Forum for Book Template
subpages vs. sections [#1640]
Maybe this question is more related to the use of subpages on SL.
What is better: using small sections, or subpages for
- Reviews
- Errata
- Table of Content
It seems to me that any page should always try not to be too big, and the proposed subpages are typical "properties" of a book.
The inconvenience of using templated subpages titles might that they will crowd the Undefined pages.
Currently Errata is a subpage whereas the Reviews, Table of Contents and Sample Material are sections of the main page. An example is Five Hundred and One Opening Problems.
If we move Reviews and Table of Contents to subpages then the main page will contain the
- name of the book, author, publisher and other identifying information
- cover photo along with the book template in the upper right
- a brief description of the book
- sample material
The pages will not contain, what I consider to be the most important parts of the page: both the Reviews and the Sample Material. These two sections are the most useful to a person deciding whether or not to purchase/study the book. As such, they should be on the main page.
your thoughts ?
I created many of the errata subpages deliberately as subpages. I do not think the list of errata should be dominant material on any book page. It would be upsetting for the book's author, and create an unbalanced first impression of the book to someone who first encounters it on SL. For instance MakingGoodShape is a very good book, that unfortunately had a lot of errata in its first printing that were later cleared up. It would be unfair to discourage prospective readers by dumping all that information on the main page.
I agree with Velobici's opinion on reviews being an important part of the main page. I am neutral about Table of Contents and Sample Material. I am also ambivalent about too much templating. Let the people who contribute to a book page have the freedom to develop it as they see fit. I worry that the more of a straight jacket we put on people, the less they are inspired to contribute and be creative.
Before we go changing the template, we may wish to consider that all the books with pages here at Sensei's Library, but for those listed ![[ext]](images/extlink.gif)
here have been editted to match the template.
Is it better to have
- a uniform layout for the book pages with optional additional sections or
- a layout that varies from book to book based upon the desires of the most recent editor ?
I am comfortable with the fact that the pages change with the desires of the most recent editor. A nice example is GuidelinesForFightingAndSabaki, mainly edited by FredK. It uses the template, but has been developed in the editor's style. I would not want heavy handed standardisation discouraging FredK from creating similar efforts. Allow him to continue to develop his own style. Part of the essence of this wiki is the wide latitude people are given.
Agreed. FredK has written wonderful, detailed reviews of a number of books. Hopefully he will continue and write a number more of these. GuidelinesForFightingAndSabaki extends/modifies the template in a very reasonable manner. FredK has interspersed the table of contents section with the sample material section by presenting the sample material in conjuction with the review of each chapter. Agree, wholeheartedly regarding FredK's work.
If such sections get too long, we can always make subpages of them then. For example, if there are 10 reviews for a book, the main page may get cluttered, and then we may choose to move the reviews either to a single subpage /Reviews, or to several subpages of the form /ReviewByXyz And when that happens, the main page becomes something like
- There are 10 reviews for this book, read the reviews:
- /ReviewByXyz
- /ReviewByAbc
- /ReviewByLmn
- etc
- /ReviewByXyz
I see no reason to force such a structure from the start though, and I am perfectly satisfied with the current template.
![[Welcome to Sensei's Library!]](images/stone-hello.png "Sensei's Library")