Difference between revisions of "Help talk:Style/Edit summary"

From ArchWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(add info)
(old discussions, redirect)
(6 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
All edits to articles should be accompanied by some words in the summary filed, answering the question "'''Why''' did you edit the article?". "What", "where", "when" and "how" are self-explained by the diff itself, it's redundant to add them. An explanation is not mandatory in talk pages, where the "why" should be already evident. Remember that links are allowed in the summary field, so it is allowed to point to an existing discussion. -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] 09:32, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
#REDIRECT [[Help talk:Style]]
Maybe we could submit a bug to request the change of the word "Summary:" to "Reason for editing:" next to the input in the edit page itself? -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] 11:33, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
:Would it go directly upstream? The Polish wiki has something like ''Summarize the changes [you've made to the        article]''. Wikipedia has ''Edit summary <sub>(Briefly describe the changes you have made)</sub>''. They all deal with what is being changed, not '''why''' - we need to fix this :-) -- [[User:Karol|Karol]] 12:04, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
::Done: {{Bug|24075}}, remember you can vote it. -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] 12:57, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
:::Any wiki admin can change this message (aside: can you view [[Special:AllMessages]]?) I think it might be more fitting to include this as an addendum to the copyright notice instead (text above the summary field). Perhaps we should also consider making the edit summary mandatory (i.e. prevent saving with a blank summary). -- [[User:Pointone|pointone]] 22:55, 4 May 2011 (EDT)
::::Nice, I can see that page, I didn't know that ^^ Maybe I should close the bug request then. Anyway I'm quite sure that ''only'' appending this recommendation to the copyright notice would make people start ignoring it very soon (as it happens with road signs eheh): I'm still in favour of changing the word "Summary", as it's misleading. Making the field mandatory could be a great idea instead, but for what I've seen until now, if the edit page returns an error, it forgets about the editing done, and it would be quite annoying (the textarea could be easily repopulated echoing $_POST['...'] instead of recovering the text back from the database; I have only tested this when trying to edit a page that has been edited by somebody else meanwhile). -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] 06:15, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
::::(Well, doing it in javascript would solve the problem, though using JS is not very wiki-style it seems) -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] 06:17, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
:::::When saving an edit that conflicts with another, your changes ''are'' saved. MediaWiki presents you with two text areas: one contains the page contents and the other contains your edit.
:::::Either way, a quick Google search reveals [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:DieBuche/forcesummary.js User:DieBuche/forcesummary.js] and [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Force edit summary]] as two possible solutions. There also is a user preference option under '''Editing''' > '''Advanced options''' > '''Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary''' -- I wonder whether we can enable this option by default as a less-intrusive solution.
:::::-- [[User:Pointone|pointone]] 09:16, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
::::::Uhm it always looked like I lost my changes everytime I had edit conflicts (always easily recovered with the back button), anyway it could be that I didn't look well.
::::::About the main topic, I would first try just to change the Summary text, anyway if you want to go the JS way immediately, do it in a way that the user understands that he has to answer the question "why", not "what", otherwise all edit summaries would probably be filled with "added section", "corrected code", "deleted section" and so on (well, those ''are'' summaries in the end, and that's what the form requests literally atm). -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] 11:07, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I think it's also OK to combine 'what' with 'why' e.g. '[https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=Arch_Based_Distributions_(Active)&diff=prev&oldid=139695 removed '''outdated''' links]'. I'm not a native English speaker, but it sounds more natural than 'links were outdated'. -- [[User:Karol|Karol]] 11:50, 6 May 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Of course it's also ok, anyway I'm not a native speaker either, but if a label says "Reason for editing" it comes more natural to me to write "links were outdated". This system should also exploit a bit of psychology afterall. -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] 12:56, 6 May 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::<facepalm> Of course you are absolutely right ... I - ummm - forgot that we wanted to change 'Summary' to 'Reason for editing'. Sorry about that. -- [[User:Karol|Karol]] 19:58, 8 May 2011 (EDT)
:::Since the bug got closed as 'Upstream', do we go upstream with this? -- [[User:Karol|Karol]] 19:58, 8 May 2011 (EDT)
::::I am curious whether this has been discussed upstream already... I have no problem with making the change on our end, since every wiki handles summary policy differently (as pointed-out above in examples). -- [[User:Pointone|pointone]] 22:46, 8 May 2011 (EDT)
:::::Well you are the one in charge here, you can decide what to do now ;) -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] 05:53, 9 May 2011 (EDT)
::::::The style part of this discussion has been implemented in the guide. I'd still be interested in changing "Summary" to "Reason for editing", anybody else? -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] 15:32, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Going upstream would benefit more that just our wiki, as mediawiki is a pretty popular piece of software. +1 from me. -- [[User:Karol|Karol]] 16:45, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::The relevant system message is [[MediaWiki:Summary]]. I would suggest that the word "Summary" itself remain, as it is referenced in other locations and the documentation. My vote is for addition of an explanatory subtext à la Wikipedia. (Summary: <sub>(Briefly describe the changes you have made)</sub>). -- [[User:Pointone|pointone]] 13:50, 22 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Cooool, that's the way to go! +1000 XD
:::::::::Some ideas:
:::::::::*<sub>Briefly explain the reason for the changes you have made</sub>
:::::::::*<sub>Briefly explain the reason for your edit</sub>
:::::::::*<sub>Briefly explain the reason for your changes</sub>
:::::::::*<sub>Briefly explain the reason why you edited the page</sub>
:::::::::-- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] 15:55, 22 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::I think a combination of using explanatory text (I like something such as "<sub>Briefly explain the reason for your changes</sub>" from your suggestions), and investigating how to set "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" user option by default would make it more noticeable and be a great start here.  [[User:Emiralle|Emiralle]] 12:56, 15 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::I'd like to make the edit summary strictly mandatory (meaning that a blank summary field won't allow submitting the edit): pointone mentioned some possible methods for doing this in the first part of the discussion, I'm just adding some more references as reminders (don't know exactly what to do with them yet... :P ): [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:$wgDefaultUserOptions] (see "forceeditsummary"), [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Parameters_to_index.php#Optional_additional_data], [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikia_code/includes/EditPage.php]. -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] 15:01, 20 October 2011 (EDT)
== Proper use of "This is a minor edit" ==
I know it is mentioned in [[Help:Editing#Editing]] (with a link to [[Wikipedia:Help:Minor_edit]]) but is it worth mentioning on the style guide as well?  It seems at least as relevant as [[Help:Style#Edit summary]]. [[User:James Eder|James Eder]] 15:32, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:Actually there are some things that should me moved from [[Help:Editing]] to this article, the reference to minor edits is only one of them. The scope of [[Help:Editing]] should be redefined as a description of all the "tools" that users have for writing articles, and how they work, while [[Help:Style]] should define the "boundaries" within one can use those tools. -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] 20:07, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
On the other hand it would likely be even more effective if "This is a minor edit" were changed to "This is a [[Wikipedia:Help:Minor_edit|minor edit]]" (with the link opening in a new window). [[User:James Eder|James Eder]] 15:32, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:Eheh the "link opening in a new window" is not something that can be made light of, I don't know if it's possible to do it using wiki syntax on a per-link basis, maybe pointone has more info :) -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] 20:07, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::This would appear to be a system-wide setting: [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Opening_external_links_in_a_new_window Opening external links in a new window]. The relevant system message is [[MediaWiki:Minoredit]]. -- [[User:Pointone|pointone]] 13:06, 4 October 2011 (EDT)
:::I see, however I don't think it'd be worth the effort. -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] 17:52, 4 October 2011 (EDT)

Latest revision as of 02:50, 24 October 2015

Redirect to: