Talk:Glossary of artificial intelligence
 | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
Glossary is a great idea
editThis glossary is a great idea. It is extensive and is a nice addition to the main article.
- It's not really a glossary, as it doesn't have any definitions, it's just a list of terms. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:56, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, you are correct. However, editors will start to add definitions as requested in the intro. In the meantime, readers can hover their cursors over the terms and see the definitions in PagePreviews mode. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.216.159.185 (talk) 15:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Why would they do that? WP:STANDALONE is our guide. If we start expanding, the content is likely to drift from the linked articles. Better to leave it as is, but I think a move to "list of artificial intelligence concepts", or something similar, is a better choice. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Please think of the glossary as a stub. One or two talented editors will start writing definitions. Then others will follow and it will finally take off. If it is merged into a list then it will just remain a list. The glossary of botany started slow and look at it now. There are some editors who love writing definitions. They will find this glossary eventually. Having said that, I want to thank you for caring and making Wikipedia better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.195.77 (talk) 19:10, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- I advise against that for the reasons stated above. In short, focus on improving the linked articles, but do not bother to add content here if it could become out of alignment with the linked articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:16, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Sometimes there are words in a glossary that won't have an article to link to, but are still important words to know. Again, the glossary of botanical terms is a good example. Many of the terms are important but do not link to an article. I also think that glossaries have dedicated editors that keep them scholarly and current, maybe even faster than main articles. I think they both make each other better. Again, thanks for your dedication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.195.77 (talk) 19:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- I advise against that for the reasons stated above. In short, focus on improving the linked articles, but do not bother to add content here if it could become out of alignment with the linked articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:16, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Please think of the glossary as a stub. One or two talented editors will start writing definitions. Then others will follow and it will finally take off. If it is merged into a list then it will just remain a list. The glossary of botany started slow and look at it now. There are some editors who love writing definitions. They will find this glossary eventually. Having said that, I want to thank you for caring and making Wikipedia better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.195.77 (talk) 19:10, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Why would they do that? WP:STANDALONE is our guide. If we start expanding, the content is likely to drift from the linked articles. Better to leave it as is, but I think a move to "list of artificial intelligence concepts", or something similar, is a better choice. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, you are correct. However, editors will start to add definitions as requested in the intro. In the meantime, readers can hover their cursors over the terms and see the definitions in PagePreviews mode. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.216.159.185 (talk) 15:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Orphaned references in Glossary of artificial intelligence
editI check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Glossary of artificial intelligence's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "lstm1997":
- From Deep learning: Sepp Hochreiter; Jürgen Schmidhuber (1997). "Long short-term memory". Neural Computation. 9 (8): 1735–1780. doi:10.1162/neco.1997.9.8.1735. PMID 9377276.
- From Long short-term memory: Sepp Hochreiter; Jürgen Schmidhuber (1997). "Long short-term memory". Neural Computation. 9 (8): 1735–1780. doi:10.1162/neco.1997.9.8.1735. PMID 9377276.
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 22:12, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Flashcards link
editWe wanted to learn all these terms in a flashcard format so we built one and made it freely available. Thought it would be helpful for anyone who wanted to learn the content of this glossary in a flashcard format like Anki to also be able to discover that they exist and have access to it from the source.
Was going to suggest it to be added in an external links section like the following but as it is linking to our own site, following the instructions of the Wikipedia guidelines, thought it would be best to leave this in the talk page for other contributors to see if it would be relevant or see if there was a better place/format to put it