Originally Posted by Wikipedia, English Version

Recommendations:

Always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may question your motives for the edit. Also, mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important; add "and misc." to cover the other change(s).

Accurate summaries help people decide whether it is worthwhile for them to check a change. We've found that summaries often pique the interest of contributors with expertise in the area. This may not be as necessary for "minor changes", but "fixed spelling" would be nice even then.

In the case of a small addition to an article, it is highly recommended to copy the full text of this addition to the summary field, giving a maximum of information with a minimum of effort. Put ft in front, as an abbreviation of "full text." This way, readers of the summary will be unlikely to check the page itself as they already know the extent of the edit. These kinds of edits allow users to check Recent changes, Page history and User contributions very efficiently - this also reduces the load on the servers.

If the addition is more than 200 characters, so it does not fit fully in the edit summary box, you should write a short summary of the changes you have introduced into the article. For an addition of, say, 400 characters you can also save time by simply copying that into the summary field. The excess will fall off, and the first 200 characters will usually be acceptable as a crude "summary".

Unfortunately you can copy only one line of text from the edit box into the edit summary box. The contents of further lines can be pasted at the end of the line. Thus, for example, a bulleted "see also" list is cumbersome to put in the edit summary box. One possible workaround for a new list is putting the list on one line, separated by the asterisks for the bullets, copying it to the edit summary box, and then, in the main edit box, putting the new lines before the asterisks.

In addition to a summary of the change itself, the summary field may also contain an explanation of the change; note that if the reason for an edit is not clear, it is more likely to be reverted, especially in the case that some text is deleted. To give a longer explanation, use the Talk page and put in the edit summary "see Talk".

After saving the page, the summary can not be edited--another reason to avoid spelling errors.

In the case of important omissions or errors in the edit summary, you can make a dummy edit just to put the correction in the edit summary.

Originally Posted by Ralath (Post 172891)

>_>

Mebbe I should create a new account.

Originally Posted by Hyper (Post 172936)

Tri, question... If I put a space (Hypothetically. I no do dat.) in the summary bar, will it count as a blank edit, or a summarized one? o:

Originally Posted by Hessah (Post 172940)

Do we just say "Changed quest reward for lvl 64" as edit summary.. isnt that enough?

Originally Posted by Hyper (Post 172923)

Ha, that nub hyperswoss. I've been told that most of his edits were adding icons or table data... Bleh. It starts out with "Icons for _______ added.", then becomes "More icons...", then is "Same.", "Again.", and eventually fizzles out to "_____". xD

Originally Posted by Icy (Post 172959)

Mandatory edit summaries are not something that can be forced through.

Originally Posted by Ralath (Post 172964)

I see a faulty image. :0

Originally Posted by Ralath (Post 172964)

I see a faulty image. :0

Originally Posted by Hessah (Post 172971)

isnt just "updated" like... the same as not saying anything at all? LOL!!

surely you edited wiki to make an update :think:

Originally Posted by Triumph (Post 172963)

Ah, but they can.

http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/4...nhammerhe6.jpg

*Waves banhammer around* :cutielove: Next?

Originally Posted by Icy (Post 173081)

After exhausting all the IPs, you thus create a system in which only registered users may edit. That's... nothing bad, in my view. And if you start banning people for edit summaries, you'll lose all your edit slaves.

Originally Posted by Ralath (Post 173238)

*pat pat*

It's OK Triumph. I know inside, you're just all hammer and no ban. ^_~

:cheeky:

Originally Posted by Triumph (Post 173254)

Edit zombies work.

For instance, exposing Hessah/Ralath to, say, Hyper, and letting Hyper drive them insane with crazy Vietnam stories or something. We'll throw Righty into the mix too and see if any good results ensue.



Gimme one good reason. :cutielove:

Originally Posted by Triumph (Post 173254)

Edit zombies work.

For instance, exposing Hessah/Ralath to, say, Hyper, and letting Hyper drive them insane with crazy Vietnam stories or something. We'll throw Righty into the mix too and see if any good results ensue.

Originally Posted by Triumph (Post 173667)

There is, but the only tools I have to do so will turn them into edit zombies rather than edit slaves.

Confining individuals in the same room with certain zealous individuals of obscure interest will usually result in the destruction of sanity, rather than the destruction of the will to not edit.

I sound very, very, creepy.

Originally Posted by Icy (Post 173691)

...the underlying assumption of which is that these individuals give a toss about the obscure interest of a certain zealous individual...

...flawed...:zzz:

Originally Posted by Triumph (Post 173701)

Obscure interest indicating random, little-known topics.

Take Hyper, for example.

If you can get him to ramble for two hours about random stories he's heard, it is good enough to create edit zombies.