Talk:Terminology - Revision history

Drew Jackson at 00:17, 22 May 2013

2013-05-22T00:17:18Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:17, 22 May 2013
Line 1:		Line 1:
			==Rogue rollovers==
	=Rogue rollovers=
	When you are looking at the edited copy, '''watch out''' for glossary words being used in a different context. I wrapped the code around as many of them as I caught (plenty!) but no doubt a few slipped through the net. "Brief" is one example. "Review" is another.		When you are looking at the edited copy, '''watch out''' for glossary words being used in a different context. I wrapped the code around as many of them as I caught (plenty!) but no doubt a few slipped through the net. "Brief" is one example. "Review" is another.
	[[User:Gayla Reid\|Gayla Reid]] ([[User talk:Gayla Reid\|talk]]) 16:47, 30 April 2013 (PDT)		[[User:Gayla Reid\|Gayla Reid]] ([[User talk:Gayla Reid\|talk]]) 16:47, 30 April 2013 (PDT)

	=~~=New words to define==~~		===NoGlossary Tag===
	~~There were some words in the Property & Debt chapter that need to be defined: acquests, attorning, copacerner (in legislation that is quoted), and nullity.~~

	~~[[User:Gayla Reid\|Gayla Reid]] ([[User talk:Gayla Reid\|talk]]) 16:47, 30 April 2013 (PDT)~~

	==NoGlossary Tag==
	Added by Drew on Dec 24/12: There will inevitably be instances where a term that is in the glossary is used in the text in a different context than the defined term - for example, "order" being used as "in order to" rather than "court order". There is an incredibly simple way to handle those situations. You wrap this tag around the term:		Added by Drew on Dec 24/12: There will inevitably be instances where a term that is in the glossary is used in the text in a different context than the defined term - for example, "order" being used as "in order to" rather than "court order". There is an incredibly simple way to handle those situations. You wrap this tag around the term:
	:<nowiki><span class="noglossary">your defined term appears here</span></nowiki>		:<nowiki><span class="noglossary">your defined term appears here</span></nowiki>
Line 30:		Line 24:
	* '''brief''' (added here by Drew on Dec 28/12)		* '''brief''' (added here by Drew on Dec 28/12)
	* '''review''' (added here by Drew on Dec 24/12)		* '''review''' (added here by Drew on Dec 24/12)

			==New words to define==
			There were some words in the Property & Debt chapter that need to be defined: acquests, attorning, copacerner (in legislation that is quoted), and nullity.

			[[User:Gayla Reid\|Gayla Reid]] ([[User talk:Gayla Reid\|talk]]) 16:47, 30 April 2013 (PDT)

	__NOGLOSSARY__		__NOGLOSSARY__

Gayla Reid: /* New words to define */

2013-05-02T01:02:37Z

New words to define

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:02, 2 May 2013
Line 5:		Line 5:

	==New words to define==		==New words to define==
	There were some words in the Property & Debt chapter that need to be defined: acquests, attorning, copacerner (in legislation that is quoted), and nullity. ~~(It would be grand if we could get around using them and then we would not have to define them.)~~		There were some words in the Property & Debt chapter that need to be defined: acquests, attorning, copacerner (in legislation that is quoted), and nullity.

	[[User:Gayla Reid\|Gayla Reid]] ([[User talk:Gayla Reid\|talk]]) 16:47, 30 April 2013 (PDT)		[[User:Gayla Reid\|Gayla Reid]] ([[User talk:Gayla Reid\|talk]]) 16:47, 30 April 2013 (PDT)

Gayla Reid: /* New words to define */

2013-05-01T01:59:10Z

New words to define

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:59, 1 May 2013
Line 5:		Line 5:

	==New words to define==		==New words to define==
	There were some words in the Property & Debt chapter that need to be defined: acquests, attorning, copacerner (in legislation that is quoted), and nullity. (It would be ~~grant~~ if we could get around using them and then we would not have to define them.)		There were some words in the Property & Debt chapter that need to be defined: acquests, attorning, copacerner (in legislation that is quoted), and nullity. (It would be grand if we could get around using them and then we would not have to define them.)

	[[User:Gayla Reid\|Gayla Reid]] ([[User talk:Gayla Reid\|talk]]) 16:47, 30 April 2013 (PDT)		[[User:Gayla Reid\|Gayla Reid]] ([[User talk:Gayla Reid\|talk]]) 16:47, 30 April 2013 (PDT)

Gayla Reid: /* =Rogue rollovers */

2013-05-01T01:58:37Z

=Rogue rollovers

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:58, 1 May 2013
Line 1:		Line 1:

	==Rogue rollovers=		=Rogue rollovers=
	When you are looking at the edited copy, '''watch out''' for glossary words being used in a different context. I wrapped the code around as many of them as I caught(plenty!) but no doubt a few slipped through the net. "Brief" is one example. "Review" is another.		When you are looking at the edited copy, '''watch out''' for glossary words being used in a different context. I wrapped the code around as many of them as I caught (plenty!) but no doubt a few slipped through the net. "Brief" is one example. "Review" is another.
	[[User:Gayla Reid\|Gayla Reid]] ([[User talk:Gayla Reid\|talk]]) 16:47, 30 April 2013 (PDT)		[[User:Gayla Reid\|Gayla Reid]] ([[User talk:Gayla Reid\|talk]]) 16:47, 30 April 2013 (PDT)

Gayla Reid: /* New words to define */

2013-04-30T23:47:34Z

New words to define

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:47, 30 April 2013
Line 5:		Line 5:

	==New words to define==		==New words to define==
	There were some words in the Property & Debt chapter that need to be defined: acquests, attorning, copacerner (in legislation that is quoted), and nullity. (It would be ~~nice~~ if we could get around using them.)		There were some words in the Property & Debt chapter that need to be defined: acquests, attorning, copacerner (in legislation that is quoted), and nullity. (It would be grant if we could get around using them and then we would not have to define them.)

	[[User:Gayla Reid\|Gayla Reid]] ([[User talk:Gayla Reid\|talk]]) 16:47, 30 April 2013 (PDT)		[[User:Gayla Reid\|Gayla Reid]] ([[User talk:Gayla Reid\|talk]]) 16:47, 30 April 2013 (PDT)


	==NoGlossary Tag==		==NoGlossary Tag==

Gayla Reid at 23:47, 30 April 2013

2013-04-30T23:47:02Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:47, 30 April 2013
Line 1:		Line 1:
	When you are ~~reviewing~~ the edited copy, '''watch out''' for glossary words being used in a different context. I wrapped the code around as many of them as I caught(plenty!) but no doubt a few slipped through the net. GR
			==Rogue rollovers=
			When you are looking at the edited copy, '''watch out''' for glossary words being used in a different context. I wrapped the code around as many of them as I caught(plenty!) but no doubt a few slipped through the net. "Brief" is one example. "Review" is another.
			[[User:Gayla Reid\|Gayla Reid]] ([[User talk:Gayla Reid\|talk]]) 16:47, 30 April 2013 (PDT)

			==New words to define==
			There were some words in the Property & Debt chapter that need to be defined: acquests, attorning, copacerner (in legislation that is quoted), and nullity. (It would be nice if we could get around using them.)

			[[User:Gayla Reid\|Gayla Reid]] ([[User talk:Gayla Reid\|talk]]) 16:47, 30 April 2013 (PDT)


	==NoGlossary Tag==		==NoGlossary Tag==

Gayla Reid at 19:42, 25 April 2013

2013-04-25T19:42:51Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:42, 25 April 2013
Line 1:		Line 1:
			When you are reviewing the edited copy, '''watch out''' for glossary words being used in a different context. I wrapped the code around as many of them as I caught(plenty!) but no doubt a few slipped through the net. GR

	==NoGlossary Tag==		==NoGlossary Tag==
	Added by Drew on Dec 24/12: There will inevitably be instances where a term that is in the glossary is used in the text in a different context than the defined term - for example, "order" being used as "in order to" rather than "court order". There is an incredibly simple way to handle those situations. You wrap this tag around the term:		Added by Drew on Dec 24/12: There will inevitably be instances where a term that is in the glossary is used in the text in a different context than the defined term - for example, "order" being used as "in order to" rather than "court order". There is an incredibly simple way to handle those situations. You wrap this tag around the term:

Nate Russell at 19:34, 27 February 2013

2013-02-27T19:34:46Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:34, 27 February 2013
Line 20:		Line 20:
	* '''brief''' (added here by Drew on Dec 28/12)		* '''brief''' (added here by Drew on Dec 28/12)
	* '''review''' (added here by Drew on Dec 24/12)		* '''review''' (added here by Drew on Dec 24/12)
			__NOGLOSSARY__

209.17.147.129: /* Definitions that Need Attention */

2012-12-28T17:52:14Z

Definitions that Need Attention

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:52, 28 December 2012
Line 18:		Line 18:
	* '''account''' (added here by Drew on Dec 24/12)		* '''account''' (added here by Drew on Dec 24/12)
	* '''bill''' (added here by Drew on Dec 24/12)		* '''bill''' (added here by Drew on Dec 24/12)
			* '''brief''' (added here by Drew on Dec 28/12)
	* '''review''' (added here by Drew on Dec 24/12)		* '''review''' (added here by Drew on Dec 24/12)

Drew Jackson: /* Definitions that Need Attention */

2012-12-24T19:56:41Z

Definitions that Need Attention

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:56, 24 December 2012
Line 9:		Line 9:

	==Definitions that Need Attention==		==Definitions that Need Attention==
	These are definitions that need some attention to account for potential conflicts with how the term plays out in ~~'''~~other areas of law~~'''~~:		These are definitions that need some attention to account for potential conflicts with how the term plays out in other areas of law:
	* '''advance''' - maybe this one isn't really needed? (added here by Drew on Dec 24/12)		* '''advance''' - maybe this one isn't really needed? (added here by Drew on Dec 24/12)
	* '''arrears''' - with this one, what about taking the approach that JP takes with the terms "jurisdiction" or "precedent", where he offers several alternate definitions. I actually think this is really helpful for the user, as it provides them with context that the term they are looking at can have different legal meanings depending on the context. (added here by Drew on Dec 24/12)		* '''arrears''' - with this one, what about taking the approach that JP takes with the terms "jurisdiction" or "precedent", where he offers several alternate definitions. I actually think this is really helpful for the user, as it provides them with context that the term they are looking at can have different legal meanings depending on the context. (added here by Drew on Dec 24/12)