Section names

[Koen G]

(Consider this thread as a bit of a brainstorming space.)

I have noticed that there are some problems with the way we refer to certain sections. There seems to be a tension between sticking to older names like "biological section" on the one hand, and moving towards more neutral terminology on the other. I have given this some thought, and, in my opinion, these are the pros and cons:


Old names: pros

• many of them have become conventions already
  
• they are used in quite a number of publications already
  

Old names: cons

• Even within the conventions, there is variation (biological section = bathing section)
  
• Some (new) people might confuse convention with consensus
  
• Objectively speaking, some of these names include an assumption
  
• The terms and their meaning are not known to everybody. For example, I've seen a number of people use "recipe section" to refer to not only the final section, but also the small plants. 
  

All in all, I think that the current situation causes confusion quite often, and is not the best for those who use the terminology. This is especially the case on the forum, where communication is a bit more fluent and section names are used instead of folio numbers.

Let one thing be clear - and I put this in bold - we cannot and should not require people to change the terminology they like to use!

But, I also sense that a number of people (myself included) would like a more neutral, standard set of terms to refer to certain sections. If we could agree on these, I would happily use them. They could for example be called "forum standard". The idea would not be that everybody should use them, but rather that is clearly understood what is meant when somebody uses these terms.

We could of course also define a "traditional standard", basically listing the traditional name alongside a more neutral one.

Before proposing any particular terms or details, I would first like to hear your opinion on this matter.