Unique naming convention

Hi, I assembled the Top active list of Wikibooks. Unfortunately, Computer programming pages intermingle with programming languages, and it is not easy to attribute the pages to a book, without double counting (for example, the listing contains the books of Programming:C, Programming:Ada, etc, so I can not easily separate out pages that are connected to the theory of programming). If somebody is still working on this book, please consider a consistent and unique naming convention.

Please leave "Programming:" only to the programming languages, and put all chapters belonging to "Computer programming" either to "Computer programming:..." or, since subpages have been activated on Wikibooks recently, use

Computer programming
Computer programming/Statements
Computer programming/Control statements
Computer programming/Structured programming
...

(subpages give additional navigational advantages, e.g. an automatic link to the parent page, etc.)

Logged in users can easily move pages by the "move" command. Thanks! --Andreas 06:23, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking about that as well - And indeed, subpages seem to be the way to go. --Krischik 08:36, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me. Firstly, we need to agree on a Wikibooks wide convention FIRST. Second, you can't just act on one proposal. Solicit others point of view FIRST. That is what Andreas was doing. Dysprosia 09:11, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

At least there are two users who thought about converting "Computer programming" more into a book again (it still looks a bit like a bookshelf, with all the Computer science TOC copied here as well - to my opinion unnecessarily since they belong to a different book). I'd suggest to put the "real" table of contents to the top, with the table linking to other programming languages a little bit lower, and if desired a wiki link to other books of interest, but no need for the inclusion of other book's table of contents.

The other question of more general interest is a Wikibooks wide convention on page organization. We should probably open a discussion page specifically on that - or is there already some around that I am not aware of? The activation of subpages has been praised some time ago, but only some books adapt this practise. The majority of books still have the "Bookname:..." convention, and some older ones have "...(Biology)" (which I think can be ruled out for a future recommendation). So the question is ":" or "/". Where should we open a prominent discussion page? I don't deny that I am in favor of a gradual change to the "/" subpage style... --Andreas 13:07, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I support the use of subpages project-wide. For discussing it I think we could use Wikibooks talk:Naming conventions or Wikibooks:Staff lounge. ManuelGR 13:52, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm just getting a little sick of people just pulling away and doing their own thing without really discussing it. We need to be much more consistent across books. Dysprosia 06:09, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Functional programming

Just a minor thought occurred to me... the same technique we use (templates) to share text between programming books can be applied to specific paradigms of programming. For example, functional languages like Programming:Haskell, {bad link|Programming:Caml}} and Programming:Scheme have a lot of things in common. Perhaps we could make a set of Computer Programming/Functional programming templates as well -- Kowey 12:35, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

shure - that was the idea - write fundamentals once - use them for many languages. And the template technique does not work in one directions only - Computer Programming/Control was first written for Ada only and then generalised. BTW: What is your opinion on the Wikibooks:Hierachy_naming_scheme discussion? --Krischik 12:51, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Perl & PHP

Well User:81.180.101.1 added Perl & PHP today - but not a single "yes" link. Should we give him/her a week (to the 28.04.2005) to provide some articles and then remove the columns again?

--Krischik 06:02, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)