On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 4:47 PM, Thomas Dalton <[email protected]>wrote:
> On 23 May 2010 00:18, Rob Lanphier <[email protected]> wrote: > > It seems what you're suggesting is the following: > > Step 1. Simply leave revreview-hist-basic as "checked revision" (or even > go > > back to "sighted revision") > > Step 2. Create a new revreview-hist-accepted, setting it to "accepted > > revision" > > Step 3. ? > > No, that's not the suggestion at all. As I understand it, your new > version doesn't use the phrase "checked revision" at all, so there is > no need to have a message saying it. The suggestion is that if > "accepted revision" is used to mean two slightly different things (so > might be translated in two different ways) in different places, there > should be two messages both set to "accepted revision" with each > message used for a particular meaning of the phrase. I can't think of > an example and I'm not sure there are any for this particular feature, > but it is a good general principle to keep in mind with any MediaWiki > interface work. The problem as I understand it is this. Other wikis (e.g. German, Polish) are using FlaggedRevs as originally designed, with many different flags corresponding to "sighted", "quality", "accuracy" and so on. The proposed implementation on English Wikipedia is binary: either an article is accepted or its not. Many strings in the English version were changed to correspond to this usage. Enter bug 23615: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23615 Quoting the issue: > About one and a half years ago, when we enabled on pl.wiki FlaggedRevs > there was one main idea - we want fight vandalism, but do not exercise > editorial control. Moreover, Polish community by introducing FlaggedRevs was > convinced for this tool because of the *neutral* vocabulary. There existed > keywords like "sighted", "review", "mark"... Now you introduce new keyword > like "checked", "approve". I am afraid that this is a very bad idea because > many people will think that Wikipedia is controlled by certain people. I > would like to call on you to once again reconsider the changes in the > interface. I suppose in this case, there might be a simpler debate about which is a better word: "sighted", "checked" or "accepted", since I think we actually have the same goal here (we don't want to convey anything other than "someone other than an anonymous user gave this a once-over and thought it was ok to display"). That aside, there are other instances where configuration differences actually result in concept differences in the strings (see flaggedrevs-desc for an example). Maybe those instances aren't as common as I'd feared, but I'm still trying to understand what the proposed solution is when we find those cases. Rob _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
