ProFields in the title of FieldtypePageTable

[teppokoivula]

Is the Page Table Fieldtype really a "ProField"? Calling this an "issue" seems wrong, but I've been wondering this for a while, and this seems like the most sensible place to ask :)

Seems to me that the naming here is creating some confusion between commercial ProFields and non-commercial ones like the Page Table, especially since ProFields have a Table field, which has nothing to do with PageTable. (Seen a couple of forum posts where these two have been mixed.)

If the naming here is intentional, that's fine by me (though it's still kind of confusing), but if it's a leftover or something like that, perhaps it should be cleaned up.

[ryancramerdesign]

It really is a ProField, and was developed alongside the other ProFields. But Avoine sponsored this one (not to mention it was their idea) so it was released as a free ProField. So while it's technically correct to call it a ProField, if it's causing confusion, I also don't see any reason to keep the ProFields label with it. Since they were all developed and released about the same time, I thought people might see it was a nice freebie and introduction to the ProFields package in general (as well as bring more exposure to PageTable), but I'm not sure that's applicable anymore as PageTable has really become an important part of the core and doesn't need a secondary designation.

[LostKobrakai]

👍 for the removal. It's nice to have the "hint" about the sponsorship, but this doesn't outweigh the confusion for people new to those fieldtypes.

[teppokoivula]

@ryancramerdesign: in my opinion it would be better to not call it ProField. I find it confusing, and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one with that opinion.

[adrianbj]

👍 I agree - it is mostly just confusing.