Talk:E-book/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Old talk

It would be very helpful if some websites which offer free ebooks are enlisted. For example there are the following sites : www.symbianx.com and www.memoware.com

It would be helpful to restore the link to the TeleRead e-book news page at http://www.teleread.org/blog. In the Google e-books directory at http://www.google.com/Top/Computers/E-Books/, we're the second-ranked site. I'm TeleRead's main contributor, and our others range from Roger Sperberg (a former Random House production guy as well as an author) to Sadi Ranson-Polizzotti (a former Godine editor who edited Leslie Fiedler, the great literary critic) to Jon Noring (the leading advocate of an open e-book format). We've been Slashdotted and are regarded by many as their main source of e-book news and views, especially on standards issues. In the Yale Law Meme, in fact, we've been called at the comprehensive source for information regarding ebooks" (see URL below). Does anyone have a problem with restoration of the link, and if so, why? I'm a little baffled how TeleRead could vanish but "Parody of the long sales letters often used to sell e-books" could remain. Hello, Bogdangiusca? What do you think? If no one objects, I'll restore the link myself. Feedback? Thanks. David Rothman - davidrothman@pobox.com - 703-370-6540.

http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:UoWMnSe1vgcJ:research.yale.edu/lawmeme/modules.php%3Fname%3DNews%26file%3Dprint%26sid%3D1391+yale+law+meme+teleread+comprehensive&hl=en&client=firefox-a

Hi David,
The link may have been deleted because someone considered it a spam link. I'm not really up on exactly how people determine what is a spam link and what isn't... maybe someone else here could enlighten us... but that is likely why it disappeared in the first place. Hbackman 17:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I appreciated the explanation, Hbackman.
Do you think it would be okay if I restored the link on Monday, assuming no one had a problem? That would give people time to object and specify reasons. BTW, I neglected to mention that TeleRead has been linked to from the New York Times, National Public Radio, Wired, etc., at one time or another.
Thanks again. David Rothman, 11 January 2006


This page needs a lot of work. I've made a start, correcting some errors and removing some POV, but ... needs more work. I've started a division into logical sections, which now need beefing up with more content. The history of devices is worth expansion, and much more can be said about commercial ventures. I'd also like to see some links to free archives. Pamplemousse 21:30, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)


Should discuss criticism and limitations (or perceived limitations) of e-books. --Daniel C. Boyer 21:05, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)


i am of the strong opinion that a well-designed reader-program can turn a raw e-text into an electronic-book by, for instance, discerning the structure underlying the e-text and using it to provide book-like features such as a table of contents and chapter-headings that are big and bold, or, to give another example, turning end-notes into two-way hyperlinks to their referents in the text. i currently have such a program under development, as i am of the firm belief that the proof is in the pudding. -- bowerbird@aol.com

This is certainly possible -- up to a point. I've been using and refining a set of perl scripts to do this since 1997. But you can only go so far, because if there's nothing in the original etext to identify one part from another, then you can't distinguish them by program, you have to do it manually. E.g. if a chapter heading looks like "CHAPTER XIV" then its easy, but if it looks like "Monty goes to town.", i.e. just like a regular paragraph, then you're program can't identify it as a chapter heading. But good luck with the program! Pamplemousse 07:15, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

the idea that "there's nothing in the original e-text to identify one part from another" is one that i challenge. there are indeed ways you can discern chapter-headings and other types of section-breaks, if you look closely enough. my program might surprise you in how well it _can_ identify chapter-headings.  :+)


Mention should probably be made of the Baen Free Library at [1] where Baen are making copies of a number of books available, for free, in about a half-dozen different formats. Perhaps a mention of their CD-ROM project also, in that several of their latest books contain a CD-ROM with the author's complete back-catalogue in digital form, plus various of their collaborators. War of Honor by David Weber was the first of these and it contains the whole Honor Harrington series. Best of all is the enjoinder, printed on the actual CD-ROM, to share the contents freely. Phil 10:02, Nov 27, 2003 (UTC) --- some more links that could be usefull to add to this page: http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/search.html and http://www.gutenberg.org/ 213.119.163.25 06:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Capitalization

Ebook
(Redirected from EBook)
The correct title of this article is eBook. The initial capital letter is due to technical restrictions.
An ebook...

...

<Links to articles that contain "e-book" in the title.>

Something doesn't seem right. --72.136.188.23 00:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Order of formats section?

Is there a meaningful order to the list of formats? If there is, please state so in the paragraph preceding the list. If not, there should be. Alphabetical? Popularity?

OPF

Has anyone even heard of OPF Flipbook before? Why isn't there a link?

On the New Section

The following is a pertinent conversation thread from our respected talks made in a single posting. FrankB

Overriding Your Bot

I was crosschecking links for the Grantville Gazette eMagazines which are later released both as cannonical ebooks and later published works in the SF 1632 series , when I noted your Bot is constantly making the same edit in the ebook article. I'm rearranging the commonly pasted spam line, as the reference is certainly correctly placed in this article under the eBook Devices heading... which is where your Bot is killing the reference. I'd keep it on patrol however, as the spam form is certainly marketing POV hype.

Best Regards FrankB 20:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

On your last (Answer seeking clarification), I'm in the middle of a full article section add on the subject article ebooks (1st preview since your post). I infact, haven't picked up the sony related marketing phrase I was going to add, so since you aren't a Bot, I'll just leave you with the advice intended: what I saw deleted in the history, looks to be something that should be kept under devices, albeit massaged so that it is not marketing hype.

  • Unless, of course, in my humble ignorance of devices it has already been so disposed of. I would have cross checked before finishing the main business at hand.
  • Give me a few more minutes to finish up (I'm slowish), and if you accept email, I'll alert you both ways that I'm clear. Then you can vet my edit and perhaps give me some advice on related matters. I prefer the email for these little notifications as I get an audible beep which doesn't require backing up to the last preview or 'Yet another' Wiki browser window to service (At the moment, I sit with 15 such on my taskbar, so not opening another helps keep them straight, for which, I need all the help I can get!)
  • Apparently you aren't accepting email. I've duly registered mine, and it's listed on my talk top.
  • Thanks, Best Regards FrankB 21:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Linkspam

Hi Fabartus. I have to admit to not knowing what you're talking about. I have made four edits to the eBook article - I have removed links to two different bookshops, and a product review page - twice. Since you mentioned constant edits, I presume you're talking about the product review article, which is plastered in (in my view) an objectionable amount of advertising, and contains content which could easily fit into the encyclopaedia. My motivation would have been this string of edits, and the guidelines at WP:EL. Perhaps you could clarify your message in light of me not being a bot. Thanks. -- Linkspamremover 20:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm out. Had some trouble locating links. If you're an admin, please speedy move eMagazines to eMagazine (singular), which will tidy up three of the redlinks. I'll section edit to clear the rest once I get a few other windows closed.

What do you think - I thought the Baen approach noteworthy, but didn't think it belongs higher as it contrasts this way with the preceding discussions of the termoils, whereas this way, it doesn't directly collide with them. There are rumbles that Baen's footsteps are being followed by some of the rest of that genre's publishers. So, this is perhaps the new standard as well. Time will tell! <G>

TTFN FrankB 22:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I see what you have done. You appear to have a much greater interest in this subject than me, and I'm sure your edits were in good faith. My main concern is to stop Wikipedia being abused by spammers, and that clearly doesn't apply to you. I'm a little concerned about the links which appear to link straight to books for sale, but I have only had a quick look (in passing noticing something about free books), and will review the links again later after other editors have reviewed the changes, and I have had a chance to read the article and understand the context of this publisher you seem keen to mention (and I'm sure you'll say they're very important - and I'm sure they are). Right now I have other fish to fry. I'd just ask you to keep the external links to a minimum, and if you see any spam links in any articles you are editing to remove them per these guidelines. I suggest if you want feedback on the article you post something on the article's talk page. rgds. -- Linkspamremover 10:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Getting Unconfused?

    • I see I'm not the only one confused as to whether you are a Bot! Doing something on the user page seems a good thought. I'm taking the day off from the computer and wiki, so I'll look at your last in detail tomarow some time. I just printed the guideline you referenced. I'm a little off my normal patrol in my current WikiAtivity (Center of Focus), but that's as it was most neglected. I need to get a thankyou (why I'm here at all) email off, and go back to my rest. ttfn I'll get back on the rest after me rest! FrankB 00:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Good Day - The below (h/h talk with others confusing h/h as BOT) looks like you've been busy. After checking through your second post, I agree, see what the edit consensus says.

Regarding this: and I have had a chance to read the article and understand the context of this publisher you seem keen to mention (and I'm sure you'll say they're very important - and I'm sure they are).,

I think characterizing them as very important ... would be a bit histronic and more than a smidge unprofessional. I deem them an interesting (and perhaps eventually historic) counter-point (contrast) to much of the article which deals with the measures publishers and manufacturers are trying to protect their intellectual copyrights.
  • Whereas this publisher has found gold in the opposite approach —it increases sales, not looses them to piracy—when the early works are offered free. I can steer you to some webpages making this assertion, but the proof is in following the dollar trail—this publisher is back-converting all his titles, as well as pre-releasing galleys before the books proper hit the wharehouses. Just count the titles in the Baen Free Library! So noteworthy, I think. But this isn't my article in the normal sense. It just seemed like a good add.
    • Sorry I misread your involvement level in the article. At a glance, you seemed to be editing it often, so the courtesy of the notification opening this. I think I'll cut the threads onto the talk, as that seems to be a good way to have others think on the contrast in 'automatic mode'.

Cheers! FrankB 18:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to add in escaping to my normal patrol, that the section should certainly be evolved going forward as other Publishers mimic this behavior. Buzz rumors (email, iirc) have TOR, Ballantine, and Ace either implimenting similar schemes, or taking steps in the same direction. I believe all three have substansial titles in non-SF genres. If I get some time, I'll see what I can track down to corroborate such allegations. FrankB 18:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Move to e-book

eBook, ebook, or e-book?

I just reverted a change, made without discussion, of "eBook" -> "ebook" globally. But it does open this debate: which form(s) are used, what was used first, and what guides current usage? In the version I reverted to, all three forms are used. Notinasnaid 16:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

  • FYI all... I 'cleaned' up all non-link ebook+EBook occurences now eBook per current title 'disclaimer' on proper title. FrankB 02:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
A little 'effort' research— 'cleaning' this naming issue up is going to need a BOT I believe. FrankB
-- ebook Many Links to e'b'ook]
-- eBook Many Links to e'B'ook


  • One related concern: ebook device has the same issue. Originated as a redirect here and in this edit was put up with all lowercase name. THAT (apparent new and perhaps 'dummy' as in marketing user) user name no longer exists, so an admin must pursue. I'd suppose all occurences should have the same form. FrankB 02:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Google Survey by Hits and by Title

Results 1 - 10 of about 080,800,000 for ebook  
Results 1 - 10 of about 080,800,000 for eBook (Google is equating the two)
Results 1 - 10 of about 151,000,000 for e-book + Query: 'Did you mean: ebook'
Results 1 - 10 of about 151,000,000 for e-Book + Query: 'Did you mean: eBook'

Narrowing search: All references only in title:

Results 1 - 100 of about 2,930,000 English pages for allintitle: "eBook" (about 3/80ths above result)
Results 1 - 100 of about 2,930,000 English pages for allintitle: "ebook" (ditto)
Results 1 - 100 of about  0,325,000 English pages for allintitle: "e-book"
Results 1 - 100 of about  0,324,000 English pages for allintitle: "e-Book"
Note first that for the titles the Directory would properly just duplicate the title used by the website author. For the descriptions written by the directory editor, "e-book" is used exclusively. Also, some of those sites now use "ebook" or "e-book", or use them interchangeably with "eBook". - Centrx 01:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


I would say that eBook is the correct capitalisation, and we should move the page to eBook (which would display as EBook). Since the page is a redirect with non-trivial history, it needs an admin i.e. to go through requested moves. Probably good to get a consensus here first though. SeventyThree(Talk) 17:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Notice: Related category renaming issueunindenting this as is the same issue from CATS viewpoint — 'the form of the name'.FrankB Please see Category:Books available as ebooks (now proposed to be renamed to Category:Ebooks).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Continuation: eBook, ebook, or e-book?

Rename current to 'eBook per SeventyThree and common usage (eMag, eMagazine, eZine... eBook) FrankB 00:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

We don't need a bot to fix the redirects, and if we did I've got permissions for AWB in manual mode. But we don't need to fix the redirects - the only pages which would need changing are a few redirects (to avoid double redirects, which don't work). Also, we can simply move ebook device to eBook device, and leave a redirect. SeventyThree(Talk) 16:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Right ... sorry ... I followed a link to ebooks and noticed the confusion within the article, so I started tidying redirects up to match the current location of the article. Then I was going to start on the big tasks of 'e-book' and 'eBook', but I dropped in here first and - lo-and-behold - there's an ongoing discussion. I've changed about thirty links to standardize on 'ebook', so that might skew any results if you were thinking of making a decision based on looking at the prevailing usage within Wikipedia.
My strong preference is for ebook. I looked on Google, but couldn't find a way of doing a case-sensitive search: internally (links down the right side of the page) they seem to prefer ebook. I think ebook matches better with email, but having looked at e-text and electronic commerce, things are not clear cut. Wiktionary prefers e-book (but what do they know). Noisy | Talk 12:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Fwiw, in the library and book purchasing biz it's ebook. But I will support any case type if we can just give the category the briefer (more accurate) name. Her Pegship 05:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

My preference is for the more perspicuous (and less barbarous) "e-mail", "e-book", etc., with "email", "ebook", etc., as reluctant second choices (shudder). Aberrant capitalisations like "eBook" should be resisted by anyone with a respect for the language, though. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The OED

In the Oxford English Dictionary, the only use of the letter "e" as a prefix meaning "electronic" is for "email", all lower case. Knowing the OED, and knowing that we don't capitalize Book (or Tape or Download or any other adjective or noun as a generic format), I am nearly positive that the standard spelling is, or will eventually be, ebook. Her Pegship 17:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

After seeing the above two posts from such learned advisors, I went out to survey what other encyclopedia's were doing, even putting out necessary fees.
  1. 'Grolier'— endorses Mel's e-book
  2. 'Encarta'— endorses Mel's e-book
  3. 'Acedemic works' in general: e-book, commercial publishers: eBook, but with a smattering of both gravitating to the all lowercase ''ebook'.

In the OED Online version, they have the word "e-book", spelled "e-book", (in a "DRAFT ENTRY Sept. 2001"). Their quotations, likely carefully chosen, attest to "E-book" (earliest, 1988), "e-book", "e-book", "eBook", "e-book", respectively. -- Centrx 01:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks so much for finding that! I only have access to the print version. Cheers, Her Pegship 03:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Vote Question

Since this is, culturally speaking, in such a state of obvious flux, where-in within the same website different forms are used, there is no clear cut 'easy button' solution. Based on the expert and professional opinions of Pegship and Mel Etitis, I'm now far less inclined to go with the commercial mode eBook, than I was before. So it seems to me to simplify this, the vote should be called to confirm or discard eBook VS. Champ_TBDL_lower_case. If we hold that, I'll spam notify every one involved with an 'e-' article, as discussed on my talk page ca. 14-16 May 2006 FrankB 15:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


Advisory: Nudged by Peg, I asked for this to be a binding vote Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive42#Request_Formal_Vote_Oversight, cross-posted as indicated, including VP and community BB (links all in that one) FrankB 03:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Endorse suggested elimination vote
of 'eBook' form on wikipedia, (save as redirect).
  1. Eliminate eBook variant from further consideration // FrankB 15:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. Eliminate eBook in favor of e-book or ebook. Her Pegship 18:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Eliminate eBook (commercial mode is only use) and go perhaps with ebook. Also I suggest the vote to run for 2-3 weeks. feydey 13:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. anything to get the argument settled JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose elimination and move towards a simple run-off vote

wow! ... impressive. Don't forget that non-evident page moves are done by the procedures explained at wikipedia:requested moves. I'd think this a non-evident page move. "eBook" is used pretty much. Intuitively that's the variant I'd prefer as page name, per common names principle. The two other variants that are also used pretty much should be mentioned also in the article of course, and for me it's OK the way that is done now. --Francis Schonken 06:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Poll

This is a straw poll for user feedback on which title they think it better. Please only vote for one title by placing your signature and a small comment under the correct heading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JP06035 (talkcontribs) Revision as of 21:30, 25 May 2006

eBook

  1. It looks better, and per other reasons above. J@red  21:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. Looks more natural to me. As for brand names, think about Frisbee. --Merovingian {T C @} 08:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Right, and "Kleenex" and "Band-Aid" and "Post-It", etc. But no one refers to reading material, in whatever format, by a brand name. (Do they?) Her Pegship 16:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • And it is pretty common for "frisbee", "band-aid", etc. to be spelled out without the capital letters when referring to their generic meanings. This argument is void. - Centrx 21:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

e-book

  1. I'll go for this version. No caps (not a brand name), and the hyphen seems reasonable. Her Pegship 21:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. I support this version as well, since it is the most commonly used form of the word that I've seen in the North American media. --Coolcaesar 23:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. e-book. Much better than "eBook": no caps in a generic noun, especially not in the middle of the word. If the purpose of "eBook" is to distinguish the "e" as prefix, so that the pronunciation and meaning are not lost in some unknown "ebook" (eh-boook?), then that purpose is served well with "e-book". This is also analogous to the quite common "e-mail" (Google: 4,290,000,000 vs. 5,170,000,000 for email; searches — "e-mail" -email — and — email -"e-mail" —). - Centrx 01:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. There's no way it should be "eBook" - capitalising a letter in the middle of a word is just plain wrong! Also, "ebook" looks more like a spelling mistake or typo. Whilst "email" is a very familiar term worldwide, "ebook" is less so; "e-book" will be far more meaningful for the average reader IMHO. Waggers 09:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. Despite the rivalry between (the original) e-mail and email, I support e-book on the grounds that e-, signifying "electronic", is used analogously in such other words as e-business, e-commerce, e-newsletter, e-voting, e-security, e-shopping, etc. (I strongly oppose eBook, which has the appearance of a brand name.) -- Picapica 10:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. As per above (mind you, I always use "e-mail" too). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  7. less distracting, less brand-like. -Quiddity 18:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  8. "e-book" gets more hits on google than "eBook", 'nuff said. Calibas 02:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  9. For the reasons already outlined above. Tibi08 11:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  10. I was going to go with "ebook" but I realized the pronunication of that is confusing. This is more clear. Ashibaka tock 22:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  11. As WikiPedia has decided to name the main article on electronic mail technology "e-mail", it makes to me sense to name an article on electronic books "e-book". Habemus pampam 04:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  12. e-book. because it's like e-mail. electronic book. 64.219.30.182 19:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  13. Mernst 20:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  14. Yes, e-book should be the standard name, but only because it seems to be the most common, even though hyphens don't lend themselves well to the english language. Ideally, the alternate spellings -- ebook and eBook, as well as E-book, EBook and Ebook at the beginning of a sentance, and E-Book for those fond of camelCase, not to mention "e book", "E book", "E Book" and "e Book" -- would be included, but this could get lengthy. The issue is that some people may already be used to a certain spelling, and people new to "e-media" will not necessarily know how to spell terms. If I had to choose, "e-book" would be the standard, with "ebook" listed as a less common spelling on concerned articles. --LeoNomis 08:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  15. The brand name feel of eBook turns me off it; e-book has a much more functional quality about it Devious Viper 11:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  16. Dbalsdon 18:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  17. Any of the three are okay by me — but this version creates the most work on redirect fixes! And Pegship!, stop interjecting your professional biases... shouldn't you recuse yourself or something whilst us ignorant plodders settle this sans intellegent guidance? Besides, you mess up the autonumbering! <G> // FrankB 19:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
    1. Get over it, pal. <g> Would it help if I volunteered for the mind-numbingly tedious redirect fix task? Her Pegship 19:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
    2. Yeah, of course! And I'll take a back rub whist we're at it. An e-rub I presume! FrankB 08:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  18. e-book for the reasons I outlined at the Village Pump --MarkS (talk) 17:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

ebook

  1. ebook -- Deprecate hyphenated forms (such as the once-popular to-day). eBook and e-book are almost equally vile, though for different reasons. John Reid 06:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion in other areas

(for your reference)

Useful info from the Outer World

  • This just in - Both the Library of Congress and the British Library use e-book. Her Pegship 19:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Upon archiving, The below two sections moved back to main talk, hence the strikeouts

Moved

Now the discussion can commence on whether it should be renamed to "Electronic book"... Five years from now people are going to be laughing at renaming everything just because it is "online", and sentences like "They surveyed the field of eBook eFormats available, and decided to ePublish their eMagazine". Translated into an intelligent sentence, this simply means "They surveyed the field of electronic-book formats and decided to publish their magazine online."-- Centrx 20:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge comment

Someone has tagged digital books for merging here; any opinions? Her Pegship 22:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

There does not appear to be any substantial difference between a "digital book" and an "e-book", so they should be merged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Centrx (talkcontribs) 02:06, 26 June 2006