Help talk:Minor edit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
the Wikipedia Help Project  
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of the Wikipedia Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the help menu or help directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.
 ???  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This page has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

should dummy edits be recommended?[edit]

"If you accidentally mark an edit as minor when it was in fact a major edit, you should make a second edit, or dummy edit, noting in the dummy's edit summary that the previous edit was major. As a trivial edit to be made for this purpose, just opening the edit box and saving (i.e. changing nothing) will not work. (...) However, one can, for example, add an extra space between two words. This will be preserved in the wikitext and recorded as a change, although it will not change the page's appearance when rendered."

This proposition makes me cringe a little. Rendered or not, the tidiness of an articles wikitext has value, too. It can be argued that such tidiness should have precedence over the placement of a meta flag in the history. At least such edits should not be recommended explicitly. -- Theoprakt (talk) 08:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I share your concern about the tidiness of wikitext, but I would argue the other way: marking an edit as minor has several consequences – it's worth correcting if it was so marked by mistake. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I have always read add an extra space between two words as removing an extraneous space. There are always some wayward spaces at the end of lines, or extra blank lines at the end of the article or around dashes. Maybe the suggestion should be altered accordingly? —EncMstr (talk) 15:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm a little late to this discussion, but the way I see it, dummy edits can sometimes be very useful in achieving civility. I've made them to say "sorry, I messed up before and you were right to correct me" in my edit summary. In my opinion, the benefit of doing something like that outweighs the very minor harm of an extra space somewhere. And I've noticed that there are some users who seem to enjoy going around and copy-editing those extra spaces out, not to mention bots that take care of them. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
I also share your concern, and was thinking that reverting the erroneously marked edit then re-adding the new content, now properly flagged, should be a cleaner solution. koszik (talk) 01:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Quotation marks[edit]

Shouldn't ' folie des grandeurs ' be in quotation marks? --Jleer1 (talk) 11:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

It's already in italics. I'm not seeing a need for quote marks as well, unless I'm missing something. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to standardise message[edit]

I have started a proposal to standardise the text for the 'minor edit' checkbox at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Three different minor edit messages. --John Vandenberg (chat) 09:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Minor edits as standard in my preferences[edit]

I want to mark all my edits as minor edits. How can I change my preferences to click v = This is a minor edit below the edit box as standard? Here Help:Minor edit I didn't found an explanation. Could you add some words there too? Thanks --Frze > talk 08:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

This can be done with JavaScript, see the archived discussion and code examples in this archived section. But I don't know if the help page should mention this, since it was the community's decision to remove this option from the standard set of preferences. -- John of Reading (talk) 13:49, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Any chance of this decision being revisited? How about having two choices in the Edit Summary: "This is a o major o minor edit" (those 'o's are radio buttons.) This could be set initially in the site preferences and "overridden" in user preferences. At the site level, a new preference would be added: "Require edit weight choice" true or false, which, if true, would require one of the two settings to be chosen rather than a default choice being allowed. This is IMHO superior to the current situation since those site admins who care about contributors making a conscious decision would have a new mechanism for enforcing that. Those sites where the admins do not care so much about this level of granularity could allow users to create a default setting.

--Anyoneis (talk) 18:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2014[edit]

The wheel was not "invented" by the human he copied the scarab beetle that was the only animal that could roll things, this explains why the scarab beetle was holy in ancient Egypt and some other cultures. Sevenard (talk) 16:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Help:Minor edit. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. You will need to provide some reliable sources that discuss this idea. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Planning on adding "Removing spam" to section saying when it's appropriate to mark an edit as minor[edit]

I noticed that in the section saying when it's appropriate to mark an edit as minor, removing spam is not specifically mentioned. I am not sure if it falls under vandalism or not. That is why I won't add "Removing spam" to that section any earlier than 12:00 PM (UTC-4) on March 10. I won't add it period if someone has a problem with me doing so or if I learn that spam is a form of vandalism. Jesant13 (talk) 02:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I have a problem with it. "Removing spam" is too subjective to mark as a minor edit. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
What if I put "Removing spam per the information in Wikipedia:Spam" or something like that? That way it would refer to "spam" as something on that page, versus something someone doesn't want to see which they call "spam". Jesant13 (talk) 04:42, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
There is still too much room for interpretation. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I've decided not to add what I suggested. If I ever do come across spam I will try to remember to not mark it as a minor edit. Jesant13 (talk) 05:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2014[edit]

Almar12345 (talk) 18:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Empty request. —KuyaBriBriTalk 18:18, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Translation Dillemna[edit]

ADD Trasnlation to its correct place to the list, minor or non minor.

E.G: "He attended the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL)."

"He attended the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne."

Is this a minor edit; when the essence of meaning does not change? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zkrjebril92 (talkcontribs) 21:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

That edit could safely be marked minor. But I don't want to add it to the list of examples, as it is not a common edit, and we want to keep the example list short. Remember – if you're ever in doubt, it's always safe not to mark an edit as minor. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 09:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Is adding a category a minor edit?[edit]

Is adding a category a minor edit? Thisisnotatest (talk) 23:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

That depends, a lot. As has been said before here, if in doubt, don't mark an edit as minor. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:12, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Does redirect categorization qualify as minor?[edit]

Assume, of course, that the target of the redirect is not changed in the same edit.

In regard to "Adding or removing visible tags or other templates in an article," the key words are "visible tags." Redirect categories are applied via templates ("tags"), but they are not normally visible to an average reader, as the redirect=no query parameter would need to be inserted manually. Does the redirect=no feature need to be considered as an avenue of "visib[ility]" for the purposes of this guideline? --SoledadKabocha (talk) 07:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Project assessment[edit]

WikiProject assessment from nothing to some level can be considered as a minor edit? It doesn't really change the content of the article, but it would bring the article out from the unassessed category. Any views? OccultZone (Talk) 00:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Marking an edit as minor means that the edit you are making is superficial on the page you're on, not the respective article in the case of talk pages. I would say assessing an article is non-minor, as it's relatively important and editors watching the article would be potentially interested. You're not just bringing the article out of the unassessed category, but you are also reviewing the article's quality. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
@SuperHamster: You've just redefined the definition of minor edit. OccultZone (Talk) 00:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
@OccultZone: Hmm...how so? Just learned about pinging someone with Template:Yo...I like it. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree with what you have written, that reviewing the article's quality cannot be considered as minor edit. On same post, you have also redefined the definition of WP assessment. OccultZone (Talk) 00:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
In that case, I ask the same question - how so? ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:56, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
That people might be interested in viewing the updated rating of an article, as some people do enable the option from preferences, it ignores minor edits. OccultZone (Talk) 01:55, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Exactly, so reviewing an article on the quality scale should not be marked as minor, so editors who do hide minor edits will be able to see it. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Eh, I'm pretty confused now. Is there someplace that says that article assessments are considered to be minor edits? If not, looks like we're on the same page. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I, too, am similarly confused. User:OccultZone suggested initially (althought the grammar is a bit unclear there) that entering a WikiProject assessment on an article's talk page could be considered a minor edit. User:SuperHamster disagreed (as do I). Then OccultZone agrees with SuperHamster, going against the premise of her/his initial remark. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Michael Bednarek: It is pretty easy. I asked a question, I got the answer, and I agreed with the answer. I have fixed unclear part for you. OccultZone (Talk) 06:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2014[edit]

109.127.86.2 (talk) 01:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)