MediaWiki talk:Rollbacklinkcount

Protected edit request on 5 September 2020

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please remove the colon from "rollback" as rollback is being used as a verb. Because we are rolling back X number of edits. This can also be done by deleting the page to restore the default. A a s i m 03:40, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree. That's the default, so it can just be deleted. Same goes for MediaWiki:Rollbacklinkcount-morethan. Courtesy ping David Levy. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome Aasim and Amorymeltzer:

We are, indeed, rolling back x number of edits (wherein "rolling back" is the verb form). This results in a rollback of x number of edits (wherein "rollback" is the noun form).

Treating "rollback" as a verb would we mean that we're "rollbacking" (not "rolling back") the edits.

It wouldn't surprise me if some people do say that. I certainly don't advocate prescriptivism over pragmatism, but I'm unaware of any confusion arising from the current formatting. Irrespective of what verb is used, the end result is a rollback, the noun form appearing throughout Wikipedia's documentation. As in the encyclopedia proper, commonality is a desirable trait (because it maximizes clarity).

Is the use of a colon causing some sort of a problem? If so, alternatives other than the default (whose use of the present tense is inconsistent with similar reversion messages used at Wikipedia) exist. Example:

Roll back $1 edits

Thoughts? —David Levy 19:40, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback is a command you are giving to the computer (in this case, to a big server). Just like "Cut", "Copy", and "Paste" are also computer commands. Maybe we can change it to "Revert $1 edit(s)" here, "Revert more than $1 edit(s)" here, and "Revert" at MediaWiki:Rollbacklink. Or we can just keep it at "Rollback" and delete the two interface pages. A a s i m 20:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware that "rollback" is a computer command, but most users of Wikipedia aren't computer programmers/technicians. When feasible, public-facing messages should document actions (not the commands that trigger them) via widely understandable terminology.

Unlike "cut", "copy", and "paste", "rollback" isn't commonly used as a verb in the English language. Doing so is potentially confusing to persons unacquainted with technical jargon. Conversely, the noun form makes sense across the board.

"Revert" addresses the grammatical issue, but it's relatively vague. We've long treated "rollback" as a distinct type of reversion, wherein all consecutive edits to a page by a particular user are reverted simultaneously (in stark contrast with "undoing" an edit, another type of reversion listed alongside this option). Such specificity is less important after the fact (e.g., in edit summaries) than it is here.

To clarify, is the use of a colon causing some sort of a problem? If so, would "roll back" present any issues? (Note that my "rolled back" suggestion was a typo, which I've corrected above.) —David Levy 21:28, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is more of a stylistic thing... We do not have to implement it if you do not want to, and it would be a big timewaste to try to get mass consensus on this issue. So we can leave it the way it is. :) A a s i m 20:29, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]