tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3773807686982133581.post8938192228917992105..comments2023-10-14T06:28:12.284-07:00Comments on Wikibooks News: NomenclatureWhiteknighthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16207472474429254890noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3773807686982133581.post-47375479447210233852008-12-28T04:05:00.000-08:002008-12-28T04:05:00.000-08:00Some time ago I was really thinking about this con...Some time ago I was really <A HREF="http://pt.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks:Staff_lounge/Arquivo_20#Criar_uma_cole.C3.A7.C3.A3o_2" REL="nofollow">thinking about</A> this confusion with our terminology at pt.wikibooks...<BR/><BR/>So... we really need to choose carefully the terminology used in our help pages, in such way that the readers could understand easily what we mean...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3773807686982133581.post-59540955491834536762008-12-21T13:14:00.000-08:002008-12-21T13:14:00.000-08:00@Martin Kraus: Real books can be divided in parts ...@Martin Kraus: Real books can be divided in parts as well. Therefore "part" is also ambigous. ;)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3773807686982133581.post-64116000590997394632008-12-20T11:33:00.000-08:002008-12-20T11:33:00.000-08:00Part of the problem is the official Wikibooks:Nami...Part of the problem is the official Wikibooks:Naming policy, which uses "chapter" and "page" in a quite interesting way. (In a flat structure, each wiki page could be called a "chapter"; in a hierarchical structure, a "page" may refer to a set of sub-pages.)<BR/><BR/>I think we shouldn't try to define the best correct terminology (only very few people would use it anyways) but instead we should look at the currently unambiguous terms and encourage their use while the use of ambiguous terms should be discouraged (and "corrected"). <BR/><BR/>Based on the current usage the terms "wiki page" and "module" appear to be unambiguous while "page" and "chapter" are used ambiguously. "wikibook" is unambiguous and so is "part" (any subset of wiki pages of the same wikibook). Thanks to the collections extension the term "book" has become ambiguous. (It is either a wikibook or a collection.) The term "collection" itself appears to be unambiguous for now.<BR/><BR/>Thus, I think we should avoid the ambiguous terms "page", "chapter" and "book" (and if they are used one should be extremely cautious about their meaning). The terms "wiki page", "module", "part", "wikibook", and "collection" should be fine.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3773807686982133581.post-85726040219270455862008-12-19T21:25:00.000-08:002008-12-19T21:25:00.000-08:00Confusing terminology is a problem on Wikipedia to...Confusing terminology is a problem on Wikipedia too. But the problem is accentuated when a project like Wikibooks has much less public exposure currently.<BR/><BR/>I think terminology should be as transparent as possible, and require no explanations, because frankly most people are going to give up before they bother reading the explanation.<BR/><BR/>This means that Wikibooks terminology should be directly derived from "traditional" words, but carefully selected, so they have an unambiguous meaning.<BR/><BR/>So, I would suggest one wiki page be a "chapter", and a bloc of chapters a "part" of the whole, which is a "book". Or something on that model, anyway.<BR/><BR/>In forming the terminology, sometimes it may also be necessary to use compound words to express finer distinctions, for example "printable book" or "book packet", which could apply to PDFs/physical books, which are in many cases actually compilations of chapters from several different books. (Pediapress on their site actually calls these "custom books", another option).Pharoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06350093134918581953noreply@blogger.com