I would like to request renaming this page to Pipes. According to the editorial guidelines I am bringing up the request in the Discussion section to solicit feedback before making this change.
The History indicates that the original rationale was for consistency with Conduit and Iteratee pages, which are both singular, however I would prefer to name the page in the plural for several reasons:
- People most often search for the plural rather than the singular form. I know this from my blog, which collects search traffic related to my pipes posts and I never see any searches for the singular 'pipe'.
- The Conduit page has the same name as the corresponding library, which works well for `conduit`, but the `pipes` library name is plural and people are far more likely to search by the library name than the data type.
- Pipe is not the central data type of the library. Proxy is technically the central abstraction, but again, nobody searches by the data type.
- Using the data type as the page name would make sense if multiple libraries implemented the Pipe type (Actually, `conduit` does implement a variation on the Pipe type, but nobody would expect to find `conduit` here). For example, naming by the data type makes sense for the Iteratee page because there are multiple iteratee implementations, but for `pipes` there is only one authoritative implementation now that `pipes-core` has official merged into `pipes`.
- The focus of this page is a discussion of the library rather than the type. It would only be appropriate to name the page after the type if the page were a discussion of the theory behind the type itself.
- Naming a page after a library's central data type causes disruption to the Haskell wiki if the library changes its underlying type scheme, which has been the case both for `conduit` and `pipes`.
I was wondering why it was named pipe, I thought it odd. It makes sense to me that it would be named pipes. Davorak 19:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)