Talk:Gloss (annotation)

Untitled
Excellent article! (bluppfisk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.164.153.59 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 2 August 2007‎

moose
At one point in the article, there is gloss for moose as "twig eater", this makes no sense, as anyone farmiliar with algonquian languages can simply point out that /mus/ or /mo:z/ is too morphologically simple to imply an agent nominilation and that it makes very little sense that an algonquian language would lexicalise a noun like "twig eater", a better gloss is suggested by "http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=moose&searchmode=none" as "he strips off" which seems much more like something an algonquian language would do. If no one contests this, I'm gonna change the article.ave matthew at ace ma&#39;noya (talk) 00:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You're probably right. I wonder if this crept in along the way if people were puzzled by what "he strips off" could mean, s.o. decided on a looser translation to clarify, and it's just been copied verbatim ever since. kwami (talk) 01:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

gloss
comes from the macedonian "glas", "глас" which means voice.212.13.86.194 (talk) 11:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Not directly. See Wiktionary. The Macedonian and English words both come from Greek. --BDD (talk) 01:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The English word comes from Greek. The Macedonian word comes from Proto-Slavic *golsъ and is unrelated to gloss and γλῶσσα. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: move to Gloss (annotation); move Gloss (disambiguation) to Gloss. --  tariq abjotu  17:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

– I don't think the notation fits WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. For one, it had 6248 views last month, compared to 3931 and 4136 for Gloss (material appearance) and Gloss (paint), respectively, and that's not even counting any of the other topics. I don't think there's a primary topic at all, but I'm unsure of what to rename this page. Gloss (transliteration) and Gloss (margin text) are established redirects, and they may work. I think I'd prefer Gloss (notation), but just to be clear, I support any move to this effect. --Relisted. --  tariq abjotu  05:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC) BDD (talk) 22:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Gloss → ?
 * Gloss (disambiguation) → Gloss


 * None of those proposals cover the topic. — kwami (talk) 23:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Support move to Gloss (notation), this is certainty not PT. Zarcadia (talk) 00:00, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The current setup works fine. Srnec (talk) 01:44, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - (notation) suggests music to me, (margin text) would be better though true less accurate. Who is going to fix the incoming links :) In ictu oculi (talk) 02:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * (margin text) is incorrect in many cases, so that wouldn't be good either. — kwami (talk) 03:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. While I agree that there is a legitimate question of primary topic, the objections raised by in ictu and kwami are both fatal to proposed renames for the current article. (I also share concerns about fixing the incoming links.) How about Gloss (text ual )? Just popped to mind, and I haven't thought through the ramifications, but the disambiguator needs to distinguish it from other articles, not provide a definition, so it should be fairly broad. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced the article needs to be moved, but if so, why not Gloss (linguistics)? Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:06, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Because the linguistic usage is only one aspect of the topic. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think (text) might work, though I'm also not convinced that anything needs to be moved. — kwami (talk) 21:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It could be one of those examples where even though the article may not strictly meet the criteria of "primary topic", no good disambiguator exists, and adding one might cause more trouble than it's worth. If there were a great number of incoming links that were meant to go elsewhere, then we'd be solving a problem, because that would be a good indication that even WP editors found it counterintuitive that this "gloss" would be the most likely destination. I skimmed through the incoming links, though, and found (and fixed) only four that definitely needed to go elsewhere:
 * one was for the TV series (Gloss (TV series);
 * one at Ridge Farm Studio was for (presumably) a band that doesn't seem to have an article;
 * one was Gloss Magazine, for which no article exists.
 * These aren't serious contenders as PT. Oil paint had a link to both gloss paint and (wrongly) this gloss. At Profil (magazine), I have no idea what sense of "gloss" is meant, nor at EGanges, which is unquestionably the most impenetrable WP text I've encountered. Two that were legitimately ambiguous were both for Gloss (material appearance). That strikes me as more common as a lexical item (though the article is anything but merely lexical), but not as an encyclopedic topic. I don't have strong feelings about this, other than choosing a disambiguator, if one is deemed needed, that works. But I too am not sure it's a problem that needs to be fixed. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. I'm not going to give an opinion on the proposed move; but I'll note that if "notation" is felt to be an unclear disambiguator, "annotation" might be a possibility (or even "text annotation" to match the title of our article on the topic—though that might be going overboard). Deor (talk) 14:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think either of those would be appropriate. — kwami (talk) 23:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Gloss (annotation); I can help fix the incoming links. I made a redirect so we can move on fixing links before moving; but the first link I looked at was definitely a wrong link, and the second was from the related verb "to gloss"; that doesn't seem to me like something that needs to be linked.  Opinions?  Dicklyon (talk) 05:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree that "annotation" is the best suggestion so far. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me too. --BDD (talk) 16:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Ain't broken, really. I accept that it doesn't clearly stand out as the primary use, but the alternatives aren't very well known either. (One could argue that Gloss (material appearance) and Gloss (paint) are about the same concept and could be then linked as a hatnote, but that's another issue). I'm not sure what we would accomplish the dab page in this place; doesn't sound like a frequent search target. No such user (talk) 11:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * FYI, I moved the article Gloss (material appearance) to Gloss (optics), and initiated a merge discussion with Gloss (paint). No such user (talk) 11:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support move to gloss (textual). But clearly there's no primary topic. Red Slash 02:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Fixing incoming links – need help
Now that the article is moved, the links that used to be mostly intended for this article go to the disambig page at Gloss. See what links here. I've fixed 10 or so; a few were wrongly going to this article before, but most were correct and need to be changed to piped links.

Please help. Dicklyon (talk) 20:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll do a few in the spirit of camaraderie, but lack time this week to finish the job. Cynwolfe (talk) 04:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ouch. Just realized this requires close attention to whether gloss (annotation) and interlinear gloss is meant, and I'm not confident I always know. Will do a few obvious ones, but trust that editors who were most adamant about the necessity of the move will figure out the rest. Cynwolfe (talk) 04:29, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Which isn't even listed on the disambig page, so I was unaware of it. Some of the ones I changed already should perhaps go there.  I'll check.  What would be better on this one?  Dicklyon (talk) 04:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That's the kind of example that gave me pause, since I always just considered that the example in the link would be generally "glosses", and the context would explain further the kind of glossing going on. Since the interlinear gloss is given as a summary section here, I suppose if one errs by directing a reader to this page rather than the more specifically defined type of gloss, they won't have gone too far astray. But the linguists may be able to parse this better. I'll look at a few more easy ones over coffee this morning; last night I skimmed for links in article content I wrote and grabbed a few others on the way. BTW, I changed the plural redirect glosses to go to gloss (annotation), because it does seem to be the PT in the plural: "gloss" won't be used in the plural for gloss (material appearance), and wouldn't be all that common for lip gloss ("she had a makeup tray with lip gloss in every conceivable shade" would be more natural than the plural) or even gloss (paint) ("the hardware store had five different brands of gloss, but two were too expensive"). The other uses are proper nouns. Cynwolfe (talk) 11:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, some of the remaining links might usefully go to Glosses to the Bible, with the same excuse as above if the link goes here instead. I don't know. I think that's a problem sometimes when we carve up articles too finely because editors don't want to play together, or want to show how clever they are at making distinctions in theory without judging the practical effect for both readers and content providers. With medieval glossing, I'm not sure how much distinction there is in practice, since glosses of any kind would've been coming out of the same intellectual environment, typically monastic. If I understand this correctly. I don't claim to. Cynwolfe (talk) 11:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree. It's not clear why interlinear needs its own article, which is largely unknown to people who want to link something.  A merge might be in order. Dicklyon (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I separated that article based on WEIGHT: IMO it's much too detailed to fit here, where we otherwise have just a brief explanation of the various uses of glossing.  Same thing with biblical glosses:  merging those two articles would make this one quite unwieldy.  — kwami (talk) 23:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with them being separate, only with my ability to discern the right target in disambiguating. It doesn't look as if many of these have been fixed since I posted five days ago. So indulge me: it really bothers me that editors will be so sure that an article title needs to be changed, or that some internal wiki-rule needs to be followed, but then walk away from the mess. It suggests to me that getting their way has a psychological importance that outweighs any benefits to readers or content-creators. Dicklyon didn't even argue the point, but came to help. Kwami and others who were content-oriented weren't sure the article title needed to be changed in the fist place, so why should they do someone else's bidding? Sorry for the mini-tirade, but as a community work-flow problem, this has been bothering me a long time. Cynwolfe (talk) 11:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've fixed one or two tonight but it's slow going for the non-specialist as you said so I'll pick up again tomorrow. A question about Surrealist music though. The lead section includes, "Lloyd Whitesell says this is Paddison's gloss of the term." It feels like the gloss link is there to define an uncommon word rather than as a genuine link to Gloss (annotation) or the related articles, so I was going to link to gloss instead. Is that OK or should I always disambiguate to a wikipedia page as a rule of thumb? Aureomarginata (talk) 23:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC) rank newbie - eyes maybe a touch bigger than stomach
 * Since as you note there's no need for the technical background in this article, why not just remove the link? Links aren't meant to be a substitute for a dictionary.  — kwami (talk) 00:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll do that. Thank you. Aureomarginata (talk) 08:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I liked your "mini-tirade", Cynwolfe; noticed the said phenomenon myself, but you summed it up nicely (it's all too common that many editors come to !vote "keep but improve", or the like, and then walk away and leave the improvement to others; human nature I guess). On to the substance: although I argued for keeping the current title, I fixed a 20 or so myself this morning. I don't think that the choice of the target is critical for understanding: Bible gloss and Interlinear gloss are just special cases of Gloss (annotation). Most old links linked to gloss, and now we had a chance to refine the target, where obvious, but even if we don't, no harm is done. No such user (talk) 07:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Not all glosses in linguistics are interlinear
There is a in #In linguistics. However, the first sentence describes a simple gloss. Should that not be ? Also, shouldn't there be a definition of simple gloss? --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 12:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC)