About [[MediaWiki:Rollbacklinkcount/en]] and [[MediaWiki:Rollbacklinkcount-morethan/en]]
Jan Luca:
There is no problem on the technical side (change of < 10 code line) but I prefer the current version.
If there are more support for your version I could change the code.
I can only stress that "rollback x edits" is not correct English. The meaning is understandable, but the grammar is nonstandard.
I'm mindful of the fact that this is a multilingual project, and I certainly don't wish to impose any changes that would adversely affect wikis operating in languages other than English. (I don't know whether that's an issue.)
If the phrase "Rollback x edits" is in connection with an instruction to the computer to carry out a rollback action on x edits, then "rollback" is being used as a verb, and no colon is needed. The exact context of the message is however not clear from the explanation above. Could you supply a link to an example of the message in action, or a screenshot?
According to the definition to which Jan Luca linked, the verb form of "rollback" refers specifically to the restoration of a database to a previously defined state (which isn't what's occurring in this context).
Regardless, these messages are intended for wiki editors in general and refer to an action that they take, not to the underlying technical effect. In mainstream English, "rollback" is a noun (meaning "act or instance of rolling back"). The verb form is computer jargon unfamiliar to most people and irrelevant to their editorial decisions.
Thank you for the screenshots. I have also read the message documentation. It seems that this is a link; if a user clicks on it, the computer undoes x edits. It needs a verb, not a noun, and the technical term for this action is "rollback".
I am not very technically minded myself, but I can work out that the verb "to rollback" is connected to the noun "rollback"; if I know the meaning of one, I can guess the meaning of the other. As it stands in the screenshot, I interpret "rollback" as a verb, but if the colon was added I would be confused. So I agree with Jan Luca that no colon should be added.
I agree that, both as a noun and as a verb, "rollback" sounds like jargon, but cannot find an everyday, short alternative which precisely conveys what will happen when the link is clicked.
Is there a problem that lots of users are clicking on the link, not realising that they are going to delete x edits, (irreversibly?)? If so, would any of the following carry the correct meaning, without being ambiguous:
- revert $1 edits
- undo the latest $1 edits
- perform rollback action on $1 edits
Thanks very much for your thoughtful and detailed reply.
I've always interpreted the "rollback" link (to which the quantity of edits was just added) as a noun, but I respect your interpretation and certainly don't wish to cause any confusion. I also appreciate your point regarding the benefit of using a verb for this purpose.
So as an alternative, I suggest "roll back $1 edits". That's the action to which the noun "rollback" conventionally refers. It retains the familiar terminology and eliminates the ambiguity.
Does that seem okay to you?
If the English source is to be amended, we should also amend MediaWiki:Rollbacklink/en which appears on the recent changes page and which also serves as a 'one-click' link/submit button.
How is the message MediaWiki:Rollback short/en used? There is no qqq for it.
MediaWiki:Rollback short/en is not used.
First could be ok (although "rollback" has a very specific meaning in MediaWiki), second would be confused with the "undo" function, third is way too verbose. I've no idea what's best for English, but "rollback" is bound to be jargon (perhaps jargon that any sysop should know? no idea) and for instance it's not translated in Italian, for which reason I consider it a noun in this message which otherwise would be untranslatable (loanword verb + object is unacceptable).
In Welsh we have chosen to use a Welsh verb which conveys the meaning of "rollback". If you want to leave the word "rollback" as it is, couldn't you rephrase this as "do 'rollback' on $1 edits"? That would at least mean that the command nature of the link is clear, and consistent with all other links which are also submit buttons. Would that really be unacceptably long in Italian?
My ideas were:
"Rollback $1 edits of last editor" "Roll back $1 edits of last editor"
This should show that the $1 edits are the edits of the last editor. But I would be careful with changing the word "Rollback" because it is used some time now and a change of it could cause confusion.
I doubt that "roll back" would confuse anyone familiar with the "rollback" link (at least in English). It's the conventional verb form of exactly the same term (with an added space as the only spelling difference), so it's easily recognizable.
I'm not sure that the "of last editor" part is necessary, unless it's common for wikis to provide access to the function by default. (At the wikis with which I'm familiar, it's available strictly to sysops and other trusted editors, all of whom should understand its nature in advance.)
If such an addition is made, "by this user" would make more sense, as the message always appears alongside the relevant editor's name or IP address. (This also avoids the "edits"/"editor" redundancy.)
In summary, I believe that the two best options are as follows:
- "Roll back $1 edits"
- "Roll back $1 edits by this user"
The link does have a tooltip associated with it - Tooltip-rollback (“"Rollback" reverts the last contributor's edit(s) to this page in one click”).