[Foundation-l] Renaming "Flagged Protections"

[Aphaia]

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 <robla at 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 at 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