Singular and plural mapping to the same term in glossary

[Zethson]

Hey,

in many of my texts I am using the singular and plural of specific terms. For example algorithm and algorithms. I would like both of them to map to the same glossary term. Currently, I only have algorithm in my glossary and it looks ugly if I then only "terminize" algorithm part of algorithms and the s stays black/white and doesn't link to anywhere.

Is it possible to allow both, algorithm and algorithms to map to the same glossary element?

CC @AnnaChristina

[choldgraf]

You should be able to provide multiple entries for a glossary definition. For example, see the Jupyter Book glossary. Entries for MyST and MyST Markdown. You can do this by putting the two terms on top of one another, e.g.:

MyST
MyST Markdown
MySTs
    My definition.

One awkward thing about this is you'll have multiple terms listed even though some might just be the plural version of another.
Here are a few ways to get around the issue of having multiple terms just because you're using a plural:

Use CSS to hide subsequent terms.

The following example defines a CSS rule that will hide any term that comes immediately after a previous term.

<style>

/* Do not display any glossary terms that are siblings of the first term */
dl.glossary dt + dt {
    display: none;
}

</style>


```{glossary}
Term
Terms
  Test text.
```

That should result in:

Structure your markdown to minimize the issue:

1. Writing the s just outside of {term} to make it plural
2. Using Sphinx's cross-referencing syntax to choose your own text

An example of each:

{term}`Support Steward`s or {term}`Support Stewards <Support Steward>`.

becomes:

In my opinion the first is a little bit weird since the s is a different color, but folks will get it and it's not too disruptive, that's what I'd try.

[Zethson]

Awesome, I love it!

[Zethson]

I have one issue with it. This would require all glossary terms to have two definitions. The single definitions get removed in any way. Is there a way to only apply this CSS rule if there are actual siblings?

I could add "dummy siblings", but it's not that pretty.

[Zethson]

Actually, another issue that this CSS code applies to all terms below the first one and it removes them completely. Only the most top term is actually being rendered.

[choldgraf]

Ah good catch - I've modified the CSS to use + instead of ~ and I think it should now work. I've also moved my answers up to the top in case others would benefit from them!

[Zethson]

Awesome, this works. Again, thank you!