We've got two glossary-style threads going at the moment:

Both are potentially quite useful, particularly the Terminology Index, but there's already some overlap.

  • It seems that we could spend a lot of time managing the two glossaries. Are they useful as separate entities as they are?
  • How can we distinguish the two -- can we more clearly define what each glossary is and what the entries should look like?
  • How can we get rid of overlap -- perhaps they should be merged?


I'm also concerned with entries like these that are basically product recommendations, where other companies make the same thing.

Perhaps the terminology index could get into the history of the items more? The Presta/Schrader valves is a perfect example of this.

  • What's the harm in putting in products? If it's truly a good product it will be upvoted otherwise it won't be. Sep 6, 2010 at 17:47
  • @Joe: Because the structure of this site really isn't a fit for these kind of threads; it's unclear if an upvote is for the product or the recommendation. Sep 7, 2010 at 20:46

4 Answers 4


I vote for keeping them separate entities.

If I want to know what something was I would check the terminology index, but I see the cycle accessory thread as a "what's a cool/handy thing to have". I've already ordered a couple of items that were mentioned in the accessory thread :)

  • Agreed. In particular, one is defining what things are, while the other describes why you might want that thing.
    – freiheit
    Sep 4, 2010 at 6:15

I put some notes about this in the threads, in the main question areas. Did I interpret this correctly? I tried to keep it brief.


I'll echo the concern about specific products. The two you mention in particular (Garmin Forerunner, Light & Motion Seca) are not particularly unique so those entries would be better termed "a GPS cyclocomputer" and "a good bicycle headlight" rather than being specific products.

  • 1
    They may not be unique but they are some of the best products in that category which I find to be a lot more useful than putting generic things in there. For instance, it's not the GPS feature that makes the Garmin so useful -- it's a lot of the smaller usability things. The fact you can wear it on your wrist. Stuff like that separates the products Sep 6, 2010 at 17:44
  • 2
    @Joe Phillips: personally I'd rather see the general category ("good bicycle headlight") at the top of the answer, followed by a description of what makes a good headlight, with the specific model you like more towards the end...
    – freiheit
    Sep 7, 2010 at 18:40
  • @freiheit: I agree with you about making these more general -- perhaps use something more specific than "good bicycle headlight", maybe "rechargable LED headlight" or something like that? Perhaps that stuff belongs on a companion wiki. Sep 8, 2010 at 6:31
  • "rechargeable hi-lumen LED headlight with a good pattern"?
    – freiheit
    Sep 8, 2010 at 18:38

I don't think they should exist at all. This is supposed to be a Q&A site. How can you answer the question "Terminology Index"?

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .