"Force Write" is a scary name for a plugin.

[quequotion]

I'm not reporting a bug about quodlibet or the plugin's fuctionality, just this string:

http://postimg.org/image/dyby69nsx/

The description sounds like overwrite to me, while force write has the connotation that files will be written even in case of error.

Unless that is actually the case (quodlibet forces a write-to-disk operation disregarding failure), "Overwrite" (quodlibet writes to files the traditional way, disregarding only that they already exist) sounds better to me.

[lazka]

It just writes the tags as if a tag was changed in the editor.

[declension]

Yeah, I see what the OP is saying. Perhaps flush or synchroni(s|z)e would convey the intention better, but they're not exactly user friendly either...

[quequotion]

I'd go with synchronize of the two; flush (dump data to disk) is sort of jargon in this sense and could be misinterpreted. Synchronize has an en-* problem; overwrite feels somewhat jargon as well.

thesaurus:
transcribe, overtype, crush, run over

On top of this, I don't think end-users {want to be, are} aware that tags are written separately to the database and (not) to the files to begin with while I understand the need to default to not risking people's files--writes are vulnerable, even if the plugin doesn't have bugs.

[CreamyCookie]

I would rather be more verbose and name it something like "Write tags to files" or "Update tags in files".

[quequotion]

Cookie's idea has the best ring to it. "Write tags to files" is very clear, and not at all scary.

[declension]

+1 for Update tags in files - and prefer it to write as it indicates the repeatable nature of the action a bit better IMO.

[lazka]

Sounds good.