Re: [Foundation-l] Renaming Flagged Protections
Hi everyone, It looks like the discussion on the name is dying down, so I'd like to summarize what I think we've heard here: 1. There's no clear favorite out there. In addition to the two ideas we put forward (Pending Revisions and Double Check), there's been quite a bit of discussion around alternatives, for example: Revision Review and Pending Edits. 2. There's are still some that aren't comfortable changing the name away from Flagged Protection, but that doesn't appear to be a widely held view. 3. Some people like Double Check, but some people dislike it a lot. The people who like it seem to be comfortable with the colloquial use of it, whereas the people that dislike it don't like the lack of precision and the possible confusion created by the use of the word double. 4. Pending Revisions seems to be something most people would settle for. It's probably not the hands down favorite of too many people, but it doesn't seem to provoke the same dislike that Double Check does. 5. Pending Edits is a simplification of Pending Revisions that seems to have some support, as it replaces the jargony Revision with the easier Edits 6. Hyperion Frobnosticating Endoswitch seems to have gathered a cult following. Yes, we have a sense of humor. No, we're not going there. :-) A little background as to where we're at. Double Check had an enthusiastic following at the WMF office, but we're not inclined to push that one if it's going to be a fight (it's far from the unanimous choice at WMF anyway). Revision Review seems to be heading a bit too far into jargon land for our comfort. Pending Revisions is the compromise that seems to stand up to scrutiny. A variation such as Pending Edits or Pending Changes also seems acceptable to us. That's where we stand now. If you haven't spoken up yet, now is the time, since we're only a couple of days from making a final decision on this. Please weigh in here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Flagged_protection_and_patrolled_revisions/Terminology Thanks Rob ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Renaming Flagged Protections
Personally I support Hyperion Frobnosticating Endoswitch so your direction saddened me a bit, anyway On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 7:27 AM, Rob Lanphier ro...@wikimedia.org wrote: Hi everyone, It looks like the discussion on the name is dying down, so I'd like to summarize what I think we've heard here: 1. There's no clear favorite out there. In addition to the two ideas we put forward (Pending Revisions and Double Check), there's been quite a bit of discussion around alternatives, for example: Revision Review and Pending Edits. 2. There's are still some that aren't comfortable changing the name away from Flagged Protection, but that doesn't appear to be a widely held view. 3. Some people like Double Check, but some people dislike it a lot. The people who like it seem to be comfortable with the colloquial use of it, whereas the people that dislike it don't like the lack of precision and the possible confusion created by the use of the word double. 4. Pending Revisions seems to be something most people would settle for. It's probably not the hands down favorite of too many people, but it doesn't seem to provoke the same dislike that Double Check does. 5. Pending Edits is a simplification of Pending Revisions that seems to have some support, as it replaces the jargony Revision with the easier Edits While I admit revisions sounds a jargon here, but MediaWiki is consistent in its terminology me thinks. What we call edits casually are revisions in this terminology. Revisions look to be used for calling each relics of editing actions, and edits seem to be preserved for this action (e.g. tab for edit). I appreciate wording consistency greatly for the sake of internationalization. MediaWiki is an international project whose internationalization/localization owes mainly non-native English speakers. Terminology inconsistency may provoke unnecessary confusion among those translators, or not. I understand this feature is designed aiming to English Wikipedia, but it doesn't mean necessarily it should be used on English Wikipedia only for decades, and anyway it'll be a subject to localization as well other MediaWiki features and their messages. Casual and colloquial expressions are sometimes rather hazard for non-native language speakers, in particular the wording is isolated from the expected terminology. I expect the team takes this aspect into consideration too, not only its main and direct target, but also users in future. 6. Hyperion Frobnosticating Endoswitch seems to have gathered a cult following. Yes, we have a sense of humor. No, we're not going there. :-) A little background as to where we're at. Double Check had an enthusiastic following at the WMF office, but we're not inclined to push that one if it's going to be a fight (it's far from the unanimous choice at WMF anyway). Revision Review seems to be heading a bit too far into jargon land for our comfort. Pending Revisions is the compromise that seems to stand up to scrutiny. A variation such as Pending Edits or Pending Changes also seems acceptable to us. That's where we stand now. If you haven't spoken up yet, now is the time, since we're only a couple of days from making a final decision on this. Please weigh in here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Flagged_protection_and_patrolled_revisions/Terminology Thanks Rob ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- KIZU Naoko http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese) Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Renaming Flagged Protections
On 05/26/2010 07:05 PM, Aphaia wrote: Personally I support Hyperion Frobnosticating Endoswitch so your direction saddened me a bit, anyway I think the only solution is to make that a user-selectable preference. William ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Renaming Flagged Protections
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 7:38 AM, Rob Lanphier ro...@wikimedia.org wrote: Hi everyone, As William alluded to, a bunch of us have been studying the user interface for Flagged Protections and figuring out how to make it more intuitive. In trying to solve the user interface problems as well as generally figuring out how we're going to talk about this feature to the world at large, it became clear that the name Flagged Protections doesn't adequately describe the technology as it looks to readers and editors. It's a tough name to work with. This iteration of the technology is very different from the German implementation, and there's no flagging in the proposed configuration. Additionally, protection in our world implies no editing whereas this feature actually opens up pages currently protected so that everyone can edit. So, we would like to make a change to the name of the Flagged Protections feature prior to deploying it to en.wikipedia.org. Under the hood, we would still be using the FlaggedRevs extension (no change there), but the name that we talk about in the user-visible portions of the site and documentation would be something new. This is still the same extension which is, and will be, used on many wikis, not just the German Wikipedia. The horse has bolted; discussion about revising terminology should be held on meta, and the projects already using this extension should be engaged. Also, the English Wikipedia implementation of it will likely change over time, so I don't think it is a good idea to create new terminology which is based on this initial en.wp confuguration. I agree with Greg: if you are going to give this feature a new name, don't attach a lot of meaning to the new name, as it will probably underwhelm, and be confusing after a few configuration or code changes. Using a simple word from a dead or obscure language is a sensible approach. Rather than invent terminology, outward communications should be about this new feature being just another tool to improve for our existing Patrolling processes (which is a simple term already used for New Page Patrolling, RecentChanges Patrolling, etc). Editors and media wanting to delve deeper than the high level processes are going to be talking tech, which means referring to it as FlaggedRevs. -- John Vandenberg ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
