MediaWiki talk:Summary

MediaWiki:Summary is the message below the edit window which provides the link to, and explanation of, the edit summary.
This interface message or skin may also be documented on MediaWiki.org or translatewiki.net.
The page forms part of the MediaWiki interface, and can only be edited by administrators and interface editors.
To request a change to the page, add {{edit fully-protected}} to this page, followed by a description of your request. Consider announcing discussions you add here at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) to bring more people to the discussion.

ILM

This message on this site, depending on the user-specified interface language:

• en (English): Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

af (Afrikaans / Afrikaans): Opsomming:
ar (Arabic / العربية): ملخص:
bg (Bulgarian / Български): Резюме:
bn (Bengali / বাংলা): সারাংশ:
da (Danish / Dansk): Resumé:
de (German / Deutsch): Zusammenfassung:
eo (Esperanto / Esperanto): Resumo:
es (Spanish / Español): Resumen:
eu (Basque / Euskara): Laburpena:
fr (French / Français): Résumé :
fy (West Frisian / Frysk): Gearfetting:
it (Italian / Italiano): Oggetto:
la (Latin / Latina): Summarium:
li (Limburgian / Limburgs): Samevatting:
nl (Dutch / Nederlands): Samenvatting:
no (Norwegian / ‪Norsk (bokmål)‬): Summary:
pl (Polish / Polski): Opis zmian:
pt (Portuguese / Português): Resumo:
ru (Russian / Русский): Описание изменений:
sv (Swedish / Svenska): Sammanfattning:

Pages in the MediaWiki namespace regarding this message

Discussion

I don't know if anyone will spot this, but is this the message used for the word Summary: next to the edit summary line on the edit screen? If so, I gather that some people are put off using a summary because they don't know what it's a summary of, and I therefore suggest changing it to "Edit summary", which would seem to clear that up.

On a side-note, I bet this has already been said, but: It would be really, really useful if there was somewhere a guide to what MediaWiki messages were used where in the software and how, otherwise the whole purpose of making them wiki-editable is somewhat defeated, because you don't know what to edit. Perhaps some nice developer who knew could go through and add a default message at the top of each MediaWiki talk: page (built into the software like the default messages themselves), explaining the purpose of the attached message.

[I'll probably draw attention to one or both of these queries on the pump if there's no immediate response...] - IMSoP 16:15, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm with you, on both counts. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:15, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

Agreed and changed. If anyone changes it back, can they also change Image:Edit Summary-2.png which is a screenshot of the new version and is used on help pages like Wikipedia:Edit summary. Angela . 15:59, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)

The new text is an improvement. Unfortunately I now see the summary box as wider than the edit box, which is not very attractive. Is there any way to fix this? - SimonP 17:14, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

You can change the width of the edit box in your preferences. I'm not sure if that's the solution you mean though? Angela . 08:39, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

Copied and refactored from VPR

You can turn the extra addition to this label off to your own view by adding

#wpSummaryLabel label small {display:none}

to Special:Mypage/monobook.css (suggestion by User:Tra). --ais523 16:27, 14 November 2006 (U T C)

Alignment

I have tried to align it to the left. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"remove section name if it does not apply"

A common error is that a section is added while keeping the name of the previous section in the summary. Perhaps we should add "If a section name has been preloaded, remove it if it does not apply." or some better formulation.--Patrick 15:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

God that looks ugly. Why can't we just make it more obvious what the "+" button does? – 86.140.177.115 16:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see I shortened it to "remove section name if it does not apply"--Patrick 23:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this addition is highly confusing (even I had to think about it for a while to figure it out!). Moreover, it occupies much space and for people using the editor extension wikEd it makes the summary input field too short. I strongly suggest to remove the "; remove section name if it does not apply" part. Also, the space before the colon should be removed. Cacycle 02:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you agree that we should try to do something about the common error that a section is added while keeping the name of the previous section in the summary? It makes the edit summary totally wrong. And can't wikEd keep the box on a new line?

I removed the space.--Patrick 08:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not consider this a big problem. This sentence will probably not have any effect on the frequency of this "error" - it is too difficult to understand and people probably do not care anyway. It addresses a minor problem at a too prominent and space-critical place in an ineffective way. Cacycle 13:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If an edit summary is relevant then its correctness is relevant too. A wrong one is even worse than no edit summary at all. If someone watching a page is not interested in the topic of the section wrongly mentioned in the edit summary, they miss the creation of the new section until its second edit.--Patrick 07:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do see the problems caused by section name leftovers in the summary. However, we cannot put the whole style and user guides into the user interface. The sentence in question clogs the edit page and is incomprehensible for most of the users you want to address (the others already know this). If we cannot find common ground on this I suggest to request comments from a wider base of users. Cacycle 13:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also for people who know this but sometimes forget this is useful as reminder. Yes, opinions from others would be welcome.--Patrick 22:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reset indent You could get a definite article in there (remove the section name) but other than that, it's fairly OK. There is no space issue or anything like that. But why not say "Use the + tab when making a new section" or something like that? I agree that there is an issue with misleading summaries when watching for certain section edits to take place. Adrian M. H. 23:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I don't think this is gonna make much of a difference. your kidding yourself if you think a lot of people look at text by the edit summary. Deathawk 00:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We've got too much shit between the edit box and the summary box already. The people who leave old section names in are generally newbies who wouldn't know an edit summary if it bit them, so this addition does nothing except make the page look messier. --Carnildo 00:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about a link at the bottom of each talk page, centered just above the Edit|Watch|Discuss|etc. links, on all talk pages, entitled "Start a new section" or something? -Freekee 03:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Target

I see the link goes to a page in the same window. This could be bad for a user who has made a large edit, clicks the link, and loses all the work. If some admin adds "target="_blank"" to the link, it opens in a new window. This could save work for people wondering what an edit summary is. Soxred93 | talk bot 00:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is currently broken and stays in the same window. -- Trevj (talk) 13:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

broken expansion / format

Hmm, someone edited withoiut checking? Now it's visible in html tags like:

Content that violates any copyright will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the GFDL*. <a href="/wiki/Help:Edit_summary" class='internal' title="Briefly describe the changes you have made" target="_blank">Edit summary</a> (Briefly describe the changes you have made)

And by the way the last sentence seems to be force justified for quite a time now, which means 20-30 spaces between words, pretty ugly. --grin ✎ 09:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the interface messages expect wikicode now although I may be wrong, see bugzilla:19200 Q ^{T C} 09:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lucid

Would Edit summary ever show the number of added or removed characters on an edit page during an edit? During a Show changes? The number of characters in a section, an article, or changed in an edit is available after the fact. Could it be during? While making copy edits, the number of characters should probably stay about the same (or less if more lucid). I can think of other reasons for it too. —Cpiral Cpiral 01:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"the changes you have made" to "your changes"

I suggest we change "Briefly describe the changes you have made" to "Briefly describe your changes". Shorter, more succinct, and says the same thing. Jason Quinn (talk) 03:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd counter-suggest actually; why not "briefly describe your edit"? I support "changes" as a fallback. Ironholds (talk) 04:45, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, User:Ironholds. I forgot about this topic for a while. That's okay; the pause gave other people a chance to contribute. After consideration, I still prefer "changes". The current line in full reads:

Edit summary (Briefly describe the changes you have made)

Changing it to

Edit summary (Briefly describe your edit)

only gives people a boost in understanding what the word "summary" means while

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

gives a boost to both "summary" and "edit". I think this double-rewording should dispel any doubt a person might have over what is wanted. The need for this message's existence can itself can be questioned: "Edit summary" alone seems rather clear to me. The only way I can make sense of a parenthetical clarification is if the message is aimed at new editors who are not comfortable with computers and reading in the first place (children, non-native speakers, and so on). Whether the "B" in "Briefly" should be capitalized or not is another question. I have no strong opinion either way but since it is currently capitalized I will keep it that way. Unless you or somebody else soon objects, I will make a change sometime soon or within a few days. Jason Quinn (talk) 13:51, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. I'm not sure what I was thinking in September ;p. Poke an admin? Ironholds (talk) 13:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an admin. I'll wait a day or so in case somebody new comments but barring no objection, I'll just do it. There's no rush. Cheers, Jason Quinn (talk) 15:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Made the change. Jason Quinn (talk) 04:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add an id to the span

Please add an id to the span to allow summary gadgets hooks, like fr:Aide:Résumé_Deluxe (source code). Something like

<span id="MediaWiki-summary">

would be great. The RedBurn (ϕ) 23:49, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear to me why this requires a separate id. A gadget can manipulate the DOM at will. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with DJ, I do not see a reason for this change. The below gets you access to this from the root span using span#wpSummaryLabel:

<span class="mw-summary" id="wpSummaryLabel">
	<label for="wpSummary">
		<span style="text-align: left;">
			<a href="/wiki/Help:Edit_summary" title="Help:Edit summary">Edit summary</a>
			<small>(Briefly describe your changes)</small>
		</span>
	</label>
</span>

--Izno (talk) 18:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's for the Visual Editor, I didn't notice it was the same message for both. With the Visual Editor, there is no wpSummaryLabel span, just a div with no id. The RedBurn (ϕ) 19:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, it would seem to me that VE should add an id to an appropriate location. --Izno (talk) 20:30, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I knew you would say that.

And you're right. The RedBurn (ϕ) 00:29, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a task : T151437 The RedBurn (ϕ) 09:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]