Help talk:Dummy edit/Archive 1

Archive 1

[Interesting concept]

This is an interesting concept. Alex43223 ^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 11:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Redundant?

Is it really necessary to have the Wikipedia specific bit at the bottom, when it contains nothing? Really? SirEelBiscuits (talk) 21:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Null edit button?

Any way to automate a null edit? I'm looking for a button similar to the {{purge button}}. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

You can just redirect your usual IP to your User Talk or Userpage

Yes, you can just do that so your IP will just be reconised as you, instead of making a Dummy edit. Aerosprite the Legendary (talk) 22:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't message thru edit summaries

Sending messages thru edit summaries is a terrible idea. Who put that in there? We are supposed to long discussions about users and articles where people can find it, and edit summary messages will never get found (and the people you are supposedly trying to communicate with will never see an edit summary on an article page). I deleted all that stuff. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 15:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Dondegroovily, I understand what you're trying to say (it is certainly possible to misuse edit summary messages with dummy edits), but I disagree with this deletion of text, and am reverting pending consensus for removal (which I suspect you'll have a hard time getting, tho I've been wrong before). Using dummy edits with edit summaries to communicate with others has been done for a long long time, by a lot of people, who find it very convenient in certain circumstances. The text you removed has been part of this page since the original version in 2005, which was copied from Meta:Help:Dummy edit, and which still says the same thing. I've done it myself, whether to send a quick impermanent note to someone, or correct a previous edit summary, or to issue a warning to edit warriors (since it's nearly impossible to miss an edit summary when you're about to revert someone, but easy to miss a new post to a talk page). I'm sure there are lots of other uses. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out your argument. I'm trying to think of a situation where you can make a post but can't make an edit summary. I can't think of any such situation. And just because people have done it doesn't make it a good idea. Finally, we don't want to encourage users to chat in edit summaries about articles instead of posting at the article talk page. I once was in a revert war with a user who repeatedly refused to post anything at the talk page and just put edit summary messages in the reverts. There is no way on Earth that we should be encouraging that kind of behavior. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not encouraging that kind of behavior, I'm just saying that in spite of the fact that it can be misused, there are times when "messaging" another user via edit summary, rather than via a talk page addition, is useful. If someone is misusing that to do more than "sending a short message ... [to] communicate with other editors if there is no need to create a new thread for the message", then they aren't following this advice, and should be gently corrected. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand a little better now - you haven't actually said this, but I think you are talking about user talk pages, while I was thinking article pages. I still don't get it, though. Why message thru an edit summary when you can just post to a talk page. No need to make a new thread doesn't mean it's wrong to make a new thread, and I don't see how making a new thread would ever be a problem. Then some new editor seeing your edit summary who isn't familiar with diffs will be baffled when trying to figure out how the talk page changed. So, I stand by my view that this flies in the face of the whole concept of talk pages. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose removal. This is not only incredibly useful for re-attributing edits made while inadvertently logged out and for other uses, but absolutely crucial for copyright attribution, e.g. here, here and here. Also, I disagree with your basic premises that article histories will not get found and that they will never or are rarely seen or useful. We advise editors to use edit summaries as much as possible for the very reason that we expect them to be useful. And they are indeed. Edit summaries are constantly seen in people's watchlists and people act on information they learn through them all the time. For many people, in fact, it is the edit summary, and not a post on the talk page, that gets people's attention. That's certainly true for me.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Fuhgettaboutit, you misunderstand my position. I was saying that dummy edits shouldn't be used to send messages. It's fine and appropriate to put in forgotten edit summaries or note that you forgot to log in. I only object to using this to send messages to other users. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 00:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

All the examples you posted were cases of forgotten edit summaries. Even thought you're not the one that forgot, it's still not something that I object to. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Donde, I apologize and am embarrassed. Truly hoisted by my own petard, I looked at the edit summary and only passingly looked at the edit itself failing to see that you had not removed the other material. As for the actual issue, the messaging, not sure about that, partly because I'm not exactly sure what is intended by the language. Are the attribution notes I linked above a message to other editors within the meaning of this language? Maybe what's needed is to clarify the language.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

Fuhget, those attribution notes are not messages to anyone, rather they are the edit summaries that the previous editor failed to include. Anything that accurately describes an earlier edit doesn't can't as a "message" in my view. It seems that Floquen is referring to placing a dummy edit on a user talk page and the message in the edit summary instead of posting to the talk page. I think. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

@Dondegroovily and Floquenbeam: After encountering someone misusing a dummy edit just now (here), I came to look at this. I've tried to clarify the language to make it clear that dummy edits aren't meant to be used as a quasi-talk page. Improvements welcome. — Scott • talk 12:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I've left a dummy edit for each of the uses listed on the Help:Dummy edit page, except for the final one. And I also agree with retaining text about messaging through edit summaries; a dummy edit is very useful indeed, and I use one often when there is no need to start a discussion on the talk page. There is a long-standing explanation in the Purposes section partly about that, which currently states: Sending a message via the edit summary ("SMS") is one way of communicating with other editors if there is no need to create a new thread for the message. Text messages may be seen by dotted IP number editors who do not have a user talk page, or editors who have not read the subject's talk page, if it exists. Each edit summary can hold 250 bytes; the input box for an edit summary is limited to 200 characters.

As for Scott Martin's addition, I approve. But I did tweak it. And made a similar tweak after that. Flyer22 (talk) 13:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, Scott, I'm not sure that I would characterize that person as having misused the feature; it appears to me, and apparently to that editor, that there was no need to leave that message on the article talk page or your talk page. It is very likely that it's simply a note that the editor wanted you or others to consider, rather than an attempt at discussion through the dummy edit feature. See the examples that Floquenbeam provided above, which are all instances that I've used. If the editor was expecting you to reply back via a dummy edit, similar to what was done in this response to the query, and to continue discussion via the dummy edit feature, then that is what I consider misuse. Flyer22 (talk) 13:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't agree with you on that one. Proposing points on editorial matters is something that should be done on talk pages, where other editors can respond in a manageable fashion. Doing this is almost like trying to "get the last word in" because you know people aren't supposed to respond in the same fashion (as you note). — Scott • talk 16:27, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps proposing points in the way that the editor in question did should be done on the talk page, but there are a variety of instances where points are appropriately proposed in a WP:Dummy edit because there is absolutely no need to start a discussion on the talk page for that point and certainly not for each random point. For example, I might note in a WP:Dummy edit that a source I just tweaked could probably be replaced by a better source; to me, there is no need to note that on the talk page because it's not something that needs discussion (not unless the source is unreliable or should otherwise be replaced by a better source, though I usually know if a source is unreliable and will usually remove or replace it myself). In such a scenario, the note was left in the edit history in case someone else watching the article, or in case someone who checks the latest edit history, might agree and consider replacing the source. Flyer22 (talk) 16:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

After these recent changes by Fuhghettaboutit, I reverted these changes by Ego White Tray. WP:Consensus above clearly is that messaging through edit summaries is helpful in a variety of ways; we should not be discouraging editors from doing so unless they are misusing that feature; it is already made clear what misuse of it is. Flyer22 (talk) 02:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Oy, the problem with consensus. If someone was trying to get consensus to add a section endorsing edit summary SMS, we would never get it. But, we can't get the consensus to remove it either. Perhaps a compromise language - something along the lines of "only use edit summaries for messages if your message is not controversial and you don't expect replies. Never use a edit summaries message to reply to another edit summary message, since once there is a conversation, it belongs on the talk page." Ego White Tray (talk) 03:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Oy, I see no problem with consensus in this case (if indeed I am correct that there is consensus above that messaging through edit summaries is generally okay). Nor do I see a need to compromise on this matter, per my above commentary on it. As for your proposal, I can't agree to "only use edit summaries for messages if your message is not controversial and you don't expect replies." What is controversial can be subjective, and a reply can be expected if the conversation is going to be had on the article talk page or on one of the editors' talk pages. I can't agree to "Never use a edit summaries message to reply to another edit summary message, since once there is a conversation, it belongs on the talk page." either; I can't because as long as full discussion (meaning more than one reply between the editors) is not being had through the edit summaries, there is not a problem. And on that note, I think that Fuhghettaboutit should change "extensive" back to "fuller," taking into account that we don't want editors thinking that it is fine to have a discussion through edit summaries that is just short of extensive. Flyer22 (talk) 03:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Removed this sentence again. Consensus in this thread seems to be against Flyer22. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 19:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Your reading comprehension is again off, which is why you were reverted by Drmargi.

For others, here is backstory on Nathan Johnson's inappropriate removal/WP:Edit warring over this material. Flyer22 (talk) 20:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Dummy edit as a proof of activity

Hello. The page says the purpose [of a dummy edit] is to save a useful edit summary. I see another use for a dummy edit, in which the edit summary plays no part: a user can always stop editing, that is a right he has, as much as the right to edit. Now, if he really stops editing for a long time, the community might think he is gone. But he may be observing, he may have decided that he does not want to edit in a relevant way, and yet he is still part of the community. But there are decisions the community might make on the grounds that he is gone, since he does not edit for long. An example: a user in the list Wikipedia:Local Embassy could be removed from it by the commuinity on the grounds that he is gone, yet he may be observing and wishes to intervene if and when someone contacts him as a member of that list. I will thus add the following to the page a user who does not wish to contribute and yet wishes to provide proof of activity may execute a dummy edit (own talk page preferred) with no useful edit summary. Garsd (talk) 09:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Adding unnecessary characters bad practice?

I believe wiki pages should sport streamlined and precise content, even if it doesn't make any visible difference to the page itself. A few reasons for this other than consistency; for one it'll make the edit pages much tidier and easier to navigate and identify formatting issues for all editors. Also it'll cut down on the page's data size, it's just common sense that if given the choice between two identical appearing articles but with one efficient with data use, the efficient one should take prominence.

I'd suggest instead these kind of edits should be marked as minor edits without an edit summery, but then immediately reverted by the same user with appropriate changes made there. Ideally, Wikipedia should provide a feature that allows adding addition comments to an edit without making a new one, tagging minor/major edits post submission. Robo37 (talk) 09:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Requesting a dummy edit to change my Edit Summary

Hello everyone! The article "Curse of 1940" has been most recently edited by me and I would like to request a dummy edit to the article "Curse of 1940" so that I can get my edit summary. I am using a different IP address because I was taking a vacation in Ocean City, so my IP address was 70.91.154.21 when I edited the article "Curse of 1940". Anyway, I am specifically requesting for the description for my edit summary from "(Number of championships that the New York Giants football team should be 4 because the New York Giants football team has won 4 championships.)" to "(Number of championships that the New York Giants football team has won should be 4 because the New York Giants football team has won 4 championships.)" because I have made an error in my edit summary while I was editing the article "Curse of 1940." I am also specifically requesting for the edit to be marked as a "minor edit" because my edit to the article "Curse of 1940" was supposed to be a "minor edit" and there was no check box indicating that my edit to the article must be marked as a "minor edit," so I could not mark my edit to the article "Curse of 1940" as a "minor edit" while I was editing the article "Curse of 1940." Thank you very much and I would gladly appreciate it. 69.122.209.26 (talk) 20:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Replied at Talk:Curse of 1940. -- John of Reading (talk) 05:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)