Talk:Terminology

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. 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 grand if we could get around using them and then we would not have to define them.)

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:

<span class="noglossary">your defined term appears here</span>

The result is that the glossary popup does not display for that use of the term. It will display for the next use of that term on the page (you can then add the noglossary tag to that second use of the term if desired, or the third, etc.).

You can also exclude an entire page from having glossary popups appear by including anywhere in that page:

__NOGLOSSARY__

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:

• 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)
• negotiate - this one could be solved by simply taking out the opening clause "In family law", which I don't think is really necessary is it? (added here by Drew on Dec 24/12)
• pleadings - would JP be ok for this one to be slightly more generic? (added here by Drew on Dec 24/12)

These are definitions that we may want to take out or adjust, given that they are terms that appear in a different context alot and the work to apply the noglossary tag may not be worth the value of including these definitions:

• account (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)