Hey guys. Some of us still use standard summaries. It would be handy if it was updated to include "Added image(s)", "Removed image(s)", and so on. Anyone got any more ideas? I can't remember it all now, but I've often felt like I had no preloaded summary to accurately describe my edit. Thanks. Stake black msg 02:20, November 27, 2013 (UTC)
- "Layout Guide," "Changed image," "Removed duplicate links," and "Updated infobox" would be nice. Also, an explanation of certain summaries would be nice. For example, when exactly should "Rewrite" be used?--Richterbelmont10 (come in R2!) 05:16, November 27, 2013 (UTC)
- "Fix redirecting link(s)" =) - Esjs(Talk) 16:41, November 27, 2013 (UTC)
- "Added image" and "removed speculation"<-Omicron(Leave a message at the BEEP!) 19:40, November 27, 2013 (UTC)
- For discussions: "New message", "Reply". Stake black msg 18:27, November 30, 2013 (UTC)
- Added Youmay. Fe Nite (talk) 20:48, November 30, 2013 (UTC)
- "Removed Table of Contents", "Relocated Table of Contents". Stake black msg 13:38, December 2, 2013 (UTC)
I've been watching this thread. Frankly, the list is quite long as it is, and so I'm hesitant to add anything else without removing existing summaries to compensate. Otherwise the list, as it grows, will slowly become useless due to the amount of scrolling required. So I need suggestions for what to remove before I can do anything. I can't make suggestions because I don't use the standard summaries myself. When making suggestions, both on what to remove and what to add, keep in mind that the list really should only include the most common summaries likely to be used by a large portion of the community. I'm willing to action this request when I get some suggestions on what can go, but for right now I have to decline to do anything. —MJ— Jedi Council Chambers 18:19, December 2, 2013 (UTC)
- I think a lot of the first category could be cut down. What's the difference between Cleanup, Formatting and HTML Tidying? Also, probably could condense some of the others to Add/Remove categories, Add/Remove Quotes, etc. Just my 2 creds worth. <-Omicron(Leave a message at the BEEP!) 23:37, December 2, 2013 (UTC)
- Tbh just write it out. It's as simple as that. That's why we have a summary edit box. JangFett (Talk) 23:39, December 2, 2013 (UTC)
- Menk, people are not stupid and I'm sure they have the capability of typing something out in the summary box. Not to mention, the summary box and quick standard summary options are ignored half the time by newer editors. JangFett (Talk) 23:46, December 2, 2013 (UTC)
- It's not a question of stupidity, Jang. Try to contribute something more productive to the discussion than that. It's a fact that plenty of newer and unregistered users use the edit summaries, and the fact that you don't doesn't negate their usefulness. We have them, so we might as well try to make them as useful and helpful as possible. Menkooroo (talk) 23:49, December 2, 2013 (UTC)
- A fact? You need to show me proof because right now you're stretching this out of proportion by saying "newer editors need these options." I'm not denying its usefulness (we have two options, Menk, the summary box and/or the standard summaries), but saying "we need these now" makes little sense because this was never a problem until it was brought up. JangFett (Talk) 23:55, December 2, 2013 (UTC)
- Uh, Jang? All you need to do is look at the recent changes to see proof. I currently see eight instances of a standard summary used, from two different users in total, both of them newer users. We have standard summaries. People use them. Those are facts. Since we do have them, we may as well make them as useful and helpful as possible. Why are you fighting so hard against this? Menkooroo (talk) 23:59, December 2, 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you, but are they having issues? Are they seeking out help because we have limited options in the standard summaries? I don't think it's a matter of newer users, Menk. Btw I do use the summary options, thanks. JangFett (Talk) 00:02, December 3, 2013 (UTC)
- "Are they seeking out help because we have limited options in the standard summaries?" Uh... yes. That's the whole point of this thread. Did you even read Stake Black's original post? We do have limited options in the standard summaries, hence this entire discussion. You're not actually making any sort of point; please limit your comments to ideas on how to improve the standard summaries. Menkooroo (talk) 00:10, December 3, 2013 (UTC)
- Really, so who's the newer or unregistered user in this thread, Menk? It seems that changed your argument. JangFett (Talk) 00:11, December 3, 2013 (UTC)
- Christ, Jang, grow the hell up. Are you seriously going to reduce this discussion to that kind of straw-grasping attempt to save face? Nobody's argument has been changed. Stake Black is still a newer user. And yes, I find edit summaries useful too and make an attempt to use them as often as possible. That does not change the fact that I think that they are most useful for newer users. Instead of continuing with this desperate attempt to make any sort of point at all, please try to be mature for once in your life and let it go. This discussion is about how to improve the standard summaries, not about Jang having the last word. Menkooroo (talk) 00:18, December 3, 2013 (UTC)
- Stake has been here since 2006 iirc. That's not new, Menk. Far from it. Instead of verbally telling me "to grow up," "comment on something more productive," and trying to act as if I'm wrong, you really need to reread your comments here. At no point have I seen the slightest proof of new users having issues. I asked you a question, but you simply ignored and commented on the people that had replied to this very thread. That helps no one, including you. At this very moment, all I'm seeing from you is a baseless argument. Either you show me who needs help (newer and/or unregistered users -- you said this), or you just confirmed that you just want to pick a fight with me. JangFett (Talk) 00:23, December 3, 2013 (UTC)
- If you think that anyone other than you is the one picking a fight here, then I don't know what to do except laugh. I have ignored nothing that you've said. Stake may have registered in 2006, but I've only seen him active in the last year or so. Besides which, if he feels that the standard summaries are limited, then it makes no difference how new he is. What you're doing is grasping at straws and attempting to trap me in a semantics argument. "You said that only newer users were asking for them to be expanded, but Stake isn't that new!" So what? The very fact that someone, anyone at all, is asking for standard summaries to be expanded is enough that we should consider expanding them. That's the whole point of this thread. When Stake registered or how long he has been editing does not change the fact that I think that standard summaries are helpful for newer users, or that a look at the recent changes will show newer users using them. You barged into this thread and tried to assert that we don't need to change anything. You're welcome to that opinion, but others are disagreeing with you. This has clearly become more about proving me wrong to you than it has about contributing to the actual discussion. It really is a shame that your lack of maturity taints every discussion that you enter. I feel that expanding standard summaries is a good thing. If you don't, feel free to say so, but don't dedicate so much effort to picking apart a single comment that I made. Try to do something useful instead. Menkooroo (talk) 00:36, December 3, 2013 (UTC)
- Stake is out of the question, Menk. In my eyes, he's not new. I can't believe I need to say this, but new is actually new, meaning they haven't edited here before. 2006 was 7 years ago. At what point would he be not new to you, Menk? Try to focus this on actually red link, or newly created, users. If you want to help those (for whatever reason; you still haven't commented on that), then I'd understand but bringing up Stake makes little sense here. Also, you need to see your talk page. Right now. JangFett (Talk) 00:39, December 3, 2013 (UTC)
- If you think that anyone other than you is the one picking a fight here, then I don't know what to do except laugh. I have ignored nothing that you've said. Stake may have registered in 2006, but I've only seen him active in the last year or so. Besides which, if he feels that the standard summaries are limited, then it makes no difference how new he is. What you're doing is grasping at straws and attempting to trap me in a semantics argument. "You said that only newer users were asking for them to be expanded, but Stake isn't that new!" So what? The very fact that someone, anyone at all, is asking for standard summaries to be expanded is enough that we should consider expanding them. That's the whole point of this thread. When Stake registered or how long he has been editing does not change the fact that I think that standard summaries are helpful for newer users, or that a look at the recent changes will show newer users using them. You barged into this thread and tried to assert that we don't need to change anything. You're welcome to that opinion, but others are disagreeing with you. This has clearly become more about proving me wrong to you than it has about contributing to the actual discussion. It really is a shame that your lack of maturity taints every discussion that you enter. I feel that expanding standard summaries is a good thing. If you don't, feel free to say so, but don't dedicate so much effort to picking apart a single comment that I made. Try to do something useful instead. Menkooroo (talk) 00:36, December 3, 2013 (UTC)
- Stake has been here since 2006 iirc. That's not new, Menk. Far from it. Instead of verbally telling me "to grow up," "comment on something more productive," and trying to act as if I'm wrong, you really need to reread your comments here. At no point have I seen the slightest proof of new users having issues. I asked you a question, but you simply ignored and commented on the people that had replied to this very thread. That helps no one, including you. At this very moment, all I'm seeing from you is a baseless argument. Either you show me who needs help (newer and/or unregistered users -- you said this), or you just confirmed that you just want to pick a fight with me. JangFett (Talk) 00:23, December 3, 2013 (UTC)
- Christ, Jang, grow the hell up. Are you seriously going to reduce this discussion to that kind of straw-grasping attempt to save face? Nobody's argument has been changed. Stake Black is still a newer user. And yes, I find edit summaries useful too and make an attempt to use them as often as possible. That does not change the fact that I think that they are most useful for newer users. Instead of continuing with this desperate attempt to make any sort of point at all, please try to be mature for once in your life and let it go. This discussion is about how to improve the standard summaries, not about Jang having the last word. Menkooroo (talk) 00:18, December 3, 2013 (UTC)
- Really, so who's the newer or unregistered user in this thread, Menk? It seems that changed your argument. JangFett (Talk) 00:11, December 3, 2013 (UTC)
- "Are they seeking out help because we have limited options in the standard summaries?" Uh... yes. That's the whole point of this thread. Did you even read Stake Black's original post? We do have limited options in the standard summaries, hence this entire discussion. You're not actually making any sort of point; please limit your comments to ideas on how to improve the standard summaries. Menkooroo (talk) 00:10, December 3, 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you, but are they having issues? Are they seeking out help because we have limited options in the standard summaries? I don't think it's a matter of newer users, Menk. Btw I do use the summary options, thanks. JangFett (Talk) 00:02, December 3, 2013 (UTC)
- Uh, Jang? All you need to do is look at the recent changes to see proof. I currently see eight instances of a standard summary used, from two different users in total, both of them newer users. We have standard summaries. People use them. Those are facts. Since we do have them, we may as well make them as useful and helpful as possible. Why are you fighting so hard against this? Menkooroo (talk) 23:59, December 2, 2013 (UTC)
- A fact? You need to show me proof because right now you're stretching this out of proportion by saying "newer editors need these options." I'm not denying its usefulness (we have two options, Menk, the summary box and/or the standard summaries), but saying "we need these now" makes little sense because this was never a problem until it was brought up. JangFett (Talk) 23:55, December 2, 2013 (UTC)
- It's not a question of stupidity, Jang. Try to contribute something more productive to the discussion than that. It's a fact that plenty of newer and unregistered users use the edit summaries, and the fact that you don't doesn't negate their usefulness. We have them, so we might as well try to make them as useful and helpful as possible. Menkooroo (talk) 23:49, December 2, 2013 (UTC)
- Menk, people are not stupid and I'm sure they have the capability of typing something out in the summary box. Not to mention, the summary box and quick standard summary options are ignored half the time by newer editors. JangFett (Talk) 23:46, December 2, 2013 (UTC)
- If you want to continue this discussion, then please do so without violating WP:NPA. Otherwise, this argument is over. JangFett (Talk) 01:01, December 3, 2013 (UTC)
- I do agree that this standardizing approach is useful, as it might compel editors to describe their edits more often, in non ambiguous ways. Stake black msg 01:57, December 3, 2013 (UTC)
- Could we add "added interwiki link(s)"? There's a lot of that traffic coming from IPs and users who are not Wook-actives, but use primarily the wikis of their own language.--Dionne Jinn (Something to say?) 02:10, December 3, 2013 (UTC)
OK, I've made some changes. See what you guys think (you will need to bypass your browser cache to see the changes). I was able to fit in most of your suggestions without increasing the length of the list. I have purposely not renumbered any existing summaries (except "removed personal attack" as it was moved to a new section), nor reused numbers of those removed, in case people scan the numbers to find their most common one and to avoid confusion when perusing article histories. Which brings me to my next question: are the numbers really needed? Does anyone actually use or refer to the numbers for any purpose, or are they just fluff? It seems to me that they are just there for no reason, and their presence is one of the reasons that I don't use them. I'd like to hear opinions on whether we should keep the numbers or get rid of them. —MJ— War Room 02:33, December 3, 2013 (UTC)
- Yay! Personally, I have no use for the numbers either. I figured that they were used for either historical, organizing, administrative, or metric-keeping purposes. Fine by me if you get rid of them; I just ignore them anyway. And one final suggestion: you could probably consolidate the phrase "added/changed/removed" down to just "updated". That way it is still non-specific, but not as "so which is it?" when viewed in a page's history. JMO. - Esjs(Talk) 16:49, December 3, 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, MJ! My only beef with the "added/changed/removed" thing is that it's very non-descriptive, even if I'm aware of size considerations. As for the numbers, I assumed they were used by bots or other scripts... Personally I have nothing against them staying. Stake black msg 19:26, December 3, 2013 (UTC)
- The drop down box stretches far to the right, into the background next to the GUI (1.8 Added/changed/removed interlanguage link(s) is pretty long, I guess), maybe have simply "...Interlang link(s)" for an easy fix? Also, under template, maybe it should say Added/changed/updated infobox (or just Updated infobox per Esjs)? Trip391 (talk) 19:53, December 3, 2013 (UTC)
- 1.8 has been shortened as suggested; I had not looked at it on Oasis simply because I don't understand why anyone with a choice still uses it (but that's a different discussion). The infobox one also now says "added/changed" instead of just "added". Frankly, I don't like "updated" as a substitute for "added/changed/removed" because it means something totally different to me. To me, "updated" means bringing the article up to date for new material, which is already covered by 2.2 ("Updated with new information"). Updating can involve adding and rarely removing, but it's usually better in those situations to use 2.2 instead as it better conveys what was done. "Changed", to me, means making adjustments to what's already there. Something like swapping quotes or images, moving images around, or changing the infobox type, are all "changes" to me and not "updates". —MJ— Holocomm 05:25, December 4, 2013 (UTC)
Arbitrary section break 1[]
- I don't want to make it seem as though I'm trying to make a mountain out of a molehill, but any changes to the standard summaries should go through a CT instead of being changed directly based on this SH thread. A lot of users across the site rely on the standard summaries—myself included, and I was rather confused (and also annoyed) today when I saw the ones that I usually use (i.e. 1.2 and 1.3) disappear entirely. Plus, the jump in numbering is downright confusing, so any major changes would also require renumbering (the numbers are useful, by the way, for organization). I'm not saying that I don't think this SH thread is a valuable place for getting input—it is, don't get me wrong—but since the standard summaries are relied upon across the site, any changes to them need to go through site-wide consensus in a formal CT to ensure that everyone (or most people) is satisfied with the changes. As it stands, I'd like to see more input from others go into revising the list of edit summaries. Again, that's not to say that the input that everyone has contributed so far in this thread isn't valid—it is. I just want to see more input before we make any major changes to something that a lot of users rely on. CC7567 (talk) 03:15, December 5, 2013 (UTC)
- Is that really necessary? I have never, ever seen changes to the standard summaries go through a CT before. It seems to me that the SH is more than sufficient here. People who want their input to be heard on matters like this should keep an eye on the SH and offer their opinion when the subject comes up. This thread sat for nearly a week with no objections before changes were made. As for specific issues that you raised, 1.2 and 1.3 can fall under the general "Cleanup" (I can change that to "Cleanup/formatting" if you'd like), so I removed them to make room for other stuff. And I'm interested to knoW specifically how you find the numbers useful, since I don't see it myself (I'm not disputing it; I just don't understand it). —MJ— Comlink 19:46, December 5, 2013 (UTC)
- I tweaked the summaries a bit and moved "corrections" closer to "content" for better searching. I've also readded 1.2 and 1.3 since the jump made no sense and I too use them as well. HTML is different compared to Wiki coding and formatting is different from cleanup. I don't know what CC does, but I use cleanup whenever I clean up the article in general (content, as an example). Formatting is used whenever I have to fix a template, like the infobox or interlanguage brackets, or tweak the layout. JangFett (Talk) 00:51, December 7, 2013 (UTC)
- Is that really necessary? I have never, ever seen changes to the standard summaries go through a CT before. It seems to me that the SH is more than sufficient here. People who want their input to be heard on matters like this should keep an eye on the SH and offer their opinion when the subject comes up. This thread sat for nearly a week with no objections before changes were made. As for specific issues that you raised, 1.2 and 1.3 can fall under the general "Cleanup" (I can change that to "Cleanup/formatting" if you'd like), so I removed them to make room for other stuff. And I'm interested to knoW specifically how you find the numbers useful, since I don't see it myself (I'm not disputing it; I just don't understand it). —MJ— Comlink 19:46, December 5, 2013 (UTC)
- I like the changes. Can you add "1.9 Layout guide" or something like that?--Richterbelmont10 (come in R2!) 18:17, December 5, 2013 (UTC)
- How about we add a section called 2.10 adding links 75.34.161.243 23:11, December 6, 2013 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I don't really like the idea of a dedicated section of summaries for discussions. 7.4 can easily be moved to 4.5 and the others can be removed. Just my two cents. 1358 (Talk) 21:41, December 7, 2013 (UTC)
- I added those at the suggestion of Stake black above. If there's a few people against them, they can be easily removed. —MJ— Jedi Council Chambers 05:03, December 8, 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with Xd about moving 7.4 to 4.5 and removing the rest; this is my personal opinion so it's naturally subjective, but a section for "Discussions" seems superfluous. As for my original point, I don't think a CT is necessary as long as more people get involved before changes are made, or to help make the changes, as is the case now. CC7567 (talk) 18:33, December 8, 2013 (UTC)
- MJ, can you add "1.9 Layout guide"?--Richterbelmont10 (come in R2!) 16:56, December 14, 2013 (UTC)
- How's that? —MJ— Holocomm 17:36, December 14, 2013 (UTC)
- Good! Thank you.--Richterbelmont10 (come in R2!) 19:09, December 14, 2013 (UTC)
- How's that? —MJ— Holocomm 17:36, December 14, 2013 (UTC)