Last modified: 2014-11-17 10:36:11 UTC
(Split from bug 43272 comment #13) > Yes I would prefer changing it everywhere where it is used, and it can be > done > as separate thing. We already have similar case for sysop -> Administrator so > it is possible. The problem is that we don't have a non-jargon term for "autoconfirmed", for the very good reason that all community members are supposed to be autoconfirmed, although some wikis are more restrictive than others and stretch the concept a bit more (too much). We have some established terms for non-autoconfirmed, though: 'newbie' (also valid in code), [[m:Newly registered user]]. In core: 'group-autoconfirmed' => 'Autoconfirmed users', 'group-autoconfirmed-member' => '{{GENDER:$1|autoconfirmed user}}', 'grouppage-autoconfirmed' => '{{ns:project}}:Autoconfirmed users', 'protect-level-autoconfirmed' => 'Block new and unregistered users', Note that Wikimedia projects also have a "confirmed" group by default (that can be added by stewards).
Bug 43272 suggested "Established users" as a replacement for Autoconfirmed. Note that newbie is everyone not autoconfirmed (or with an equivalent access permission), defined as such by core mediawiki (User::isNewbie). It is also mentioned in: 'group-autoconfirmed.css' => '/* CSS placed here will affect autoconfirmed users only */', # only translate this message to other languages if you have to change it 'group-autoconfirmed.js' => '/* Any JavaScript here will be loaded for autoconfirmed users only */', # only translate this message to other languages if you have to change it Although those entries are more technical.
It's definitely jargon, and probably somewhat unfriendly to new users. A term like "established" could be better, but we need to make clear that it still has a special technical meaning (not just a subjective view of who is established) Also, we would need to decide about the confirmed group. Do we distinguish "established" and "autoestablished", or perhaps "manuallyestablished" and "established"?
This is a personal preference but... I find manuallyestablished an ugly word :)
I agree. :) It wasn't meant to be an ideal term, but mainly food for thought. However, "confirmed" (the current equivalent to "manuallyestablished") isn't used that much in practice, so the term doesn't need to be perfect.
"Confirmed" isn't used much, but perhaps should be used more; in my experience, very few know what it is about. Clearer terms would surely be a good thing.
Perhaps the User Experience team might have some ideas.
