Talk:Glossary of spider terms

Expansion
Improving this article has been on my to-do list for some time. As with all glossaries, it's difficult to avoid plagiarism, because short definitions have to be precise, which means there are few ways to word them. It definitely needs more diagrams. Some issues: Peter coxhead (talk) 08:09, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Should the page be renamed "Glossary of araneology terms" or "Glossary of spider terminology"? Many of the terms only apply to spiders, not only the obvious ones, such as those related to reproduction, and the sources are exclusively spider-related. The introduction could say that where applicable terms are also used for other arachnids. If it stays at the present title, then it seems to me that entries that apply only to spiders need to be marked as such.
 * I'd like to distinguish between internal wikilinks (i.e. links from one definition to another) and external wikilinks (i.e. links to other articles). Picking up on what had been done already in a small part of the page, I've used italics for the former. Is this helpful? Sensible?
 * Should all definitions have an inline source? Or is it ok to provide general sources, perhaps with some comments in the lead? I incline to the former, but perhaps it's overkill.


 * After expansion, it's clear that much of this glossary only applies to spiders (e.g. all the stuff related reproductive morphology, silk production, venom, etc.), so I moved it to "Glossary of spider terms" (English name by analogy with Glossary of bird terms and Glossary of ant terms – "araneology" is not as well-known a term as, say, "entomology"). Peter coxhead (talk) 19:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Ventrum?
I don't think I've ever heard this term. Most of the sources I've seen use venter. Kaldari (talk) 09:20, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, this does seem to be a limited usage. Now fixed. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:41, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Dentate
although terms like "unidentate", "bidentate", etc. seem mostly to be used of chelicerae, they can be used more generally – e.g. "the tibial apophysis is bidentate" is here. So perhaps change these entries? Peter coxhead (talk) 10:07, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Good point. Honestly, I'm not even sure the terms belong here since they are not specific to spiders, but I thought it might be worth including them since they are used so commonly in the old literature. It's funny that cheliceral dentition was one of the main methods of grouping spider genera a hundred years ago and now it's something no one even pays attention to. If you think it would be better to remove them entirely, feel free to. Kaldari (talk) 19:30, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that it's better to be inclusive; it makes this glossary more useful for readers. So I agree with just making the entries less specific. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:17, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * (Re grouping spider genera, who knows what fashions may return? I still haven't finished sorting out the re-merger of Nephilidae into Araneidae – a separation which lasted all of 10 years, and then returned to Simon's view in 1894.This paper, whose authors are a roll-call of prominent araneologists so it's likely to be followed, makes a raft of taxonomic changes. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:25, 14 May 2017 (UTC))
 * Wow, that's certainly an All-Star spider taxonony line-up! At least maybe things will settle down for a few decades now. (I hope.) Kaldari (talk) 04:26, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

and issue
Hi I just wanted to explain what was wrong with the  issue that I fixed yesterday, since it was kind of obscure. The internal link wasn't working in my browser, since there were two  anchors on the page - one under the RTA definition, and one in the Abbreviations section. I changed the definition anchor to and set the link to  to fix the problem. However, since you added the back to the definition, there are once again two  anchors on the page, so any internal links added in the future that point to RTA also won't work. (There are none right now, but I wanted to leave this here for future reference.) Inverted Hourglass (talk) 00:00, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * whoops, yes, you're absolutely right; thanks. I'm not sure that an RTA anchor wouldn't better go to the entry for retrolateral tibial apophysis, but two is definitely wrong. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:01, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Changed image
. there are two problems with the SVG version which you changed to. First, at least on my system, the font is too thin, and I cannot easily read it. Second, the term "mandible" is used instead of "chelicera". "Mandible" does not appear in the glossary, and is not normally used in English in describing spiders, at least in the books I have. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:10, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * On behalf of Does the problem still exist? Habitator terrae (talk) 18:15, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * at File:Spider external anatomy.svg, the text is more readable, but we wouldn't use capitals in the English Wikipedia, and it still uses terminology different from that in the article. A blank SVG diagram with customizable text would be better, I think. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:00, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I am really not familiar with localization aspects of SV-graphics, but wouldn't it be possible to adapt the english text as discussed by Peter? Regards, --Burkhard (talk) 20:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, if I would know what "customizable text" mean. Please provide me with the english text. Now I only change it to lowercase letters. Habitator terrae (talk) 20:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

A numbered version of the SVG is now also available. Regards, --Burkhard (talk) 11:51, 30 December 2021 (UTC)