Rename Node to Content

This is probably a good idea in isolation, but we just went through years of teaching people that content module lives in the cck package. This is going to cause severe confusion. I think the risks outweight the benefits.

I ran this patch, and the patch executed fine.

However, Node/Content do not show up in the modules list page... this is probably because node is so required that it doesn't show up. Not sure where to look.

This runs fine. It looks like a lot of the required modules have been removed from module list page, which makes perfect sense (why give the user the option to remove something they can't remove; why force them to think that "node" is a module like other modules when without it Drupal isn't Drupal).

How far do we want to take this though? Renaming hook_nodeapi to hook_contentapi? In five years hook_nodeapi will be a really counterintuitive name for new devs who have never referred to a piece of content as a node.

Not really in favor of completely removing the term node or renaming nodeapi to contentapi, simply because content is to general a term - and is not even countable. You can't refer to 'a certain content' without using helper words (piece), or committing linguistic mischief IMHO.

Consistency is not a value all by itself. Doing the wrong thing everywhere clearly is worse than doing the right thing only in some cases.
Content is adequate a term in the context of 'Content types' and 'Create content', but everwhere where the object of the talk is a node, we should refer to it not as a 'piece' of content. Content node would be still acceptable, but that implies there are other types of nodes (non-content nodes.. huh?) which is plain crap too.
And to address your point: Drupal content is build of nodes, which in turn consist of fields. We shouldn't let the gap between API and UI get too wide; referring to content as content (in the general sense) is great, referring to a specific node as 'piece of content' is not so.
Regarding the specific change this patch does, i'm against it. The node module handles nodes, and that's why NODE module is the correct term IMHo.

So we have been trying to remove 'node' from the interface, this seems to only enforce that pattren. It looks good to me, hope that moshe his concerns will be adressed.

The divide between node in the code, and content in the UI should be fine.

My concerns aren't addressed. In addition to my concern in #3, see #10. Honestly, I think this is Won't Fix but I'm not feeling like being a jerk so I'll just leave this as.

I think that having the module's name in the interface as "Content" but a machine name for the module of "node" (and a hidden module at that) is going to be highly confusing, especially so in 7.x because of the history of content.module being the engine of CCK in 6.x, 5.x.

For 8.x I'd be more relaxed, but would still want consistency between the UI name and machine name of the module. So yes, maybe content.module, contentapi etc, but I still think we should have "nodes" because IMO that is more useful terminology for "a (specific) piece or container of referenceable content" (hell, what is a node anyway) than "a piece of content" or "a content" (?!). So we'd have an inconsistency at another place instead. Besides, the generic term "content" covers more than nodes really... we also have fields, blocks, feed items etc.

Let's discuss this more in Drupal 8.

I have to agree with #18, as a node consists not only of (pieces of) content, but also of the metadata belonging to that specific (piece of) content (effectively, a node is a specific content entity)

Agree with moshe, and eMPee584 and pillarsdotnet. I think this is a won'tfix.

There are problems with the term "node", but "content" will not work as a drop-in replacement. For example, relation.module defines relation entities. these are not nodes, but since they're fieldable the can certainly act as content. So can profile2 entities, for that matter. Just because nodes are the standard content entity does not mean that they are the only content entity, and labelling them so will only make for more confusion as more non-node content entities get added in contrib.

If you want to re-name node, I would potentially agree with that (although I doubt you'll find many better words, in english at least, for such a slippery concept), but not "content".

Xano, can you please provide a link to the discussion and decision that you're referring to?

I only see #425478: Choose one: "content" or "node"

The name of the Node module is hardly user facing. This is won't fix, there is no reason to make everything confusing just to avoid the term Node on the module page, that is frightening for a lot of reasons that have nothing to do with this.

Removing the tags as there is zero usability backing here.

The redesign of the modules page is handled by #538904: D8UX: Redesign Modules Page.

@pillarsdotnet: I wish you wouldn't do that, it just makes the conversation extremely hard to follow. You can always just edit them and use <del>, or note your retraction or similar..

Please, don't let bump become the new "+1 subscribe". If people think this issue is important and want to work on it, they'll post meaningful comments. If it's a blocker issue for some specific release, then add an appropriate tag.