In the world of MediaWiki talk:Gadget-defaultsummaries.js, there are endless interesting and relevant aspects that deserve to be explored. From its origins to its latest innovations, MediaWiki talk:Gadget-defaultsummaries.js has aroused the curiosity and interest of many, becoming an inevitable topic of conversation in different areas. Whether due to its impact on society, its historical relevance or its influence on popular culture, MediaWiki talk:Gadget-defaultsummaries.js continues to be a topic of constant debate and reflection. In this article, we will delve into the different aspects of MediaWiki talk:Gadget-defaultsummaries.js and analyze its importance in the current context.
Edits to code
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I've reformatted and edited parts of the code. Please change the current code to the code found at User:MC10/defaultsummaries.js:
Could you please explain the changes you have made and confirm whether you have fully tested the code. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I've tested the code in IE 7+ and Firefox 7.0.1. All that it does is switch addOnloadHook with the jQuery $, which does the same thing without using deprecated code, and used some more commonly-used code ("" instead of new String(), functionname instead of new Function("functionname()"), etc.). Note that I've changed the code to link to my local copy, which I am testing with. —mc10 (t/c)19:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
One minor change; I've let the "Common edit summaries" message be default, so users are more aware of what the two dropdown boxes are (if they accidentally turn on the gadget). Again, tested in the previously mentioned browsers, as well as Google Chrome 14. —mc10 (t/c)21:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it is working fine. I made a few bug fixes with using the "new section" tab (which actually doesn't have a edit summary box). Cheers, —mc10 (t/c)21:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
How could this gadget be made available on Wikivoyage?
Different standard summaries would be preferable, but I assume that would just be a matter of adjusting the code to suit. • • • Peter (Southwood)(talk): 17:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
At Preferences:Gadgets:Editing there is a checkoff preference for "Add two new dropdown boxes below the edit summary box with some useful default summaries". When enabled, one of the quick preference selections is: "Removing unsourced content". Due to a change in WP:BURDEN back around October, 2012, this summary is inadequate and its use would be, arguably, a violation of policy, which says, "When tagging or removing material for not having an inline citation, please state your concern that there may not be a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable."
References
^When tagging or removing such material, please keep in mind that such edits can be easily misunderstood. Some editors object to others making chronic, frequent, and large-scale deletions of unsourced information, especially if unaccompanied by other efforts to improve the material. Do not concentrate only on material of a particular POV, as that may result in accusations that you are in violation of WP:NPOV. Also check to see whether the material is sourced to a citation elsewhere on the page. For all of these reasons, it is advisable to communicate clearly that you have a considered reason to believe that the material in question cannot be verified.
Could it be changed to read "Removing unsourced content, no published reliable source may exist, thus perhaps not verifiable", which would now seem to be the minimum statement allowable for this particular edit summary? (Just for the record, let me note that I am on the record at the WP:V talk page as feeling that this requirement is ridiculous, a position which I still maintain, but I'm not trying to be pointy by making this request, but truly only trying to help editors avoid stepping into a pitfall by using the tools provided by WP.) Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I changed the gadget code to support both the classic editing and visual editor interface. For the regular editing this change doesn't affects anything, and for VE editing it adds summaries dropdown boxes near summary box. Please sync the code with User:ערן/defaultsummaries.js (the change was tested in both VE and classic editing in FF). Thanks, Eran (talk) 10:00, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
I would think something like this would need a little more extensive testing across a wider array of browsers instead of "just" FireFox... I'm homeless and working on getting my life together right now, but if no one beats me to it I'll test your version in all major browsers across all skins in multiple settings and return my results. Technical 13 (talk) 02:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
The {{editprotected}} template is not designed to be used to "attract attention". Per Wikipedia:Edit requests, once it is clear there is consensus for the change, and any final details have been worked out, put a template on the talk page along with a short, clear explanation. Otherwise we have lots of these requests stuck in CAT:EP when there is not actually anything that the responding administrator can do with them. If you would like to propose to change the purpose of the template, perhaps you could start a thread on that talk page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Per Martin; please get the code fully tested and when everyone is happy please place the edit request so an administrator can enact it. If you need wider input then WP:RFC is a useful venue :D--Errant(chat!)11:12, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
It was tested on Chromium and Firefox. It is very simple script and should work in IE, though I don't have access to IE and test it. Can anyone with access to IE test it? Eran (talk) 19:23, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Please update the script again from here: User:ערן/defaultsummaries.js. The VE team have broken their interface, and the save dialog is now opened in a new window and outside the document (in iframe). (Testing: Done) thanks, Eran (talk) 19:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please replace mw.hook( 've.activationComplete' ) to mw.hook( 've.saveDialog.stateChanged' ). This change is required in order to make it work after some changes that have been made in VE (it creates the save dialog in lazy evaluation method for better performance). Thanks, Eran (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Eran, this request is taking longer than I expected to be carried out. Could you link to the documentation for the ve hook you want it to use please? Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}}(t • e • c)14:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I’d like to have the line “Spelling/grammar correction” changed to “Spelling/grammar/punctuation correction”. Punctuation is at least as important than spelling, arguably more important (see Eats, Shoots and Leaves), and I make a lot of punctuation corrections. Thanks. deisenbe (talk) 19:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
In case it's not clear, since there's been no response, I mean the line on the drop-down menu "Common minor edit summaries - click to use" that appears on edit pages, at least in the interface I use. deisenbe (talk) 14:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I think most English teachers would say they are separate. Grammar only deals with punctuation in a very gross way: a sentence should end with . ? or ! ; independent clauses are joined by ; not , . But misuse of commas, which is the biggest item, lies outside grammar:
Indeed, I believe punctuation and spelling are technically part of orthography rather than grammar. That doesn't seem helpful to list, though. That being said, I think Copyedit (minor) and even Fixing style/layout errors would cover punctuation and capitalization changes just fine, no? ~ Amory(u • t • c)17:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
You’re right on orthography, though it’s not a widely-used word. Style/layout errors does not cover punctuation errors, as I understand it. “Style” there means, or seems to mean, things like use of italic or putting commas inside or outside of quotes, not language use. I could live with Copyedit (minor). However, I think punctuation’s importance should be made visible. Maybe editors will pay it more attention. How about spelling/punctuation/grammar, in addition to Copyedit (minor), which covers more things? deisenbe (talk) 17:44, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm fine with Spelling/grammar/punctuation correction but I'll leave this open for another day or so in case anyone else has thoughts. ~ Amory(u • t • c)15:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Interface-protected edit request on 11 January 2019
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please copy over User:Enterprisey/Gadget-defaultsummaries.js onto this version (diff). There is a current VPT thread in which people are reporting that when Enter is pressed in the summary field, one of the dropdowns produced by this script opens (instead of the expected result, which is the page saving). I have added a keydown handler in the edit summary field that manually triggers the save button. This fix is supposed to be temporary; I suspect the fix for this might be subtle; OOUI was updated to v0.30.0 on Thursday and it might take a while to track down the issue. Enterprisey (talk!) 07:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
On the menu "Common minor edit summaries — click to use" I would like to have "Typo" as an item on that list, as it comes up so frequently. "Typo" is short for "typographical error" – an error in typing. For example, writing 2219 instead of 2019. It isn't covered by any of the items on the menu
now, it's not a spelling mistake, and it's a very common type of minor correction, at least in my experience. Thank you. deisenbe (talk) 19:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Since there has been no comment in seven months I'm making this change. deisenbe (talk)
I can't find it, I suppose I must not have saved it. So I'll redo it:
Some errors do not fit into "Spelling/grammar/punctuation". For example, writing 2220 instead of 2020 is an error, what editors (non-WP) call typographical.
"Expanding article" is too big for details and small bits of information. So propose adding "Adding information" and "Adding detail", which I use often but have to write out.
"Adding/removing Wikilinks" I use, and I suppose others would to, much more often than the two above it (one of which I'm proposing deleting).
Category edits are done through Hotcat. Those few instances when they can't they can be entered manually. So delete it.
Most copyedits are too small for major and too big for minor. And Clean-up means the same. So combine them, deleting "major".
I think you mean this talkpage itself, at #Change requested? I don't know that clarifying "typo" adds much, maybe just saying Typographical/grammar/punctuation correction? Four-in-one seems a lot. I think combining "cleanup" and "copyedit" in the major list is fine. HotCat is not universal, so I wouldn't want to remove the category item. I don't know that "Adding information" and "Adding detail" are particularly helpful in addition to "Expanding article" and would just clutter the menu with barely-distinguishable options. Maybe you'd want to consider something like User:Enterprisey/CustomSummaryPresets or User:BrandonXLF/EasySummary? They seem to do what you might want. ~ Amory(u • t • c)16:00, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
So you'll change cleanup/copyedit, removing "major"?
Instead of "Expanding article", how about changing it to "Adding information"? That seems the most inclusive of the three (Expanding article/adding information/adding detail).
Here's how major changes would read, if all of this discussion were implemented, and putting them in approxinate frequency of use:
@Deisenbe: this is open on the backlog right now, someone will get to it and either do it, or ask more questions. In the example above, you agreeded 6 and 8 are the same, but how you want to resolve it for example. — xaosfluxTalk15:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
My recommendation is to eliminate "Removing linkspam per WP:EL" altogether, as "Adding/removing external links" covers it.
SUMMARY
These are the changes which seem to have emerged from the above discussion:
Minor menu:
Change "Spelling/grammar/punctuation correction" to "Spelling/grammar/punctuation/typographical error"
Major menu:
Move the line "Adding/removing wikilinks" up so it is third.
Combine "Cleanup" and "Copyedit (major)" (two lines) into "Cleanup/copyedit" (one line), and make it fourth.
@MSGJ:I have done this although since I've never done it before and can't figure out how to see the result I don't know if I've done it correctly. I don't know what you mean by reactivate. deisenbe (talk) 12:53, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Could some padding (like 6px) please be added to the bottom of the dropdowns when editing via the wikitext editor (not the new wikitext editor/VE) so that theres some space between the dropdowns and the checkboxes? I'd have a diff to show, but I'm not really fimilar with OOUI's JS, but it seems like it should be something that could be simply added. --Terra(talk)09:41, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Not done as to the immediate edit request, lacking "specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it". Certainly can be discussed further here and once an edit is ready it can be reviewed and made. Ping to ESanders (WMF) who has worked on this recently for any insight as well. — xaosfluxTalk11:26, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Yeah I didn't have a diff because I'm not all that familiar with OOUI, but thanks for the ping, and for the edit, tho. --Terra(talk)21:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Per Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Edit summary, drafts should get both the non-article summaries (since comments are placed on the tops of drafts) plus the article summaries (since they are essentially articles).
A user at WP:Village pump (WMF) responded to a proposal there to add user-defined Common edit summaries to Preferences, by indicating that implementation of such an idea might be better located in this gadget. In brief, the original, Preferences-based idea was this:
I'd like to propose an enhancement to Preferences to add a feature enabling a user to enter a list of their own commonly used edit summary phrases, and then present them in the "Common edit summaries" dropdown that appears in Preview mode below the Edit summary input field.