Many of the definitions in the glossary are phrased inconsistently.
Perhaps a "template" style should be decided on for glossary entries to ensure consistency?
I've split this up into subtasks:
Description
Description
| Status | Subtype | Assigned | Task | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Resolved | Kitt Zwovic (gandalf3) | T45889 Glossary cleanup | |||
| Resolved | Campbell Barton (campbellbarton) | T45894 Remove unnecessary glossary entries | |||
| Resolved | Kitt Zwovic (gandalf3) | T45895 Fix glossary entries with poor/misleading definitions or which don't follow the style guide | |||
| Resolved | Campbell Barton (campbellbarton) | T45893 Define a consistent writing style for glossary entries |
Event Timeline
Comment Actions
@Kitt Zwovic (gandalf3), re "Many of the definitions in the glossary are phrased inconsistently."
This is too vague, I rather keep tasks here tangible - so its obvious when its resolved and we can close.
Please list which descriptions need edits.
Comment Actions
@Campbell Barton (campbellbarton)
There doesn't appear to be a standard or any particular style which is adhered to. This doesn't really make any of the writing styles wrong, just different from one another.
I think it would be good to decide on some template/guidelines to follow, then change all of them to match that.
For example, perhaps prepending "it's" or "is" should be discouraged. IMO this is redundant and adds noise right at the start of the definition.
Aside from this, there are also many many specific cases where something is very wrong/inaccurate/otherwise bad. For instance:
Collapse, Subdivision surface: Not sure these really need a glossary entry?
Topology: Duplicate entries, just needs cleanup
Actuator, Boolean, Constraint and many more: Rather awkward and in some cases misleading definitions
Comment Actions
Sorry about the email spam, but I've now arranged this task into three tasks and edited the description to reflect this.
@Campbell Barton (campbellbarton) Is this better?