I think it's unnecessary to take this to moderation, this discussion has already happened in the past.
While tekstr1der assertions are obviously correct, Ventrical has chosen to use a naming convention that works for him. Although it is unusual or technically incorrect, he's free to do it.
About sudo: I think it's clear to everyone that uses Ubuntu for a while (and even more to testers) that sudo is a command: it's only use is to precede other commands, which are then executed as root or another user depending on the arguments provided to sudo. As some commands sometimes need root permissions, we can precede them with sudo as long as we're in the /etc/sudoers and sudo /etc/group. There shouldn't be any question or doubt about it.
About code: The confusion for the use of the word code in the shell context is justifiable: We frequently pipe shell commands, use variables, tests, if/then/else conditions, for/while loops, case switches, etc. Given that it respects some logic and syntax, a grammar, it's normal to refer to it as code. I sometimes refer to large scripts, with functions, etc as code.
It is code in some sense, although shell scripting is completely different from normal programming. Take C for example: We don't have *commands* in C. We have keywords, data types, operators, etc. A file with a set of these is usually referred to as source code. A command is something to be executed by the command interpreter, in this case, the shell.
Moreover, the shell (Dash, Bash,etc) is designed to operate (and defined) as a command interpreter, accepting commands via input and producing output.
So, if we were to be strict about it, even "[[ ]]" or "[ ]" are not code but commands in the shell context (they are actually defined as bash built-in commands).
The normally accepted convention is to call a sequence of commands a command. And when they're inserted in an executable text file, a shell script.
Regards, Effenberg