In Delete Aliases nodes are defined as Content, but in Bulk Update they are "Node paths".

It might be a bit confusing for users who do not understand the relation between content and nodes in this case. Especially since the list order in these two tabs are completely different.

Comments

greggles’s picture

Title: Content and Node confusion in Delete/Update tabs » Standardize on "Node" and the same order for lists in Delete/Update tabs

Both of these seem worthwhile to me.

dave reid’s picture

Hrm, we're using 'Content' now in D7. It might be confusing that we're all of a sudden using 'Node' in the Pathauto UI text compared to the rest of the Drupal UI.

greggles’s picture

Title: Standardize on "Node" and the same order for lists in Delete/Update tabs » Standardize on "Content" and the same order for lists in Delete/Update tabs

Didn't we switch to "Content" and then switch back once already in the 4.7 -> 5 -> 6 time frame? Bah.

Let's do it again :)

tsvenson’s picture

+1 for using Content as well. In this case I would like to suggest that "Content pages" is used. That way it will be more clear that it has nothing to do with comments and other non node related pieces of content.

Freso’s picture

Status: Active » Needs review
StatusFileSize
new4.96 KB

Here's a quick patch by me editing only through grep and vi. I haven't had a site to look at while changing the text, so I'm guessing some of them might be a bit silly. And I probably didn't around to some either.

dave reid’s picture

Status: Needs review » Needs work

I'm not keen on using 'content pages'. admin/content = 'Content'. node/add = 'Add content'.

+++ API.txt	31 Dec 2010 12:03:27 -0000
@@ -63,10 +63,10 @@ supportsfeeds - Modules which support RS
+  (e.g., t('Generate aliases for all existing content pages which do not already have aliases.'))

Should be 'content' instead of 'content pages'

+++ README.txt	31 Dec 2010 12:03:27 -0000
@@ -26,16 +26,16 @@ enhanced.
+Pathauto just adds URL aliases to content pages, users, and taxonomy terms.

Again should just be 'content'

+++ README.txt	31 Dec 2010 12:03:27 -0000
@@ -26,16 +26,16 @@ enhanced.
+template, content page or menu which point to standard Drupal URLs it will

Same

+++ README.txt	31 Dec 2010 12:03:27 -0000
@@ -26,16 +26,16 @@ enhanced.
+hard coded links in your content pages or blocks. ¶

Same

+++ pathauto.pathauto.inc	31 Dec 2010 12:03:27 -0000
@@ -53,7 +53,7 @@ function node_pathauto($op) {
+      $settings['groupheader'] = t('Content pages');

This should be 'Content paths' for the same as the other pathauto types.

Powered by Dreditor.

crashtest_’s picture

Status: Needs work » Needs review
StatusFileSize
new10.85 KB

Rerolled based on the comments above.

Freso’s picture

StatusFileSize
new8.24 KB

Hm. Should Implementations are provided for core content types: nodes, taxonomy terms, and users (including blogs and tracker pages). be rephrased? "... core content types: content, ..." sounds rather clumsy, plus it might create confusion if taxonomy terms and users are described as "content" here while "content" exclusively refers to nodes in all other places.

+template, content or menu which point to standard Drupal URLs it will
+bypass the alias set by Pathauto.

I've moved "bypass" back up on the first line again now that there's room again, as it will not break the 80 characters-per-line guideline, but I kept the "the" on the second line for prettyness. :)

I also caught a last "node type" that should be "content type" in API.txt.

Oh, and the .po's shouldn't be altered. For one, they're being decommissioned, and even if they weren't, PotX should've been the one to provide a new .pot for translators to work from.

Apart from the first comment, I think it should be pretty solid now.

dave reid’s picture

StatusFileSize
new8.24 KB

Re-uploading without the 'd7' suffix so it can get tested by qa.drupal.org.

dave reid’s picture

Version: 7.x-1.x-dev » 6.x-2.x-dev
Status: Needs review » Patch (to be ported)

Passes locally 100%, so committed to 7.x-1.x!
http://drupal.org/cvs?commit=480398

Freso’s picture

How about

Should Implementations are provided for core content types: nodes, taxonomy terms, and users (including blogs and tracker pages). be rephrased? "... core content types: content, ..." sounds rather clumsy, plus it might create confusion if taxonomy terms and users are described as "content" here while "content" exclusively refers to nodes in all other places.
dave reid’s picture

We should use core 'entity' types: content, terms, etc.

Freso’s picture

Version: 6.x-2.x-dev » 7.x-1.x-dev
Status: Patch (to be ported) » Needs review
StatusFileSize
new892 bytes

Like so?

Freso’s picture

Status: Needs review » Fixed

Dave said go, so I go'ed. :)

Also, I think the final agreement in #drupal-seo was that we shouldn't backport these wording changes to 6.x-2.x, so marking the issue "fixed".

jenlampton’s picture

I'm still wishing for this in D6 :)
.02

Status: Fixed » Closed (fixed)

Automatically closed -- issue fixed for 2 weeks with no activity.