Talk:C++ Programming/Conventions/Archive 3

Bold Keywords
I suggest quoting all keywords/reserved words in code segment with ''' (three single quotations), so that they are easy to be seen. For example: int foo; return 0; etc...

- Ron Lau 18:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I see not problem with that, but that shouldn't be enforced (an obligation to editors), so does it need to be adopted at a convention and we should consider the future (as that will take some time to be maintained), have you taken a look on the Ada book or the Java, they use other solutions I was thinking on implementing the Ada approach since the Java book seems very complex, there is also a possibility that Wikibooks can in a near future do some treatment to code, like colorization of keywords, comments etc... (check the staff lounge discussion for something on those lines, it has been discussed there). --Panic 18:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Removal of TOC2 print version
Since TOC2 is never was a reflection of the C++ Programming book but an alternative presentation of of the book content and it is very out of date with the real content, it never gets updated. As with the previous navigation templated navigation scheme that existed I propose that we remove this most probably unused feature and check as a way to check if anyone object to the idea and what function it serves at the moment... Proposed: --Panic (talk) 02:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I reformulate the proposal as it doesn't make sense to keep in the convention a very specific rule as this one, since I reformulate to  this can be applied in a more general sense (and across other books that share the conventions).
 * Proposed:--Panic (talk) 00:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Removal of TOC2 completely
As no objection nor work was done to fix and address the previous proposal I extend the same rational to the removal of TOC2 from the work, lack of maintenance, breaks the work flow and really serves no real propose but creates several difficulties. I can't provide metrics (they are down) but last time I saw numbers, the access to the book most people do use was TOC1 and TOC2 existence creates the need to maintain several extra pages: 1,2,3, 4, 5 and 6 (many more would be made redundant) Proposed:--Panic (talk) 03:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The same problem as the proposal above. I do reformulate the proposal to read 51%) to the cover page will be have to be the object of previous discussion resulting in acceptance without objections>, this is more or less the rule of tumb on edits but will put the cover page outside of the bebold rule, reducing not only chance of conflicts or in sporadic edits/changes to book structure, permitting a solid and agreed upon evolution of the work. Again this will be used across books.
 * Proposed: --Panic (talk) 00:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * By historical book index do you mean TOC1, so C%2B%2B_Programming/TOC1 will be moved to C%2B%2B_Programming? rawrawrer (talk) 20:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, this also doesn't affect selecting and using a cover or doing any major (consensual) changes to the main toc... --Panic (talk) 22:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This can also be confusing, but it doesn't collide with One book with many faces that means that new ways of accessing the content or changing the layout can be created, but respecting the original structure and content (to what I gave the name historical book index or the main trunk of the book...), solving also the need for multiple print versions in the future. One could argue for several print version by chapter but the main version can be trimmed down as one print is (by selecting the needed pages). --Panic (talk) 22:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok I finally contacted Darklama about the TOC2 page as I thought it should be done, the user didn't challenge the decission even if he seems to be unaware of the discussion the issue has been given (my post and his reply). I will proceed and request the restoration of the cover pages and history files in a few days.  --Panic (talk) 16:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I will also archive any discussion related to the TOCs but not the the TOCs content (since that is as separated issue and is seems to be still needing resolution) with this discussion (even from pages that normally aren't archived like the main talk page of the book). We should probably put a notice there about that... --Panic (talk) 17:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Based on the link you provided I think it's pretty clear that darklama disagrees with your decision. He also seems to think that no consensus has been reached, and from what I've been seeing, I might have to agree. Having two TOCs is not necessarily a bad thing, and a rush to delete one outright is not a smart thing for people to be doing right now. If it is important that this book have only one TOC, I suggest merging the two and taking the best ideas from each. Until I see evidence of multilateral consensus on this issue, I'm not going to delete, move, or unprotect anything. Of course, I cannot speak for all admins. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 21:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I read it another way, but if you think rehashing the problem is a positive move, it is your prerogative. Darklama clearly states that he doesn't care, the "page" in question was last edited in 2007, it doesn't index half of the book and I think it still provides links to duplicated content (some was already salvageable or moved to a new book with a narrower scope, but several pages still need cleanup), in any case the proposal was made and not objected. What Darklama seems to object is the lack of participation on the discussion, not much can be made to force participation in an issue that mostly deals only with 2 users opinions.
 * If you observe the two pages toc2 is subgrup of toc1 that already links and reflects the content, a merge would not generate any change, the only big difference is in the order, and toc1 isn't locked, people were always able to edit it.
 * In any case if you think that the issue needs to be more loudly stated the only recourse would be a VfD, if you don't see the previous discussion as valid (what would be hard to justify, as it always served its purpose). The only point I have against it is that we will bring people that are outside of the problem (non editors) into a discussion that does only have an impact on the book organization (content and organization are not factor at the moment).
 * I find it strange that you also raise the issue of multilateral consensus since the action that created the problem did not have a similar approach and resolution. --Panic (talk) 23:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

(*reset*) A VFD on the TOC2 page was initiated (27 July 2008) and then closed (30 July 2008) by Mike.lifeguard, if Wikibookians wish to express concerns about the speedy action they can use this page, I will contact James and ~VNinja~ to restate their points (or move that part of the discussion here). --Panic (talk) 21:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Whiteknight as seen on the previous comment disagrees with my interpretation that darklama didn't object to the decission, and so refused to execute the speedy deletion. --Panic (talk) 23:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

darklama didn't participate on the discussion that was initiated in 13 March 2008 and ended in 18 April 2008 + 7 days by default with no stated objection (as seen above) and clearly stated no wish or care on the outcome when I took upon myself to verify if he was aware of it (my post above in 19 July 2008). (not the proceedings, he does indeed rant on how it was reached but historical it was always done in that way and he even participated in several, and implemented similar decisions, so the argument raised by Whiteknight is moot), --Panic (talk) 23:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The reasons for the proposal are simple the page is stale since 7 October 2007 it only indexes less than 50% of the work and has very little use (considering the metrics available) C++ Programming is one of the most used works on the project and the situation the page created reduces its use less than 1/3 of the hits of the title page and the other and previously main toc, its continued existence undermines improvement and efforts in promotion of the book. --Panic (talk) 23:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I was hoping James would clarify the position he took on the VFD in any case I would be the first to support an undeletion of the page, if James provides a rational for keeping it. I'm re-closing the proposal (9 days since it was re-addressed), it was approved without objections. Will move it into the approved conventions in a few hours. --Panic (talk) 17:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC) I'll live the convention with the previous adoption date (since it wasn't removed nor a discussion addressed the approval of the same). I'll re-tag the page and put a request in the administration forum for the rest. --Panic (talk) 06:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The deletion request for the page was removed again (I supported the first re-addressing of the issue to clear the issue raised by WK) by user User:Mike.lifeguard and this time I strongly objected to that action -why-, the position of Darklama had already been confirmed and except for the new objection of James (that failed address the issue and consequently failed to be materialize by a restatement or a reply to my own post in the closed VFD). --Panic (talk) 06:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't support it. Arlen22 (talk) 11:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The proposal to delete the toc2 page was already dropped... --Panic (talk) 18:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Language proposal
Since United States English is dominant on this work, for consistency's sake, it should be used whenever possible. I propose this to be made into a convention Proposed: --Panic (talk) 02:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I will be closing this and the other proposal tomorrow. If anyone has some comment to make, counterproposal please do it now. --Panic (talk) 16:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Closing the proposal as approved without objections. Will move it into the approved conventions in a few hours. --Panic (talk) 16:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC) Done. --Panic (talk) 06:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Prefer hyphenation
I propose that hyphenation should be preferred (as in used if possible) on the book. Basically hyphens are meant to aid comprehension and defining this convention would provide standardization to the content. Did a search on google also "convention of hyphen of words technical": this one resumes my views on the issue, I also have been examining the C++ Standard and made a quick review on some of my favorite technical books and this seems to be a common practice on more technical books (the use of the hyphen). I understand that goes some what against a previous convention as (From Wikipedia:) British English tends towards hyphenation (pre-school) whereas American English tends towards omission of the hyphen (preschool). (English compound, Hyphen ). --Panic (talk) 19:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)