Last modified: 2014-03-16 20:04:14 UTC
I realize it's probably already water under the bridge, but I believe this should be said anyway. Just WONTFIX the bug if we can't do anything about it. The name "BetaFeatures" is bad. Like, really bad. And I don't think this is just my personal opinion (but I don't like it personally either). * We have so many things named "beta" right now live on the wikis that it's not even funny. VisualEditor is beta. MobileFrontend has some beta stuff. Now we're also going to have "beta" features. Depending on the person, the "beta" label has either lost its meaning or is negatively associated with past deployment failures. * It's non-descriptive. It may be the non-native English speaker in me, but it sounds like marketing-speech. "beta" doesn't mean much these days (see point 1); "feature" is a catch-all buzzword. * It's stupidly hard to translate: * Most languages don't even have a word for "beta" – unless somebody talented does the translation, these will keep using the English word in likely very awkward ways – most of currently translated messages just keep the "beta" label tacked onto a normal word: [[translatewiki:Special:Translations/Mediawiki:Prefs-betafeatures]], some went with "experimental" instead. * Similarly, most languages don't have a word for "feature" – in the link above, most translations say the equivalent of "functionality" or "function", and neither is a friendly word. Basically, any translation of this will consist solely of English/Latin loanwords in almost all languages, which may make it sound "remote" or "unfriendly". So what do we do about it? * We can try renaming the project. We could go with the lowest friction option and call it "Experimental features", which would be at least a little better. * Or we could use others' experiences and name that section "Laboratory", which would also give us an obvious, clear icon to use (laboratory beaker) – Google does this with their experimental options and it has always seemed like a great idea to me. No idea if "rebranding" as this point is still viable – it might be possible, as I don't think it was widely announced yet. But I'm just saying.
(In reply to comment #0) > * We can try renaming the project. We could go with the lowest > friction option and call it "Experimental features", which would be > at least a little better. I think this was rejected in the past because it may include features thought or meant to be stable, just too "new" to be enabled for everyone at once. > > * Or we could use others' experiences and name that section > "Laboratory", which would also give us an obvious, clear icon to use > (laboratory beaker) – Google does this with their experimental > options and it has always seemed like a great idea to me. No idea if "Laboratory" is better than "Beta", they seem equally generic. "Beta" is just the most common way across the web/software industry to brand something as "the last thing" and tell people not to blame you if it breaks something; it doesn't have "a meaning" apart from that. I don't know if "Laboratory" has an equally wide usage/understanding. The main confusion here might be that not all features branded "beta" are controlled by this "beta" general switch; no idea if this is temporary.
Five points: * The language using the term "beta" is intentionally consistent with the Mobile team's beta channel - this is the same concept (and will likely cover Mobile technologies at some point too) and so should be translated the same. * "Experimental" sounds clinical, complicated and confusing in English, which is why it wasn't used. * If you are translating from English into a language that doesn't use the Greek word 'beta', and also does not have an equivalent, calling it "experimental" sounds fine. * The language using the term "features" is intentionally broad, to cover new functionality, new UX approaches to existing functionality, new design concepts, new skins, and other new things. Translations should use a broad, inclusive term to cover all of these. * "Labs" is unfortunately already taken by WMF Labs. It would have been a great name for this, I agree, but that's life. Unless you have a time- machine handy, we can't fix the confusion that naming these the same would cause.
(In reply to comment #0) > Basically, any translation of this will consist solely of > English/Latin loanwords in almost all languages, which may make it > sound "remote" or "unfriendly". And where I said "Latin", what I actually meant was Greek for "beta" and Latin for "function".
We have a lot of poorly named extensions ("Vector" and "AbuseFilter" come to mind). I'm not sure "BetaFeatures" is terrible, though.
Unlike those, BetaFeatures' name can probably still be changed. And we don't have Vector anymore, since I killed it (bug 45051). I still like "Laboratory", but James has a point – even though the same point can be made about "Beta" (I pointed out some examples in comment 0, another would be the beta cluster, ironically also called "beta labs"). Other ideas for a name: something related to "innovation" or "pioneering"? (I quite like the second one, it gives off a nice vibe.)
I'm sorry, MatmaRex, I'd love to think that this was an important bug, but it's really not. I mean, as wonderful as a pioneering-based name would be, it's not like "stop everything and work on this" sort of stuff.
Sure, I just set a high priority since this would be best FIXED or WONTFIXed before deployment, and deployment is happening very soon.
(In reply to comment #2) > * The language using the term "beta" is intentionally consistent with the > Mobile team's beta channel - this is the same concept (and will likely > cover Mobile technologies at some point too) and so should be translated > the same. Excuse me, I can't understand the above paragraph at all :( btw. I posted https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:About_Beta_Features#Name few days back
(In reply to comment #5) > I still like "Laboratory", but James has a point – even though the same point > can be made about "Beta" (I pointed out some examples in comment 0, another > would be the beta cluster, ironically also called "beta labs"). Please, no more Labs/Laboratory names. In Wikimedia land we already have Labs, Tool Labs, IdeaLab, Labs²... > > Other ideas for a name: something related to "innovation" or "pioneering"? > (I quite like the second one, it gives off a nice vibe.) "Proving ground"? No idea how well it translates.
(In reply to comment #9) > "Proving ground"? No idea how well it translates. Sounds like "sandbox".
Face it. These are "Upcoming features". They will be deployed no matter if a few angry users don't like them. These features are coming like the Google+ integration in YouTube. So call it what it really is, please. Be honest, at least. "Beta" doesn't mean anything nowadays. All we do in all Wikimedia projects is "Beta". Nothing will ever be finished.
(In reply to comment #11) > These are "Upcoming features". I actually like this proposal, simple and to the point.
(In reply to comment #11) > Face it. These are "Upcoming features". They will be deployed no matter if a > few angry users don't like them. These features are coming like the Google+ > integration in YouTube. So call it what it really is, please. Be honest, at > least. This comment probably adds more heat than light (punintentional). Both ArticleFeedback and VisualEditor were scaled back following a barrage of negative feedback from their deployments (albeit not without significant cost to Wikimedia community relations...). I'd recommend focusing on specific problems with each of the proposed 'beta' features rather than continuing to 'bikeshed' over the extension name. > "Beta" doesn't mean anything nowadays. All we do in all Wikimedia projects is > "Beta". Nothing will ever be finished. Sure, but I think there may be some value in explicitly marking particularly half-baked ideas or implementations. I think that's more honest. :-)
(In reply to comment #13) > This comment probably adds more heat [...] My comments aren't intended to add something. All I'm trying to do is to find honest words for what's already there. > significant cost to Wikimedia community relations [...] Let me put it that way: If you are being criticized for adding non-requested features why are you adding an other non-requested feature that can be criticized for the exact same reasons? It's not that we don't have a Gadget infrastructure. Why does WMF build a separate one that can't be controlled by the communities and calls it "Beta" instead of what it really is? > I think there may be some value in explicitly marking particularly > half-baked ideas or implementations. I think that's more honest. After looking at the actual implementation of the "Typography Update" I hope you are right. This is not even "Beta". I'm afraid deploying such "half-baked ideas" will make things worse, no matter how you call it.
(In reply to comment #11) > Face it. These are "Upcoming features". They will be deployed no matter if a > few angry users don't like them. Well, yeah. A few angry users don't outweigh the importance of building new, potentially better things for the good of the projects. If we let emotion and a few individual opinions affect our ability to get things done, I doubt even the people we'd appeased by backing out would respect us. Certainly nobody else would, including ourselves. We're not in "beta" because we expect to have to scrap the project. That's almost certainly not going to happen. We deployed to get feedback. Guess what? We got it! And now we're building an even more kickass bunch of projects for the next iteration. (In reply to comment #14) > Why does WMF build a separate one that can't be controlled by > the communities and calls it "Beta" instead of what it really is? Do you want to help maintain these projects? We have infrastructure for that. I'll happily sponsor you for +2 rights on them after a few patches and demonstrating that you're playing nice as a contributor. > After looking at the actual implementation of the "Typography Update" I hope > you are right. This is not even "Beta". I'm afraid deploying such "half-baked > ideas" will make things worse, no matter how you call it. If you're concerned, file a bug against it and make noise there. This isn't the arena for that discussion. And now I'm going to hit "save changes", and hopefully be able to talk about this bug instead of some topic that doesn't belong here.
(In reply to comment #0) > Just WONTFIX the bug if we can't do anything about it. If we hadn't gotten rid of it, I think this bug would be a reasonable case for using resolved/later ("later" being "until such a time that a better name is available for discussion"). As it is, I think this bug should be marked resolved/worksforme (not resolved/wontfix), though as I said in comment 4, I don't have the same visceral reaction to the name that you do. :-)
(In reply to comment #16) > (In reply to comment #0) > > Just WONTFIX the bug if we can't do anything about it. > > As it is, I think this bug should be marked resolved/worksforme > (not resolved/wontfix), though as I said in comment 4, I don't > have the same visceral reaction to the name that you do. :-) Your wish is my command. :-) We may wish to revisit this later, however.
It is frustrating to see how the original issue, i.e. how to translate the name of that feature into other languages, is addressed. I'll take a liberty to name it as I find appropriate in my language, then - just don't force me into "please communicate with the community" thing when the issue should be fixed in messages/ui/translations and not into wasted time explaining to surprised users, what Beta Features are.
(In reply to comment #18) > It is frustrating to see how the original issue, i.e. how to translate the > name of that feature into other languages, is addressed. Are extension names ever translated? I believe the canonical (English) name is always used when referring to the extension name itself. For interface messages, we should use what makes the most sense in whatever language is being used, of course. That languages other than English don't contain the word "beta" is a non-issue: they also don't contain words like "category" or "visual" or whatever else. We approximate based on the intended meaning and context (e.g., by substituting "experimental" for "beta"). Again, this isn't to say that we'll never change the extension's name, but I don't think _not_ doing so is an insult to non-English speakers.
I wonder how many native English speakers in different ages/gender/geographical/technical ability distributions will be able to guess what the "Beta Feature" is. It is an IT slang that pretends it went mainstream, that's all.
(In reply to comment #19) > Are extension names ever translated? I believe the canonical (English) name > is > always used when referring to the extension name itself. Surely not. There is no general rule for this (every language's translators coordinate as do as they see fit), but most extensions "are" special pages and it is standard to translate the name of the special page/extension: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Special_pages#The_Messages.2FInternationalization_File In Special:Version, the name shown is not what "used when referring to the extension" but a quotation, as shown by the italics. You could also try an ack-grep "\-desc" /mnt/user-store/git/extensions and try to find out how many translate the name when it's used in it, but in general the name lives elsewhere.
As suggested at <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/design/2013-November/001200.html>, we could rename the extension "FeaturesFeedback". :-)
