Wikipedia talk:Automatic edit summaries
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Suggested merger
The idea was to establish a separate, local page containing an explanation and advice that apply specifically to Wikipedia. There's no way to merge all of this information into a Meta-Wiki page. —David Levy 00:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
- In particular, our messages for automatic edit summaries may be different at some point from those described on meta; as such, it is good to have a readily accessible (i.e., without having to look at the individual pages in the MediaWiki namespace) list of them here. Schutz 00:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- It's just that the "What happened" and "What to do" sections seem superfluous. In case anyone else wants to take up the idea, I thought this should be turned into a redirect to Help:Edit summary, since this page seems to be largely redundant with the "Automatic summaries" section. --Interiot 15:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- The importance of conveying the information contained within the "What happened" and "What to do" sections was the main reason behind the page's creation. The feature was confusing/misleading people in precisely the manner advised against, so the automatic edit summaries themselves now link to WP:AES. —David Levy 17:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
-
Fascinating,... A policy that simplifies more than complicates.
Thank You.
[[ hopiakuta | [[ [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] -]] 00:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- Aha. Snoutwood just added a link to this page from all the automatic summaries [1]. Brilliant! It means that people don't have to be in-the-know to not mistake it for a manually-entered edit summary. And it means this page definitely shouldn't be merged now. --Interiot 19:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- The link from the automatic edit summaries (which I cited in my reply to you on 21 November) is not new. I created the page specifically for this purpose. —David Levy 04:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Question
I realise this is probably an idiotic question, but if you let AES fill in the summary field for you, does that bring down your edit summary usage percentage? riana_dzasta 18:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] NP patrolling
Clearly there are advantages to this system as described. But the production of a large part of the article on the new-page screen makes new-page patrolling, which involves an assessment of the size of the new article, its title, and the username and status of its author, significantly harder. Not impossible, but harder.--Anthony.bradbury 00:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Isn't that at least partly balanced, though, by the fact that if someone creates an article saying, for example, "John Smith is a Martian form of alien", you can see that at a glance on the NP page? Loganberry (Talk) 01:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- True enough. But is is hard to see the wood for the trees.--Anthony.bradbury 22:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Awesome!
Absolutely awesome feature. With edit summaries like
Replacing page with (expletive)
It makes it so much easier on IRC etc for the bots to pick up such summaries. Should make WP:RCP much easier — Deon555talk 23:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yes. But is does mean that some articles, particularly those written by account holders and hence in blue, not red, can get perilously close to surviving. I just found a blatant attack page at position 48. I guess some of us work from further down the list, but I would hazard a guess most of us start at the top of the newpage list. Am I wrong?--Anthony.bradbury 00:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- Ah, I see what you mean.. It was always easier to spot redlinks and (stereotypically) associate it with vandalism... But I'm sure it should have more pro's in the future :) — Deon555talk 06:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Absolutely. But the page does get cluttered. Is it not possible to limit the automatic summary to a shorter length than that which appears to be the default at present?--Anthony.bradbury 14:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- Do we ever get answers to the questions on this page?--Anthony.bradbury 00:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Disabling AES?
Is it possible to disable automatic edit summaries? If not, is it possible to add a new option in the preferences? - Hahnchen 01:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- If you want, you can file a feature request at Bugzilla. Snoutwood (talk) 18:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Summary count
A purely hypothetical question: if an editor never actively adds a summary, but depends totally on the automatic system, when his/her edit history is examined will it show 100% edit summaries or will it show 0%?--Anthony.bradbury 14:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Most wanted list
Could the devs extend the feature list offered by AES? I'd like this to be enabled for prods, afds and csd targets too, so I don't have to label them. - hahnchen 18:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- Give me specific requests and I'll decide whether or not to implement them on a case-by-case basis. — Werdna talk criticism 03:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- My first and foremost request would be the ability to turn off AES in the user preferences. Ideally, it would allow me to turn off AES for say new articles, but leave them on for redirects say. So have a checkbox for each AES possibility. My second request would be for extensions to the amount of AES available, to automatically label AFDs for example. Or automatically label cleanup tags. If those can be implemented, I'd like to be able to code my own AES's and store them in my userspace somewhere. - hahnchen 17:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Overriding preferences
Is the discussion at User_talk:LittleOldMe#Help_me accurate? He says that the new automated summaries are overriding his Preferences of "prompt me when I forget to enter a summary". I hope this was accounted for when this was written... see also Bugzilla #8065. -- nae'blis 18:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Suggestion
Could there be automatic edit summaries for only adding interwiki links to other language wikipedia's? --WS 20:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
