Help talk:Edit summary

protect?

If this page shouldn't be edited, why isn't it protected??martianlostinspace 17:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Protection should always be used with caution. It is not exactly considered a high risk page nor has it experienced huge amounts of vandalism or edit warring. At the moment I doubt that it really needs any protection.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 00:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Poet gal is right, protecting pages only happens in extreme cases of vandalism. Any changes every once and a while can just be reverted. Arjun 20:29, 13 January 2007 (UdsfasdTC)

suggestion

Why not make this near compulsory? Simply south 15:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a complicated issue, because there are some occasions when leaving it blank may be temporarily permissible, such as if the change was "urgent" due to vandalism or copyright violation (although a simple rv still doesn't hurt, and in the case of the latter, admins should definitely be alerted). Also, we don't want to discourage those first few tentative steps every newbie editor makes by over-complicating things with instructions that relate primarily to the slightly more esoteric world of maintenance and convenience, rather than content. Perhaps, though, it would make sense to have it be near-compulsory for all editors with a certain degree of experience, or at the very least, to have a committee (if there isn't one already) give editors who repeatedly leave blank/obscure summaries a gentle nudge towards this page. $\sim$ Lenoxus " * " 22:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest a bot that looks for editors who have made greater than some number of edits, say 25, and have a high rate of edits with no summary, say more than 50%, and puts a message on their talk page pointing them here. Short of that, a template for the talk page that editors could manually place might be nice. --Ccrrccrr (talk) 15:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

{{subst:uw-es}} is the template you're looking for. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 02:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!! Would it make sense to put it in a section about it towards the end of the article? Or at least put it in the "see also" list? Ccrrccrr (talk) 21:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, yes, it is worth mentioning here. Since it's not crucial for new users to know about, I've added it to See also. I think your idea of a bot merits discussion; you might try raising it at Wikipedia:Bot requests – but remember to search the archives first. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 05:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. There was a brief discussion in Wikipedia:Bot_requests/Archive_17#Edit_Summary. Most of the discussion was rejecting the idea of a bot-generated edit summary, but one concern was raised about an auto warning to editors who are working on an essay or something within their own namespace in which case an edit summary isn't really called for. Some thought would be required about how a bot might distinguish. --Ccrrccrr (talk) 11:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems there are several other templates:

• Template:Summary2 Short paragraph summarizing guidelines.
• Template:Summary Detailed how-to for new editors.
• Template:Editsummary Brief, friendly "don't forget".

While I'm summarizing,

• Template:Editsummary Brief, formal, "don't forget".

--Ccrrccrr (talk) 11:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Hmmm... didn't get much discussion last time, possibly because the suggester combined it with another suggestion that was impossible. You could always try bringing it up again. The objection raised is easily circumvented – any such bot should restrict its attention to non-minor edits made in the main article space. It also might ignore an editor in their first few days or first few dozen edits, so as to avoid discouraging a new contributor with a non-critical notice. Ideally it might even check that the words "edit summary" don't appear in a recent post on the user's talk page, and perhaps ignore edits made to stubs or pages to which few editors have made non-minor edits and are thus unlikely to be being watched anyway. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 12:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Oddity

I edited a page (Big Brain Academy) a minute ago and didn't give an edit summary. However, i checked back and it said "(4,984 bytes)" is there a reason? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 06018 (talk) 12:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

Never mind Andrew Marsden 07:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's software generally gives the page size, in bytes, with every edit. Don't panic about not giving an edit summary - they're useful but if you forget, it's no problem. --h2g2bob (talk) 08:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Annoying

I accidentally hit this little link, which is located mere millimeters away from the Edit This Page button, and I lost my entire page when I was just about to enter an edit summary. Why must it be #1: placed there, and #2: linked? I'm sure this has happened to other users, and I would make a suggestion of moving the link somewhere else. Bmrbarre 00:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Usually hitting the "back" browser button should allow you to recover the text, unless your browser does not do caching. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I lose it all. It goes back to the edit page, but nothing that I had typed is still there. Ben 18:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

So I guess your browser does not do caching. Firefox does it by default, don't know about other browsers. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm just saying that they're annoying for some people, notably me, and that the placement is horrendous and has cost me several hours of time. Benjamin 02:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

On talk pages too?

Should comments on talk pages have edit summaries? --Apoc2400 08:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It could be nice, but it is not so important as in article pages, and they don't have to be so detailed. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit an edit summary?

Is there a way to edit one's own edit summary? For example, sometimes I realize after I make an edit that I could have done the summary better, but I've never found any mention of how to change one. -Eric ^(talk) 20:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You can't edit an edit summary after you hit save, in the same way as you can't edit the history of an article. All you can do is make another edit (perhaps a dummy one, like inserting an extra space at the end of a sentence) where you can make more precise the edit summary for the previous edit. They two edit summaries will both show up in the history next to each other. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Oleg. I wonder if it would be difficult to add the option for an editor to alter his/her summary. I don't know where to bring up questions regarding the underlying functionality of Wikipedia. -Eric ^(talk) 03:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Try asking at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). But I doubt this would ever be implemented, because, on principle, records already in the history should not be modified. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay--thanks again, Oleg. I entered an enhancement request on Bugzilla (no. 10723) to see what the developers think. -Eric ^(talk) 16:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Because anyone who's not a faggot already uses firefox. Fuck you for using an inferior browser, faggot. Think about this pain next time you decide to start up IE or whatever shitty browser you use. 65.78.144.196 (talk) 08:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Links in the edit summary?

Hi, I have been trying to include links in the edit summary, but I can't make it work. I read the article Edit summary, but I don't seem to find what is going on. See a few failed attempts on 27-aug-2007. Can anyone help me here? TIA, DVdm 09:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Problem solved. Thanks, Tim. DVdm 09:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to know how to include links in the edit summary, but so far have failed to figure it out. Phlar (talk) 04:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Page doesn't look right at all

I'm using Firefox 2.0.0.11 and the main page has a large gap between the first line and the summary box. Does anybody else see this? Is there a fix? Stillwaterising (talk) 11:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC) Page appearance depends on display page width. Narrow screens push the image to below the right TOC. Can't edit? hmm...

I edited the page to show 575 pixels of the image instead of the full 595 pixels, which solved the problem. Parker2334 20:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Suggesting a new section: what NOT to put in edit summaries

Hi everybody,

Recently I've been experiencing that some editors put messages towards others in their edit summaries. I, in my most humble opinion, find that unnecessary, let alone if that is a personal attack or an offensive stance ([1], [2], [3]). I don't know how others feel about this, but maybe the guide lines should be updated. I also posted this at WP:Help desk. --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 12:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your sentiments, but I am not clear exactly what you are proposing. In the section "Use of edit summaries in disputes", Help:Edit summary already says "Edit summaries should accurately and succinctly summarize the nature of the edit, especially if it could be controversial ... Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content or to express opinions of the other users involved". Are you proposing different or additional wording, or are you proposing that this text should be moved to a more prominent position ? Gandalf61 (talk) 12:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The latter. Right now its on the bottom of the meta page. Perhaps it could be moved, like you said, to a more prominent place? By being stricter on breaking the rules on these guide lines it could be helpful as well (i.e., giving official warnings for continuing a discussion by edit summaries). --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 12:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Where should this section be moved to? Keep in mind that the help pages, except for their local subpages, shouldn't be edited with local information. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Summary box missing in Chrome

Hi,

I've been using Google Chrome for a while now, but have recently noticed that the edit summary text box is missing (the label "Edit Summary" is present). Any ideas?

—MDCollins (talk) 10:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried to completely clear your cache? PrimeHunter (talk) 10:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

You, my friend, are a genius. Fantastic suggestion!...nearly... I deleted the cache, then forced a reload of the page with F5 etc, the summary box appeared, until the page loaded completely and now it's gone again. Even the instructions (in the parenthesis after the Edit summary header link have gone.—MDCollins (talk) 02:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you have MonoBook (default) as skin under Appearance at Special:Preferences? I don't have Chrome. Do you see the edit summary box when you are logged out in Chrome? When you are logged in with another browser? If it's not missing when you are logged out in Chrome then you could try to clear all or parts of User:Mdcollins1984/monobook.css and User:Mdcollins1984/monobook.js in case one of the items cause some conflict. You can easily restore the content afterwards from the page history. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

If Chrome won't work properly, you could try Mozilla Firefox, another free browser. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 12:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I love Chrome over mozilla, its light weight and simple, and I have set wikipedia as an application in Chrome (a feature unique to Chrome), but the issue is the Edit Summary box doesn't appear where it should, it works fine with all the other browsers. Is this a problem Chrome or is it a problem with the wiki code base? Can anyone help me fix it? No Edit Summary for this post!!! NëŧΜǒńğer^{Peace Talks} 05:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I have downloaded Google Chrome 2.0.172.39 on Windows Vista to test this and it works for me. The edit summary box is there whether I'm logged out or in and whether I do a page edit or section edit. What do you have? Does it work when you log out? PrimeHunter (talk) 12:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit summary for edits that a part of a series

Could we introduce some way to mark edits as part of a larger series? It often happens that someone makes a number of substantial edits, but the last edit is simply a minor typo fix. Everyone will only see that minor typo fix in their watchlists, and decide it's not worth the effort to check what was done. If the editor would mark his edits somehow, it would be easy to see that more has happened than is visible in the watchlist:

• Added more information about X
• Removed information about Y (series)
• Minor typo fix (series)

This would make watchlists much more useful. Offliner (talk) 09:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Often the editors will not know whether they make more edits later. At Special:Preferences under the Watchlist tab there is the option "Expand watchlist to show all changes, not just the most recent". PrimeHunter (talk) 12:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The first edit should not be marked (see the example above), so there's no need to know whether they are going to make edits later or not. Offliner (talk) 12:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone object to making this change to the page? Offliner (talk) 16:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

You're going to try to mandate that people start including the word "(series)" in their edit summary? Why not just take PrimeHunter's advice? –xeno^talk 16:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I object. If you only have the most recent edit on your watchlist then you still wouldn't catch cases where two editors have edited the page since you last saw the watchlist. And lots of editors would not add "(series)" when they make more than one edit just because a page somewhere has a recommended practice about it (think of all the editors who make no edit summary at all), so the system would be unreliable. I don't think it's worth flooding page histories with "(series)". PrimeHunter (talk) 20:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course not everyone would use it, probably only a few at first, but it would still be a step in better direction. It would make the default watchlist more efficient, so that people don't have to check the history to see if it was just a single edit or a series, or use the longer watchlist. I think this would be a harmless suggestion to include on this page, and would have only benefits. Offliner (talk) 20:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't only have benefits – it's instruction creep which we try to avoid for these reasons. We want to keep contributing to Wikipedia as simple as we can so as not to overwhelm or put off contributors. For it to be worth adding a new instruction we wanted everyone to follow would require a very big benefit indeed. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 02:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

"For it to be worth adding a new instruction we wanted everyone to follow would require a very big benefit indeed" - yes, but I never suggested we should make this a rule. What I'm looking for is an accepted and standardized way for marking an edit as part of a series, for those who wish to do so. Offliner (talk) 03:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

But I don't see how it would be useful at all if it were an optional extra, and not a requirement. Consider the possibilities: (1) The last edit is a minor edit marked (series). Thus you want to check the other edits, which may be non-minor. (2) The last edit is a minor edit not marked (series). You still want to check the other edits, which may be non-minor, since marking with (series) is not something all editors are expected to do. And even if every single editor used (series), you'd still want to check the other edits, since they might have been made by different editors (PrimeHunter's point above). I don't see the benefit. (I use expanded watchlist, so apologies if I'm missing something... I'm just going by your first post.) Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 04:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't have time to check every edit in my watchlist, and the expanded watchlist is just too huge to be useful. Consequently, I sometimes disregard an edit (thinking it was nothing important), and only notice a long time afterwards that it was actually part of a series which changed the article substantially. Even if just one editor would mark his edit series, that would be helpful. Also, we do not know how many editors would be willing to use this, unless we suggest it somewhere. Your argumentation "it's not useful since it won't always help" seems to miss the point: even a small improvement is an improvement. By your logic we should also drop the recommendation to mark reverts with ("rv"), since not everyone does that either, and thus one cannot rely on it. Offliner (talk) 04:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand your problem with watchlists, but I'm afraid I still don't understand how (series) marking would help. Perhaps you could provide a specific hypothetical example in which seeing (series) in an edit summary (or not) would make you check an edit you otherwise wouldn't have, or vice versa. On a related note, if you're watchlist is getting too big, are you aware you can remove pages using this page? Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 05:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Aha – I just thought of something. If you click "my preferences" at the top of the page, then choose the tab labelled "Watchlist", you can tick a box labelled "Hide minor edits from the watchlist". If I've understood your last post correctly, I think that will alleviate your problem greatly. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 05:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

If you still don't understand, that's fine, but I'm not going to repeat myself. Offliner (talk) 07:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be easier for everyone if the dev team could slap together an expandable, tree-view, sortable watchlist (with timestamps). --King Öomie 13:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Searching not supported on principle?

Hello,

I wonder if there's some kind of policy reason for not allowing searching of edit summaries, or is it just that nobody has bothered to implement it yet. If the latter, is there a place to propose/discuss/help with adding it? Thanks! -- 92.229.120.251 (talk) 13:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

FT outdated?

In the case of a small addition to an article, it is highly recommended to copy the full text of this addition to the summary field, giving a maximum of information with a minimum of effort. Put ft in front, as an abbreviation of "full text" (see the Abbreviations section for other abbreviations). This way, readers of the summary will be unlikely to check the page itself as they already know the extent of the edit.

Do people actually put "ft" in front of their? I can't say I've ever seen it done. It would seem fine for Wikipedia:Edit summary legend but not necessarily deserving of a spotlight here. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 12:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I've never seen it done either, but it does sound like good advice to follow. -- œ^™ 01:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

There's an easy way to answer Amory's question. Disable enhanced watchlist; view recent changes; set to show the last 500; use the browser's find function to find "ft"; identify whether any of these stand for "full text". I did this five times this weekend, screening 2,500 edits. The number that used this abbreviation was zero. None. Nada. This surprised me, as I use it myself. I agree that this is sensible advice, but given that it's not being followed anyway, and also given the size of this guideline, I'd support moving it to Wikipedia:Edit summary legend. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 05:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Since it's already listed there I removed the suggestion from this page. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Hi RD232, recent edits have made this article look a lot cleaner, all good :) Not sure if you wanted some more to go on .. but on a cursory glance..L∴V 11:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• I like the way the article is splitting the basics in the first and the more complex details following.
• Image: On my browser the edit summary looks different, text is in bold to the left of the text box.
• How about adding a couple of common examples for new users , eg 'grammar', 'fixed spelling/typo', that sort of thing?

thanks. There may be differences between skins, probably. Examples might be handy, especially if we put them a bit out of the way on the right using {{Quote box2}} say. Rd232 ^talk 13:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

After a bit of playing found that it is to do with the width of the browser window, after a certain width the text drops down beside the input box ... also as I reduce the size the 'cancel' and 'editing help' drop down below the buttons. Oh dear - a bit tricky - if we show the wide version and someone uses a narrow screen, the image quality is going to suffer ... hmmm L∴V 15:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit summary interface

I know this isn't really the place, but editors to this page will have looked at this subject, so it'd be a good place to get some second opinions. Had a couple of ideas to make the interface simpler whilst reading this page. These are directed at the the edit window:L∴V 11:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Add a 'what's this'/'?' link to the text 'Edit summary' which points to this page {akin to the minor edits 'what's this'.
• Have the edit summary Initialy filled in with something like 'please enter a brief description of the intention of your edit here'. This removes the need for subtext from the 'edit summary' label) and also makes it a bit clearer to new users what and where to enter text.
• Conformaty - When editing talk pages the edit summary is shown in same place ( maybe duplicating text from top automatically ) - although I suspect that the subject/headline is actually the edit summary hidden with different labelling.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no consensus. @harej 01:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Help:Edit summary → Wikipedia:Edit summary — - The Help: namespace is generally reserved for information on how to achieve desired effects, not on community norms and best practices, which go in WP: space. This page contains significant information of the latter kind, and so should be moved to the other namespace. (It could be considered for guideline status in fact.) --Kotniski (talk) 09:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment but it is a help page... you get it when you click on the "Edit Summary" link on top of the edit summary textbox... The guideline just sits there by default... 76.66.194.183 (talk) 03:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment We have an ongoing related discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Help_Project#Guideline_for_namespace, still in progress. Currently if it is a guideline should be in WP:, if it is uncontentious help HELP: if neither then an essay and back to WP: again. I'll add the results of this discussion request to the discussion. Lee∴V (talk • contribs)
• Comment. I'd say it should formally be a guideline (and hence in WP: space), because the key point (fill in edit summaries) is widely thought of as good practice. The alternative would be splitting the guideline bit (WP:Fill In Edit Summaries), but that would just be silly, wouldn't it? Rd232 ^talk 12:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes.--Kotniski (talk) 12:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

If we are saying it should be a guideline (and hence WP space) shouldn't we actually be going through the guideline process, rather than a move request ? Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 13:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't have to be a guideline as such to be in WP space. But the nature of its content (assertions about good practice) is inappropriate for Help space.--Kotniski (talk) 13:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Normally yes, but in this case it seems so uncontroversial to mark it guideline that I'd just go ahead and mark it as that after the move (there's a bot which will automatically notify the Village Pump). Formally, this discussion is about the move; marking it guideline would be a subsequent, separate step. Rd232 ^talk 13:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I've just noticed that the page is linked in the 'policies and guidelines' navbox at the bottom of the page ... so someone already thinks it is a guideline. Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 23:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Looks like it once was a guideline in project space: [4].. but was redirected to help namespace with no objections: [5].. perhaps the one who did the original move should be notified of this discussion. -- œ^™ 06:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • OK. And you've now done it. Rd232 ^talk 09:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I performed the redirect from Wikipedia:Edit summary to Help:Edit summary a while ago to avoid having two pages with the same information. I don't mind if the page is moved back, as long as there is just one such page, not two as before (so there should be a redirect from one to the other). Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 14:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:BEANS... your remark reminds me that I would like to see more help pages - particularly ones prominently linked in ways relevant for newbies, as is true of Help:Edit summary - being really short and simple, and then providing links elsewhere for more details (which for many newbies are just irrelevant, scary and offputting). In this case, it could just be the first two paragraphs and the image, and a link to Wikipedia:Edit summary for more details. Rd232 ^talk 17:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Always adding edit summaries?

The page says, "It is considered good practice to always provide an edit summary". Does this rule apply even if you make a minor edit? Mostly, I write edit summaries when I am making a large edit, but if I am only making a minor edit, I usually don't. Is this a bad habit? --The High Fin Sperm Whale (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I usually do the same. Obviously it potentially helps other editors if you add an edit summary even with minor edits, but then it takes a little bit of your time, so you can judge (or not worry) whether the net effect will be positive.--Kotniski (talk) 09:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately there are editors who use the minor edit check box to try to hide spam additions, edit warring, etc. A short edit summary (even "rvv" or some other imperfect abbreviations) helps reassure others that it's legit and not worth their time to review. Ccrrccrr (talk) 02:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

There's some shorthand listed at Wikipedia:Edit summary legend that doesn't take long to type. Things like sp for a spelling fix, wl for a wikilink, and so on. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 05:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)