Re: Renaming "taxonomy" terminology? (was Re: Early Drupal 6 review from Chris Messi

I rarely read bikeshed (www.bikeshed.org) type threads, let
alone weigh
in on them.  But I'll offer a suggestion here and hopefully
wont regret
it.

It's undeniable there is class of users who is put off by
and/or
intimidated by and/or has trouble understanding words like
"taxonomy,"
"category," "vocabulary" and presumably
others with  three+ syllables 
;) .  That's why these discussions come up from time to
time.

There have been a number of suggestions that might make
things easier to
grok for newbies and users who don't want to get more than
ankle deep in
Drupal.  But every one I've seen uses some term that some
people on this
list really don't like.  In fact there's only one term I've
seen no
objection to, and that is "term".  Therefore I
suggest:

taxonomy.module -> term.module (or just leave it
taxonomy.module)
Vocabularies -> Term Sets
Terms -> Terms

Perhaps with this scheme new users and clients will not be
confused when
they first see them, and will eventually discover that term
sets can be
entire hierarchies with lots of features.  By then they may
know enough
about Drupal that these features will be a pleasant surprise
and not a
source of confusion.

Personally, I've never had a problem with the words
taxonomy,
vocabulary, etc.  That's why I called this a bikeshed
argument earlier. 
Because to me personally the names make little difference. 
The power of
the features remains important to me.

Thanks for reading my humble opinions,

-Dave


On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 10:32:02 -0800, "Derek Wright"
<drupaldwwright.net>
said:
> [Am I the only one who thinks it's worth forking this
monster thread  
> into appropriately named subthreads to cover the
various parallel  
> conversations going on?]

Definitely not.

Don't give me false hope that we can have taxonomy back and
remove the
complete confusion between the menu and module name
mis-match and the
contributed module named categories completely muddying the
waters.

I almost never +1 a thread, but getting rid of 'categories'
and
renaming it back to the original Taxonomy would be a good
thing from
my point of view.

For those that thing it should be listed as a 'Feature',
send me
text/verbiage off list and I will add it.

Steven Peck :: www.blkmtn.org

On Nov 14, 2007 12:00 PM, David Cohen <drupaldave-cohen.com> wrote:
> I rarely read bikeshed (www.bikeshed.org) type threads,
let alone weigh
> in on them.  But I'll offer a suggestion here and
hopefully wont regret
> it.
>
> It's undeniable there is class of users who is put off
by and/or
> intimidated by and/or has trouble understanding words
like "taxonomy,"
> "category," "vocabulary" and
presumably others with  three+ syllables
> ;) .  That's why these discussions come up from time to
time.
>
> There have been a number of suggestions that might make
things easier to
> grok for newbies and users who don't want to get more
than ankle deep in
> Drupal.  But every one I've seen uses some term that
some people on this
> list really don't like.  In fact there's only one term
I've seen no
> objection to, and that is "term".  Therefore
I suggest:
>
> taxonomy.module -> term.module (or just leave it
taxonomy.module)
> Vocabularies -> Term Sets
> Terms -> Terms
>
> Perhaps with this scheme new users and clients will not
be confused when
> they first see them, and will eventually discover that
term sets can be
> entire hierarchies with lots of features.  By then they
may know enough
> about Drupal that these features will be a pleasant
surprise and not a
> source of confusion.
>
> Personally, I've never had a problem with the words
taxonomy,
> vocabulary, etc.  That's why I called this a bikeshed
argument earlier.
> Because to me personally the names make little
difference.  The power of
> the features remains important to me.
>
> Thanks for reading my humble opinions,
>
> -Dave
>
>
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 10:32:02 -0800, "Derek
Wright" <drupaldwwright.net>
> said:
> > [Am I the only one who thinks it's worth forking
this monster thread
> > into appropriately named subthreads to cover the
various parallel
> > conversations going on?]
>
> Definitely not.
>