"Sketch" vs "Sketcher" used interchangeably?

[JoeKundlak]

During my translations I regularly come to "Sketch" vs "Sketcher" being used somewhat interchangeably, especially currently on the Sketcher Workbench Wiki page so far.

In my mind "Sketcher" should only be used as the overarching Workbench (and referenced as such), whereas the "Sketch" should be used to encompass everything to do with actual editing, geometry, constraints etc. etc.

Is there any uderlying logic for instance for using "Remove Sketcher Geometry", vs. (IMO better) "Remove Sketch Geometry"?

[drmacro]

I think you are correct. The use of the terms are used interchangeably in a lot of wiki, forum posts and dialogs/menus/etc.

And I agree they should not be.

It is to some degree a common multi-language thing where the English being written or spoken by a non-native speaker gets the plural wrong.

I agree Sketcher is a thing. It is the tool, the workbench.

A Sketch is the object that is shown in the feature tree created by the tool.

Sketching is the act of using the Sketcher workbench tools to create the geometry in the Sketch.

[JoeKundlak]

I try to correct this in my Slovak Translation, but I might as well edit the Wiki pages where I find it. And I will use it accordingly in Crowdin as well.

[Roy_043]

IMO there is nothing linguistically wrong with "Sketcher geometry". The notion that "Sketcher" is a tool does not matter here. Compare "tool mark". I don't understand the reference made to "plural", that seems totally unrelated.

But if "Sketcher geometry" is wrong then surely "Draft geometry" and "PartDesign geometry" are also wrong. What do you propose in those cases?

[drmacro]

IMO there is nothing linguistically wrong with "Sketcher geometry".

Not necessarily wrong, but, documentation should be consistent. Referring to some thing with multiple terms on different or worse on the same page leaves room for questions.

I don't understand the reference made to 'plural', that seems totally unrelated.

Plural is not the part I meant to draw focus. And of course I can't think of or find an good example ATM. But I was referring to things like; correct: "The people in New Jersey..." as opposed to: "The peoples in New Jersey...".

But if "Sketcher geometry" is wrong then surely "Draft geometry" and "PartDesign geometry" are also wrong. What do you propose in these cases?

My point is don't be inconsistent, at least in documentation. IMO it should always be Sketcher geometry or sketch geometry, not either at the whim of the author, so that the reader always gets the same meaning from the phrase.

[chrisb]

I fully agree with Joe and drmacro, on the wording and on the purpose of differentiating.

There are indeed cases where Sketcher geometry could make sense, e.g. having the meaning of "geometry built with Sketcher". But calling these things precisely a "sketch" does no harm either. There is no Draft equivalent to a sketch, in Draft exists indeed only the geometric element, orphaned in space. A sketch is something different. It is the result of using the tool "Sketcher" (yes, with a capital S).

[exaggeration]
"Remove Sketcher Geometry" is a short form of "Remove Sketcher Geometry Tools" which removes all icons and menu entries for lines, arcs, circles, ...
[/exaggeration]

[Roy_043]

My point is don't be inconsistent, at least in documentation.

People can be very sensitive about language so any rule would be hard to enforce.

My 'favorite' FreeCAD inconsistency:
An object created with the Part_Box command is labeled "Cube". Which only makes sense if its dimensions stay equal.
Stranger still: If you create the same object with the Part_Primitives command it is labeled "Box".

[drmacro]

...People can be very sensitive about language so any rule would be hard to enforce.

It is quite simple, consistent use of terms in documentation is important. Having it otherwise makes the documentation appear sloppy.

If it is hard to enforce and thus is not enforced, then so be it. We can simply tell those who are confused or mention the documentation could be better it's too hard to enforce any rules.

My 'favorite' FreeCAD inconsistency:
An object created with the Part_Box command is labeled "Cube". Which only makes sense if its dimensions stay equal.
Stranger still: If you create the same object with the Part_Primitives command it is labeled "Box".

Indeed, there are plethora of these sort of things, one of mine is having the Close for some Task panel dialogs at the bottom and others at the top.

[adrianinsaval]

I agree with making it consistent but first it would have to be made so in FreeCAD, the documentation should above all correspond to the program, if FreeCAD is using incorrect terminology the wiki should use that same terminology until it's corrected in FreeCAD.

My point is don't be inconsistent, at least in documentation.

My 'favorite' FreeCAD inconsistency:
An object created with the Part_Box command is labeled "Cube". Which only makes sense if its dimensions stay equal.
Stranger still: If you create the same object with the Part_Primitives command it is labeled "Box".

that is kind of a bug