Wikipedia talk:Edit summary

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Common keyboard shortcuts 2 Flagging edit as Minor edit 3 Asterisk in summary field 4 Demanding summary field use? 5 Summary compulsory for anon users? 6 Section title as automatic edit summary 7 What to do after erroneous summary 8 Examples of Edit Summaries 9 Edit summaries as policy 10 Use of edit summaries in disputes 11 Forcing summaries 12 Edit summary & wikifying expectations 13 Tips section 14 article organization 15 Edit negotiations 16 My reversion 17 One line summary 18 Templates in edit summaries? 19 Merging Wikipedia:Edit summary with Help:Edit summary? 20 Should be left? 21 A couple of other guidelines/policies 22 Rename to Wikipedia:Guidelines for edit summaries 23 Promotional use of edit summaries 24 Force Edit Summary Scripts 25 Merging with Help:Edit summary?

[edit] Common keyboard shortcuts

For some of us, we need to use ALT-A to select all, instead of CTRL-A. Can you work that in nicely without cluttering too much? I don't know of any where the others won't work for sure, that's the one I know of from personal experience. -- John Owens

I think the whole comment "(CTRL-A, CTRL-C, TAB, CTRL-V, TAB, SPACE, ENTER for mouse-free operation)" is more confusing than handy, experienced computer users will be familiar with these shortcuts, and this is also not-relevant to the subject of the article. -- Rotem Dan 23:10 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

I can definitely see your point, I guess when I remarked about "not cluttering too much", I kind of had that in mind, but I do think it would be nice to keep it somewhere. Perhaps a "Tricks for advanced users" kind of section? -- John Owens 23:15 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

I think a "list of common keyboard shortcuts on windows systems" would be more accurate.. :) This is it, i'm removing this clutter.. -- Rotem Dan 23:19 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

I have no idea what this is all about or how to use the editing functions. I wanted to correct a sentence in the Cahokia article (a verb is missing). But I couldn't figure out the instructions and wound up here (Where am I?). Couldn't Wik make things easier or clearer instead of saying 'It's soo easy.'

[edit] Flagging edit as Minor edit

I can't see any mention of how to flag an edit as a minor edit (so it gets that 'M' in the recent changes list) - a) can someone tell me how? b) can it be added to this article if relevant? -- S

I added the answer to Wikipedia:How to edit a page, you have to log in. - Patrick 15:08 26 May 2003 (UTC)

What if we cannot use the checkbox, or if there is none, as in the Korean WP? There must be another way to do this. 82.83.105.206 00:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Asterisk in summary field

In summary/revision history, some people put * in front of their summary. What does the asterisk signify? --Menchi 22:03 Feb 12, 2003

Most likely, nothing at all. An older version of the wiki software put an asterisk in the summary field in the edit form by default, and some people forgot to delete it when typing in their own text. --Brion

[edit] Demanding summary field use?

Has there been any discussion of this (recently)? Occasionally checking Page History lists, I find it progressively annoying that some people don't summarize their edits. With User:<username> pages exempt, should one implement some sort of 'reminder' system, say a message popping up when a user tries to Save Page with nothing in the Summary field? Just airing the thought (sorry if there's loads of discussion on this in some FAQ/archive I've ignored). Even a meager "misc" or "more info" is better than nothing! --Wernher 09:48, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Yes, there has been some previous discussion. But I haven't seen this suggestion before and I think it's a good one. I never leave the comment off except by accident, but then I can't add it. So a reminder would be great. Andrewa 12:46, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

What pisses me off is that some of most experienced Wikipedians (many of which are sysops) don't do it! It is just one word or two! Type! :-) --Menchi (Talk)â 12:49, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Oh I hear people talking a bout me! Yes, I recognize that I am seldom filling the field, but I have to admit that it does not bother me when people leave it empty also. If a majority feels that this field should be filled, then we could imagine having a function asking to add a summary before the change can be saved. olivier 13:24, Dec 16, 2003 (UTC)

You have my vote for making an edit summary mandatory. (Even though I don't always give one) --snoyes 15:00, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

edit summary contains our current guidelines (not rules, not laws). If you want to make a feature request, go to wikipedia:bug reports or to meta, as noted in the introduction to the pump.

I recommend a two-pronged approach. Firstly, model the behaviour you desire in others - make sure you always fill out meaningful summaries.

Secondly, when a lack of edit summary causes you problems, go over to the user talk page of the person in question, and gently explain the problems you've been having, and ask if they would try to include an edit summary in future. Be polite, and don't make an issue of it, but don't be afraid to ask.

You'd be surprised how effective gentle persuasion can be - typically far more effective than any form of coercion, or trying to "lay down the law". It won't work on everyone, but it can really help to shift the balance, and make life more pleasant and more productive.Martin 19:37, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

###note###: this is a response written long after the original thread was first active; the next original thread entry is marked like this text

Here's my attempt at a friendly (?) persuasion boilerplate text, and one response I got recently...

«Hi! Just some advice from a co-wikipedian with common interests (<topic>): it would be super-nice if everybody took a couple of seconds to fill in the summary field after editing articles (e.g. fixing typos -- in fact, especially then), so all the watchlist users didn't have to check the diff to find out what has changed. Saves us all a little annoyance and some time. No need for a doctoral thesis in the summary, of course, just some short abbrevs will do, like "typo" etc.» --Wernher <time stamp> (hmm, perhaps I should've included a smiley?)

«For an open community, there sure seem to be a lot people who like to tell others what to do. Tell you what, I'm sorry I upset you, so I've made my last edit and written my last article on Wiki. Your loss. Goodbye.» <user name, time stamp>

Mind you, the not-so-friendly non-summary-field-using respondent later removed the whole text incl his response, and has contributed loads of edits since, so I guess he either regained his temper or just pulled my leg in the first place. However, I can't really know, so I wonder if I should post a kind of apology at his talk page (risking to provoke him even more... hard call). BTW, do you think my boilerplate text was patronizing or in any other way rudely written? I promise not to respond like the guy I p*d off :-) --Wernher 19:11, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Update: I sent an explanation/apology to said wikipedian; he has now told me he had a seriously bad day when he first responded, and now that he's thought about it supports the view of remembering to fill in summaries. To wrap it up, he lifted my spirits quite a lot by exhibiting brilliant 'wikipedihaviour'! I will, however, try to formulate my boilerplate text even more friendly, to avoid the risk of more or less 'sounding like a schoolteacher'. :-) --Wernher 20:33, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

###note###: original thread continues

Thanks for commenting; I try to behave as sort a of 'role model' (hmmm... feeling the weight on my shoulders already... phew...) when summarizing my edits, small or (very occasionally) large. As for gentle persuasion, ideal as that solution may be, I feel that it would be quite exhausting to explain the 'right thing to do' to each and every non-summarizing contributor crossing my path... (like any [borderline] Wikipedaholic I check a lot of summaries during an edit binge).

What I feel we might need is some sort of gentle automated persuasion, perhaps in the form of preferably 1) a stern and visually striking reminder located next to the summary field, or if that didn't help, 2) a pop-up'ish thing of the same character (although I rather detest such invasive in-yer-face messages, and I absolutely see, as noted by Merphant, the danger of stimulating the entry of 'ahsffdghfh'-like summaries -- in other words, a good old arms race...). --Wernher 05:16, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

You don't have to persuade everyone - just a few people, as and when. Others will do the same. It'll happen slowly. Automated persusasion just lacks that human touch, in my experience. Martin 18:14, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

What I'd like to see are more useful edit summaries. A summary that only says "comment" for a talk page edit, for example, is obvious and redundant. Also sometimes people make huge summaries for one character changes, like "removed the unnecessary apostrophe between 'of' and 'the' in the second paragraph of the ==History== section". I guess something is better than nothing, although I predict that having mandatory edit summaries would lead to more summaries like 'sdfdgdfsg' and 'change'. -- Merphant 21:36, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with huge summaries. They help build trust (especially when the summary matches the edit ;-)). Also "comment" isn't redundant - there are many things I do on talk pages that aren't making comments. :) Martin 22:36, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Summary compulsory for anon users?

I would like to suggest that it be made compulsory for anonymous users to put something (anything!) in the edit summary box. I would like to make it compulsory for everyone but I'm willing to start small and work up. --Phil 11:02, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)

Apart from the "start small and work up" idea, is there any other reason why only anonymous users should be made to do this ? I'd prefer making the summary compulsory for everyone for non-minor edits. Or if that is frowned upon, at least make it compulsory for long pages like Village pump and Vfd. Jay 15:03, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Jay, if it's only for minor edits, I think all that will encourage is for people to mark major edits as minor, rather than explain them in detail. Sorry to be pessimistic. Jwrosenzweig 16:47, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I surpose making it compulsury for anon users to add a sumary might help curb vandalism, as people putting rubbish in the article are likely to do the same in the summary box making it easier to spot. But I wouldn't support making it compulsury for logged in users. G-Man 20:43, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I concur with the original post - I'd like to see it mandatory for *all* edits, but I'm willing to start with anon users. I agree with the point about differentiating between minor and non-minor edits, though. Noel 00:10, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. Edit summaries should be made mandatory imnsho. Jor 20:24, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Forcing anons to preview a page before being presented with a save button would also be a good idea. --mav 05:13, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Force everyone to preview pages before they can save their edits. I know it would probably benefit me. Failing that, make hitting Enter preview rather than save -- so far I have twice saved half-edited page when my finger slipped while I was summarizing. --Charles A. L. 21:36, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)

Make always previewing the default but allow registered users to override in preferences. Jor 20:24, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I would suggest making it compulsory for everyone but anons. That way, the blank edit summaries indicative of vandalism will stand out more. --Carnildo 06:28, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Edit summaries are currently required of all users. Hyacinth 21:54, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but it is still functionally possible to save a page change with no edit summary, which has created suspicions in case someone has deleted considerable materials with no reason.--Jusjih 08:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Section title as automatic edit summary

I noticed this change, i.e. including the section title automatically, when editing tonight; strangely I haven't seen any discussion of this feature whatsoever before it was implemented -- could someone point me to the relevant page which I missed? I was on the brink of suggesting such a feature myself, so first of all I want to say I'm very happy with the concept.

Why do I mention this? Well, I might be interested in participating in such a discussion, which I assume has taken place somewhere (in the wikimedia domain, perhaps? I must admit to not having checked very much of that area yet). For instance, I would suggest using something else (almost anything, in fact) than parentheses for delimiting the section title in the summary field, for clarity/esthaetic reasons.

How about single or double hyphens or something, like --section title-- , which would look like (--section title-- user's own text) in history lists. I feel that such delimiters would be better than the current ((section title) user's own text). Or perhaps something other than hyphens would be even better. No matter, I would like to know where to discuss it, anyway :-)--Wernher 00:44, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village_pump#Auto-Summary_and_Preview.--Patrick 01:11, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yep, did, tnx! Now the format is great, by my preferences -- which is what counts. ;-) --Wernher 22:58, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't think this "automatic edit summary" is a good feature. Many times people may make a drastic change, or a very minor change, and either way the edit summary is just something like /* Section 8 */. Having the Edit summary already "filled out" frees them, in their minds, from the responsibility of telling other people what they have done. P0M 01:59, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] What to do after erroneous summary

Hi,

I just made a change to a page, and I forgot to put a summary in the box. That's bad, because it could be a controversial change, and I don't want it to look like I was trying to sneak it in. What do you do if you need to put a summary in afterwards? Creidieki 03:42, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

See [1].--Patrick 11:43, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The above link, which used to point to a "dummy edit" section on Help:Editing, is broken. Am I correct in assuming that the recommended advice is to perform a dummy or null edit (no or trivial change to text), with a summary which corrects the prior (incorrect) edit summary? --EngineerScotty 03:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Examples of Edit Summaries

It is would be very helpful if this article included examples of good edit summaries, or links to good examples. I'm never sure just how much to put in the summary field.

Is the goal of the summary to give enough info so that an editor does not feel the need to check the exact changes?

Yes, "Accurate summaries help people decide whether it is worthwhile for them to check a change." Hyacinth 18:09, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think this is one place where it may be unwise to give too much instruction. I almost never think this! But edit summaries are read by editors who then often make a decision not to check the actual edit. This implies trust. Certain wordings in edit summaries brand editors as novices or Old Heads, even if the editing-editor is not known personally to the checking-editor.

Experience -- sheer time spent editing -- is what teaches an editor the accepted style for edit summaries. It does not take much experience, nor is this hard to acquire -- just read a few dozen history pages. But the rank newbie sock puppet has not yet done this, and is unable to imitate Old Head style -- therefore, cannot trash a page and carefully mark it m -- typo.

In any case, I think specific examples abound on said history pages. As for what is good and what is not good, well, do we need anyone to tell us these things? — Xiong (talk) 01:23, 2005 Mar 30 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summaries as policy

I oppose making it required to fill edit summaries. I prefer making it a recommendation or at least saying it is helpful to do so. Peter O. (Talk) 04:00, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

I support edit summaries remaining required. Why do you oppose their requirement? And do you mean required by policy or technology? Hyacinth 17:59, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If edit summaries were required by technology, edit histories would just be filled with (asdf) and (hjkl) and similar gibberish. If they were strictly required by policy, well, I don't think that policy would be followed.

Gibberish is as useful as a blank line and doesn't hurt us at all, whereas if any people are encouraged to provide more edit summaries we are better off than before. Hyacinth 18:06, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Agree with Hyacinth on the last point.--Alhutch 20:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

It's stated as a guideline (not, significantly, as a rule). I don't think there's that much practical difference here, just semantics. Nobody is proposing to have the software refuse edits with empty summary fields. The point of this policy is to get people to use their good sense in communicating with other editors, not draconian enforcement. --Michael Snow 19:16, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC) (who did not provide an edit summary, instead lazily relying on the auto-filled section title)

What are you talking about? What "draconian enforcement"? It is currently stated as a guideline, but was not when this discussion started. Hyacinth 01:04, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What I meant is that the section heading is "Guidelines", and has been for a long time. Sorry for the confusion, but I wasn't referring to the particular wording of the instruction. The way it was before was already acceptable. --Michael Snow 04:21, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I also preferred the way it was before. I'll change it back. Noel (talk) 23:35, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Being frustrated by the above discussion I typed up a section to take User:Nunh-huh's requested vote and then wondered if it would be in an acceptable format. However, Wikipedia:Voting, rather than informing me of the correct manner, location, and format for voting, discourages voting (and does nothing else). So I went to Wikipedia:Policy#How_are_policies_decided?. All of these pages suggest that we are arguing semantics and the comments of everyone, myself include, on this page indicate we are ignorant of actual policy and procedures. Hyacinth 00:16, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Use of edit summaries in disputes

This article seems to have been the target of frequent vandalism -- I must imagine by sock puppets standing in for banned users. In any case, it looks to me as if an important section has been mangled inadvertently in the course of frequent reverts.

As you may gather from my comment above in Examples of Edit Summaries, I think most of this article is, at best, unnecessary. If you spend much time editing, you will learn quickly by example. The important points, because so widely ignored (which therefore means the examples are not always good ones) are that edits should almost always have summaries; and (subject of this section) that summaries not be used to annoy other users or inflame unstable atmospheres. So, I've tried to restore the last intelligible text, correct grammar, and format it to give it the prominence it deserves. — Xiong (talk) 01:43, 2005 Mar 30 (UTC)

[edit] Forcing summaries

If, like me, you forget to write edit summaries, then the following code, added to your monobook.js, should help:

function addForceSummary(){
    if(!/&action=edit/.test(window.location.href)) return;
    if(/&section=new/.test(window.location.href)) return;
    if(!document.forms.editform) return;
    document.forms.editform.wpSave.onclick = forceSummary;
}

function forceSummary(){
    if(!document.forms.editform.wpSummary.value.replace(/(^ +)|( +$)/g,'').replace(/^\/\*.*\*\/ */,'')){
      var r = prompt('Are you sure you want to submit without adding a summary?\nTo add a summary, type it in the box below:',document.forms.editform.wpSummary.value);
      if(r == null) return false;
      document.forms.editform.wpSummary.value = r;
    }
    return true;
}

if (window.addEventListener) window.addEventListener("load",addForceSummary,false);
else if (window.attachEvent) window.attachEvent("onload",addForceSummary);

Note that this pops up a dialog if the edit summary is blank or only contains the automatic text (/* something */). – ABCD 14:16, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summary & wikifying expectations

Someone who knows that the outcome of "[external URL]" in the edit summary doesn't return "[n]" should explain this and other differences for we newbies. Thanks, hydnjo talk 23:13, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

In other words, since we can't Show preview the "Edit summary" it is sometimes an unintended surprise! ;-) hydnjo talk 23:27, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tips section

If the changes comprise only a couple of words then it is straightforward to just write these in the summary. Some people use "+", "-" and "->" for additions, deletions and changes. Example:

• m 19:51 List of unseen characters (diff; hist) . . Frazzydee (Talk) ({{multispoiler}}->{{spoiler-about|various works}} (somebody who knows more about this should change the parameter to be more specific))

I'm sure that of those people who go to this page, many would welcome such hints. But it doesn't fit under the "Guidelines" headline since we should not require everyone to do this. How about a "Tips" or "Ideas" headline in which such tips can be written?

This also could include how-to tips like

• When I change categories I often write them on one line, copy them into the summary and then insert the line in the text.

Let me know what you think. — Sebastian (talk) 04:04, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

[edit] article organization

Should be divided into Help:edit summary and Wikipedia:edit summary guidelines. The first is simply a how to, especially for Wikipedia:newbies. The second would be a Wikipedia:policy page, where we insist on (or maybe just recommend) conventional use of it. Uncle Ed 14:02, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edit negotiations

This page advises that, "edit summaries are not the place to carry on debates or negotiation over the content. Doing this will actually exacerbate the situation, because it naturally encourages the other party to respond in the same manner - in other words, by making an edit and using the edit summary - and what might have been productive dialogue instead becomes an edit war." This is good advice if the discussion is heated or hostile, but there are times when it's just easier to have friendly and cooperative negotiation over content using edit summaries, simply because it's a much more lightweight process than going to the discussion page. This is not a bad practice, presuming that it's good always to describe the change. — Matt Crypto 00:38, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

You have a good point. I negotiate with an edit summary sometimes too. However, this is a finer level detail for people experienced enough to not get into edit wars (too often). That is, in general, not using the edit summary for discussion is a good rule of thumb. Oleg Alexandrov 02:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My reversion

I just reverted Uncle G's deletion of a lot of text. He says it duplicates text from Help:Edit summary. Well, I say that is not a good reason.

I write on people's pages all the time telling them to put an edit summary, link which redirects here. Uncle G removed the most important text and the picture from this page, which is not right. Yes, that text is available at Help:Edit summary, but that is a huge dry document, and when you confront people with the fact that they fail to put an edit summary, you don't want them to go to that Help:Edit summary page. They need to get a concise idea what an edit summary is (the picture is very suggestive), why it is important, and that it is required.

Besides, Uncle G, that was a big change. You should have discussed here first. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:47, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• It's not a big change. And if you wanted to discuss it, you had months of warning. (The help namespace has been around for many months now, and warning messages that the goal is to eliminate duplication of help in the project namespace have been prominent for most of 2005.) The fact that edit summary redirects to the wrong page has an obvious fix. (It shouldn't redirect out of the article namespace at all, of course, and you shouldn't be referring people to it in the first place.) And eliminating the duplication of the help system is a perfectly good reason. Uncle G 02:57, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Then you need to remove this page altogether. What you left is just a rather useless stub. I would suggest it be redirected to Help:Edit summary. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:12, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] One line summary

There being a need for concise one line summaries of guidelines, I offer this version. Please feel free to change it as necessary, and update the template Template:Guideline one liner to suit your taste. If the summary is inaccurate, please improve it rather than removing the template. Comments and opinions welcome! Stevage 14:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Templates in edit summaries?

Is there any way to use templates such as Aucaman (talk • contribs) in edit summaries? They could be really helpful. Aucaman^Talk 06:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merging Wikipedia:Edit summary with Help:Edit summary?

At least, this is User:Radiant!'s suggestion.

At first glance, the merge is a nobrainer, the pages basically talk about the same thing.

However, Wikipedia:Edit summary is much better written, attuned to local Wikipedia concerns, while Help:Edit summary is the Meta-wide page (copied here) and is hard to read. I would disagree with any merger unless one rewrites Help:Edit summary to explain in simple language why people should use edit summaries instead of blandly explaining what an edit summary is.

That is, in my view, and to repeat myself, these two pages share different purposes. Wikipedia:Edit summary clearly describes the guideline for why edit summaries are necessary, while Help:Edit summary is a bland description for what an edit summary is, and the policy that one should use an edit summary is buried within a lot of other things. I thus vote to keep the pages separate. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that there is a need for two separate pages. Help should explain what summaries are and how they work.WP:EDIT should be strictly about *why* we should use them. I've reworded it a little bit, and don't see much that overlaps with the help text. Ideally we do something with the very ugly preamble, but I'm not sure what, exactly. Is anyone unlikely to know what an edit summary is? Stevage 00:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

There needs to be something, whether officially a guideline or not, urging editors to use edit summaries, and that something can't be in the Help space, since that space is only used for how-to, not usage. Thus I'm inclined to agree with Stevage. If they are merged, they should be merged into Wikipedia namespace, not the other way around. Probably edit summaries should be urged in stronger terms than they are here. Chick Bowen 06:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they should be merged. Duplication in Wikis is evil! It is firstly of course extremely confusing and unhelpful to have two pages named the same thing - straight away this implies that they should be merged. IF, and I say IF, there is a need for a specific Wikipedia page to explain specific Wikipedia peculiarities (which I sincerely doubt), then it should be given a title to reflect the uniqueness, e.g. Wikipedia:Why use an edit summary or Wikipedia:Guide to using an edit summary with a link refering to the main Help:Edit summary page. I don't agree with Oleg Alexandrov that the Wikipedia version is better written - I think it is worse: it misses a lot of useful information and does not even reference the main source. Perhaps the main article should contain a better short summary of WHY to use an Edit summary and the sort of information it should contain. Brusselsshrek 11:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It does reference the main source, Help:Edit summary, you just need to read more carefully the very first paragraph. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Should be left?

The project page specifies:

Text enclosed between /* and */ should [bold added by me] be left, and your summary added afterwards.

I never do this, and from a glance at the "Recent changes" list, I'm not sure many people do. I generally remove it completely because I want to use as much space as possible. Can we simply DELETE this sentence, or change it to read something like:

Text enclosed between /* and */ may be used as a default, but preferable is to either add something after the /* and */, or to completely replace it with one's own description.

Brusselsshrek 20:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A couple of other guidelines/policies

Here are a couple other guidelines/policies which might be useful:

1. No personal attacks in edit summaries. While personal attacks are not acceptable anywhere in Wikipedia, personal attacks in edit summaries is especially obnoxious, as they will be visible in edit histories and other pages.
2. Do not include your username or the time/date of your edit--they are automatically added to the article.
3. Don't put try to put images, etc. in edit summaries--may not work anyway.
4. Dishonest edit summaries (i.e. ones which claim to only correct spelling, but conceal substantial changes to the article) are frowned upon. (Guideline? Policy?)

--EngineerScotty 03:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rename to Wikipedia:Guidelines for edit summaries

This might clear up the confusion over possible "duplication". "Edit summary" is a meaningless name for a guideline. It should follow the style of "Sign your name on talk pages" or "Three revert rule" and actually explain what the article is in the topic. I'm not married to my suggestion - others welcome. Stevage 21:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. Not worth the trouble, and is also too long. People just should stop picking at this one, it works the way it is. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

How about "Provide a good edit summary". "Edit summary" is just a bad title for a guideline. It says nothing. Also, Oleg, I notice that almost all your edits to this page are reverts. Maybe let someone else have a turn, eh? Stevage 00:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Is there anything specific you disagree with me about? :) Saying "your edits are reverts" is not terribly helpful, and I may say it is not constructive either. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, this is not only a policy but an explanation of what it is and how to use it. The best way to think about it is simmilar to pages for templates, userboxes, and simmilar devices.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 00:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Promotional use of edit summaries

My watchlist is starting to get a substantial number of edit summaries that start with "Popups-assisted . . .". The way I see it, this is a misuse of the edit summary to promote some software, helpful though it may be, and sets a bad precedent. Interested editors may want to read the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Tools/Navigation popups#Misusing edit summaries. —Michael Z. 2006-01-22 23:06 Z

I agree completely, these have been driving me nuts. We should not have to suffer advertisements on Wikipedia. We don't allow advertisements in articles, why would allowing them in edit summaries be okay? IMO we should create policy (not just a "guideline") specifically against this sort of activity - it would only take a minor alteration to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox to make it explicitly clear. ¦ Reisio 17:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I have brought this up (copied) at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Promotional use of edit summaries. ¦ Reisio 17:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something here... but the "popups-assisted" business doesn't strike me as an advertisement at all. It's useful to know if an edit summary was performed by a bot or other tool. I haven't clicked on the popup link--are people using these things pointing them at advertisements? (By ad, I mean something which tries to promote and sell a product?) As discussed on the other page, "Edited with Firefox" might be inappropriate, but this seems useful on the surface.

Perhaps a solution to the problem is to modify the site software so that any tools used to assist in edits gets stored in some other metadata field, rather than the summary; much as the time and date of the edit are.

--EngineerScotty 17:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

What is exactly do you find useful about it? ¦ Reisio 18:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Me, personally? Very little; I'm not an admin so I'm not out looking for runaway bots and such. OTOH, it doesn't bother me. --EngineerScotty 18:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Awareness of the various tools out there is not an impediment or burden on Wikipedians but an assistance for others. I see it less as advertisement, more as enlightenment. I have read the thread at Talk Navigation popups. I could support the suggestion by Michael that the link to the tool goes to the end of the summary, but see absolutely no need to remove it altogether. --Cactus.man ✍ 18:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Advertisement, perhaps, but also helpful to consumers who would never have heard about the product if it wasn't for the advertisement. I'm happy I learned about the popup tool that way. Edit summaries like this are just a tad more informative than "rv", but the spam factor isn't very high either. --Eddi (Talk) 21:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Force Edit Summary Scripts

Would it be OK to mention the edit summary forcing scripts on this page? I use one and it is very useful. I can't forget now and I think that as so many people ignore edit summaries it would be useful if people knew about the scripts. I have an example at User:The_Neokid/forceeditsummary/script.js. The Neokid talk 18:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I find the forcing edit summary script very useful too, and have been using it for a while with great success. I am also a fanatic about using edit summaries, insisting on them for people candidating at WP:RfA, and I recently wrote a bot to bug users on their talk pages about filling in the summary field.

However, I would think that mentioning that script here would be going a bit too far. It may skew the focus on enforcement, rather than on nicely describing why it is suggested that users put in summaries. But I don't know, that's I what would think about it. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I've been occasionally using the very short Template:Edit summary.

How does the script work? I mean, how would I use it?

Hyacinth 10:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Save the text at User:The Neokid/forceeditsummary/script.js as User:Hyacinth/monobook.js, or append to it, if it already exists. Do a hard reload, per:

Note: After saving, you have to bypass your browser's cache to see the changes. Mozilla/Safari/Konqueror: hold down Shift while clicking Reload (or press Ctrl-Shift-R), IE: press Ctrl-F5, Opera: press F5.

Then try to edit a page without using an edit summary. The script should bug you to use one. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Hyacinth 08:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't seem to work, or I did it wrong. Hyacinth 13:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Really? Did you do a hard reload with "Ctrl-Shift R" in Firefox and some other combination in other browsers? If still does not work, I think you may need to ask Neokid on his talk page. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merging with Help:Edit summary?

Recent changes to this Wikipedia:Edit summary page made it rather unusable, with the picture being gone, and the explanation of what an edit summary also.

I would suggest this page be merged with Help:Edit summary, which is the WikiMedia-wide documentation, but is considered the primary source of information, and which transcludes this page at the bottom, see Help:Edit summary.

I am aware that this page is a guideline, not a help page, but again, the way it is now it is not helpful, and we may more productively focus on improving instead Help:Edit summary (and its Meta master copy). Comments? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

There were no comments, so I redirected this to Help:Edit summary. Since that's meant to be the main page discussing the feature in question, we could as well improve that article, than this one. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)