[support] Content Type Descriptions Not Displaying

[Lists]

"Greg Knaddison - GVS" wrote:

> On 4/12/06, I wrote:
>> 
>> I want it to show under the title of the thing it is describing.
> 
> And it does do that - just not where you expect it to.  When you go to
> node/add/book it will show right underneath the "Submit Book".  If you look at
> the help text right underneath that box it says
> 
> "This text will be displayed at the top of the page submission form. It is
> useful for helping or instructing your users."
> 
> That is precisely the behavior I see.

Greg, thanks kindly for your time in making a screen shot. That surely
cleared up the issue of 'language' -- communicating that we are talking at
right angles (slightly.)

You see this behavior, and I don't, because we are not looking in the same
place at the same time.

The one key point that I made that I think maybe you mis-read:

I wrote:
> I can't seem to affect any change on the display of general description
> information for content types for non-logged in users.

I see, now, that you are talking about _submission for logged-in users who
have rights to create book content_ while I am talking about everyone.

I also wrote:
> (I want to encourage anonymous users to register, but if they explore the site
> trying to get a feel for what they can do, they see blank pages. Not good. ;)

So, your screen shots help establish that we are not talking about the same
place or set of circumstances, but also (happily) that we are not talking
about impossibilities.  I just need to look elsewhere to fill that
particular need.

I hope to encourage non-registered users to register by allowing the
understand the kinds of content they may produce.  I suspect I'll have to
duplicate that kind of content as an actual 'story' node type and then
expose them to that 'story' rather than any actual
instructions/help/descriptive text.

> NOTE: I already gave you a hint on how to get this text to show up in the
> place that you want it: theme files and node_ API calls.  It would take less
> time to follow that rabbit hole than discuss the issue here.

And I will follow up, now, on this line of attack, as you suggest.

Greg, thanks for your time yesterday on this, and for your encouragement
(brusque as it appears at times ;) to "dive in" and dig around the code.

I'll do that, with confidence.

Much appreciated.

--
Gary