Help talk:Edit summary/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Meta:Help:Edit summary authors and history

• 10:04, 23 July 2008 Meta:User:Burhan Salay@202.201.216.125(Contribs) (The introduction part, the definition section, Geometrical interpretation of the indices section, Signature in physics section, and How to compute the signature section are modified) —Preceding talk with onisty • contribs)

• 22:55, 2 December 2006 contribs)| m (self revert, image has been fixed)

• 22:52, 2 December 2006 contribs)| m (adjust spacing so that image on English Wikipedia will work)

• 23:49, 25 November 2006 contribs)| (→Automatic summaries - autosumm-shortnew is deprecated)

• 15:10, 23 November 2006 contribs)| (→Automatic summaries - bugzilla:8013)

• 07:42, 23 November 2006 contribs)| (→Automatic summaries - add newpage)

• 13:26, 18 November 2006 contribs)| m (→Automatic summaries - class="wikitable")

• 12:04, 17 November 2006 contribs)| (→Writing edit summaries - split up section; preview)

• 10:09, 17 November 2006 contribs)| (→Automatic summaries - use clever trickses to display current value)

• 08:12, 16 November 2006 contribs)| (Automatic summaries)

• 23:57, 30 October 2006 User:70.23.247.250 (→Section editing)

• 03:40, 27 October 2006 User:68.101.149.220 (→Writing edit summaries - Changed "being sneaky" to "may question your motives for the edit".)

• 20:09, 11 August 2006 contribs)| m (Reverted edits by 211.76.97.230 to last version by M7)

• 20:08, 11 August 2006 User:211.76.97.230 (→Places where the edit summary appears)

• 20:08, 11 August 2006 User:211.76.97.230 (→File upload summary)

• 20:07, 11 August 2006 contribs)| m (Reverted edits by 24.239.182.135 to last version by Patrick)

• 20:07, 11 August 2006 User:24.239.182.135 (→Abbreviations)

• 20:06, 11 August 2006 User:24.239.182.135 (→Places where the edit summary appears)

• 20:06, 11 August 2006 User:24.239.182.135 (→Writing edit summaries)

• 23:42, 17 July 2006 contribs)| (When creating a redirect, an edit summary is automatically provided, with the text according to MediaWiki:Autoredircomment, but only if no edit summary is supplied (as opposed to the automatic edi)

• 03:52, 2 July 2006 contribs)| m (Reverted edits by 125.235.50.113 to last version by RockOfVictory)

• 02:51, 2 July 2006 User:125.235.50.113 (→Writing edit summaries)

• 18:22, 23 June 2006 contribs)| m (→Writing edit summaries - Abbr wikilinked)

• 13:58, 5 June 2006 contribs)| (rv, people don't use edit summaries enough already)

• 08:05, 28 May 2006 contribs)| (See motivation on talk page (Disturbing guideline))

• 17:53, 27 May 2006 contribs)| (→Places where the edit summary appears - update/correction)

• 17:46, 27 May 2006 contribs)| (→Writing edit summaries - clarify)

• 04:18, 26 May 2006 contribs)| m (→Multiple sections in edit summary - spelling)

• 04:03, 26 May 2006 contribs)| (cleaned up section editing and post a comment sections)

• 10:43, 8 May 2006 contribs)| m (Reverted edits by 210.8.228.181 to last version by Locke Cole)

• 01:28, 2 May 2006 User:210.8.228.181

• 15:42, 21 April 2006 contribs)| (→Section title as automatic edit summary - adding section - →Multiple sections in edit summary - new section)

• 17:41, 10 April 2006 User:83.250.211.128 (rv vandal)

• 03:21, 10 April 2006 User:163.18.64.74

• 21:18, 4 April 2006 contribs)| m (Reverted edits by 72.10.123.169 to last version by Korg)

• 18:06, 4 April 2006 User:72.10.123.169 (→Places where the edit summary appears)

• 02:48, 29 March 2006 contribs)| (rv test)

• 08:58, 27 March 2006 User:202.146.192.141 (→Abbreviations)

• 00:20, 24 March 2006 User:88.111.58.168 (→Writing edit summaries - Making the '195 characters' illustration clearer)

• 06:18, 13 March 2006 contribs)| m (spelling)

• 06:12, 13 March 2006 contribs)| (reorganised, cleanup)

• 04:57, 13 March 2006 contribs)| (rm template link)

• 04:34, 13 March 2006 contribs)| (added template link, other small changes)

• 08:56, 8 March 2006 contribs)| (The Capacity section is immensly helpful. It was to me when I first read this page.)

• 00:45, 6 March 2006 contribs)| (focus the introduction on the importance of edit summaries, rather than technicalities.)

• 16:27, 3 March 2006 contribs)| m (rm ugly box, as it obstructs reading. Let the reader read what he came after, that unimportant observation does not deserver such proeminence on top.)

• 08:17, 20 February 2006 contribs)| (some cleanup)

• 23:39, 1 February 2006 contribs)| m (→Edit summary - update wikilink dummy edit)

• 20:11, 29 January 2006 User:212.225.35.203 (gm "to use"-->"using")

• 13:45, 10 January 2006 contribs)| m (→Edit summary - Em-dash, awkward)

• 13:37, 10 January 2006 contribs)| m (Ital; comma splice)

• 13:24, 10 January 2006 contribs)| (Wordiness; clarity)

• 02:09, 12 December 2005 User:12.208.114.34

• 08:25, 28 November 2005 User:69.234.77.165 (→Abbreviations - REALLY fix the link)

• 07:56, 28 November 2005 User:69.234.77.165 (→Abbreviations - fix link)

• 02:17, 27 November 2005 User:68.6.110.218 (→Capacity)

• 05:41, 16 November 2005 contribs)| (Fixed hyperlinks that break when this page is copied to other projects.)

• 05:28, 16 November 2005 contribs)| (Replacement of {{new}} with {{H:new}})

• 04:17, 16 November 2005 contribs)| (Fixed hyperlinks that break when this page is copied to other projects.)

• 18:59, 13 October 2005 contribs)| (revert)

• 17:18, 13 October 2005 User:219.148.86.36 (billclin)

• 00:54, 25 September 2005 contribs)| m (Reverted edits by 218.11.177.13 to last version by Mindspillage)

• 16:41, 24 September 2005 User:218.11.177.13

• 05:49, 11 September 2005 contribs)| m (Reverted edits by 220.161.154.90 to last version by ABCD)

• 05:48, 11 September 2005 User:220.161.154.90

• 00:39, 12 August 2005 contribs)| (go around redirect)

• 01:13, 29 July 2005 contribs)| (→Section title as automatic edit summary - the section title within the marks - →and - is preloaded in the edit summary box. However, such code works also if one enters it oneself.)

• 02:16, 18 July 2005 contribs)| m (Reverted edits by 81.214.161.234 to last version by Pianoman87)

• 01:31, 18 July 2005 User:81.214.161.234

• 12:04, 14 July 2005 contribs)| m (→Upload summary - sp)

• 11:30, 18 June 2005 User:220.238.78.156 (→Edit summary - fixed grammar of sentence)

• 08:12, 5 May 2005 contribs)| m

• 08:06, 5 May 2005 contribs)| ({{new|an edit summary of a page move is also possible, to explain it.}})

• 23:14, 21 April 2005 contribs)| (hc -> h:f)

• 22:09, 21 April 2005 contribs)| m

• 19:37, 12 April 2005 contribs)| m (→Rendering of wikitext; URLs)

• 19:36, 12 April 2005 contribs)| (→Rendering of wikitext; URLs - interwiki is a redirect. -> Help:Interwiki linking)

• 12:16, 4 April 2005 contribs)| (Reverted to last version by Patrick)

• 09:51, 4 April 2005 User:212.138.64.174

• 09:50, 4 April 2005 User:212.138.64.171

• 09:49, 4 April 2005 User:212.138.64.176

• 20:18, 3 April 2005 contribs)| m (Reverted edits by 61.149.190.50 to last version by 159.226.5.82)

• 13:21, 3 April 2005 User:61.149.190.50

• 09:06, 9 March 2005 User:159.226.5.82 (→Add zh.)

• 15:45, 19 February 2005 contribs)| (→Upload summary -*as text in the entry of the image history)

• 04:25, 12 February 2005 contribs)| m (→Upload summary)

• 04:21, 12 February 2005 contribs)| (Note that there is no preview function to check the code for the links, template calls and category tags, but of course, one can edit the image page after uploading, to correct errors and also to exte)

• 03:48, 12 February 2005 contribs)| (→Upload summary -The capacity of the upload summary is one line of 250 characters; in the upload log the last part may fall off, because this can contain 255 characters, including "uploaded "''file)

• 03:16, 12 February 2005 contribs)| (→Upload summary - ***specify one or more categories the image is in / misc)

• 03:11, 12 February 2005 contribs)| (→Upload summary)

• 06:12, 27 December 2004 contribs)| (→Section title as automatic edit summary - bug seems fixed)

• 17:52, 23 December 2004 User:65.50.55.173 (→Edit summary - : minor copyediting fixes--added "in the" to "always fill summary field" in 3rd-last para for clarity; repunctuated 3rd sentence of that para to correct run-on/comma fault; & misc.)

• 21:39, 11 December 2004 contribs)| m (→Section title as automatic edit summary)

• 21:36, 11 December 2004 contribs)| (Only when applying the "previous edit" link from the diff page showing the difference from the first to some other version, an interwiki link in the edit summary of the first edit is (as wikitext, no)

• 21:13, 11 December 2004 contribs)| (→Section title as automatic edit summary - There is a bug: an interwiki link in the edit summary, including the link label, is lost.)

• 21:09, 11 December 2004 contribs)| (→Section title as automatic edit summary - From MediaWiki version 1.4 (Dec 2004), the section is preceded by a right arrow that links to the section.)

• 13:19, 24 November 2004 User:210.49.42.126 (revert edits by 217.8.231.79 to last version by Patrick)

• 08:51, 24 November 2004 User:217.8.231.79

• 22:15, 13 November 2004 contribs)| m (Reverted edits by 210.82.76.17 to last version by Patrick)

• 03:44, 13 November 2004 User:210.82.76.17 (→Rendering of wikitext; URLs)

• 12:50, 12 October 2004 contribs)| m (Reverted edits by 210.82.76.17 to last version by IMSoP)

• 08:37, 20 October 2004 User:210.82.76.17

• 00:16, 22 September 12, 2004 contribs)| (correct linking to point to Help:Editing rather than the old location)

• 21:24, September 2004 contribs)| m

• 10:48, 21 August 2004 contribs)| m (→Section title as automatic edit summary)

• 11:52, 23 July 2004 contribs)| (→Edit summary -Help:Editing#Dummy_edit)

• 11:06, 23 July 2004 contribs)| m (→Capacity)

• 10:48, 21 July 2004 contribs)| (→Rendering of wikitext in edit summaries)

• 11:04, 17 July 2004 contribs)| m (→Edit summary)

• 09:20, 16 July 2004 contribs)| (Most projects highly recommend to use it to its full capacity, to summarize the changes made.)

• 09:10, 16 July 2004 contribs)| m

• 09:07, 16 July 2004 contribs)| (An insertion action of e.g. 10 characters in a line of 195 characters results in the first 5 characters being inserted.)

• 09:02, 16 July 2004 contribs)| (The capacity is one line of 200 characters, with horizontal scrolling. A copy action of more, results in the rest falling off. Insertions do not work if the line is full, one has to delete text at the)

• 08:57, 16 July 2004 contribs)| (One possible workaround for a new list is putting the list on one line, copying it to the edit summary box, and then, in the main edit box, putting the newlines and bullets.)

• 08:45, 16 July 2004 contribs)| (→Rendering of wikitext in edit summaries - copying wikitext in the edit summary box may be preferable to copying text from the preview, except when one wants to save space.)

• 08:34, 16 July 2004 contribs)| (→Edit summary -Thus e.g. a bulleted "see also" list is cumbersome to put in the edit summary box.)

• 08:26, 16 July 2004 contribs)| (Unfortunately one can copy only one "line" (in the sense of the text until a newline) into the edit summary box. However, the contents of a second line can be pasted at the end of the line.)

• 22:35, 29 June 2004 contribs)| (→Upload summary -Text in edit summaries is not interpreted, except for internal links, including piped links, and links to pages in other Wikimedia projects, even when enclosed within <nowiki> and)

• 17:57, 12 June 2004 contribs)| m (→Places where the edit summary appears)

• 13:31, 12 June 2004 contribs)| (→Section title as automatic edit summary - Since MediaWiki version 1.3 (May 2004), the automatic part of the summary is no longer surrounded by "="-signs, but it appears in grey text, with the manu)

• 01:57, 30 May 2004 contribs)| (The edit summary is also on the Diff page.)

• 10:00, 18 April 2004 contribs)| m

• 09:36, 18 April 2004 contribs)| (MediaWiki version)

• 09:22, 18 April 2004 contribs)| (rv temp)

• 09:20, 18 April 2004 contribs)| (temporarily put version from en:, for use with diff, hold on)

• 00:29, 18 April 2004 contribs)| (move from en, update links, add new features)

• 00:19, 26 September 2003 contribs)| (See en:Wikipedia:Edit summary.)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

Edit request from 174.117.215.98, 1 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} I believe that the reference to organized crime and the Montreal-based mob should be removed unless it can be substantiated.

174.117.215.98 (talk) 02:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Where exactly is this? —fetch·comms 02:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Important note: - if you do come back here and explain, please add another {{editsemiprotected}} - just like that - so that we are alerted again. Or talk to us live. Thank you!

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)

Just put the the page you want to link to in [[Double Brackets]] as you normally would.--vgmddg (look | talk | do) 01:58, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 174.25.236.69, 24 September 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

174.25.236.69 (talk) 03:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC) WHY LOPIT TRIBE IS MENTIONED pLEASE!wE ARE NOT LOTUKA PLEASE CHANGE THAT DEATH MENTALITY

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 04:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

"Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" suggestion

Under "My preferences", "Editing" there is an option "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary". This is useful and I leave it ticked. However it is annoying to receive a prompt (and unnecessary) when leaving comments on talk pages. There should be another tick box such as "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (excluding talk pages)". Nirvana2013 (talk) 20:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I too have that option ticked. However, edits to Talk pages can also be vandalism, so the prompt is still useful to vandal-patrollers. I believe this is why Help:Edit_summary#How_to_summarise suggests supplying ESs also for Talk edits. Of course, ESs can always be abbreviated, & on Talk pages one often sees these:

• reply
• comment
• cmt
• qry

which save a lot of time & satisfy the anti-vandal purpose. Trafford09 (talk) 22:57, 23 October 2010 (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. The 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)

I also think it'd be nice for the editor to be able to edit his/her own edit summary to be able to make minor adjustments to summaries ... while I understand and agree with preserving the integrity of the historical thread, this concern is unpersuasive (for me) with respect to simple, "honest" modifications, certainly for minor modifications desired for clarification such as spelling, punctuation, etc. It seems a bit odd to me that a system -- Wiki -- based on trust of users, then turns around and mistrusts minor edit summary changes. Tail biting the dog, maybe. Maybe a history of these changes could be kept if that would help ease fears of significant abuse. What prompted my interest in this issue is my being sloppy a couple of times with too many DBK (talk) 19:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)s, which don't convert in the edit summaries, and which I failed to catch in my reviews before posting. A minor self-irritation. :-( DBK (talk) 19:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Blank edit summary may be vandalism

Should we add in that 1.) a blank edit summary may be looked upon as possible vandalism, since you don't know what the person did, and 2.) generally the only time you don't need an edit summary would be if writing the summary would take longer to type than the original edit? (i.e. Added a space between 2 words.) --vgmddg (look | talk | do) 02:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree re (1.).

As for (2.), well even in this example, using ES of 'inserted a space", or 'c-e' (for copy-edit) would be much better than leaving ES blank, & both are quick to type & save other editors checking the edit. And, of course, registered users like us can select the 'm' flag in such cases. Trafford09 (talk) 01:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Disagree on both. Regarding (1), a blank edit summary is not helpful, but it happens enough for legitimate edits that it's not prima facie evidence of vandalism. Perhaps the wording could be adjusted to indicate that the lack of an edit summary makes an already-suspicious edit even more suspicious? (2) is a nice time-saving technique, but since the point of the edit summary is to summarize the edit, why should it not apply to small edits? It's slightly cumbersome for me to type "as per WP:HEAD" if I change a single capitalized word in a section heading, but it saves everyone else from having to open the diff and it may educate a new editor. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 21:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Undo Some Editing to Prince Rashed Al-Khuzai Article

Dear Guys..

i have undo some edits to the article of Prince Rashed Al-Khuzai because i need to clarify that this article is not an orphan article and many articles are related to it and it include many references. another reason for undo editing is that I would like to state that i have edit a well known reference that is: Neinawa News not Encyclopedia as i stated before.

thank you.

Khalid Al-Saud Khalid Al-Saud (talk) 20:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

This is the wrong page for your request, but I will look at the article to see what the problem is. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Abbreviations

I recently made some edits to the Abbreviations point in the Help:Edit_summary#How_to_summarise. First, the content about how some browsers feature the ability to "remember" previously-typed phrases is irrelevant in this section. That statement is more of a tip, not really a directive on how to properly summarize, much less about abbreviations.

Also, edits had been made claiming that abbreviations should not be used at all. This is one opinion, but you will find many advanced editors both using and not using abbreviations. There is no consensus in the community on this point yet, and until there is, it would be in bad faith to claim otherwise. Instead, we should just caution on their use.

Let's please discuss this if you have any disagreements. Sincerely Teimu.tm (talk) 06:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Azelle, 25 February 2011(Azelle (talk))

{{edit semi-protected}} i am new at this request what do i do help mean that here we go:i would like to be a editor, but i want to start writing a book

after i editor all that i am going to do a book is in between Azelle (talk) 01:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Baseball Watcher 02:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Pwenham, 17 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} to performers at the carrier dome please add U2, The Band, Eric Clapton, The Rolling Stones and John Bon Jovi I worked those 4 concerts (among others)

Pwenham (talk) 00:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Partly done: Assuming you meant the Carrier Dome article, I trimmed the list of artists down to the ones found in the source, two of which (U2 and The Rolling Stones) you had requested. Thanks, — Bility (talk) 22:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Abuse

What happen if Edit summary being abuse to do something like what writer think about something and it bad or it not relate to article at all?Tnt1984 (talk) 14:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The content of the page has no relevance to the title.

Someone may have trashed. >.< --Wernjump (talk) 00:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 117.241.0.240, 16 June 2011

117.241.0.240 (talk) 04:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. GaneshBhakt (talk) 07:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Can admins remove edit summary without reversing the edit itself?

--WineHouse (talk) 21:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

If your purpose is to hide sensitive or offensive information, this can be done. See Wikipedia:Oversight.

BTW, "Attention: Talk pages in this namespace are generally not watched by many users. Please consider visiting the Help desk for a more prompt response.".

Trafford09 (talk) 00:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 6 October 2011

182.177.245.133 (talk) 10:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Not done: ????? — Abhishek  ^Talk 12:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 25 October 2011

Paul Pogba had his second match for Manchester United on October 25th 2011 against Aldershot

http://101wrestlingnews.blogspot.com/ (talk) 23:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Not done: This page is only for discussing edits to Help:Edit summary. I see you have since edited Paul Pogba on your own.[6] PrimeHunter (talk) 01:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Should be a guideline.

I know it's currently "only" Help:, and Help articles typically aren't guideline or policy, but let's make WP:Edit summaries an official guideline. It's 2011 - the !voting is over, responsible editors massively agree with (at least terse) edit summaries with action (rv), reason (v) (and tool used (TW), by bots and scripts). WP:Edit summaries is massively linked-to as well as from WP:Editing policy#Be helpful: explain, and WP:Etiquette, and has specific benefits for the encyclopedia and editors. --Lexein (talk) 06:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Question concerning requests for edit summary removal

Hello. I recently made an edit summary where I made a typo. Therefore, I am wondering if I can request removing an edit summary of my own. I wouldn't usually care, but I accidentally typed a vulgar word, instead of a different, non-vulgar word that has one extra letter than said vulgarity. So, can those edit summaries be removed or is it just something that can be tolerably staying there? Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 09:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Firstly, it's great that you USED an Edit summary (ES) - would that all editors did likewise!

Secondly, I'm sure it doesn't matter, if it was a typo. People will assume that, & if in doubt they'll view your info. & see that it's a 1-off.

If you were still concerned over your typo, you could always do another edit to the page - say put in some minor punctuation, then save it with an ES that explains the prior ES's typo.

But I really wouldn't worry about it. Actually, there is a way to remove edit summaries, but that's for when user-sensitive info. has been included (e.g. tel. no.). In such cases, see oversight for removal - but those are very rare situations.

Please carry on enjoying WP. Happy editing :) Trafford09 (talk) 10:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

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)

pero its okayy i guess —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.181.111 (talk) 21:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Your assumption is false. "If this page shouldn't be edited", why shouldn't it? If someone found a spelling error or a better way to rephrase things, they should edit it. Pagen HD (talk) 14:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Tense

If it matters at all, what tense should edit summaries be written in? Past or present? (Example:) "Image removed" or "image removal," respectively? Kris159 TalkLegacy 20:10, June 29, 2011

WP:SIG#NoTemplates -- πϵρήλιο ℗ 13:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I use the past tense or the present perfect. Nice question, that should be addressed in detail in the main article. Pagen HD (talk) 14:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure it matters much, as long as it's easy for other editors to understand what was done, and/or the reason why it was done. I mostly use abbreviations: "rm" for removed, "+" for added: "rm unsourced", "rv unexplained deletion". Mixed as well: "rv language change - UK subject, so use UK English & dates". --Lexein (talk) 15:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Common abbreviations like those are shown at WP:ESL. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Revision number

Would someone please be kind enough to tell me how to find the "edit" reference number quickly when carrying out a reversion of vandalism. There appears to be a formulated Edit Summary that all experienced editors use... including, "... to the last revision by..." Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 19:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

There are several possibilities for an edit summary like this, but they all have the common characteristic that it's not a value filled in by the user, and I am not aware of one which included both the revision number and the words "... to the last revision by...".

• You have the "undo" facility, which produces an edit summary like this, which includes the revision number, but not the words "... to the last revision by...".
• Admins and rollbackers have something called the Wikipedia:Rollback feature, which produces an edit summary like this, which includes the words "... to the last revision by...", but not the revision number.

Next time you spot an edit summary of the form that you are thinking of here, could you add a link to it so that I can examine it to see what may have generated it?--Redrose64 (talk) 20:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your rapid response. I would like to do that, but not clear on how to format the link. Please advise. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 21:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, let's assume that you're using some form of Microsoft Windows (XP, 7 or Vista), because I don't know how to do this in Apple Mac OS. Let's also assume that you're looking at your watchlist. Find an edit which shows an edit summary of the type you are thinking of. Go to the left-hand end of that line, where there are two links "diff" and "hist". Right-click on the "diff" one, and from the menu which appears, select "Copy link location". Come back here, open the edit window, and at the bottom, right-click and select "Paste". Sign it, and save. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I will do what you write above, but have to confess to being a self-taught computer "old fellow".

In the meantime, may I point you towards the Revision history of The Sopranos: 02:56 hrs. October 14 2011

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 22:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Postscript: We had an edit conflict and I lost my edit... did not know how to "merge". GGJ

It sounds like the undo facility is your most likely answer. You should be able to use the undo links at the end of the entries in the revision history list of a page, or from a diff page. Usually they give you an edit page with the edit automatically undone and an edit summary automatically filled in recording the revision number and editor. I use this a lot, although I try to add an explanation to the edit summary before saving it. You should be able to see some examples of this looking through the list of my contributions. Vadmium (talk, contribs) 04:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC).

Just had a closer look at the specific revision you referred to [7]. I think that summary is automatically filled in by a script that people run to edit Wikipedia, though I’ve never used it myself. The clue is the TW link at the end. Vadmium (talk, contribs) 05:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC).

Great service from both of you. It never ceases to impress me how helpful you "seniors" are to "the new boy".

The editor who welcomed me, RepublicanJacobite, inspired me constantly and I used him as a role model until Christmas.

Thank you, Redrose.

Thank you, Vadmium.

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Need to clarify relationship between edit summaries and civility

There have been a few episodes where users repeatedly make edits without providing an edit summary, and respond negatively when other editors request that they use edit summaries. Usually, they say something along the lines of "it's just a guideline, it's not mandatory to use an edit summary". However, the policy WP:CIVIL comes very close to implying that editors must use edit summaries. Certainly if someone refuses to use summaries when asked to do so, there's a strong case to be made that the behaviour is uncivil.

I think it would be good insert a sentence or two after the first paragraph of Help:Edit_summary#Always_provide_an_edit_summary to mention civility, and link to WP:CIVIL.

Comments, anyone? Jowa fan (talk) 01:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

People don't know how to make a good edit summary and so they often do more harm then good. So no edit summary is not such a bad thing. Think of the amount of people blocked because of what they said in the edit summary. Regards, Sun Creator ^(talk) 15:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit summaries - good and bad

Some of the text wants a re-write to focus on how to write good edit summaries. The current guideline is to mechanical. Better to show examples of good and bad ones. Bad ones lead to conflict and people issues. Regards, Sun Creator ^(talk) 15:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 October 2012

Ishvakas and vishnukundis are kammas. Kammas nayaks of Krishnavalley who worked under satavahana kings later formed Ishvak & vishnukundi dynasties. Ishvakas are sugarcane growers of krishna valley according to some writers. 183.82.0.204 (talk) 15:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

This request is misplaced, as this page is for discussing improvements to the help page, Help:Edit summary. Which page are you trying to edit? -- John of Reading (talk) 16:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

They're never going to see your reply. Pretty much the only place you can communicate with an IP editor who makes a misplaced edit like this is on their talk page, but there's no guarantee that they'll get your message. — Hex (❝?!❞) 17:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 November 2012

<! -- Begin request -- > The reference to the Yamagumo being torpedoed by the Sailfish should be corrected. As it stands now it says "Ironically Sailfish -- at the time named Squalus -- was the same submarine Sculpin had helped to locate ..." Correcting it should make it read "Ironically Sailfish -- previously named Squalus -- was the same sub ..."

Additionally, the piece might conclude that the midships section and conning tower of the Sculpin (SS 191) is on permanent display at the memorial park on the grounds of the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery, Maine. [I have a digital photo, taken 11/29/12, if you would like me to send it to an e-mail address. E-mail me at <Bob.Longabaugh.53@Alum.Dartmouth.Org> if I should do so.]

184.61.122.90 (talk) 01:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Not done: You need to make this request on the talk page of the article you want changed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Pop-up window

It bothers me that in edit windows, an editor who wants to find out about edit summaries has to manually open this page in a separate browser tab or window. And I accidentally click the link often. While most modern browsers will use a pop-up message to make sure editors don't lose their work to come learn about edit summaries, wouldn't it be easier to just make the link open that way by default? Do technical restrictions prevent this? --BDD (talk) 22:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Change

If you make 3 changes to an article do you have to mention all three? Or can you mention two or one? Asking because i sometimes only mention the main change instead of all the minor changes.Pass a Method talk 14:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course, you never "have to" do anything in terms of an edit summary. But as for what you should do, I think it's generally acceptable to only mention the main thrust of your changes. Especially if part of your edit is technical or otherwise truly uncontroversial, I think what you're doing now is fine. I sometimes do the same. --BDD (talk) 22:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit summary standard options

There does not appear to be any explanation of the relatively recent option of selecting a standard summary from the two lists below the edit window. How do these standard edit summaries work? Would it be possible to have a personalised set of standard summaries which can be selected in preferences? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 10:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not really "recent", you get these lists because at Preferences → Gadgets you (presumably) have "Add two new dropdown boxes below the edit summary box with some useful default summaries" switched on, which enables the script MediaWiki:Gadget-defaultsummaries.js. Suggest you post at MediaWiki talk:Gadget-defaultsummaries.js asking people to comment here; you could also send similar invitations to ErrantX (talk · contribs) who provided this gadget in June 2011, also MC10 (talk · contribs) who has written the most recent amendments. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Redrose, I will follow up as you suggest. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 17:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 March 2013

Add community organization to the South Los Angeles section, the topic would be the effort by activist to turn empty lots into community gardens due to the obesity rate in South Los Angeles is twice the average. There is a push to add fresh grown vegetables to the diets of children if they are taught to grow their own food — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimoore68 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 24 March 2013

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Help:Edit summary. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 March 2013

Dawson City player surname spelling error, Lorne Hannay (my paternal grandfather) played with Brandon and Dawson City in Cup Challenges in 1904 and 1905 24.244.127.52 (talk) 01:51, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

You need to place this request on the talk page for the article that needs to be corrected. You have posted it on the help page instead. RudolfRed (talk) 03:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 April 2013

76.255.98.93 (talk)\

Clyde Hairston is listed as the City Council Representive for District five. This information is incorrect. Mr Hairston resigned from the City Council in February of 2012. MS LaShonjia Harris is now the City Councilperson Representing District Five. She was elected to the council in May 2012.

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Help:Edit summary. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Addition to Guidance

I would like to add a statement in the Help for edit summaries that an edit with no edit summary is likely to be reverted, especially if the diff does not make it obvious what was changed. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I would support you in doing that. Excellent idea –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard|— 22:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

How about "more likely" instead of "likely"? I would hope that's closer to the truth. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:53, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Section editing

i'm wondering if there's a reason why the section title doesn't automatically appear in the edit summary box when hidden text is on the same line as the section title? when it's on the next line everything is ok.

i noticed it (and hidden text itself) here on the BSG: Razor cast section. this may be common knowledge to seasoned editors. i'm fairly new and mostly just a tinkerer. ≈Sensorsweep (talk) 03:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

It's a known bug which has been around for at least two years (that is, I first noticed it in March 2011). It seems to have dropped into the "low priority/never" group. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 August 2013

JHURULI(ঝুরুলী) is a small part of west bengal.It is located near BASIRHAT.There are a primary and a secondary school. Also a club, JHURULI ABAHANI CRIRA CHAKRA takes place in this peaceful village. (Summarised by boy live here,BITTU) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JHURULI (talk • contribs) 11:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Initiative for mandatory Edit summary

I think there's very little argument for maintaining the current status of "optional" edit summary.

Anyone who's changing Wikipedia should be obliged to give reasoning, especially for reverting and should have no problem doing so.

Optionality not only gives room to disruptive editing and vandalism but elevates such by the absence of any mandatory justification for your action.Commissioner Gregor (talk) 02:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Gregor - I see that you're a fairly new editor. There is a history of such initiatives not gaining much traction, for a variety of reasons; one commonly given is that the requirement doesn't guarantee that the summary will be helpful or true. Search for "require edit summary", especially at the various Village Pumps.

Your best bet for wide discussion of such an initiative is not necessarily here (a not widely watchlisted Help Talk page), but with a Request for comment. Just by the way, I support strongly encouraging brief, helpful, edit summaries (see #Should be a guideline. above), and I have a 100% summary creation rate, largely because I set Preferences -> Editing -> "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" to on. --Lexein (talk) 02:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

{moved comment out from inside my comment, and prepending referent} [As to your first point:]

Nothing can give a real guarantee, so I don't see why this is much of an argument, tbh. Apart from stimulating the community to think twice about the legitimacy of their edits, it will also make them reassess their idea - is it really righteous what I am doing here? Even if one is against general obligation on any edit, I think there's even more truth to it when you look at reverts. You simply can't undo another's contribution without justifying - this resembles some sort of thievery, in my opinion, to be honest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Commissioner Gregor (talk • contribs) 03:19, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Note that I like the idea of strongly encouraging edit summaries. We have the stick, we probably need a carrot. I think there's a need for positive feedback for new editors or IP editors who do leave EC - a "thank" would suffice, IMHO. --Lexein (talk) 07:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

How would this policy be enforced? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 10:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

... @ Peter, presumably by not allowing the "Save Page" to function without an edit summary. I too have a 100% summary creation rate, for the same reason as Lexein.
I would support that.
— | Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh Buzzard | — 11:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

That might force the editor to type something into the summary box, but not necessarily anything more useful than a blank summary. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 12:30, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I had realised that, but it would deter many who just visit in order to vandalise.
— | Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh Buzzard | — 12:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

You don't think that a vandal will either just put garbage in the summary box, or if the sneakier type, enter a plausible looking edit summary? Either way, if you are patrolling you still have to look at the diffs. An edit summary will only be useful if the editor wants it to be useful.• • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:40, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Peter, distressingly I have to accept that it would not achieve what we want. So we are back to the evergreen controversy: make it mandatory to register and log-in.
— | Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh Buzzard | — 20:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Perennial proposals. --  Gadget850 ^talk 20:07, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed!
— | Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh Buzzard | — 20:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

+1. I knew it was logged somewhere as such. --Lexein (talk) 07:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

(ec x 2)I have mixed feelings about that. I certainly think it is preferable, but not enough evidence to tell if it would improve the overall success of the project if it was obligatory. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 20:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

However, blank summaries and the like could be checked for and disallowed. PS I'd strongly support forced ESs for non-IP editors. If they abused ESs, then we could block them, whereas at the moment it seems we are all powerless. Trafford09 (talk) 22:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

What would you classify as abuse of edit summaries, and

Why should editors who take the trouble to register and log in be treated more harshly than IP editors? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 15:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd classify abuse of ESs as, say, misleading ones (content changed but ES="spelling") or useless ones ("update", 'change"). You quite rightly say that we more responsible editors do take the time & trouble to register. But isn't that therefore something that a rogue IP user is less likely to bother to do? So, whilst IP users are perhaps harder to monitor & catch, I feel it'd be easier to spot & block a registered user, who's gone to at least a little trouble to initially 'buy in' to WP. Then IP users stand out more, as prob. worth greater monitoring or more cautious AGF approach. Trafford09 (talk) 08:14, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

An edit summary of "update" might be useless to some; but it's useful to me. It's one of the "tells" of this guy who changes IP address frequently, types in appalling English, and never provides a reliable source for his highly-speculative wishes. When I see "Update!!!" in the edit summary, I get the coffee in and click his contribs. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

LOL. I'm not displeased by section title (autofilled) + updated, but the exclamation points... oooooh, I dunno. --Lexein (talk) 04:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Avoiding wiki links

Is there any “proper” way to avoid turning double-square-bracketed text into a wiki link? For example, in this edit I “cheated” by adding a zero-width space as a null character between the closing brackets: [[. . .]ZWSP]. Either way, the answer should be made clear under Help:Edit summary#Properties, instead of just mentioning that nowiki doesn’t work. Vadmium (talk) 05:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC).

Perhaps <nowiki> was broken when you tried it but it seems to work now. <nowiki>[[User:Vadmium|Vadmium]]</nowiki> comes out as [[User:Vadmium|Vadmium]] which I think is what you want. Wellset (talk) 20:34, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I rather think that Vadmium was asking in the context of edit summaries, where extension-style markup like <nowiki>...</nowiki> is displayed literally, and is not processed, which means that Wiki markup like [[double square brackets]] is always processed. So in answer to the original question: it does seem that the only way to display double square brackets literally in an edit summary is to put something between the first and second, also between the third and fourth, that defeats the wiki markup processing. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:34, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Ouch! Thank you – I knew exactly what Vadmium was asking but somehow I managed to answer a completely different question. I can't believe I was so stupid; I don't know how I did it. Tiredness? Mea culpa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wellset (talk • contribs) 20:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Syntax

Why are edit summaries by default enclosed in a C-style comment (i.e. /* */)? Attys (talk) 19:20, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

They're not; that part is the section heading. You should add your edit summary after the closing */ - for example, when replying here, I have used

/* Syntax */ they're not; that part is the section heading

When you view a watchlist, page history, or similar, such as the history of this page, you should see that both entries show "→Syntax:" in grey, with the user-entered part after that, in black. If you click the little arrow → it should take you to that particular section. If you alter the part between the /* */ that section linking is broken. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

It's still a fair question why the section heading in edit summaries is enclosed by /* */, when == == (or === ===), the Mediawiki section markup, might be more consonant with the article's wikicode. Maybe the thinking was: hey, edit summaries are comments, and /* */ are quite widely used block comment delimiters. --Lexein (talk) 22:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I suspect it is used internally by the MediaWiki software to create the link. --  Gadget850 ^talk 00:32, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

That is undoubtedly true: if I edit a section and alter its heading, but leave the /* Section heading */ alone, the → link fails; but if I alter both in the same manner, it succeeds. I think that Lexein's question is more in a historical context: why did the MediaWiki devs choose /* ... */ rather than == ... ==, all those years ago? If they had chosen == ... == way back when, I'm sure they would have written the software to detect that markup in the edit summary. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Yep, I forgot "historically", to my doom. --Lexein (talk) 13:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Details

I would like to see a suggestion added here, to the effect of "give as much and as detailed information as you can about what you did".

e.g. "I made some changes" is not a useful edit summary. Nor is "I corrected a sentence" or "I corrected an error."

I've seen a rise in these non-useful edit summaries lately and I'd like to be able to point editors at specific text here that asks them to do better. Jeh (talk) 21:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Kanjari

Kanjari is situated near Anand, Gujarat, India — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronak54 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to edit the page if you have appropriate sources. But I see that your account has been made for the sole purpose of making this one edit a few years ago so... I think this section should be deleted. Kndimov (talk) 14:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

What to do?

A number of editors have asked a (very good) editor for clearer edit summaries. Especially on articles that are contentious. But I don't seem to have made a convincing plea. See discussion and reaction here. Is there any way someone else can more clearly than I did express the community sentiment? This is an excellent editor -- but now many of us have come to his talkpage with the same concern, and I seem to have failed in summarizing and conveying the community view to encourage any change in behavior.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:46, 29 March 2014 (UTC)