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