As Chesterman (2018: 17) points out, translation is “a quintessential lumper concept, covering an ever-expanding range of activities.” The same is true of interpreting and revision. Indeed, each of these three modes has such an astoundingly high number of varieties that Translation Studies may no longer be able to make universal claims about language mediation. A potential solution is prototype theory as translation, interpreting, and revision are usually discussed in a prototypical sense in both lay parlance and academic discourse. The imprecision of ordinary language has long been known and does not cause much of a problem but Translation Studies as a form of scholarly communication should be as accurate as possible. There is no need to overspecify translation, interpreting, and revision each time mention is made of any or all of them, as that would result in cumbersome prose. However, it seems reasonable to consider and cite the atypical meanings of any form of language mediation before making sweeping generalisations. To quote Toury (1995: 29), the nature of translation is not given or fixed in any way. Thus, all utterances presented or regarded as translations within the target culture, on no matter what grounds, are assumed translations. Prototype theory applied to translation typology hopefully reminds researchers of this tenet.