossary now. --Geekdiva (talk) 02:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OTD (Seen in talk pages) - "On this Day" - Needs to point to Main page talk page etc. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 11:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Topic, how it is most typically used (especially in policies and guidelines) on Wiki as meaning the main subject of an article in relation to its notability, and whether the topic warrants its own article or not. (See talk.) Huggums537 (talk) 08:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following were also listed as requests, but were unlisted by Menchi even though they have not been added to the glossary [2] (perhaps you could explain your reasons - IMSoP 20:51, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC))
What part do you want my "reasons" for? The 20-minutes-is-an-eternity part or the "to define"-doesn't-mean-I'll-finish-in-1-minute part? :-) --Menchi 21:17, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Apologies, I assumed other people would follow the same order of actions as me, and update the glossary before the list. Because obviously, I am perfect and therefore anyone behaving differently should be chastised and made to explain themselves! ;-) - IMSoP 21:24, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
It's alright. You just took a peek into the tupsy-turvy world of mirror IMSoP's. :o) --Menchi 21:32, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
<pedantic>I think you mean IMSoPs, plural; not IMSoP's, possessive</pedantic> *<8-D - IMSoP 21:37, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Can we modify those links? I've never heard of a term such as dewikify. Correcting an overlinked page (possibly called de-linking) would be considered wikification, not dewikification. Dewikification would involve inserting poor formatting and/or removing proper wikilinks. RyanVesey 05:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not in the glossary. WP:STUBIFY leads to Wikipedia:Stub#Stubbing_existing_articles, but I've seen an editor (an admin, even) use it in an edit summary to mean "add stub template". I think it's a useful term in the former sense, and suggest we add:
Stubify or Stubbify
To remove much of the text of an article (because of bias, copyvio, original research etc), reducing it to a stub.
There's a question how it's spelled, one "b" or two: searching on "Stubify" in "Search everything" gives 1142 hits, while "Stubbify" gets 909 - very similar. PamD 23:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Quite often I use ((tlx|Sofixit)) yielding a ((Sofixit)) link to Template:Sofixit. There is no camel case SoFixIt redirect to Sofixit, if I'd really want it I should create it.
Whining about missing features, or creating/using cleanup/maintenance templates/categories, often doesn't work as expected (nobody else cares about your pet peeves) and/or takes longer than simply fixing it with a WP:BOLDWP:IAR attitude — only outside of controversial mine fields of course, that would be the battlegrounding mentioned in the section above. Besides ignoring rules without really knowing them would be stupid, not bold.
Sofixit is one of the principles making wikis and other activities based on volunteer work tick: Without it twice as nothing happens, or folks not getting the idea end up creating guidelines for cleanup activities, where nothing is actually done in the main namespace. But I'm not going to add this suggestion to the project page without first proposing it here, because that would require a notable edit history, or something in this direction. ;-) –Be..anyone (talk) 20:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Dux 18:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PietDux (talk • contribs)
We need a technical term for what I call destination and I have boldly created it. Comments welcome... a ping appreciated as I watch a lot of pages!
An example of usage is not having previewed the edit and checked the destination of the wikilink....[3] Is there another term that could have been used there? Open to suggestions, but I don't know of a better way to say this. Andrewa (talk) 21:56, 10 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This has just been created. Feel free to be WP:BOLD and add missing terms which you feel would be useful. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:11, 7 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 106#Have we agreed to sign hattings? "But personally I'm with Monty and Jayron32 in archive 92 here. Yes signing hats is best practice. (Actually signing of the hat, not simply leaving a message inside the thread which sometimes doesn't make it clear you are hatting.) If someone repeatedly fails to sign hats it may be worth having a word with them. But generally speaking, if you don't dispute a hat, there's probably no need to worry about it just because it's not signed. Nil Einne 23:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)" (and plenty of other examples.)Reply[reply]
Agreed that it's a noun, but not with the definition given in the entry. Rather, I see hat used in the same way as the gerund (i.e., noun) hatting in these examples (numbers are links):
1....still of the opinion that someone who engages in hatting on the refdesks -- a rather controversial hatting that many here would strongly disagree with...
2....controversial hatting should be signed with a comment, and that deletions should be noted with a remark at talk. It's never been decided that a hatting requires...
3.Maybe it's time we codified just exactly what our hatting and deletion protocols are, so that...
4.For "hatting" old debates, see WP:Closing discussions. ... Anyone familiar with the term "hat" for hiding a discussion must be familiar with the template.
5.I really don't think it's a good idea to hat other peoples' questions. ... Hatting other peoples' questions is a way to stir up more drama...
These examples use hatting as a gerund to mean, more or less, act of adding the template in order to effectuate it, rather than the content of the hatted discussion. The last two examples makes clear the equivalency of hat and hatting but the other examples use hatting in that way, too. Even your examples above, also conform to this same definition of the act, not the content. I have not seen evidence that hat is used in the way the current definition claims. Mathglot (talk) 20:28, 26 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Certainly "hat" can be and is used to mean "to collapse", i.e. the act, but constructions like "inside the hat" and "sign the hat" clearly refer not to an action but a thing - either the container or its contents. Thryduulf (talk) 21:44, 26 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In the case of your "inside" example, I would agree. However, examples of that sense appear rare. Even in the case of your "sign" example, I would say that "sign the hat" incontrovertibly refers to the action. After all, you are signing and taking responsibility for your closure action, not for the dozens of messages written by other editors previously. Mathglot (talk) 01:12, 27 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In "sign the hat" the verb is "to sign", "hat" is the object you are signing. You are taking responsibility for creating a container and putting things in it. Search for "the hats" in Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk namespaces for lots of other examples of using "hat" as a noun meaning a container. Thryduulf (talk) 09:59, 27 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm going through a lot of difficulties with my phone terminal Dux 18:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PietDux (talk • contribs)
I added a request to the list above for "Topic" to be included in the Glossary. I explained "Topic" is mostly used on Wiki to mean it is the main subject of an article in relation to notability, and whether the topic warrants having its own article or not. However, I forgot to mention "Topic" also has a secondary meaning to stay on the main subject of an article, as seen at WP:OFFTOPIC. The key critical element to focus on here is that the common denominator between those two uses of term, is that both of them are related to the main subject of an article. This is no coincidence. I think it's extremely important that we define "Topic" as well as it's secondary use, because some users (especially newbies) are getting confused, thinking "topics" means the small amounts of information added to articles, but adding bits of material is covered extensively at WP:Verifiability, where any discussion about "topics" is nearly non-existent, except a couple mentions where it's (of course) related to notability (as I mentioned earlier). So, anyone can easily see that on Wiki "Topics" have little to nothing to do with the bits of added information to articles, and everything to do with the main subject of an article. So, let's define it to make that clear. Huggums537 (talk) 10:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now that I'm thinking about it, we might not even need to define a primary and secondary use of "Topic" since both of them have the same meaning, which is to say that "Topic" still means the main subject of an article no matter whether the use is for notability purposes, or for WP:OFFTOPIC. So, that could simplify things. Huggums537 (talk) 10:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done, nobody showed interest for a long time, so I did it myself. Huggums537 (talk) 16:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've added "Bare URLs" after discussion with an editor who considers the refs in this version of a page to be "Bare URLs". PamD 14:35, 23 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've seen "!=" used all over the internet, although "=/=" seems to be more common among non-programmers. Partofthemachine (talk) 20:28, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mathglot: Oh, well ok, I just added a padlock. I didn't see your reply until just now. Feel free to revert me if that is best. --DB1729talk
Huh, just noticed my signature is missing the time stamp. That's weird.
Just for the record, on May 4, I read the request. I checked that the page was indeed protected,[4] added the padlock[5] in response to the request, and came back here to see Mathglot's reply that it wasn't needed. Added my reply above.[6] All on May 4.
Never seen where a sig was added, but without the timestamp. --DB1729talk 11:12, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, thanks. I must have mistyped my search for it. --DB1729talk 16:12, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@The Grid, we should add the term to the list, I wanted to post this on the talk page so I wouldn't make edits and then get them reverted for vandalism, that is annoying, 88.110.61.147 (talk) 15:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, Andrewa. You may not remember this edit adding "A base name is an undisambiguated article title", as it's been some years. I did a targeted advanced search, and couldn't find a lot of backing for that definition. In particular, I'm concerned about possible confusion with Magic word((BASEPAGENAME)).
I found one page that seems to support your definition, at Wikipedia:Cleaning up after a move where it is used in that sense, but there don't seem to be a lot of other cases like that one that I can see. Other pages seem to use it more as a shorthand for BASEPAGENAME, such as at Help:Page name and Wikipedia:Page name. Afaict, that seems to be the majority usage, but maybe the usage is just blurry, and either we should remove the glossary entry entirely, or call out the variability of usage, and provide some of these links.
The more I deal with the glossary, the more I think this kind of blurry variability of usage may be pretty common. See for example, my recent rewrite of the term anchor, where I tried to keep the definition short for those who don't want a wall of text, while including the gory details in an explanatory note, explained at the bottom if they click through. I have a feeling that there are quite a few glossary items that might benefit from additional explanation of this nature, and explanatory notes could be a good way to deal with it.
Could you look into base name a little more, and see how you'd like to handle it? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:15, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mathglot: I've just come across the removal of base name from noticing that Wikipedia:Base name didn't redirect to a specific entry on this page; and I came across Wikipedia:Base name from Wikipedia:Disambiguation § Redirecting to a primary topic, which includes a piped link to that redirect (in the context of base name being a synonym for unqualified title). That link seems to have been inserted in Special:Diff/905866534 - pinging Paine Ellsworth, who made that edit. Anecdotally speaking, I think of the term base name to mean an undisambiguated/unqualified article title (except in the special case of the magic word), though I can't remember exactly where I picked that up from. Best, —a smart kitten[meow] 21:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(I forgot to mention it in the above reply, but I also noticed that the term base name is referenced in a number of other glossary definitions, along with ((section link))s that no longer work following the term's removal.) —a smart kitten[meow] 21:29, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) A smart kitten, thank you for this. One of my concerns is terms used with multiple meanings; Reference is classic for this. I think that as long as we can provide multiple definitions that are actually in use and have support, such as with Reference, it's fine, and very helpful. If we have a word that seems a bit fuzzy (maybe only to me?) like base name, then either we have to improve it, or delete it. The last thing we want to do in a page labeled "Wikipedia:Glossary" is lead people astray, or provide idiosyncratic definitions that maybe come from a Talk page somewhere without really being adopted enough to determine a consistent meaning (or multiple consistent meanings).
A bit o/t, but while I'm here: this should be a Wikipedia Glossary, only; it is not an English dictionary. Words like hagiography have no business being here. The very next term after that one, handwaving is not exclusive to Wikipedia, but is a jargony term used in a lot of debate or academic discussion contexts. Perhaps it is unfamiliar to a lot of people who might see it mentioned here, and to that extent, I'm not strongly opposed to retaining it, but since it is available in standard dictionaries (and has its own encyclopedic article here), I feel it's not necessary. I won't militate to remove it, but I don't think we should have too many like that here. We should stick to terms that match the title topic, as much as possible; any exceptions should have some clear benefit to a reader coming here. Mathglot (talk) 21:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Those should be fixed. Or maybe it's easier to just add it back, but then we need a authoritative definition. Mathglot (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To editors Mathglot, A smart kitten and Andrewa: thank you for the ping, A smart kitten! This seems to be a context problem, that is, there are many words in the English language and terms on Wikipedia that have different meanings in different contexts, as you know. The term "base name" appears to be one of these terms. In the context of page titles it has meant essentially a bare, undisambiguated title for all the years I've been registered. I've used it many times in that context, so I think it is incorrect to remove it just because there are other meanings in other contexts. The correct solution seems to be to improve any blurry items by expanding them to usages in different contexts. I think it's a mistake to just slash a term off the glossary and make editors wonder where it went. It's a bit like "Oh darn, I missed the bloke with my sword, so let me cut off my arm." I do intend to restore the term as it was, which will fix many links to it I've made. Then hopefully, other editors will find good ways to improve it. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there 09:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The destination of a name is the page or section to which it takes the reader in the main namespace. If the page by that name is an article, that article is the destination. If the page is a redirect, then the redirect target is the destination.
Are you talking about the destination anchor of a wikilink? Can we reword this to make it clearer? Mathglot (talk) 04:15, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good question. Looking at it. Andrewa (talk) 19:55, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:ZappaOMatic, ages ago you added, "Top: Same as (current)" in this edit. I have no idea what this means. Can you provide some context or reword it so it's clearer? Also, if we are going to keep "top" in the glossary, we should probably mention some of the other ways it is used, for example, in the edit summary, it's the default section name placed by mw software in the edit summary field, to lead off a "section edit" of the lead. There are page nav templates that skip to bottom, or top, of page (such as ((Top of page)), ((Back to top))) and there's a whole series of templates that come in two parts, like defining the top and bottom of a closed discussion (atop))), collapsed discussions (((cot))), and others. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 18:43, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Altered section name to 'top' (with apostrophes), as the section name "top" (without punctuation) automatically goes to the top of the page: see #top. Mathglot (talk) 19:44, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]