Talk:Scientific terminology

Merge proposal

 * The parts of this thread were consolidated here for comment and consensus.

It seems to me that technical terminology and jargon are both trying to describe the same concept, and should be merged. I propose they be merged to this article (technical terminology), because jargon has several meanings: although "technical terminology" is one of its definitions, it also has an implication of deliberate obfuscation. -- SCZenz (talk) 20:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC) I propose that the usable parts of scientific jargon be merged here at the same time, for the same reasons. It's not clear that there's anything unique about the idea of technical terminology in science per se. -- SCZenz (talk) 20:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * They shouldn't be merged, its' good separate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.117.215.96 (talk) 17:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments from NIMSoffice
1)Wikipedia by no means have enough qualified writers, and that
 * Oppose. First, a naive comment of a Wikipedia beginner. I feel that

2)if a page received a bulky contribution from one writer, and that page survived quality checks then that page becomes "semi-personal" page of that author. This means others will patch it but not rewrite, leaving the original presentational style mostly untouched.

Coming back to merging Scientific jargon.The problem comes after reading the pages to be merged. "Technical terminology", etc. are written by linguists and are abstract, "Scientific jargon" is written by scientist and is intended to be very practical and straightforward. Thus, yes, theoretically, they could all be merged, but in practice, the language, purposes and coverage are too much different. Regards NIMSoffice (talk) 05:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, I do not see a problem with giving the page "scientific jargon" a better name. As I wrote, I could not cover all sciences there, and thus the page is rather on physical sciences. "Scientific terminology" might be appropriate, but as a separate page, i.e. not merging with its current redirect page "international scientific vocabulary" which is a very different story. Regards NIMSoffice (talk) 23:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Earlier comments
OK, having looked further at the article, I think it can stand on its own if properly developed, and I'll remove my merge suggestion. As for the other tags:
 * The "personal essay, may require cleanup" was for some of the language, formatting and tone that don't quite read the way an encyclopedia article should. Take a look at mathematical jargon, which I think is a good example for how this article should be structured. I'll try to do some of the cleanup later today or tomorrow.
 * The original research and and unreferenced tags go hand-in-hand. There are some external links but no indication of where each particular fact in the is coming from. Again, I think mathematical jargon is a good example of how to do this right. Look at how they provide citations for their examples and use that as a guide.

I think the article leans too heavily on acronyms and abbreviations and is in danger of becoming a big list that probably duplicates content covered elsewhere in Wikipedia. Take a look at some of the other articles about jargon in particular fields, which seem to be pretty good.

I'll tag this for one of the scientific Wikiprojects and maybe that will attract some more help. Thanks! TheMolecularMan (talk) 22:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm pleased with this approach to constructive criticism. I like it that TheMolecularMan tries to explain a problem and then also refers to an article which can be used as a comparative standard.  The tone of language is just right, finely balanced.  I intend to come back to this posting again in the future; and I definitely plan to plagiarize the following sentences:
 * "The original research and and unreferenced tags go hand-in-hand. There are some external links but no indication of where each particular fact in the is coming from."
 * On several occasions, I've tried to explain the same thing, but never with so few words. In such circumstances -- regrettably, my unsuccessful prose has inspired only cursory dismissal, rejection or perhaps WP:TL;DR.


 * TheMolecularMan deserves my thanks. --Tenmei (talk) 14:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any problem, at least, with moving scientific jargon to scientific terminology. One of the primary meanings of the word "jargon" is pejorative. -- SCZenz (talk) 13:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I would have thought that there is a need for scientific jargon and scientific terminology and Technical terminology; and the first and most obvious reason for this would be the very fact that one of the meanings of "jargon" is pejorative. It's a fine point, but well worth emphasizing.  An additional reason for maintaining both articles would be, in my view, the advantages which flow from retaining the parallel structure with mathematical jargon.  This promises to become an interesting thread; and I'm glad to have stumbled across it.  --Tenmei (talk) 13:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What kind of article would you write under scientific jargon...? -- SCZenz (talk) 12:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I would have imagined some sort of segmented structure, with corollary links to more fully-developed articles, e.g.,
 * Jargon?
 * See, e.g, pernicious, insidious cancer in 1999 Pulitzer Prize-winning play, Wit by Margaret Edson?
 * Scientific jargon?
 * See, e.g, Stage IV, Metastatic ovarian cancer?
 * Technical jargon?
 * See, e.g, Grand rounds?
 * Does this perhaps help move the thread towards a constructive resolution of expressed and/or as-yet unstated issues? --Tenmei (talk) 07:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * See, e.g, Grand rounds?
 * Does this perhaps help move the thread towards a constructive resolution of expressed and/or as-yet unstated issues? --Tenmei (talk) 07:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Does this perhaps help move the thread towards a constructive resolution of expressed and/or as-yet unstated issues? --Tenmei (talk) 07:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality tag and proposed solution
The use of the term "jargon" is absolutely inappropriate, as the common meaning of "jargon" is perjorative -- implying that the use of terminology is unnecessary, when nothing could be further from the truth in this case. Hence I've put a neutrality tag on the article.

My proposal to fix the problem is (a) to change all appearences of "jargon" to "terminology" and (b) to move the article to scientific terminology. (It currently redirects, but we can just put a note at the top.)

Any objections? I'd just do the move, but I should check it's uncontroversial before deleting the old redirect. -- SCZenz (talk) 12:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I do not oppose the tag, or the reasons put forward to explain it. However, I cannot quite bring myself to accept the proposed solution, nor have I a better alternative to suggest.  I'm inclined to urge delay at this juncture -- not so much because any disagreement, but rather because I apparently need to think about this some more.  In my view, SCZenz has parsed an issue elegantly; but this also causes me to re-examine WP:NPOV more broadly in a new light.  The connotations of pejorative in scientific jargon becomes mildly controversial in ways I hadn't previously considered. Moreover, I now beginning to wonder what am I to make of pejorative connotations in the contexts of genocide?  regicide?  terrorism?  Which I try to construct an argument which addresses either SCZenz's perceived problem or its solution, I'm displeased with my own rhetoric; but when I try to extend what I understand of SCZenz's issues, my own the reasoning feels flawed in ways I can't quite resolve.
 * In the context established by the common meaning of "jargon" is perjorative -- implying that the use of terminology is unnecessary, I'm not quite ready to accept the stated link between the adjective "pejorative" and its suggested implications.


 * 1. In the context established by jargon, why should we conclude that the argument for moving scientific jargon becomes reasonable and compelling without a corollary, parallel attack on mathematical jargon?
 * In this context, what are we to make of wiki-jargon terms like consensus reality, to which I ascribe inextricable pejorative connotations? --Tenmei (talk) 06:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * We should do the right thing here, and then we can look at "mathematical jargon" next. Also I think you are underestimating Wikipedia's efforts to neutrality in regard to the more politically-loaded terms you mention: for example Osama bin Laden never says "he is a terrorist"; instead, it says: "He has been designated as a terrorist by scholars, journalists, analysts and law enforcement agencies.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]."  Anyway, take your time and think it over, and let me know when you're ready to have the article moved. -- SCZenz (talk) 08:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Neutral --


 * 2. The a priori flaw which SCZenz recognizes is an unhelpful conflation of "jargon" and "terminology" in the context this article establishes.
 * The proposed merge is a plausible step; but


 * 3. NIMSoffice appears to argue in favor of changing the name of this article, rather than combining it with another. : While that point-of-view may have merit, the advantages of a merge could over-balance perceived benefits in separate articles at this time.


 * However,


 * 4. I notice that a separate merge proposal suggests that jargon should be folded into technical terminology ... which causes me to wonder about the unintended consequences?
 * I don't have strong views about what would be best at this point, but I'm persuaded to withdraw my misplaced opposition to SCZenz's proposed resolution to identified problems in the current state of this article. --Tenmei (talk) 21:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Support -- I support the proposed merge. The fact-of-the-matter is that SCZenz only wants to improve the quality of this article and its corollaries. The more interesting questions have to do with why it took so long for me to figure out what matters most. I don't have to understand more at this point; rather, I've decided to support SCZenz's willingness to invest in a process which improves the articles which treat these fundamental subjects. --Tenmei (talk) 02:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Done I've moved us to "Scientific terminology" and removed the tag. Ok, that was my biggest issue. Thanks for discussing! -- SCZenz (talk) 07:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Original research tag
I've put the original research tag back on the article. I feel the content overall is very selective, not that any particular part of the article is uncited. I think this can be improved by doing some (collective) work on what exactly the topic of the article is: I think "scientists use words, here are some examples" is a bit vague, and that's a lot of the problem. -- SCZenz (talk) 12:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A nicely focused point -- a fine step in the right direction. Yes, now that I think about it, SCZenz's observation does seem precisely on the mark. I hadn't understood it in this way before, but now I almost begin to "get it." --Tenmei (talk) 06:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Section on non-vernacular terminology
Classical and non-vernacular terminology is a subject that seems not to have much attention in this article so far, and yet there is a good deal to be said about it. "Gedankenexperiment", "sensu ampliore" and so on. I stripped the para from Sensu, where some spirits were objecting. I did have to admit that the content applied to many another article as well, and that it was better to put it in just one place than to repeat it in umpteen articles. I'll be back. JonRichfield (talk) 20:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Bacteria is very important in an ecosystem as
Why is a bacteria very important in an ecosystem 41.246.27.215 (talk) 16:01, 7 March 2024 (UTC)