Template talk:Edit summary

NOTICE

Always use the substitute option with this template: {{subst:edit summary}}. If you do not do this users will inadvertantly edit the template when they attempt to edit the section on the talk page. Hyacinth 03:04, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Purpose

This template is for use in reminding users to follow policy and provide edit summaries. Hyacinth 18:51, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Required or requested

The policy currently reads, "Always fill the summary field." As such it is required, and it is misleading to request that people follow what is required. Hyacinth 21:56, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What's more misleading is a "policy" that does not correspond to actual practice. It's a policy that has never been universally practiced, and won't be unless it's enforced by software. So perhaps it would be best to change the description of the use of edit summaries in that policy so it corresponds to reality. To "require" something is pretty much beyond our power, so it would be best to "request" it. - 22:04, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Agree! I would also add that one has to be very very careful about what to require of Wikipedia contributors, how to approach them about those requirements, and how pedantic to be about enforcing the requirements. You do want people to keep some rules, but in the same time you don't want to scare people away with too many rules; or to enforce them in ways people think is unfair. So, care please. Oleg Alexandrov 01:11, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Requiring that policies be based on practice would make policies pointless, thus practices should be based on policies. However, once again, if you have a problem with the policy take it up at Wikipedia talk:Edit summary. Hyacinth 02:14, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

But then policies that are ignored are hardly "policy", and policies that are not enforced inspire contempt for "policy". Have you gotten any positive responses to your quest to enforce this particular "policy"? If not, it might be time to reconsider that quest. - Nunh-huh 00:54, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

For responses to the template see User talk:Hyacinth.

For reconsideration see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#General_convention_and_policy_issues.

Please discuss whether this policy should or should not be, or should or should not be enforced, at Wikipedia:Edit summary and Wikipedia talk:Edit summary as opposed to on the talk page for this template. Hyacinth 02:36, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

One can't discuss "reconsideration" as this was never particularly "considered", nor can one meaningfully discuss a "requirement" that is a guideline rather than a requirement. But I suppose the fewer pages it's discussed on, the better. On which page can we find the vote in which this "policy" was endorsed? - Nunh-huh 22:34, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

On which page can you find the vote under which any policy was endorsed? Hyacinth

Having written the above I set about to take a vote. I typed everything up for that, and then wondered if it would be in an acceptable format. So I read: Wikipedia:Voting, which 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 00:00, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi guys. I think you have to drop this. Many good wikipedians don't put an edit summary. And I tried the very nice new "Template:Edit summary" only to get answers like "Don't bug me, man". The point is, whether required or requested, a template is not the way to go. This is how I think one should do.

First of all, one should not hunt for victims indiscriminantly. Start by noticing a big change with no edit summary. Study it. See if it worth pursuing. If yes, go to that user's talk's page. Write by your very hand an individualised message, explaining why you think in that particular case an edit summary was necessary. And so on.

This takes time. This might not work. But the point is, the template thing makes people feel like they just got a ticket for some violation or something. The only thing this will do is make people dislike you and will not encourage them to put edit summaries. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov 00:15, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately there is still the Always business.

Relax, OK? That's my whole point. You remind me of those ideological battles where people are far removed from reality. I am trying to tell you to be pragmatic if you want to get anything done.

Or, in other words, that always rule is just plain stupid. Things work by persuasion, not by rules. Not when you deal with a community of volunteers.

Also, who are the "guys" you are talking to (it appears to be just me). Hyacinth 00:23, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, it seems from above you were arguing something with Nunh-huh. Or did he give up already? I think I will too. Oleg Alexandrov 00:38, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How long have you been contributing to Wikipedia? Have you noticed that people on Wikipedia are frequently jerks? Has it occurred to you that maybe the only people who react badly to a polite request to help other contributors out are the jerky ones or the nice ones during jerky moments? Hyacinth 00:43, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You miss my point. OK, I give up. I wish you good luck. Oleg Alexandrov 00:51, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

bug

Today I tried the thing {{subst:edit summary}} Makes a mess out of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=YOUR USERNAME.. Try and see.

Got rid of the mess, how does it look now? Hyacinth 02:30, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, it looks just as well as you see it right here:

Edit summary

Dear contributor, first I would like to say a big thank you for your time, care, and enthusiasm in editing Wikipedia articles. I hope you find it just as much fun as I do.

I am writing with a small suggestion. I wonder if you could write an edit summary every time you make changes to an article (or when you start a new one). Even a short summary helps. To see how often you have done so in the past, you may go to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=YOUR USERNAME.

Edit summaries are important for a number of reasons. Every time you change an article, a record of that change propagates to every single person who has that article on their watchlist. Most people have an article on their watchlist because they care a lot about it, so they would like to be informed about what is going on with it. Accurate summaries help people decide whether it is worthwhile for them to check a change. This is why your edit summary, which will take you maybe 15 seconds, is a time-saver and a great act of candor to the other people interested in the same article as you. Accurate edit summaries are important because they create trust regarding your contributions and help resolve disputes.

There are other, very convincing reasons for putting an edit summary. More information is available at Wikipedia:Edit summary. If at any point you have any questions about this rule (or anything else for that matter), please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you and happy editing!

Oleg Alexandrov 03:10, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Great. Hyacinth 00:02, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Not sure that'd help. I'm here b/c I just got bitten by a great Wikipedian who happens not to believe in edit summaries. I think there is a measure of ideological resistance that won't be assuaged by any nice wording. I'm trying to think if there is any other solution besides a template. Xiner (talk, email) 21:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Summary

Has anyone noticed that this exists? I've added Template:Edit summary to Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace just in case... 06:20, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Summary

Would it be worth it to alter this (in the en: WP) to include, say, the word "(required)"? The result could look like this:

Edit summary (required): [___________________________________________]

That would communicate the requirement to all members each time they edit a page, yet not be a big inconvenience or annoyance to those that are aware of it.

- Keith D. Tyler [flame] 19:55, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Length

"Edit summary - remove ridiculous boilerplate. 3 words from your mouth would more efficient than 10 ko worth of laughable politness."

My version was much shorter. Hyacinth 02:07, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

See Template:Editsummarynew. Hyacinth 06:35, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Line break

I've undone the insertion of a line break until it can be explained how inserting it is a fix of the formatting. --Geniac 11:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]