Wikibooks talk:Hierarchy naming scheme

Pre-vote / Final-vote
With the amount of options open I think we need some Pre-vote process on all options before we know which open will be presented to the final vote.

--Krischik 12:33, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
My preferences are for

1.6 "Real" Namepaces then sub-pages.

2.2 While I am in favor of flat in textbooks one need deeper hierarchies i.E. in reference sections: Programming:Ada:Keywords:and and Programming:Ada:Operators:and.

3.1 least surprise.

4.1 "move" is easy but not that easy.


 * I don't want to step on your toe, but the separation between the two "and" examples looks very constructed: The first code example (A>10 and A<20) is even the same on both pages. A flat structure (i.e. ) with links from both Programming:Ada:Keywords and Programming:Ada:Operators might be easier to maintain. --Andreas 20:57, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I use links to the reference tables in source code examples (see Programming:Ada:Subtypes - and therefore I need both pages for keywords which are also operators. But perhaps #REDIRECT for one of the two duplicates might be the better option - since every operator is either a keyword or a special character - but that is something to decide with the other Programming:Ada authors. My point here is more general: reference tables might need a deeper hierarchy. --Krischik 09:20, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * The best way of doing it is saying "Ada keywords" and "Ada operators". Natural, and keeps the hierachy flat. Dysprosia 22:29, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I find it helpful to know that typing i.E. http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Programming:Ada:Types:range into the browser will give me a description of - in this vase - range types. helps a lot on answering newbie question on news:comp.lang.ada. --Krischik 09:20, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think we need to put flat vs. deep structure into policy, but allow each book to decide what is good for its own needs. Just for reference, however, the largest wikibooks (Cookbook) uses a flat naming scheme, and we haven't had any problems with it yet. Gentgeen 22:34, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * @Dys: It seems like traditionally all programming languages have been going into "Programming:", but if we really consider a radical new start, then the structure in consideration for new books might really be: "Ada", "Ada/operators", "Ada/keywords", "Ada/and", etc. (no sub-sub-page, and forget about namespaces at all, have simple books that can be moved around and between bookshelves arbitrarily).
 * @Gent: I think we should put flat (if voted for) into policy, similar like subpages are disabled on Wikipedia (there even by software!). Sometimes people have to be forced to keeping things simple. It is very tempting to organize material (that one does not have yet) into sub-sub-sub structures, but it seems, the most successful and most collaborative wikibooks are those of a very simple and flat structure.
 * @Krischik: The structure that you present in your book, and the structure how pages are saved in Wikibooks don't have to be the same: All pages of a book can live in a flat hierarchy (in fact, in real books, they do, on pages numbered 1, 2, 3, ...), still your content, your glossary, reference sections, etc. might all provide a very different structure. (I think this is a critical point that should also be communicated to new wikibook authors). --Andreas 00:00, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * This is indeed true for Ada as well. It's just the keyword/operator/attribute/etc. pp. reference tables which have depper hirachies. The actual tutorial pages have only one level. --Krischik 09:20, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Advice for novices
It seems the discussion fell asleep again. What shall I do in cases like Wikibooks:Staff_lounge#Module-izing:_Request_for_Advice, where a user asks how best to organize a book? I would like to give simple advice, but telling everybody they can either use ":" or "/" and linking to this discussion page might not be the best. I want to propose the following: I guess there is not much point in this vote, since ":" or "/" is a matter of taste and there are many books that do it one way and many that do it the other way. I don't want to interfere with excellent books that use ":" (like Cookbook, etc.), but my personal impression is that using "/" is the simplest for beginning Wikibook users. May I therefore ask, if anybody opposes to the idea of recommending new users the "/" subpage delimiter as the way to organize things? A fairly recent example is for example Hamster Care, that does not use any navigational templates but just the automatic link back to the book page. I would suggest the following: What do you think about this? --Andreas 10:30, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Double policy: ":" and "/" are both fine.
 * New books by novices: Recommend "/" because it provides the basic navigation "for free".


 * I am all in favor: Clear instructions for new books - and sub-pages do have added value.. --Krischik 14:11, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * A happy user by clear instructions: User_talk:Ojmorales0002 :-) --Andreas 15:47, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Another successful conversion: Talk:How To Build A Computer#Organizing the book --Andreas 09:20, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I changed Outdoor Survival by myself (no naming conventions before) --Andreas 19:20, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Another conversion from 1-page to subpages: Talk:CPAM with TWW --Andreas 19:20, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Is there some "Wikibooks Workspace" or "Wikibooks Community Portal" where such information could go to? Sorry that things seem to change so fast now, but in the case of The Golden Bough I had to be quick (the user already added over 50 chapters, and changing all "tgbChapter1" now would be much more work). Also, it seems there is a strong need for clear directions and hints, otherwise why else would all these people be so happy in quickly following my advice? I hope nobody feels overrun... --Andreas 19:20, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with recommending subpages to newbies, as long as that doesn't represent a policy of using subpages in general. I'd love to see real namespaces with independent logos, recentchanges and other utility pages, etc, but I have no problem with subpages at least until that kind of functionality is available. TUF-KAT 22:49, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with you about the double policy, Andreas. I think we should hightlight these two alternatives in Naming conventions over the others. ManuelGR 23:41, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I updated Naming conventions. Have a look and edit if necessary. --Andreas 11:13, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)