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.
Here were some criteria we're using to find a name:
- Must not introduce obsolete terminology (e.g. there's no "flagging" in our proposed deployment) - Terminology should be consistent with terms we want to use in the user interface - Must not make too strong of a statement of quality/consensus or terms that make us out as publishers approving content from the mountaintop - Should not imply we're creating an elite new classes of users - Should not convey a strong sense of restriction. The feature, as proposed for the trial [1], is less restrictive than semi-protection - Should not be too geeky/too technical/too jargony - Should not be too slick/too cutesy. We're not doing this in the name of creating glossy brochures with pictures of a conference room full of people in formal business attire nodding with approval at a projection of a pie chart - we just want a name that won't be confusing.
It turns out that filters out quite a few names (including "Flagged Protection" among other things). Here's the alternatives that made the cut:
- "Pending Revisions" - this name is very consistent with what everyone will see in many parts of the user interface, and what it will be used for (i.e. providing a queue of pending revisions) - "Double Check" - this was a late entrant, but has the distinct advantage of clearly communicating what we envision this feature will be used for (i.e. enforcing a double check from a very broad community).
A protracted debate on the name will likely delay the eventual launch on the feature, so we're hoping we can have a quick, respectful discussion on the merits of the different proposals so that we can make the change quickly and move on. We really need to have a name fully locked down no later than Friday, May 28. Please let us know your thoughts here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Flagged_protection_and_patrolled...
We're in the process of working on a lot of terminology tweaks in the user interface in anticipation of the launch. If you're interested in that detail work, I'll post more information about that on wikitech-l (hopefully by end-of-day Monday), as well as on the talk page above.
Rob
[1] - See the proposed configuration for trial phase: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Flagged_protection_and_patrolled...
Might help to sum up what exactly it does or how it's used (2-4 bullet points) so that people trying to pick a name to match its features but haven't followed the lengthy debate, are up to date on it.
FT2
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 10:38 PM, Rob Lanphier robla@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.
Here were some criteria we're using to find a name:
- Must not introduce obsolete terminology (e.g. there's no "flagging" in
our proposed deployment)
- Terminology should be consistent with terms we want to use in the user
interface
- Must not make too strong of a statement of quality/consensus or terms
that make us out as publishers approving content from the mountaintop
- Should not imply we're creating an elite new classes of users
- Should not convey a strong sense of restriction. The feature, as
proposed for the trial [1], is less restrictive than semi-protection
- Should not be too geeky/too technical/too jargony
- Should not be too slick/too cutesy. We're not doing this in the name of
creating glossy brochures with pictures of a conference room full of people in formal business attire nodding with approval at a projection of a pie chart - we just want a name that won't be confusing.
It turns out that filters out quite a few names (including "Flagged Protection" among other things). Here's the alternatives that made the cut:
- "Pending Revisions" - this name is very consistent with what everyone
will see in many parts of the user interface, and what it will be used for (i.e. providing a queue of pending revisions)
- "Double Check" - this was a late entrant, but has the distinct
advantage of clearly communicating what we envision this feature will be used for (i.e. enforcing a double check from a very broad community).
A protracted debate on the name will likely delay the eventual launch on the feature, so we're hoping we can have a quick, respectful discussion on the merits of the different proposals so that we can make the change quickly and move on. We really need to have a name fully locked down no later than Friday, May 28. Please let us know your thoughts here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Flagged_protection_and_patrolled...
We're in the process of working on a lot of terminology tweaks in the user interface in anticipation of the launch. If you're interested in that detail work, I'll post more information about that on wikitech-l (hopefully by end-of-day Monday), as well as on the talk page above.
Rob
[1] - See the proposed configuration for trial phase:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Flagged_protection_and_patrolled... _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 3:34 PM, FT2 ft2.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Might help to sum up what exactly it does or how it's used (2-4 bullet points) so that people trying to pick a name to match its features but haven't followed the lengthy debate, are up to date on it.
That's fair. Here's the gist of it: * An unprotected article gets put under "Pending Revisions"/"Double Check" by an admin * From that point forward, edits from anonymous users are listed as "pending revisions", and aren't displayed to other anonymous readers by default (though they'll be accessible from a "pending revisions" tab) * Any autoconfirmed user can then mark the latest pending revision as "accepted", or revert to the latest accepted revision.
I just uploaded a bunch of images that may help people visualize the feature as we see it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Flagged_protection_and_patrolled_revi...
Here's the permissions as we're currently planning to deploy them for the trial: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Flagged_protection_and_patrolled_revi...
Rob
On 21 May 2010 22:38, Rob Lanphier robla@wikimedia.org wrote:
It turns out that filters out quite a few names (including "Flagged Protection" among other things). Here's the alternatives that made the cut:
- "Pending Revisions" - this name is very consistent with what everyone will see in many parts of the user interface, and what it will be used for (i.e. providing a queue of pending revisions) - "Double Check" - this was a late entrant, but has the distinct advantage of clearly communicating what we envision this feature will be used for (i.e. enforcing a double check from a very broad community).
'Pending revisions' would be better named something like 'Pending edits'. Not all our readers would understand what a "revision" is, but the concept of "edit" is universal—and complements "Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia that anyone can *edit*" perfectly.
AGK
"Pending edits" might describe the edits, but not the "regime" or tool.
"Delayed editing" is one possible option for the tool. As in, "Delayed editing has been applied to this article". Doesn't imply any kind of checking or approval, nor censorship or the like, just that edits will be delayed. I think even the average non-Wikipedian would understand vandalism isnt "edits" in the same sense:
*"We will be placing some articles, especially those that get vandalism, under "delayed editing". This means that when a completely unknown editor edits the article, the edits won't be made public until they have been given a basic check by vandalism patrollers. Once they are cleared as non-vandal edits they'll be made public".*
FT2
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 11:57 PM, AGK wikiagk@googlemail.com wrote:
On 21 May 2010 22:38, Rob Lanphier robla@wikimedia.org wrote:
It turns out that filters out quite a few names (including "Flagged Protection" among other things). Here's the alternatives that made the
cut:
- "Pending Revisions" - this name is very consistent with what everyone
will see in many parts of the user interface, and what it will be used
for
(i.e. providing a queue of pending revisions)
- "Double Check" - this was a late entrant, but has the distinct
advantage of clearly communicating what we envision this feature will
be
used for (i.e. enforcing a double check from a very broad community).
'Pending revisions' would be better named something like 'Pending edits'. Not all our readers would understand what a "revision" is, but the concept of "edit" is universal—and complements "Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia that anyone can *edit*" perfectly.
AGK
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
*+ **"...The average delay is expected to be around <N> minutes, and we'll be watching this carefully."*
FT2
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 2:15 AM, FT2 ft2.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
"Pending edits" might describe the edits, but not the "regime" or tool.
"Delayed editing" is one possible option for the tool. As in, "Delayed editing has been applied to this article". Doesn't imply any kind of checking or approval, nor censorship or the like, just that edits will be delayed. I think even the average non-Wikipedian would understand vandalism isnt "edits" in the same sense:
*"We will be placing some articles, especially those that get vandalism, under "delayed editing". This means that when a completely unknown editor edits the article, the edits won't be made public until they have been given a basic check by vandalism patrollers. Once they are cleared as non-vandal edits they'll be made public".*
FT2
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 11:57 PM, AGK wikiagk@googlemail.com wrote:
On 21 May 2010 22:38, Rob Lanphier robla@wikimedia.org wrote:
It turns out that filters out quite a few names (including "Flagged Protection" among other things). Here's the alternatives that made the
cut:
- "Pending Revisions" - this name is very consistent with what
everyone
will see in many parts of the user interface, and what it will be used
for
(i.e. providing a queue of pending revisions)
- "Double Check" - this was a late entrant, but has the distinct
advantage of clearly communicating what we envision this feature will
be
used for (i.e. enforcing a double check from a very broad community).
'Pending revisions' would be better named something like 'Pending edits'. Not all our readers would understand what a "revision" is, but the concept of "edit" is universal—and complements "Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia that anyone can *edit*" perfectly.
AGK
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
- "Double Check" - this was a late entrant, but has the distinct
advantage of clearly communicating what we envision this feature will be used for (i.e. enforcing a double check from a very broad community).
I like this one. With this, there would be "double checked" edits, that is edits that were approved or rejected.
Emily On May 21, 2010, at 4:38 PM, Rob Lanphier 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.
Here were some criteria we're using to find a name:
- Must not introduce obsolete terminology (e.g. there's no
"flagging" in our proposed deployment)
- Terminology should be consistent with terms we want to use in
the user interface
- Must not make too strong of a statement of quality/consensus or
terms that make us out as publishers approving content from the mountaintop
- Should not imply we're creating an elite new classes of users
- Should not convey a strong sense of restriction. The feature, as
proposed for the trial [1], is less restrictive than semi-protection
- Should not be too geeky/too technical/too jargony
- Should not be too slick/too cutesy. We're not doing this in the
name of creating glossy brochures with pictures of a conference room full of people in formal business attire nodding with approval at a projection of a pie chart - we just want a name that won't be confusing.
It turns out that filters out quite a few names (including "Flagged Protection" among other things). Here's the alternatives that made the cut:
- "Pending Revisions" - this name is very consistent with what
everyone will see in many parts of the user interface, and what it will be used for (i.e. providing a queue of pending revisions)
- "Double Check" - this was a late entrant, but has the distinct
advantage of clearly communicating what we envision this feature will be used for (i.e. enforcing a double check from a very broad community).
A protracted debate on the name will likely delay the eventual launch on the feature, so we're hoping we can have a quick, respectful discussion on the merits of the different proposals so that we can make the change quickly and move on. We really need to have a name fully locked down no later than Friday, May 28. Please let us know your thoughts here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Flagged_protection_and_patrolled...
We're in the process of working on a lot of terminology tweaks in the user interface in anticipation of the launch. If you're interested in that detail work, I'll post more information about that on wikitech-l (hopefully by end-of-day Monday), as well as on the talk page above.
Rob
[1] - See the proposed configuration for trial phase: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Flagged_protection_and_patrolled... _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 22 May 2010 02:18, FT2 ft2.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
*+ **"...The average delay is expected to be around <N> minutes, and we'll be watching this carefully."*
Do we actually have an expectation? We have aspirations, certainly (I think N=5 is bit on the high side for the median, which is probably the best average to work with), but does anyone really have anything more that wild guesses about how good we will actually be at reviewing edits?
Probably not, unless we take an educated guess from the German Wikipedia. I get the impression that we're doing things significantly different from them, so yeah. I don't think anyone can.
Emily On May 21, 2010, at 9:37 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 22 May 2010 02:18, FT2 ft2.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
*+ **"...The average delay is expected to be around <N> minutes, and we'll be watching this carefully."*
Do we actually have an expectation? We have aspirations, certainly (I think N=5 is bit on the high side for the median, which is probably the best average to work with), but does anyone really have anything more that wild guesses about how good we will actually be at reviewing edits?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
We don't and can't right now but we should probably say something on these lines just because people will wonder how long to expect and saying something is better than nothing. We can always modify the wording with experience. For a starting point we could word it:
*"The average delay is not yet known as this is a new anti-vandalism measure, but should not be excessive. We'll be watching it carefully."* (or similar.)
FT2
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 3:37 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
On 22 May 2010 02:18, FT2 ft2.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
*+ **"...The average delay is expected to be around <N> minutes, and
we'll
be watching this carefully."*
Do we actually have an expectation? We have aspirations, certainly (I think N=5 is bit on the high side for the median, which is probably the best average to work with), but does anyone really have anything more that wild guesses about how good we will actually be at reviewing edits?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Love the rest, but the "We'll be watching it carefully" is a little creepy.
~A
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 22:57, FT2 ft2.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
We don't and can't right now but we should probably say something on these lines just because people will wonder how long to expect and saying something is better than nothing. We can always modify the wording with experience. For a starting point we could word it:
*"The average delay is not yet known as this is a new anti-vandalism measure, but should not be excessive. We'll be watching it carefully."* (or similar.)
FT2
I agree. Cross out the last line.
Emily On May 21, 2010, at 10:06 PM, Amory Meltzer wrote:
Love the rest, but the "We'll be watching it carefully" is a little creepy.
~A
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 22:57, FT2 ft2.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
We don't and can't right now but we should probably say something on these lines just because people will wonder how long to expect and saying something is better than nothing. We can always modify the wording with experience. For a starting point we could word it:
*"The average delay is not yet known as this is a new anti-vandalism measure, but should not be excessive. We'll be watching it carefully."* (or similar.)
FT2
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 10:38 PM, Rob Lanphier robla@wikimedia.org wrote:
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.
I agree that "revisions" is a bit opaque and jargony. "Edits" is better. I also think that "Double Check" suffers from the presumption that the edits allowed through will have been properly checked (maybe "initial check"?). To my mind, it will be more like "screening" or "patrolling" where the edits get minimal checking to weed out the worst ones, and most edits go through. Further checking is *still* needed both after an edit is patrolled or screened.
It is indeed possible to set up a FlaggedRevs system to have a high level of checking, but the name should change to reflect the level of checking being done, or be flexible enough to apply to different levels of checking. If it is purely an anti-vandalism effort, then that should be reflected in the name.
And the best people to try names out on are non-Wikipedians. After consulting a thesaurus.
I would say
"New edits patrol" (but that implies some may get missed) or "Screening new edits" (screening may be opaque) or "New edits queue" (implies that things are dealt with in order but also implies a long waiting time) or "Edit filter" (might get confused with the feature that already has that name, but really this is after all a human-managed version of the filters that automatically exclude content using programmed filters, except here the filter is a mass of human brains briefly checking the edits).
Longer stuff like "initial low-level approval designed to filter out vandalism" won't fly, I guess? :-)
By the way, I'm assuming that some edits will be of the sort "I would normally remove the material and start a talk page discussion". In that case, is the right thing to do to approve the edit and then remove the material and start a talk page discussion, and presumably as a reviewer, your edit removing the material won't be caught up in flagged revisions itself?
Carcharoth
On 22 May 2010 02:15, FT2 ft2.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
"Pending edits" might describe the edits, but not the "regime" or tool.
"Delayed editing" is one possible option for the tool. As in, "Delayed editing has been applied to this article". Doesn't imply any kind of checking or approval, nor censorship or the like, just that edits will be delayed. I think even the average non-Wikipedian would understand vandalism isnt "edits" in the same sense:
*"We will be placing some articles, especially those that get vandalism, under "delayed editing". This means that when a completely unknown editor edits the article, the edits won't be made public until they have been given a basic check by vandalism patrollers. Once they are cleared as non-vandal edits they'll be made public".*
The problem to me is that "delayed editing" implies there's a specific delay before edits go live, and that it's to a degree automatic, rather than a variable delay as a result of the need for manual approval. (A five-minute delay is quite an interesting thought, actually - file that for future testing...)
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 2:38 PM, Rob Lanphier robla@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.
Thanks for asking about the name -- though I suspect there's nothing that will make everyone happy it's better to ask and hopefully get a better name out of it.
- "Pending Revisions" - this name is very consistent with what everyone will see in many parts of the user interface, and what it will be used for (i.e. providing a queue of pending revisions) - "Double Check" - this was a late entrant, but has the distinct advantage of clearly communicating what we envision this feature will be used for (i.e. enforcing a double check from a very broad community).
I like Pending Revisions, which is basically what's going on, and seems to convey the whole process (pending for what? someone may ask). I also like Revision Review or Edit Review, though those could be interpreted as a review of something else, like all of the edits. Of those choices the former is alliterative, the second slightly less jargony.
Double Check is cute but I would think also prone to misinterpretation, since I dunno how much checking will go along with flagging a revision. And double check what? Facts? Misspellings? I like the names that emphasize that it is revisions/edits that are getting checked. Maybe the explanation of "what is this" could say something like "Pending Revisions is a a process to double check edits..." as a compromise.
-- phoebe
On 25 May 2010 02:33, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
I also like Revision Review or Edit Review, though those could be interpreted as a review of something else, like all of the edits. Of those choices the former is alliterative, the second slightly less jargony.
Interesting! My gut reaction was that "revision" is noticeably more jargony than "edit".
Edit review is not bad.
FT2
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.ukwrote:
On 25 May 2010 02:33, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
I also like Revision Review or Edit Review, though those could be interpreted as a review of something else, like all of the edits. Of those choices the former is alliterative, the second slightly less jargony.
Interesting! My gut reaction was that "revision" is noticeably more jargony than "edit".
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Interesting! My gut reaction was that "revision" is noticeably more jargony than "edit".
Yeah, I mean it even says in our motto, "The encyclopedia that *anybody* can edit".
Emily On May 25, 2010, at 4:12 AM, Andrew Gray wrote:
On 25 May 2010 02:33, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
I also like Revision Review or Edit Review, though those could be interpreted as a review of something else, like all of the edits. Of those choices the former is alliterative, the second slightly less jargony.
Interesting! My gut reaction was that "revision" is noticeably more jargony than "edit".
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 2:12 AM, Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
On 25 May 2010 02:33, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
I also like Revision Review or Edit Review, though those could be interpreted as a review of something else, like all of the edits. Of those choices the former is alliterative, the second slightly less jargony.
Interesting! My gut reaction was that "revision" is noticeably more jargony than "edit".
Uh... that is what I meant, sorry for being confusing. Revision is definitely more jargony. I just like the way "revision review" sounds :) But "edits" is what we use in the UI generally -- Edit this page, Edit history, etc.
On further thought... what about "Pending edits" ? I do like "pending" as part of the name, especially if this is the name going on the UI for the link/tab/whatever where you would see them. It also seems to me that the name in the UI doesn't have to be quite the same as the name of the feature itself -- here is where you see the pending edits, which are part of the revision review feature, aka special:flaggedrevs. (or something).
-- phoebe
[Snip]
On further thought... what about "Pending edits" ? I do like "pending" as part of the name, especially if this is the name going on the UI for the link/tab/whatever where you would see them.
[Snip]
So, the version that is shown to autoconfirmed users would be called the "Pending Version"?
Emily On May 25, 2010, at 2:15 PM, phoebe ayers wrote:
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 2:12 AM, Andrew Gray <andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
wrote: On 25 May 2010 02:33, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
I also like Revision Review or Edit Review, though those could be interpreted as a review of something else, like all of the edits. Of those choices the former is alliterative, the second slightly less jargony.
Interesting! My gut reaction was that "revision" is noticeably more jargony than "edit".
Uh... that is what I meant, sorry for being confusing. Revision is definitely more jargony. I just like the way "revision review" sounds :) But "edits" is what we use in the UI generally -- Edit this page, Edit history, etc.
On further thought... what about "Pending edits" ? I do like "pending" as part of the name, especially if this is the name going on the UI for the link/tab/whatever where you would see them. It also seems to me that the name in the UI doesn't have to be quite the same as the name of the feature itself -- here is where you see the pending edits, which are part of the revision review feature, aka special:flaggedrevs. (or something).
-- phoebe
--
- I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers
<at> gmail.com *
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 12:15 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.comwrote:
On further thought... what about "Pending edits" ? I do like "pending" as part of the name, especially if this is the name going on the UI for the link/tab/whatever where you would see them. It also seems to me that the name in the UI doesn't have to be quite the same as the name of the feature itself -- here is where you see the pending edits, which are part of the revision review feature, aka special:flaggedrevs. (or something).
Hi Phoebe,
We considered going in that direction. The tough part about it is that the name goes against the grain of what we want to use in the UI.
Take a look at this page: http://flaggedrevs.labs.wikimedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Vince_(2005)
We're planning to change label of the "Pending changes" tab to "Pending revision", since what people will see when they visit that tab is the pending revision, not the diff against the old version. The nice thing about then naming the feature itself "Pending Revisions" is that it aligns with what people will see as the most prominent feature of the UI.
Rob
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 1:04 PM, Rob Lanphier robla@robla.net wrote:
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 12:15 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.comwrote:
On further thought... what about "Pending edits" ? I do like "pending" as part of the name, especially if this is the name going on the UI for the link/tab/whatever where you would see them. It also seems to me that the name in the UI doesn't have to be quite the same as the name of the feature itself -- here is where you see the pending edits, which are part of the revision review feature, aka special:flaggedrevs. (or something).
Hi Phoebe,
We considered going in that direction. The tough part about it is that the name goes against the grain of what we want to use in the UI.
Take a look at this page: http://flaggedrevs.labs.wikimedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Vince_(2005)
We're planning to change label of the "Pending changes" tab to "Pending revision", since what people will see when they visit that tab is the pending revision, not the diff against the old version. The nice thing about then naming the feature itself "Pending Revisions" is that it aligns with what people will see as the most prominent feature of the UI.
Rob
Got it. Well, I personally like "pending revisions", as I said (bit long for a tab label, but oh well). Can it go to the other side of the history tab though, so it doesn't show up before the edit tab when reading across? (I'm sure there's an argument to be made both ways, but I'd expect a new feature to show up as the last tab in standard UI design). Where will it go in Vector?
best, Phoebe
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...
Thanks Rob
Hi Phoebe,
Replies inline...
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 12:12 AM, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.comwrote:
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 1:04 PM, Rob Lanphier robla@robla.net wrote:
We're planning to change label of the "Pending changes" tab to "Pending revision", since what people will see when they visit that tab is the pending revision, not the diff against the old version. The nice thing about then naming the feature itself "Pending Revisions" is that it
aligns
with what people will see as the most prominent feature of the UI.
Got it. Well, I personally like "pending revisions", as I said (bit long for a tab label, but oh well).
So, as I mentioned in my previous email, we're dabbling with the idea of Pending (something else). See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Flagged_protection_and_patrolled......
Can it go to the other side of the
history tab though, so it doesn't show up before the edit tab when reading across? (I'm sure there's an argument to be made both ways, but I'd expect a new feature to show up as the last tab in standard UI design).
I'm not sure what the rationale is, but I asked here: http://flaggedrevs.labs.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia:FlaggedRevs_issues#Tab_...
Where will it go in Vector?
Hrm...we should probably make Vector default on the test site. I'm looking into that.
At any rate, you can see it by logging in at http://flaggedrevs.labs.wikimedia.org and visiting a page that has pending revisions. An example (as of this writing) is here: http://flaggedrevs.labs.wikimedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Vince_(2005)
Rob