Improve taxonomy help text for vocabularies

Reads very nice! One type, "You can relate vocabularies to eachother" ... "each other" is two words :)

Forgot to escape Vocabulary's near the end ;)

Not to be discouraging, but the admin/help documentation is being maintained in the modules and features section of the handbook. There was a big push this summer to update all admin/help documentation for 4.6, and new docs were written for all core modules, including taxonomy.module. I do not know what the status is of efforts to create a patch to update that text into the module. However, we do have some documentation on writing the admin/help docs.

Use single spaces between sentences.

Feature request moving to cvs.

Taxonomy help text was rewritten for D6 (LAsan, it's worth checking for changes like that before bumping issues since they're often not valid any more).

However, this has got some stuff about vocabularies which we should revisit - at the UMN usability testing users were still trying to add vocabularies as if they were terms. Marking back to active though since the patch is very distant from applying any more.

Tagging

Tagging with 'needs text review'... cause it does.

Attached is a proposed change to the taxonomy instructions. I tried to get it as concise as possible. Major changes:

• Removed instructions for dragging / dropping. Seems like this is a sitewide convention now that shouldn't be explained each time it's used.
• Removed instructions on ordering vocabularies. This is at once an advanced requirement (for those familiar with using multiple vocabularies on a single content type) and very simple to do. Seems like folks who need it would easily see the solution.
• Re-worded explaination of taxonomy. I don't think we can get away with no explanation ("Taxonomy... that's a funny word"), so I tried to make it as concise as possible, while giving an example of how taxonomy can be used for tagging.
• Added explaination of *where* one would expect to see tagging options (i.e., the content creation page).
• Added links to content creation and content types. If someone is reading this text, they're probably getting their bearings. Seems like it would be potentially useful to link the concepts to the actual pages referenced.

No doubt this could still use improving, but this is my best go. Screenshots will be posted in a followup comment (file attachments is acting a little buggy, won't let me load more than one attachment).

Missing verb, "are"? In: ... but there are many other uses as well

And how about: Terms can be input on the content creation page (or by editing the content item) if a vocabulary is associated with its content type through this vocabulary settings page.

Mine need some work too. :)

I changed it to "this" vocabulary setting page because the other pages were links, and when I read it, I thought why wasn't that a link? Then I realized it was refering to the page this help text is displayed on.

I'd like to see this patch go in but it needs a little bit more massaging. Keep up the good work.

Hi YesCT, good suggestions. I guess verbs are in short supply a 1am ;)

I took some ideas from your sentence, but changed some of the text. For example, instead of 'this vocabulary settings page' (which wrongly suggests the page that the user is currently on), I used the actual link text used to indicate this page, 'add vocabulary' and 'edit vocabulary'. I like starting the sentence with "Terms" because it associates it well with the sentence before. Also like the call to action, 'Terms can be added'.

Attached is an updated patch without a missing verb, and that last line having been massaged a bit. Look forward to more massaging! ;)

Screenshot of above changes

In the current patch, associate is used three times in the last two sentences... Probably one of the instAnces can use a different word, and maybe the other reworked to be more consice ... I guess something more along my previous suggestion... Maybe a blend of the two? I think we need a wordsmith! :)

Also. I cannot decide if it would be better or worse to use a real world example instead of the color/red/blue example...

I like these changes a lot, and it's much shorter. Nice!

Having said that, could do with some kind of 'other use' example - one issue at UB, was with the default 'tags' vocabulary, some users didn't realise they could use this for 'categories' as well. So "other uses as well, such as categories" maybe?

Thanks catch, YesCT,

Attached is a shorter and (hopefully) improved version. Some changes I see as important:

- Replaced the "Colors" example with a more practical "Subjects". I think this is a good thing, YesCT.
- Mentioned adding "categories" as per #21
- Further reduced the text, which inadvertently fixed the repetition noted in #20

Updated screenshot.

Everything looks good except for "Before the taxonomy input will be displayed on a content page" which I can't grok easily. What's taxonomy input? What's a content page?

Maybe something like "Vocabularies must be associated with one or more content types before they can be used. Edit or add a vocabulary to get started"?

This looks very good. I downloaded but can't apply this patch. I tested a few times.

Should I remake the patch?

Is there a trick to this when patches get out of date?

Oops. We got rid of most of this text already in a duplicate issue: #570440: Remove the taxonomy wall of text

removing 'needs review' tag.

See & edit list of hot patches which need user testing ASAP.
http://groups.drupal.org/node/26409