This perhaps belong to webmaster queue. But creating here first so you are aware and chime in if you have different idea.

Looks there is module ecosystem evolving around rules module. We already have Path Rules and Rules extractor module. I think it is high time a module category called "rules" is created and these modules are tagged by this category.

@fago,
if you agree, please just send this to webmaster queue.

Comments

fago’s picture

Title: Please arrange to create "rules" modules category » Create "rules" modules category
Project: Rules » Drupal.org site moderators
Version: 6.x-1.x-dev »
Component: Documentation » Site organization

Yep, with more modules building upon/enhancing rules this makes probably sense.

greggles’s picture

Can you make a list of the modules that would get tagged with this term?

dave reid’s picture

Status: Active » Postponed (maintainer needs more info)
fago’s picture

Status: Postponed (maintainer needs more info) » Active

I'd suggest tagging all the modules listed at http://groups.drupal.org/rules/rules-modules

dave reid’s picture

Hmm, that's just a listing of modules that support rules, not majority-of-functionality-is-rules related. I thought we wanted the module taxonomy system to be the latter. Now, if we included tagging, I'd have no problem with a 'Rules integration' tag. That seems like the better fit for this.

dave reid’s picture

For tagging we have the existing issue: #480356: Implement Community Tags for d.o projects.

fago’s picture

imo it's unclear what the category really means. When looking at the 'views' category it looks like a lot of modules having 'views integration' are in there. Also even if not the majority of a module is rules related, it can still be an important building block for rules users, e.g. like the flag module. So imho the question is what matters to the users and which modules provide new conditions, actions and events to matters for rules users - that's why the wiki page is there. So the category would be certainly useful for them.

I agree that a "rules integration" tag would be nice, however I don't think this feature will be available that soon...

avpaderno’s picture

To make a comparison, there is the category Drush; I don't think that most of the modules listed in that category offers more than integration with Drush (except the ones that alter the way Drush works).

dave reid’s picture

That's fair. I'm just trying to figure out if this is something we should delay until the redesign, because its coming sooner than you think because of the big push for implementation.

silverwing’s picture

Is the overall issue how we handle taxonomies of modules? Do we make them more general with more projects in each term or more specific with fewer modules in a term. Is it better for users to see more modules or less when they click a term. Or would freetagging be better or in some cases, a groups. or handbook page listing modules.

As I've been going through the issues here in my Queue Cleanup I've come across a few more posts that are related:
#261657: Change e-Commerce module category to E-commerce and address redundant Commerce category
#301466: Projects that don't match any existing category
#322415: Requesting addition of "forum" category to the module downloads
#209652: Add a 'wiki' category for modules.

And from catch #270349: Project taxonomy reworking

avpaderno’s picture

Considering the bug with the new taxonomy terms Dave was referring to, I think that we could wait, and use the new features the redesign is taking in.

avpaderno’s picture

Status: Active » Postponed (maintainer needs more info)

The taxonomy terms bug seems to really be a cache problem. Is there still interest in adding this category?

ajayg’s picture

+1. Still interested to see this category.

dave reid’s picture

I'm still -1 on this until the redesign when we have freetagging for projects.

avpaderno’s picture

Status: Postponed (maintainer needs more info) » Needs review

Will the redesign remove the vocabulary project that is now used?

If the vocabulary will not be removed, then it makes sense to add this term as it has been added Drush, Views, CCK, which clearly take their name from a project name.

Actually, whatever the vocabulary is not suppressed or not, the taxonomy term should be added, as other taxonomy terms have been added (the redesign was already planned, but that it was not a valid reason to not add the recent taxonomy terms).

if the vocabulary will still be used, then saying that we will use a free tagging vocabulary sounds like to reply that we don't add a new country in the user profile field country because we are going to implement free tagging for user profiles too.

fago’s picture

Yep, there is definitely still interest in it - and I think #8 still applies.

avpaderno’s picture

@fago: Is the list reported in http://groups.drupal.org/rules/rules-modules still updated? I know that some modules that were hosted together in the project User points are now listed separately, in example.

fago’s picture

Hm? As far as I know it's up2date, but of course there might be more modules out of there I don't know and people haven't added there. User points has an integration module which ships with the main module? Don't know what you mean.

avpaderno’s picture

I confirm that the module for integration with Rule that was present in Userpoints is still part of that project.

klausi’s picture

Just found some interesting new rules modules:
http://drupal.org/project/pathrules
http://drupal.org/project/theme_rules

As the rules family grows, we need the rules module category more and more. +1 from me, too.

avpaderno’s picture

Status: Needs review » Active

I created the taxonomy term (http://drupal.org/admin/content/taxonomy/edit/term/11480). I will add the taxonomy term to some of the projects too.

avpaderno’s picture

Assigned: Unassigned » avpaderno
Status: Active » Fixed

I added the taxonomy term to the projects listed in http://groups.drupal.org/rules/rules-modules.

Status: Fixed » Closed (fixed)

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