Wikipedia talk:Edit summary legend/Archive 1

Archive 1

In re: re:

I added a section Wikipedia: Edit summary legend#Reference to explain (my opinion) that "re:" means "in reference to". I don't really like the section I added, I hope another editor can come up with a better way to integrate this. (See, Myles? Concision. :) Eaglizard 19:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Question for you guys?

Hi, I'm wondering- say I am reverting an article back to the previous one due to, say, vandalism. If I put on the edit summary "rv" does it automatically write "Reverted to a previous edit."  ? I want it to be clear what the edit is about, so just "rv" would be confusing to new wikipedians so that it shoes that whole sentenced summary. thank you GoldenGoose100 04:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok... no one answered but with the help of the sandbox, I figured out that it is not automatic, just a known abbreviation code. GoldenGoose100 (talk) 23:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Cmt = ?

In "Reference", I see a "cmt" in the example text: what's that mean? Two One Six Five Five ^{discuss my greatness} 18:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Rocket000 (talk) 16:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction – should wikified words be linked in the edit summary?

In the Addition of links section:

In the summary, put the link between single apostrophes ('), or copy it from the edit box so that it appears in double brackets[[ ]].

This is especially useful when the link is to a new article: people watchlisting the current page are likely to be interested in the new page.

But in the Wikify section:

There is no need to specify the wikified words.

These two sections are redundant anyway. My preference would be to simply delete the Wikify section, as Wikify can also refer to editing a new page for conformance with the manual of style. Moreover, this page will be read by many new editors, who will more readily understand "Addition of links" than "Wikify". Thoughts? Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 12:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

No responses after >1 week, thus removing. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 13:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

"test"

Some users use "test" (instead of "sandbox") in Sandbox edits. Should we add that to this page? Explorer09 (talk) 11:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Horizontal rule?

Resolved

I've noticed both the "Divider" and "Break" sections link to a nonexistent section called "horizontal rule". What's the deal with this? Nick Klose ^(tc) 03:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Horizontal rules (horizontal lines) were once used for separating different meanings of a word within one article, but they've been deprecated for years. Some naughty editor removed the section as redundant a while ago ([1]), but didn't remove the links. So I've removed them now. Thanks for the note! Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 06:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments

One thing that really really annoys me when someone compiles examples of things, is when the compiler uses examples that self-referentially connect to the material itself. Why they would do this completely baffles me. There would be in most cases about 10^1000 combinations of words that would suit perfectly well. Instead they choose the score or so which will almost inevitably confuse the reader. I have just changed a particularly glaring instance of this. The "remove text" example has as its example of the text to be removed "official link”. Given that someone who would be liable to be reading this for information on how to proceed must of necessity be the greenest of greenhorns, why “official link” as the example, when it irresistably suggests that some hyper link was deemed to be superfluous and thus removed? Why not “some suspicious-looking geezers”, why not “catatonic koala”, why not “drunk as a lord”? All these are patently NOT things that might also refer to protocols and procedures of Wikipedia editing itself, and they are all the sort of thing that people COULD write, and lastly, just about anyone could see in an flash the rationale for removing and replacing such words. Myles325a 14:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Myles back. Example 2. CM (for comment) followed by "ambiguity", but is that a complaint or the subject in question? Not sure what this all about, but at least with "rattlesnake" we know it's a "topic" And since when does re: mean reply. Please God make it not so! If every screed that head re: in its header was demanding a reply the world itself could not contain the drivel that would be produced. Re: means subject. It comes from Latin, and the use of this term in that context predates email by some 2000 years. Myles325a 14:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Myles Back. Example 3 deals with Abbreviations for different languages. Oh Holy Jesus. If you were going to select a language as an example, would you of all things choose fuckin Esperanto. I mean how about Chinese or German or whatever, something that people might actually speak. This is what happens when you nail political correctness to the bottom of long well, and throw limp spaghetti at it. Remember the Wikipedia motto BE BOLD!! BE VERY VERY BOLD!!!! That means don’t behave like a lily-livered bicycle-seat sniffing fairy whose only ever sucked blended tofu thru a paper straw. What, you scared someone will accuse you of favoritism or racism or summink if you actually picked a country that has real live people living in real live communities and speaking real live languages as an example here? Holy fuck! I just can’t believe this. I am a fully paid up Franklin Mint certified, 18 carat gold plated Liberal, and even I want to puke.

Oh, and it might be an idea to provide a link to a list of said abbreviations. Yours cordially,

Myles325a 14:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

That last point is a good one. That would be useful. As to your opinions on Esperanto, I believe it is a real language. At least, that's what that article says...correct me if I'm interpreting it wrong, of course. (I know sarcasm dosen't translate well across the internet, but I'm trying my best.) 'Re' is short for regarding, I would assume. The rest of it...no comment. Best regards.--Song 01:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Gosh Myles, you're clever, and witty. And I agree. But, you could have told me all that in 50 or so words, sans risibility. But you'd have had to leave out such a manly display of woodsmanly heroic writericity, I guess. BTW, Wikipedia is not a forum. HopeGlad you fixed the stuff you bitched about, btw. Eaglizard 19:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I provided a link to a list of said abbreviations, only four years after somebody first mentioned it seemed to be missing. -- Nillli (talk) 10:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Rmv

Would anyone contest me putting "rmv" in the remove section. I often use this abbreviation, but don't know if anyone else does. BOVINEBOY2008 03:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose: Remove vandalism? I often use fxi typpo, but I unrecommend adding it. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 17:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support: This is a concise and unambiguous abbreviation that wouldn't be confused with other abbreviations. I support its addition. Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Citations?

Is there a way to show that you made edits to the citations? I don't see it on the main page. --Tiger Marc^ROAR! 03:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit summaries for citation edits

"Rw" and then copying and pasting the edits to the edit summary. For multiple edits, adding "et al." (which signifies "and others") would be functional. For edits in which the original data is unchanged and data is added to existing data, "Ft" (full text) and then copying and pasting the edit to the edit summary is functional. Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposal: Abbreviation for Rewrite - "RW"

I propose that "rw" be added to the "Addition of links" section on the Edit summary legend, in which "rw" would signify "Rewrite", to signify addition of text. In this manner, it would function similarly to the "ft" abbreviation. I've seen many instances of this abbreviation already being in use by many users. Northamerica1000 (talk) 03:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)