Change 'Add' and 'Create' labels and paths to make be more intuitive & follow Drupal patterns

This makes sense, but marking an issue as Fixed when it's not is kind of confusing :) And I don't see what it has to do with #2677744: Rebuilding the permissions on site content fails either :/

Anyways, I'll sit on this for a day or two to think it through. I want to get it right now so it doesn't have to change again later on. The patch looks ready to go in, though.

This is definitely a problem that needs fixing, though 'Create node' is inconsistent with the rest of the Drupal UI, where 'Add foo' means 'create a new foo'.

Okay so let's discuss options here :)

Option 1: Break with Drupal's labeling pattern.

• Create node in group
• Add existing node to group

Not my personal favorite because as joachim mentioned in #6, the verb "add" has a double-barreled meaning in Drupal.

Option 2: Adhere to Drupal's labeling pattern and come up with a different verb.

• Add node
• Link existing node

This seems like a good candidate to me, but feel free to add suggestions in the comments below.

I was leaning towards option 2, but still pondering what verb to use. Best I'd come up with was 'Assign'.

Or maybe 'Place existing foo in group'?

How about 'Attach existing node to group'. My take on the proposed options so far

Link: Implies a relationship but leaves the door open to possibly not being one because html links are a thing.
Assign/Place: Not bad but normally when you assign or place something it is only in one location and it could(should?) be possible for a node to be assigned to/placed in multiple groups.
Attach: Universal term from emailing things that means adding files/content without any implications of how many things it can be attached to.

I'm not too fond of "attach" as it doesn't really mean the entity is a part of the group. To me, it means that the entity is an extra to the group, whereas I'd like a verb that really reflects the relationship between an entity and a group as something solid and meaningful.

How about 'Adopt an existing Foo'?

Solid relationship, and implies that a Foo can only be adopted by one group.

We should consider changing the paths to reflect the verbs once this issue is closed -- so it's group/X/node/add and group/X/node/(adopt/link/attach/foobar)

Good point, you're absolutely right. Will try to have a discussion about this during today's sprint.

Retitling this, and setting to major & tagging as a 1.0 blocker, as changing the paths is going to be a bit disruptive.

Added to the roadmap: #2693167: [meta] D8 release roadmap

Let's get this issue moving.

Here is a patch that changes the labels to "Add node" and "Assign existing node". Having had a look around, "assign" is used more (e.g. translation/i18n)

This may need a reroll with the recent changes.

Re-rolled.

The official term facing end users in D8 is 'Content'. Since core also uses the term 'add' and not 'create', I would like to propose the following:
Relate node > Add existing content
Create node > Add new content

There are a lot other places still using the term 'relate' or 'create'. Here are proposals for each (the term create is added in a lot of places I tried to find only the user facing ones):

• Access related entities overview > Access group entities overview
• Relate existing entity to group > Add existing entity
• Create new entity in group > Add new entity
• Related entities > All entities
• Relate node > Add existing content
• Create node > Add new content
• Related entities for @group > Added entities for @group
• View related entity > View entity
• Relate content to group > Add existing content
• Create content in group > Add new content
• Create @entity_type in @group > Add new @entity_type
• Allows you to relate an existing %entity_type entity to the group > Allows you to add an existing %entity_type entity to the group
• Allows you to create a new %entity_type entity and relate it to the group > Allows you to add a new %entity_type entity and add it to the group
• Create @name > Add new @name
• Create @type > Add @type
• Create a node of type %node_type in the group > Create content of type %node_type in the group
• Add an existing node of type %node_type to the group > Add existing content of type %node_type to the group

If we can agree on the terminology I will add a patch to fix this.

Since I was working on some other UX improvements I just created a patch. Also adding a related issue.
Some texts are slightly different in the patch, so please forget my last post and just look at the patch. Please review!

'Add existing' sounds like a contradiction -- 'add' in Drupal UI always means you're creating something, doesn't it?

You are creating something (relation between content and group). I think the concept of relate/assign vs add/create is confusing for non-technical users. From a users perspective you just want to add something (content / users) to a group. But I'm open to suggestions, getting the terminology right is important.

Access related entities overview > Access group entities overview

Better already but doesn't quite roll off the tongue. Perhaps it's the best we can do.

Relate existing entity to group > Add existing entity
Create new entity in group > Add new entity
Relate content to group > Add existing content
Create content in group > Add new content
Create @name > Add new @name
Create @type > Add @type (Note: missing existing or new)
Relate node > Add existing content
Create node > Add new content
Create @entity_type in @group > Add new @entity_type to @group

While pure semantically speaking, Drupal doesn't say "add new foo" but "add foo", I do agree with the wording here. By specifically saying "add new" it points out the contrast to the other option: "add existing".

Related entities > All entities

We must be careful that we do not become too generic here. "All entities" doesn't really say much.

View related entity > View entity

Agreed in case of the dropbutton. Other action is "View relationship".

Related entities for @group > Added entities for @group

Disagree with this one. We still mention relationships, so once something is added it is actually in a relationship. If we want to drop "Related" we should just call it "Entities for @group".

Allows you to relate an existing %entity_type entity to the group > Allows you to add an existing %entity_type entity to the group
Allows you to create a new %entity_type entity and relate it to the group > Allows you to add a new %entity_type entity and add it to the group

Agreed

Create a node of type %node_type in the group > Create content of type %node_type in the group
Add an existing node of type %node_type to the group > Add existing content of type %node_type to the group

Deviates from the above use of "Add new" vs "Add existing"

@kristiaanvandeneynde Some of your feedback was actually addressed in the patch already. Could you do a review?

We must be careful that we do not become too generic here. "All entities" doesn't really say much.

Maybe it's better to just use 'Entities'? Since the 'Content / Node and Members' tabs also don't have a All or Related prefix.

On a side note: The tab is confusing to end users anyway. The same content is displayed on multiple tabs. Users will probably instinctively go to content or members tabs. But removing this tab is a separate issue (for a later time).

I'll review the patch when I am on my contrib day. Regarding the generic tab: It is locked behind a permission that most people will never have. Consider it an admin tool rather than something you should expose to just about anyone.

Reroll because of short array syntax.

Whoops, forgot to git pull the latest changes. This one should work.

Re #22:

'Add existing' sounds like a contradiction -- 'add' in Drupal UI always means you're creating something, doesn't it?

The Inline Entity Form has a similar pattern where you can choose to add existing content or create new content. It has picked 'Add existing ' and 'Add new ' for this interaction (screencapture below). I don't believe Drupal core currently implements a similar pattern, so at least let's be consistent with other contrib.

These changes makes the interface a lot easier to use, thanks!

This is long overdue a commit. My apologies and thanks for working on it!

@kristiaanvandeneynde No worries, thanks for taking the time to review/commit!