Help talk:Edit summary

Default Summery

Is there any option to store a default summary (changed from the user's end)? For example, this week I was working only on the infobox, so the edit summary would be 'Infobox corrected/updated. - IJohnKennady (talk) 17:05, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Add description on Wikipedia App doesn't allow edit summaries

Hello! I notice that when I add descriptions to articles using the Android Wikipedia app, no edit summary is possible. Anybody know who to talk to about getting this fixed? "Short description added" or something equivalent would be all that's needed. DoctorMatt (talk) 04:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

@Doctormatt I don't, but I too wish it did. If I add a description via the Suggested Edits feature a default summary gets added, but if I use Add description on an article page, the summary is left blank. I try to remember to add it by editing the introduction instead, but frequently forget. Musiconeologist (talk) 02:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Oh, I think a request can be made here [1]. I'll have to try that. Cheers! DoctorMatt (talk) 04:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Inadvertent scolding

I've caught myself writing summaries in the form of infinitival clauses like Avoid saying x or Put titles in italics. I mean simply that I've reworded an ambiguous sentence so it can't say x, or that I'm italicising some titles. But it can easily be read instead as an imperative addressed to a previous editor, so it comes across as "Don't say x, you idiot!" or "For crying out loud, won't you ever learn that book titles are italicised?"

It's convenient, but maybe a bad habit. So I wonder whether a very brief mention would be in order, maybe as part of the point about civility. (Something about awareness of how the summary might be read. I'm happy to come up with something.)

When something you add is edited very soon afterwards, it's easy to feel as though the next editor is 'marking your work' (sometimes without being at all qualified to), when really all they're doing is integrating it into the article or noticing a typo that you didn't. Musiconeologist (talk) 17:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:→" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia:→ has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 21 § Wikipedia:→ until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 13:50, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Editsummaries are not required

The wording on this page led people to believe that editsummaries are required, and worse still, that they could revert any edit without an editsummary.

And to be fair, it was very misleading. I have tried to improve the wording to accurately reflect the consensus that editsummaries are not required, but considered "best practice".

The section header: Always provide an edit summary

And these sentences:

According to the consensus policy, in general, edits should be explained.

According to the consensus policy, all edits should be explained (unless the reason for them is obvious)—either by clear edit summaries, or by discussion on the associated talk page.

are rather misleading.

Polygnotus (talk) 06:58, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• I agree that the H:FIES heading is misleading, but the text of that section seems to be a fairly accurate description of WP:EDITCON, which also uses the word "should." Since EDITCON is the policy, I'm thinking you should focus your efforts to clarify the meaning of "should" there first.
  Meanwhile, what would you suggest as a better wording for the H:FIES heading? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• @Polygnotus: The word "should" is weaker than "must" but stronger than "may". See rfc:2119. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

  Polygnotus' concern, as I understand it, is that some editors - unaware of rfc:2119 - read "should" as "must." - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 04:47, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Polygnotus left a note for me about this discussion (thanks!).

  Yes, I think that the must/should confusion is part of the problem, but I also think this help page is out of step with both the policy and with the community's practice. For example:

  • "Always provide an edit summary" – not "always". Perhaps "almost always in the mainspace", but the community doesn't care whether you use edit summaries when editing your sandbox or on talk pages.
  • "Except for the automatic summary when creating a redirect, which usually says all that needs to be said, these [automatic edit summaries] are not a substitute for a proper edit summary – you should always leave a meaningful summary, even in the above cases." – Nope. See Wikipedia:Revert, block, ignore.
  • "If you are copying text within Wikipedia, you must at least put a link to the source page in the edit summary at the destination page." – Best practice. Very extremely strongly preferred practice. But also not a fatal mistake.

  Overall, this feels like a page explaining what one person/group believes is the ideal. It doesn't feel like a help page. It might be helpful to compare this page to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and see how much duplicates TPG or could be merged over there.

  As for the WP:SHOULD problem, it's possible that we could address that in Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#­Content. There's already a statement in there that the word must is not banned from guidelines, so we could add something like "The word should does not mean the same as must; see rfc:2119 for an explanation of how you should use the words in policy and guideline pages". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

• It may not be mandatory but if someone makes a big bunch of changes without any explanation, then I for one would have no guilt about reverting on sight (with the edit summary reverted, too many unexplained changes, try again with an edit summary). Choosing to make such an edit without explanation is contemptuous of fellow editors and deserves a response in kind. So yes, for minor changes it is a should but for significant changes it is a must. IMO of course. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

  In such cases, do you look at the diff and attempt to figure out what happened?

  I wonder whether the problem is the complexity of the diff, or the size of the change. For example, if someone takes a neglected three-sentence stub and turns it into a 1,500-word-long article, how much of an explanation do you really need? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:47, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

  Seems pretty clear to me that JMF is talking about complexity ("a big bunch of changes"). - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)