# Context
Renaming `Parent` to `ChildOf` in #17247 has been contentious. While
those users concerns are valid (especially around legibility of code
IMO!), @cart [has
decided](https://discord.com/channels/691052431525675048/749335865876021248/1340434322833932430)
to stick with the new name.
> In general this conversation is unsurprising to me, as it played out
essentially the same way when I asked for opinions in my PR. There are
strong opinions on both sides. Everyone is right in their own way.
>
> I chose ChildOf for the following reasons:
>
> 1. I think it derives naturally from the system we have built, the
concepts we have chosen, and how we generally name the types that
implement a trait in Rust. This is the name of the type implementing
Relationship. We are adding that Relationship component to a given
entity (whether it "is" the relationship or "has" the relationship is
kind of immaterial ... we are naming the relationship that it "is" or
"has"). What is the name of the relationship that a child has to its
parent? It is a "child" of the parent of course!
> 2. In general the non-parent/child relationships I've seen in the wild
generally benefit from (or need to) use the naming convention in (1)
(aka calling the Relationship the name of the relationship the entity
has). Many relationships don't have an equivalent to the Parent/Child
name concept.
> 3. I do think we could get away with using (1) for pretty much
everything else and special casing Parent/Children. But by embracing the
naming convention, we help establish that this is in fact a pattern, and
we help prime people to think about these things in a consistent way.
Consistency and predictability is a generally desirable property. And
for something as divisive and polarizing as relationship naming, I think
drawing a hard line in the sand is to the benefit of the community as a
whole.
> 4. I believe the fact that we dont see as much of the XOf naming style
elsewhere is to our benefit. When people see things in that style, they
are primed to think of them as relationships (after some exposure to
Bevy and the ecosystem). I consider this a useful hint.
> 5. Most of the practical confusion from using ChildOf seems to be from
calling the value of the target field we read from the relationship
child_of. The name of the target field should be parent (we could even
consider renaming child_of.0 to child_of.parent for clarity). I suspect
that existing Bevy users renaming their existing code will feel the most
friction here, as this requires a reframing. Imo it is natural and
expected to receive pushback from these users hitting this case.
## Objective
The new documentation doesn't do a particularly good job at quickly
explaining the meaning of each component or how to work with them;
making a tricky migration more painful and slowing down new users as
they learn about some of the most fundamental types in Bevy.
## Solution
1. Clearly explain what each component does in the very first line,
assuming no background knowledge. This is the first relationships that
99% of users will encounter, so explaining that they are relationships
is unhelpful as an introduction.
2. Add doc aliases for the rejected `IsParent`/`IsChild`/`Parent` names,
to improve autocomplete and doc searching.
3. Do some assorted docs cleanup while we're here.
---------
Co-authored-by: Eagster <79881080+ElliottjPierce@users.noreply.github.com>
be3c6f7578