Describe the bug
When I choose Create content type option on a markdown file with properties I'd like to use for a new content type, I get the option to Do you want to override the default content type?
This implies that the default Content Type definition will be preserved and just overridden in this case and more options will follow.
I don't want a random file with a misspelled property being the culprit of messing with the default content type.
To Reproduce
Probably by design...
Expected behavior
Change the question to Do you want to replace the default content type?
Screenshots
Desktop (please complete the following information):
Version: 1.74.0 (user setup)
Commit: 5235c6bb189b60b01b1f49062f4ffa42384f8c91
Date: 2022-12-05T16:38:16.075Z
Electron: 19.1.8
Chromium: 102.0.5005.167
Node.js: 16.14.2
V8: 10.2.154.15-electron.0
OS: Windows_NT x64 10.0.19044
Sandboxed: No
FrontMatter: 8.2.0
**Describe the bug**
When I choose `Create content type` option on a markdown file with properties I'd like to use for a new content type, I get the option to `Do you want to override the default content type?`
This implies that the default Content Type definition will be preserved and just overridden in this case and more options will follow.
I don't want a random file with a misspelled property being the culprit of messing with the default content type.
**To Reproduce**
Probably by design...
**Expected behavior**
* Change the question to `Do you want to replace the default content type?`
**Screenshots**

**Desktop (please complete the following information):**
- Version: 1.74.0 (user setup)
- Commit: 5235c6bb189b60b01b1f49062f4ffa42384f8c91
- Date: 2022-12-05T16:38:16.075Z
- Electron: 19.1.8
- Chromium: 102.0.5005.167
- Node.js: 16.14.2
- V8: 10.2.154.15-electron.0
- OS: Windows_NT x64 10.0.19044
- Sandboxed: No
- FrontMatter: 8.2.0
<!-- github-sync-id:1492534781 -->
As it is an override of the fields used in the default content type, maybe it is better to use: Do you want to override the default content type with the fields used in the current field?. What do you think?
As it is an override of the fields used in the default content type, maybe it is better to use: `Do you want to override the default content type with the fields used in the current field?`. What do you think?
<!-- github-comment-id:1350670887 -->
The configuration in the frontmatter.json for default is changed.
So I would say the default content type is over written and not over ridden.
The configuration in the frontmatter.json for `default` is changed.
So I would say the default content type is over written and not over ridden.
<!-- github-comment-id:1350675635 -->
Do you want to overwrite the default content type configuration with the fields used in the current field?
Good point!
`Do you want to overwrite the default content type configuration with the fields used in the current field?`
<!-- github-comment-id:1350690419 -->
Blocking a user prevents them from interacting with repositories, such as opening or commenting on pull requests or issues. Learn more about blocking a user.
Describe the bug
When I choose
Create content typeoption on a markdown file with properties I'd like to use for a new content type, I get the option toDo you want to override the default content type?This implies that the default Content Type definition will be preserved and just overridden in this case and more options will follow.
I don't want a random file with a misspelled property being the culprit of messing with the default content type.
To Reproduce
Probably by design...
Expected behavior
Do you want to replace the default content type?Screenshots

Desktop (please complete the following information):
As it is an override of the fields used in the default content type, maybe it is better to use:
Do you want to override the default content type with the fields used in the current field?. What do you think?The configuration in the frontmatter.json for
defaultis changed.So I would say the default content type is over written and not over ridden.
Good point!
Do you want to overwrite the default content type configuration with the fields used in the current field?That would clarify the point :)