Wikipedia talk:Explain jargon

Old talk
Supporters of this rule include: Larry Sanger, JerryMuelver, Tim Shell, Pinkunicorn, AyeSpy (fervently), Janet Davis, drj, GWO, tbc, AxelBoldt, Koyaanis Qatsi, Enchanter, Rotem Dan, Bensaccount Nu Aeon, Narkstraws

Discussion:

Of course jargon should be explained. Unfortunately, the technique suggested (making links to pages where unfamiliar terms would be explained) will inevitably result in the deletion of the explanation when it's moved to wiktionary as a "dictionary definition". -- Nunh-huh 21:04, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Is there any other way? Bensaccount 21:39, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Persuade people not to delete things from Wikipedia when they grab them for Wiktionary. - Nunh-huh 22:10, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Rather: link to Wiktionary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * -Shouldn't this be a no brainer? I would think that deleting any entry would be a negative. Nu Aeon

Opponents include: 24

24 - it sounds good, but really, you should be avoiding jargon in most articles - where it's impossible to avoid, of course, I support this rule. But remember, much jargon overlaps between fields and someone clicking down may well find that a "term of art" has become fuzzed out by many definitions. Imagine ontology, for instance, a branch of metaphysics, or a practice of knowledge representation? The article written for one will be incomprehensible to the person who is expecting the other.

Can this be modified to include trying to be reasonable about one's use of jargon? If I have to look up six words in the first sentence, and for half of them I have to look up another two words just to understand the explanations, I could end up reading twelve articles just to form a basic understanding of one sentence. The goal is to make communication easier, not more difficult. It's okay to use a specific technical term if it means exactly what you want it to mean, but if every other word has to be linked to an explanation, that's probably excessive. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 21:20, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think you can have some common-sense expectations about the audience of particular articles. If someone is reading cell (biology), they well may not be aware of protein as anything but something-or-other that's in food. I haven't looked, but I'm confident the word protein is a link in that article. If they're reading CD133, they can reasonably be assumed to have a pretty good idea what a protein is. If I write an entry for CD133, I may not make the word protein a link. --dsws 19:11, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Proposal to consolidate advice on writing better articles
At present there are many articles in the Wikipedia namespace that seek to give guidance on how to write better articles. I propose consolidating these into a much smaller number. On User:Jongarrettuk/Better writing guide I propose how these could be consolidated. The proposal is not to change advice, just to consolidate it. If I have inadvertently moved what you consider to be good advice that is currently in the Wikipedia namespace, please re-add it. I'm hope that the proposal to merge all these articles, in principle, will be welcomed. Of course, it may be preferred to have 2, 3 or 4 inter-connected articles than just one and would welcome advice on how this could be done. (In particular, perhaps all the guidance on layout should be spun off into one consolidated article on layout.) I'm also aware that putting lots of different bits of advice together may throw up anomalies or bits that people now disagree with (including bits that I myself disagree with:) ). I ask for support for the consolidation. Once the consolidation has happened, the advice can be changed in the normal way. Please feel free to improve on the current draft consolidation, but don't remove or add advice that is not currently on the Wikipedia namespace. If all goes well, I'll add a new Guide to writing better articles page on the 19th, though maybe some bits of the new article will need to be phased in over a longer period. I'll also take care to preserve all the archived discussion in one place. vjguk 19:44, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Template
Is there a template which can be added to articles asking for an explanation of jargon? If not there should be.--naryathegreat | (talk) 05:02, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * I would say you should probably just raise the issue on the talk page. That kind of thing needs more specifics than, say, "wikify" does. --Dmcdevit 05:37, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the template is known as Template:Technical. Add it a talk page using --DavidCary 07:13, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Rule weakness
I think this rule needs to be changed to discourage editors from using wikilinks as an excuse not to explain jargon.

The current rule does the opposite. It seems to discourage defining terms in the text:

"You can simply make your jargon terms links to articles explaining them; you can then link to that same explanation from many places. Alternatively, you may introduce the jargon term the first time you use it; beware, though, that technical terms often have a very precise meaning and that short explanations of their meaning may introduce some inaccuracies."

There are two problems with simply wikilinking words rather than explaining them. The first is that it makes understanding an article a time-intensive procedure, since the reader has to look up all the different terms on the page.

The other problem is that the articles on the jargon words are often more difficult to understand than the original article. Take the article on lightning. It begins as follows:

"Lightning is a powerful natural electrostatic discharge produced during a thunderstorm. This abrupt electric discharge is accompanied by the emission of visible light and other forms of electromagnetic radiation. The electric current passing through the discharge channels rapidly heats and expands the air into plasma, producing acoustic shock waves (thunder) in the atmosphere."

Now, it's unlikely the average reader is going to know what electrostatic discharge or plasma is. But if the reader can't understand the lightning page, he or she certainly isn't going to understand the page on electrostatic discharge.

In this case, electrostatic discharge begins by saying "Electrostatic discharge (ESD) is the sudden and momentary electric current that flows when an excess of electric charge, stored on an electrically insulated object, finds a path to an object at a different electrical potential (such as ground)." The reader now has to click on electrical potential, which is the most-complicated article yet encountered, full of mathematical equations. And so on -- he or she could go on clicking all day without understanding the lightning article.

I believe wikilinks should be used to provide extra information on a topic if the reader chooses to seek it. They should not be used instead of defining terms the reader is unlikely to know.

I'm not saying every wikilinked term needs to be defined in the text. If it's a word the likely reader of the article probably knows, such as weather, it need not be defined (unless it's the weather article, of course). Also, if the reader does not need to understand the term to understand the article, and defining the term would be unwieldy, it could be excluded. For example, the article on Silesia says most of it was taken by Prussia in 1742 in the War of the Austrian Succession, but does not define that war. There is no need to say the war was a conflict between Prussia and allies on the one hand and Austria and allies on the other resulting from Maria Theresa's succession to the throne, because the reader does not need to know that to understand that Prussia took Silesia from Austria in 1742.

On the other hand, the reader of the lightning article does need to know what electrostatic discharge and plasma are in order to understand the opening paragraph. If I were to rewrite the lightning article, I would change "electrostatic discharge" to "discharge of static electricity," since most people know what static electricity is. I would also refrain from mentioning plasma until later in the article -- perhaps a "thunder" section -- when I would have room to explain that it is a form of matter in which atoms have been stripped of their electrons. (Or so I understand; I can't really understand the plasma article).

I think editors, when they write articles, should ask themselves whether the article can be understood by a likely reader without the wikilinks. If it can't be understood without the wikilinks, it should be improved to be easier to understand -- Mwalcoff 03:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I fully agree, a reader only somewhat familiar with a topic should not be required to click through half a dozen wikilinks to get a basic understanding of what is being talked about. Another reason also is that if Wikipedia is put in print, the articles will not be understandable. —Centrx→talk • 03:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Science and mathematics It makes sense to include terms like electrostatic discharge or plasma (the state of matter, of course), as science has developed a necessary jargon to discuss topics that are otherwise unintelligible. The thing that's really irritating is when neologisms are inserted into social studies articles or pop culture topics for no reason. Why can't you just put backwards acronym or compound word ? Is that so hard? For instance, I'm changing Thomas Jefferson from miscegenation to <nowikimarriage between blacks and whites, so people can click on the link and learn more if they want, but they aren't compelled because they're reading an unintelligible articel.  It's distracting and not helpful to the reader to include jargon where it is unnecessary (unlike, say, articles on quantum physics.) It also turns Wikipedia into Wiktionary, since people are constantly learning frivolous new terms. -[[User:Koavf|Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 01:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There is absolutely nothing wrong with using terms like "plasma" or even "miscegenation." But they should be explained if some readers are likely not to know them. -- Mwalcoff 22:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge
I think this should be merged with Technical terms and definitions and Make technical articles accessible.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This page applies to any jargon, whereas those appear only to scientific and similar terms, with specific recommendations. This style guide is general and simple. Perhaps the recently added Mathematics section here should be merged into Technical terms and definitions. —Centrx→talk • 04:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I've removed the merge tags because they've been there for nine months without further discussion. --Tony Sidaway 02:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with the merge suggestion. This is very confusing. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia jargon
Wikipedia has become somewhat bureaucratic, and more bureaucracy than is absolutely necessary is bad for the project. In particular, bureaucratic use of jargon excludes people who don't yet know it, because it makes quite simple discussions impossible to understand. It tends to create an artificial division between those who use the jargon because they're familiar with it, and those who tend to stay away from policy discussions because they seem to be written in some weird code (and they often are!)

I've been a regular Wikipedia editor now for two-and-a-half years, which in Wikipedia terms makes me something of a grizzled old-timer, but even I do not find it easy to navigate though policy discussions when they're bristling with capitalized gibberish such as BLP, BRD, CN, ANI. For a relative newcomer, this is a very serious and quite unnecessary hurdle to involvement in Wikipedia's processes. It tends to alienate often quite good Wikipedians from the decision-making process, and thus it tends to split the community in two.

I suggest that we add a section specifically about Wikipedia jargon. My suggested wording is as follows:


 * Wikipedia jargon
 * Avoid using Wikipedia jargon on Wikipedia. All policy documents have English names that relate to their content, and these names should always be used the first time they are mentioned in any discussion or talk page section.  For instance, don't write WP:BRD, write BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (WP:BRD), so that people scanning the page will understand what you're talking about.  Repeated use in a discussion may use the shortcut identifier (BRD) or the shortcut itself (WP:BRD).  It is best not to initiate a discussion about policy solely by referring to it by its shortcut.
 * Avoid using Wikipedia jargon on Wikipedia. All policy documents have English names that relate to their content, and these names should always be used the first time they are mentioned in any discussion or talk page section.  For instance, don't write WP:BRD, write BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (WP:BRD), so that people scanning the page will understand what you're talking about.  Repeated use in a discussion may use the shortcut identifier (BRD) or the shortcut itself (WP:BRD).  It is best not to initiate a discussion about policy solely by referring to it by its shortcut.

--Tony Sidaway 22:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:GOOD WP:IDEA, WP:TONY. &mdash;Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 01:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. Too many new proceses have came up to know what everything is. V could be vandalism or verification, so we should be clear on what we are discussing. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Too many edit conflicts for my message to be anything other than "I agree". Sean William  01:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:CSN - Community Sanction Noticeboard or Crosby, Stills and Nash ?
 * Even worse, what about WP:3RR, a shortcut referring to a confusing and complicated policy. What new users knows what the 3 Revert Rule is, or what a Revert is, for that matter. We should be using broad, easy to understand terms such as WP:Edit War for 3RR, WP:Vandalism for Vandals and Vandalism, and we need to kill all ambiguous shortcuts. WP:V is confusing for experienced users, christ knows what it's like for newbies.

-- Nick  t  01:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll take that as a loud "aye". Let's try whopping it into the policy. --Tony Sidaway 01:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know who suggested "wiki" is "wikipedia jargon", but the problem is just the opposite; there are too many people in the world who think that "wiki" refers to "wikipedia" when the reality is the other way around.
 * And on that topic -- wikipedia doesn't need 90% less acronyms for processes, it just needs 90% less processes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.204.149 (talk) 07:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Problem with this rule
My big problem with this rule is that it is completely open-ended. What criteria should an editor use to judge how much terminology to explain? What level of education should be assumed? What is or is not jargon depends entirely on who is doing the reading. At some point a technical article needs to assume a certain level of knowledge on the part of the reader or the text gets bogged down in pedantic explanation. &mdash; RJH (talk) 19:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Not everyone likes this style
...but I prefer to be very terse in style guidelines. Since WP:Words to avoid linked to jargon rather than this page until today, I imported the stuff I thought people might have actually read at jargon, mixed it with what was on this page, and then pared away everything that I thought people already knew or could deduce. Feel free to rewrite or revert. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The page had one paragraph devoted to WP-space. Style guidelines concern articles only, and the distinction is important because people mistakenly apply style guideline recommendations to WP-space and userspace all the time, so this material needs to find a new home: "Avoid using Wikipedia jargon on Wikipedia.  All policy documents have English names that relate to their content, and these names should always be used the first time they are mentioned in any discussion or talk page section.  For instance, don't write WP:BRD, write BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (WP:BRD), so that people scanning the page will understand what you're talking about.  Repeated use in a discussion may use the shortcut identifier (BRD) or the shortcut itself (WP:BRD).  It is best not to initiate a discussion about policy solely by referring to it by its shortcut." - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 12:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * People who are looking for help with math units and symbols aren't going to come to this page, they'll be looking at the style guidelines pages WP:MOSNUM and/or the math MOS. I've proposed at WT:MOSNUM that we move this material there.  I don't think we can cover this with any justice with just a few sentences here.  Perhaps this would be better: "Mathematical units and symbols can be jargon; they should sometimes be avoided, written out in words, or explained and given pronunciation; see [proper section of WP:MOSNUM]." "Mathematical symbols can sometimes be jargon, to be avoided, written out in words, or explained and given pronunciation; see [proper section of WP:Manual of Style (mathematics)]."   Thoughts? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Just what are "mathematical units"? As a mathematician, I don't know what that term means.  Obviously in some contexts mathematical terms and symbols need to get explained; in others they must necessarily be assumed.  That is a simple and obvious truism. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * How about that? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 02:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Mathematics
This section gives the reader reason to doubt that the person who wrote it knows what the word "equation" means. I wonder if that person would consider the expression
 * $$ \int_0^1 \psi(x)\,dx$$
 * $$ \int_0^1 \psi(x)\,dx$$

to be an "equation". Michael Hardy (talk) 01:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

What to do with this page
[Sept's comment moved here...hope that's okay Sept!] It is fairly clear, in fact, that this page is an extreme opinion in the abstruseness discussion. It is rather old, and has not been modified or looked at recently; it would, taken literally, prohibit use of the mathematical senses of group, field, algebra, and probably class and set. It should be an essay, and warnings to consider avoiding technical terms, when feasible, inserted in useful places. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I've been working on it for a couple days; let me know if it's getting better or worse. It's gotten shorter, and it might make sense for it to become a section in WP:Words to avoid.  On the other hand, there are some kinds of words and phrases, listed at WP:WORDS, that you don't want to have in article-space in front of any readership; I think it might help to distinguish these from words and phrases that make sense to some readers but not others, and function as jargon. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 04:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, I made the edit based on what I've heard so far. Feel free to revert.  I erred on the side of including material that was in this guideline and at jargon, which is the page WP:Words to avoid used to point to, but I aimed to delete all clearly redundant material, and also the sections that aren't getting wide support.  We could delete a few more sentences without any harm, probably, but let's take one step at a time. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 13:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've kicked it along a little further. A presumption that every article should define things is a bad idea. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Great work, more soon. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed sentence

 * Except for a very few technical and narrowly targeted articles, articles should use words whose meaning will be approximately the same for the casual reader as for the expert.

This sentence contains a reasonable thought, but this is bad guidance; unless half of mathematics is accounted a very few technical and narrowly targeted articles. If someone else can think what would be reasonable to say here, please do so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC) ←Okay, you took out "misunderstand". I was hoping if we left that in, we wouldn't need a separate sentence covering the case where people understand the wrong thing. Would you prefer a separate sentence, or adding "misunderstand"? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, that's a good point. I'm fine with just leaving the sentence out, if you prefer; people don't need to be told every little thing.  The point is clear enough.
 * You deleted the sentence on subject areas; I'm fine with that. I'm still happy I had that version in there, because if someone wants to revert, that gives them a version to revert to that is closer to what was there before.
 * How about this for cramming down 6 sentences (3 of mine, 3 of yours) into one? "If you retain jargon that the typical reader of that article might not understand or misunderstand, introduce the term with a short (but accurate) explanation, and link it if there is an explanatory article on Wikipedia, or perhaps on Wiktionary." - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not what I would advise. If there is a wikilink, we may not need the explanation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're saying. Could you make a change to that sentence that reflects what you want? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If you retain terms that the typical reader of that article might not understand, explain the term briefly or link it if there is an explanatory article on Wikipedia, or on Wiktionary if they explain enough to make the distinction clear. The substantive change is the bolded or; we don't want articles filled with explanations; although your introduction typical will prevent the worst exaggerations. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Isn't misunderstanding a form of not understanding? Do we need to say both, at the cost of cluttering the sentence? Try reading your draft cold, and see what it looks like. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm assuming "they have other resources, not vulnerable to vandalism." is intended as humor. "Those who do not know the subject should still be able to read the Wikipedia article." is okay, but can't that be deduced from the rest of it? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it was quite serious, even though it alliterates. At any given time, some of the statements in WP will be the jokes of bored middle-school students; which ones will change. This is one reason why scholars will never rely on us - and why, therefore, we need not use the jargon their sources do. (But it is a purple patch, so I won't revert.)
 * Shading towards ultraviolet. And, I never rely on Wikipedia.  I use Wikipedia to find sources that I rely on.  Wait, I take that back; I've gotten to know the habits of a lot of the editors well enough that I'll rely on something if I see it's their work. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Generally I leave people's stuff alone if it seems good enough to do the job, but a major goal of mine is to get the WIAGA pages just as short and tight as possible. Does this get everything into the first section that you're looking for? "Some articles may never become accessible to a wide readership, but most articles using academic or professional jargon should contain more explanation at a more basic level than would be available in the typical academic paper or textbook. On the other hand, an article which defines every term, or every symbol, may not be readable by anybody. It is often helpful to  wikilink terms not obvious to most readers; sometimes links to Wiktionary may serve the reader as well as links to other Wikipedia articles.  Pay particular attention to terms having meanings different from the common meaning." - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * done (with a couple of tweaks). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Next cut

 * ''Encyclopedias should either restate these terms in words that will be understood by as wide a readership as possible, or explain the terms at their first occurrence if the terms themselves are notable and relevant.

Do we need this? It is largely subsumed into the text just introduced; it's measurably stronger, but I'm not sure I agree with the strengthening. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Really nice. I did a minor copyedit that I don't think changed the meanings. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 16:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Keeping an eye on edits
As style guidelines pages get better, people start reading them more and adding things. If you see something you do or don't like, please speak up; if I see comments from a couple of people whose work I'm familiar with, I probably won't bother to check it myself.

Today's edit by 68.0.124.33, adding a see-also link to a section of WP:BETTER, looks great to me. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive)

Just passing this along
I had to give a quick summary of this page over at WT:ACCESS. This was what came to mind; does this sound right?
 * When a "term" (word, phrase, abbreviation, symbol, etc.) isn't understood by a significant number of readers, or differently by different readers, then usually, either define it in the text or replace it with a term everyone will understand. If you keep it, wikilink the first occurrence.  (The exceptions are in articles that aren't going to be understood by everyone no matter how hard you try ... defining every term would clutter the text.)

- Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

1037C terms
I reverted. I'm not opposed to including more detail on some page (although this kind of detail probably belongs in one of the pages linked at See also instead of here), but first, I'd like to see an explanation of why this old list of US government technical terms is superior to general and specialized dictionaries, and why we should mention lists from the US and not from other countries, and why the implication that we prefer some terms over others belongs in a WP:GA? guideline. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 13:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Dictionary
A dictionary would be a good thing. It is inevitable that a jargon is developing as a means to express efficiently: it is in the human nature. However, the rule to avoid jargon is a good one, unless we wish to scare away new editors, so a dictionary could be used by:
 * 1) jargony editors who wish to make themselves understood and therefore wish to learn a common language translation,
 * 2) newbies who need (they should be encouraged) to correct the language of too-jargony editors. F.ex. despite being a long-timer, it wasn't until last thursday that I realized that "speedy keep" is a technical term, not a pun.
 * 3) link entries to use when WP:jargon is unavoidable, f.ex. speedy keep ... said: Rursus (bork²) 11:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:Glossary, WP:SELFREF and of course Wiktionary might be relevant. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 17:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:Glossary was what I was out for! Thanks. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 19:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Defenitions
As a animal editor I sometimes run aground on this rule. At what point is a word "jargon"? Example, in Featured article candidates/Ruff/archive1 an editor objected to the term "wintering ground" in the context of annual migration as jargon. At what point do we start writing all these articles in simple English? Sabine's Sunbird  talk  06:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Explain & link
Should there be internal links to terms and expinations of their meanings in articles? Hyacinth (talk) 18:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

What does Jargon mean?
I thought this article was supposed to "explain jargon" but I still don't know what jargon means. 174.18.15.106 (talk) 04:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Consolidation?
Please note that this page has been nominated to be consolidated with the primary Manual of Style page. Please join the discussion at the MOS talk page in order to discus the possibility of merging this page with the MOS. Thank you. — V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 15:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

To follow Ohms's point here, I've scrutinised the page as part of the WP Styleguide Taskforce audit program. I wonder whether any editor would mind discussing what is substantive in this page; I do believe it's message(s) could easily be added in a few sentences to the main MoS page instead of standing alone on this one. Please let us know what you think. Tony  (talk)  10:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please provide your few sentences here so I can review Gnevin (talk) 12:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not sure this statement is useful, since it seems to have a bet each way: "most articles using academic or professional terms should contain more explanation at a more basic level than would be available in the typical academic paper or textbook. On the other hand, an article that defines every term, or every symbol, may be so cluttered that no one can read it." It doesn't really give editors much to go by in terms of knowing the balance. You'd hope that that balance would work itself out in the normal collaborative environment.
 * The stuff about wikilinking is already at WP:LINK, and Wiktionary is also mentioned elsewhere in the style guides.
 * The point about mathematical symbols is at MOS (mathematics).

Gnevin, I think a few summary sentences at MoS main could be written that encompass the messages at "Avoid jargon" and "Make technical articles accessible. What about this, under its own subsection in the "Miscellaneous" section?

"While some topics are intrinsically technical, editors should take every opportunity to make them accessible to an audience wider than the specialists in the field, and to a general audience where possible. Technical Technical words and phrases and jargon should be either avoided or explained. Cleanup-jargon or Jargon-statement can be used to tag articles with jargon problems."

There could be a link to what would then be an essay, "Make technical articles accessible", although I've suggested on the talk page at MTAA that it would be a good idea to tweak or remove a few of the points, whatever its status becomes. Tony  (talk)  13:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Do we get a Guide to the Jargon used in the "Guide to Jargon"? Very little of this makes any sense  --Jubilee♫ clipman  15:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

When I posted above I thought I was at WP:Technical terms and definitions. I agree this should be merged WP:Make_technical_articles_accessible in fact I'm going to be bold Gnevin (talk) 17:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Revisit
I need this page! And the redirect is an essay, not really what I need. I am going to be (equally) bold and redirect this to WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. Forgive me. CharlesGillingham (talk) 18:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * That kinda screws up attribution though.. cuz the content from this page was merged to WP:Make_technical_articles_accessible so technically the redirect should point to where it was merged. -- &oelig; &trade; 21:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I have two problems with that. (1) The information on "jargon" (i.e., technical language) is buried in that essay. (I've done a little work over there to "unbury" it.) (2) It's been downgraded from a guideline to an essay, so WP:JARGON doesn't have the same force any more, even though it's still a part of the manual of style. So how about this? I'm redirecting it to "Technical language" in the MOS. There's a "see also" link which leads directly back to this article. Sound good? CharlesGillingham (talk) 18:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Yup! -- &oelig; &trade; 15:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)