darktable-org
[GUI] Rename the module so that there is no verb in the name
We do not have modules with a verb in their name. The only module that violated this naming convention was renamed in PR #15788.
We do not have modules with a verb in their name.
Is that really true? What about : Crop, Colorize, Dither or posterize, ...
Ooops! You're right. For some reason, I did not look at the original list of module names, but at the one translated into Ukrainian (don't ask me why, I don't know :) ). But I forgot that I translated all the names so that there were no verbs in the translation.
So let me correct my statement: we have some exceptions and the number of exceptions is small compared to the total number of module names visible in the GUI (of which there are about 80 plus something).
And my point is that uniformity and following a clear naming convention would be nice to have in the GUI. When the name of the module as a verb (action) and as a noun (result of the module's action) are side by side in the interface, it looks a bit messy.
So I'd still suggest fixing these few exceptions for the sake of uniformity, like this:
enlarge canvas-->canvas enlargementcrop-->croppingcolorize-->colorizationdither or posterize-->dithering / posterization
etc.
This is by no means a renaming to something entirely different, so users won't be confused. And I will take responsibility for making the appropriate changes in dtdocs.
diffuse or sharpen, soften, sharpen, defringe, retouch, liquify, rotrate and perspective, unbreak input profile, demosaic.
For IOP (processing) modules maybe it is better to use verbs. Those are real action done on the picture, so it seems sound to me to use verbs.
For IOP (processing) modules maybe it is better to use verbs. Those are real action done on the picture, so it seems sound to me to use verbs.
There is logic behind this, but unfortunately the names of too many processing modules are very difficult (practically impossible) to convert into names that describe actions. For example: base curve, tone curve, color zones, filmic rgb, highpass, lowpass, LUT 3D, negadoctor, sigmoid, velvia and many others.
It doesn’t make sense to rename well introduced modules - since there are a lot of videos, tutorials etc. around that would result in more confusion
@MStraeten This is a good point and I mostly agree with you. We should not invent entirely new names for existing modules. At the same time, I'm sure that such a small correction as, for example, replacing dither or posterize with dithering / posterization will not add much confusion.
The discussion went into the desirability or undesirability of major changes in the context of this PR. But this PR does not propose the larger changes we are discussing here. It just corrects the name for the new module so that it corresponds to the naming style of the majority of modules, not the minority. I think this is a non-controversial change. I suggest that the issue of whether it is worth correcting a few names of modules that deviate from the general style should be considered separately from this PR.