energy, waves, wave packet, particles, and corpuscles

I've been reading here and there about quantum physics for three days now, so I know my question might be riddled with inaccuracies, though I'll try to be precise. Please remember that I have no university background in the subject.

I have observed a flagrant terminological ambiguity between some sources and others (they are all Google summaries). At first I felt it must be my fault and that I wasn't understanding absolutely anything at all. But in the end, I had to surrender to the evidence: There is a terminological ambiguity. How is anyone supposed to even begin to understand the basic principles of a subject if they first call it A and then call it B?

My fundamental problem stems from the use of the terms particle and corpuscle. It appears that for the Copenhagen interpretation, neither corpuscles nor particles exist. But then Born uses the term particle again (though with a different meaning), referring to the collapse of energy or quanta at the moment we perform a measurement.

On the other hand, it seems that in the early stage of Schrödinger's research, the reality of particles or corpuscles is also denied, reducing energy to waves. But in a second stage, Schrödinger incorporates the concept of wave packet as the concrete materialization at a given moment of the waves, either individually or separately. Of course, here the meaning of wave packet has nothing to do with the meaning of particle in Dirac.

In his correspondence with Lorentz, Schrödinger was forced to admit that 'wave packets' sometimes compressed so much at a point that they acted in a very localized way. That is where Schrödinger began to use words like corpuscle.

Can anyone help me with the terminologies?