Translating talk:Flagged Revs extension

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Flagged Revs contains many key words. "quality", "stable" and "sighted" are mentioned on the page. Every translator of Flagged Revs should create a list of standard translations of these keywords before starting to translate. These standard translations avoid translating the keywords with different synonyms on different occasions which is bad for consistency. Has anybody already created a list like that? (Would save me from looking through all the messages and compiling one myself.) --::Slomox:: >< 18:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Not {{Identical}}? --fryed-peach 08:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Identical is for identical messages only, isn't it? I meant cases like "this is a stable article" where "stable" should be translated with the same word as in all the other Flagged Revs messages. --::Slomox:: >< 13:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I tried to collect all relevant keywords. See below. Please somebody have a look whether it's accurate. I'm really unsure about the parts marked with question marks. --::Slomox:: >< 01:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
keyword example where it occurs, what it means
quality page
quality revision
quality version
quality assurance
reviewedpages-lev-1 ("⧼revreview-lev-quality⧽")
revreview-quality-title ("This is a quality version of this page")
revreview-hist-quality [hist-quality] ("quality revision")
revreview-filter-level-1 ("Quality")
specialpages-group-quality ("Edit review")
a page or revision that is 'reviewed'
stable page
stable version
stabilization-def-short-1 ("Stable")
stablepages ("Pages using edit approval")
stablepages-stable ("published version")
a page that is either 'reviewed' or 'sighted' thus not a 'draft'
flaggedrevs-desc ("Gives Editors the ability to review revisions and stabilize pages")
stable-logpagetext ("This is a log of changes to the [[MediaWiki:Validationpage|stable version]] configuration of content pages.")
stable-logpage ("Stability log")
stabilization ("Page stabilization")
the act of making 'stable' ('stable' and 'stabilized' are the same, but 'stable' focuses on the status and 'stabilized' focuses on the finished act)
sighted page
sighted revision
sighted version
reviewedpages-lev-0 ("⧼revreview-lev-basic⧽")
revreview-basic-title ("This is a checked version of this page")
revreview-hist-basic [rev-review-hist-basic] ("checked revision")
revreview-filter-level-0 ("Sighted")
'to sight' is the act of approving, that an edit was not invalid
current revision
stabilization-def1 ("The stable version; if not present, then the latest revision")
stabilization-def2 ("The latest revision")
most up-to-date version of the page, whether sighted or not
editor editor ("Editor") anybody, who is able to 'sight'
revreview-reviewlink ("pending edits")
validationstatistics-stable ("Reviewed")
group-reviewer-member ("reviewer")
a reviewed page is the second level after a 'sighted' page, it means, that the page is not only "not containing invalid material" (that's what 'sighted' means), but the content is 'valid' in a positive sense and is regarded to be accurate
draft page
draft revision
draft version
revreview-current ("Pending changes")
revreview-draft-title ("Pending changes are displayed on this page")
revreview-hist-draft ("unchecked revision")
unstablepages-text ("Below is a list of pages manually configured to show the draft version as the default page content for viewers.")
a revision not yet sighted or a page containing a revision like that
flaggedrevs-desc ("Gives Editors the ability to review revisions and stabilize pages")
right-validate ("Mark revisions as being "quality"")
validationstatistics ("Page review statistics")
synonymous to 'reviewed'? Or a catchall for 'reviewed' and 'sighted'?
qualityoversight-list ("This page lists the most recent approvals and deprecations of revisions.")
revreview-basic ("This is the [[MediaWiki:Validationpage|stable version]], checked on $2.

$3 pending changes await review.")
revreview-filter-approved ("Approved")

catchall for 'reviewed' and 'sighted'?
unapproved revreview-depth-0 ("Inadequate") first level of 'depth'
basic revreview-depth-1 ("Basic") second level of 'depth'
moderate revreview-depth-2 ("Moderate") third level of 'depth'
high revreview-depth-3 ("High") fourth level of 'depth'
featured revreview-depth-4 ("Featured") fifth level of 'depth'
unapproved revreview-style-0 ("Inadequate") first level of 'style'
good revreview-style-1 ("Acceptable") second level of 'style'
acceptable revreview-style-2 ("Good") third level of 'style'
concise revreview-style-3 ("Concise") fourth level of 'style'
featured revreview-style-4 ("Featured") fifth level of 'style'
unapproved revreview-accuracy-0 ("Inadequate") first level of 'accuracy'
sighted revreview-accuracy-1 ("Spot checked") second level of 'accuracy'
accurate revreview-accuracy-2 ("Accurate") third level of 'accuracy'
well sourced revreview-accuracy-3 ("Well sourced") fourth level of 'accuracy'
featured revreview-accuracy-4 ("Featured") fifth level of 'accuracy'
autopromoted rights-editor-autosum ("autopromoted") a user who attains the 'editor' right without applying for it (by number of edits, time since account creation, or other criterions like that)
revreview-legend ("Rate revision content")
ratinghistory-tab ("rating")
readers can give their opinion on pages and judge about 'neutrality', 'completeness', 'reliability', and 'presentation'
reliability readerfeedback-reliability ("Reliability") one of the four fields readers can 'rate' the page by, is the page reliable or does the reader not trust the content?
completeness readerfeedback-completeness ("Completeness") one of the four fields readers can 'rate' the page by, is the page complete or is information lacking?
neutrality readerfeedback-npov ("Neutrality") one of the four fields readers can 'rate' the page by, is the page neutral or biased?
presentation readerfeedback-presentation ("Presentation") one of the four fields readers can 'rate' the page by, is the content presented in a way easy to read and to understand?
poor readerfeedback-level-0 ("Poor") first level of the four fields of 'reader feedback'
low readerfeedback-level-1 ("Low") second level of the four fields of 'reader feedback'
fair readerfeedback-level-2 ("Fair") third level of the four fields of 'reader feedback'
high readerfeedback-level-3 ("High") fourth level of the four fields of 'reader feedback'
excellent readerfeedback-level-4 ("Excellent") fifth level of the four fields of 'reader feedback'

Patrol log vs Review log

These translations in Korean are *same*. I wonder what is difference between "patrol" and "review". How can I avoid this conflict?--Kwj2772 04:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

What messages exactly are you referring to? --::Slomox:: >< 21:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


Thread titleRepliesLast modified
Stale link008:23, 25 July 2016
How do I go about fixing Polish translations?112:55, 18 August 2011

Stale link

The link to the svn (currenty) at the bottom of the page is working but not going anywhere useful. --Purodha Blissenbach (talk) 08:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Purodha Blissenbach (talk)08:23, 25 July 2016

How do I go about fixing Polish translations?

I find some Polish translations (in particular, MediaWiki:Revreview-accuracy/pl) inadequate or inconsistent (MediaWiki:Revreview-depth-0/pl versus MediaWiki:Revreview-style-0/pl). Can I just fix them here or should I do anything special first? Editing them in a test wiki first does not seem to be an option; you need to have administrator rights to edit interface messages there.

Žekřil71pl12:53, 18 August 2011

Just fix them here, especially if you're sure that the editors at your wiki will think that your corrections are OK.

Amir E. Aharoni12:55, 18 August 2011