| Revision as of 20:53, 28 December 2010 editKary247 (talk | contribs)1,163 edits yes, the article needs to be longer, thanks for explaining← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:29, 29 December 2010 edit undoMachine Elf 1735 (talk | contribs)7,245 edits instant search?Next edit → | ||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
| *I do take your point about the article needing to be longer and expanded - it is not good to have short, underdeveloped articles without lots of good sources. I was working on this but got seriously delayed due to other editing issues. Thanks for taking the time to explain why you placed the link on the discussion page.--] (]) 20:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC) | *I do take your point about the article needing to be longer and expanded - it is not good to have short, underdeveloped articles without lots of good sources. I was working on this but got seriously delayed due to other editing issues. Thanks for taking the time to explain why you placed the link on the discussion page.--] (]) 20:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC) | ||
| ::Are you talking about google's "instant search" because Misplaced Pages's drop–down doesn't seem as confusing? Yworo's right though, you should probably take it up at the article's talk page.—] (]) 00:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 00:29, 29 December 2010
Hi,
I started this article because I felt that an epub book is specific term and increasingly popular term for a book that is created using the EPUB format. Users with ereaders may be interested in this specific wording when they are searching for fiction and non-fiction books in an .epub format and it seems to go with the category (EPUB, ereaders, EPUB book). --Kary247 (talk) 02:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- We already have a considerably more detailed article at EPUB. We don't create stubby duplicate articles where a developed article already exists. Yworo (talk) 18:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yes I understand, it is just that the .epub article is an excellent article but very technical so I thought this might be a good topic for people who just want to know about epub books etc. so my suggested wording is:
An EPUB book is a book that has been created using the .epub format. An EPUB book can be read on a range of different ereaders, for example, iBooks, Adobe Digital Editions, Nook, Kobo, Sony Reader and Stanza. EPUB is the most popular open book format in the world and EPUB books are being specifically sought after by people who are looking for fiction and non-fiction books for their iPAD, Sony Reader, Nook, Kobo and other compatible hardware devices. A number of e-books are specific only to certain ereaders. In contrast, the EPUB book can be read on many different ereaders. Many consumers prefer not to have content restricted to one specific device.
- Internet Medical Publishing. "EPUB: Getting Started". Retrieved 25 December 2010.
- Book Industry Study Group. “Consumer Attitudes Toward E-book Reading” Jan. 2010, p. 28
forgot to sign--Kary247 (talk) 18:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Well, we also have a general article at eBook. If you think that would be a better redirect, I'll be happy to change it.
- Also, please note that forums can't be used as sources. They don't qualify as reliable sources (another link that I suggest you actually read). Yworo (talk) 18:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- I think the main article EPUB could have smaller articles connected to it, such as EPUB Readers, EPUB book. I initially thought that EPUB book should be connected to EPUB, rather than merging it with ebook, because it is specifically relevant only to the EPUB file format only
- I was thinking that lots of users refine their search and type in 'epub book' because you just get a confusing range of options when you type in ebook - if you have an ipad, nook etc. you are going to be typing in epub book or epub.
- I see EPUB as being about the file format and EPUB book as being about a specific kind of ebook in the EPUB file format only
- Could it connect to both areas, so EPUB and ebook??--Kary247 (talk) 19:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- As you've been told, a redirect resolves any problem with search terms on Misplaced Pages. We don't know or care how Google and other search engines index us, and we don't title articles specifically for search engines. We don't typically create short, overly specific, articles rather than adding material to longer, more general articles. The problem is that if the article is unknowingly expanded, it will then end up being a duplicate or fork of the pre-existing article. It's better to add detail to an existing article. If an article can't be expanded to an encyclopedic length article without duplicating the content of existing article, that's a good indication that it should not be a separate article. If you believe that EPUB or E-book should be reorganized in summary style, the place to take that up is on the talk pages of those articles, where the editors responsible for the existing articles can participate in the discussion, rather than here, which those editors won't be watching. Generally, splitting out article content or adopting a summary style should be discussed in advance on the talk pages of the main article, to get consensus that such a presentation is the right way to deal with the topic. Arbitrarily creating small subarticles on topics with already existing in-depth articles without prior discussion and agreement is likely to be redirected, regardless of the subject, etc. Yworo (talk) 19:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- I do take your point about the article needing to be longer and expanded - it is not good to have short, underdeveloped articles without lots of good sources. I was working on this but got seriously delayed due to other editing issues. Thanks for taking the time to explain why you placed the link on the discussion page.--Kary247 (talk) 20:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Are you talking about google's "instant search" because Misplaced Pages's drop–down doesn't seem as confusing? Yworo's right though, you should probably take it up at the article's talk page.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 00:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)