There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff—we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity. |
Fighting pseudoscience isn't free. We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $10, $20 or whatever you can today with ![]() ![]() |
Talk:Abrahamic religious glossary
Splitting[edit]
This was initially from a request for a religious glossary on the RW:TODO. Should it be split further? It seems like there are a few options:
- A religious glossary
- An Abrahamic religious glossary
- Christian, Muslim, and Jewish glossaries (maybe a few other religions?)
- Christian, Muslim, Jewish, and general Abrahamic glossaries
- A whole bunch of glossaries for every different sect of any Abrahamic religion
Which do you favor? I am undecided. — Unsigned, by: Benn / talk / contribs
- I'm amazed this is considered necessary at all. We need to explain who Adam and Eve are? I don't Adam and Eve it!
- Anyway, keep it all on one page for now and think about splitting it if it grows larger in the future. Spud (talk) 12:20, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- There's a potentially vast amount of terminology that could be included: it's not like the manosphere glossary where a comparatively small number of unique terms arose over a few years - this is 3000 years and 10000s of people involved in theology, commentaries, church administration, church history, etc. So which should be included?
- And I'm not sure if a glossary should include people (real or imaginary), since a glossary is normally a set of definitions of words and phrases. But we can consider how to manage it if it grows. --Gospatric (talk) 13:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Still has more work to be done[edit]
But I'd say I`m pretty proud of the progress I've made so far. — Oxyaena Harass 13:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Is this just a list of already existing articles?[edit]
Why?--Hastur! (talk) 19:44, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- It's called a "glossary" for a reason. — Oxyaena Harass 19:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Our other glossaries (some of dubious use) are meant to cover a range of terms that don't warrant their own articles. This is basically just a category page. I don't see its point--Hastur! (talk) 00:13, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- This is arguably a much better example of a glossary article. People may come to RationalWiki and search for a particular term, such as Mä en pysty hengittää and be led to the glossary, since a full article is not warranted. Or they would be led there from a wikilink. But being led to this is pretty silly--Hastur! (talk) 06:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
- Our other glossaries (some of dubious use) are meant to cover a range of terms that don't warrant their own articles. This is basically just a category page. I don't see its point--Hastur! (talk) 00:13, 26 August 2020 (UTC)