verbose_name option is missing in Model Field reference

[marcoberi]

Below this option ​http://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/ref/models/fields/#unique-for-year I would put also verbose_name one.

[Karen Tracey]

The verbose_name keyword argument for model fields is described in 'Writing Models' here:

​http://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/topics/db/models/#verbose-field-names

I do not know that we want to (or generally do?) document things in two places. Someone more involved with the documentation structure needs to make that call.

[Malcolm Tredinnick]

We can add a reference for this and then point to the current description. The reference section (ref/ directory) isn't really a complete reference if it's missing options. We don't have to duplicate the description, since inter-file linking is possible.

[Ramiro Morales]

Actually, AFAIK, normal field types do not have a verbose_name option (it's only set using the first positional parameter of the model field declaration) but relationship fields do.

From the documentation location the OT suggests it seems he wants to add a blurb/link to the wrong place, if anything it should be added to the ​http://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/ref/models/fields/#module-django.db.models.fields.related section further down in the same document.

[Karen Tracey]

Any field can have a verbose_name specified. Not sure why you think it is restricted to relationship fields? The difference between specifying it for non-related and related is you may simply specify it as the first positional argument for any field that is not a ForeignKey, ManyToManyField or OneToOneField; that is you are not required to use the verbose_name keyword. But you certainly can. (The reason you cannot specify it as first positional for the others is that they require different first positional arguments, so for them you must use the verbose_name keyword if you want to specify it at all.)

[Ramiro Morales]

Karen,
Replying to kmtracey:

Any field can have a verbose_name specified. Not sure why you think it is restricted to relationship fields? The difference between specifying it for non-related and related is you may simply specify it as the first positional argument for any field that is not a ForeignKey, ManyToManyField or OneToOneField; that is you are not required to use the verbose_name keyword. But you certainly can.

It' because the wording used here: ​http://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/topics/db/models/#verbose-field-names

I know that, strictly speaking, that section doesn't say normal fields don't support verbose_name but it only mentions they support usage of the first positional argument and contrast them agains the relationship fields. I hadn't looked up at the code that's why I wrote AFAIK.

[yoz]

Speaking as someone who just wasted half an hour looking for the functionality offered by verbose_name, and who pored through the model field reference multiple times, I strongly endorse this ticket.

[Kyle Dodson]

Another vote for a fix. I'm new to Django, and the first place I went was ​http://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/ref/models/fields/. I was beginning to think it couldn't be done until I stumbled across this ticket.

[Tim Graham]

initial patch

[Russell Keith-Magee]

(In [9865]) Fixed #9347 -- Added an entry in the field reference for the verbose_name option. Thanks to marcoberi for the suggestion, and timo for the eventual patch.

[Russell Keith-Magee]

(In [9875]) [1.0.X] Fixed #9347 -- Added an entry in the field reference for the verbose_name option. Thanks to marcoberi for the suggestion, and timo for the eventual patch.

Merge of r9865 from trunk.

[(none)]

Milestone post-1.0 deleted