MediaWiki talk:Autoredircomment

Annoying link

Great, making redirects just became more time-consuming, completely defeating the point of the automatic summary. Why? Well, when I redirect a page, do I really want my summary to link to a page that says this:

In other words, the user did not deliberately describe his/her edit.

Leaving the summary blank knowing it will be filled in with something appropriate is "deliberate" by any meaningful definition of the word. Unfortunately, I can't do that any more. The point of this automated summary is to save users the trouble of typing in their own edit summary when creating a redirect. Now I have to go to that trouble, or have my summary linked to a page that makes me sound incompetent. Is there really a need for this? – Gurch 13:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

If the text contained within Wikipedia:Automatic edit summaries isn't quite accurate, why don't you simply change it? Some of it was written strictly in reference to the other two types of automatic edit summary (before it was determined that all three would link there), so it does require an update. I'll do this myself, but you're welcome to try your hand at improving the page. —David Levy 15:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

How's this? Acceptable? —David Levy 15:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Better. I still think the link is a little pointless, though – Gurch 11:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't make you seem incompetent to me... I am now happily not filling anything in when I redirect a page since I don't have to! A blank summary appears far more incompetent (and anyway, anyone who judges your value by your edit summaries is silly). If you really want a blank, put in a space (which works fine, see here). Snoutwood (talk) 19:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Other discussion on this matter

Other discussion on what sort of summary to use for this may be found at:

• [1]
• [2]

Please read these before making changes. —Centrx→talk • 20:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thank you, I wasn't aware of that. Regardless, I don't see that the arrow is more popular: David Levy and I prefer "Automatic summary," Freakofnurture and Gurch don't. A consensus-less debate, as I see it, from the available information, that is.

That's irrelevant, however. What is relevant is that, at least to me, the arrow (despite directional facing) is viewed as a link to a section, so at the very least we could change the symbol. What is also relevant is that automatic and bot summaries don't use symbols in their edit summaries (I can't think of any, anyhow), because they're confusing and don't help someone understand immediately what is happening, which a phrase can do. (If that doesn't make sense, then maybe this will help: An edit summary exists because it makes it easy to see what someone has done in their edit. Obfuscating the edit summary with irrelevant symbols when a clear text alternative is available seems silly.) As to the argument that one doesn't want their edit summary to point to a page that says that they were too lazy to write an edit summary, I have to say that 1) it's correct, because obviously you didn't write a summary or it wouldn't've been displayed, and 2) that doesn't change anything, since you look lazy when you leave it blank. I can imagine that one may want the summary blank at times; this may be accomplished with a space, so I don't see the problem. Snoutwood (talk) 21:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, I don't see that the arrow is more popular: David Levy and I prefer "Automatic summary," Freakofnurture and Gurch don't. A consensus-less debate, as I see it, from the available information, that is.

Several people objected to my text-based link almost immediately. The left-pointing arrow drew no complaints for 11 days.

That's irrelevant, however. What is relevant is that, at least to me, the arrow (despite directional facing) is viewed as a link to a section, so at the very least we could change the symbol.

No one else has expressed such a concern. The arrow is logical because people associate such a symbol with auto-generated edit summary content, but its direction and the absence of gray text serve as clear differentiation.

What is also relevant is that automatic and bot summaries don't use symbols in their edit summaries (I can't think of any, anyhow), because they're confusing and don't help someone understand immediately what is happening, which a phrase can do. (If that doesn't make sense, then maybe this will help: An edit summary exists because it makes it easy to see what someone has done in their edit. Obfuscating the edit summary with irrelevant symbols when a clear text alternative is available seems silly.)

The legend appearing above every page's revision history identifies the "←" symbol's meaning, as does the page that someone reaches when he/she clicks on it.

As to the argument that one doesn't want their edit summary to point to a page that says that they were too lazy to write an edit summary, I have to say that 1) it's correct, because obviously you didn't write a summary or it wouldn't've been displayed, and 2) that doesn't change anything, since you look lazy when you leave it blank. I can imagine that one may want the summary blank at times; this may be accomplished with a space, so I don't see the problem.

The issue is that some people omit an edit summary when creating redirects because MediaWiki adds one for them. WP:AES was reworded to reflect this fact. —David Levy 23:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

All righty. Heard you that it hasn't drawn any problems until now, and that you've clearly noted it in the legend (which I'd never before noticed, actually). However, we could clearly note it as something else, and I don't see how that's an issue. I know that when I'm scanning a contrib or history screen, an arrow registers as a section link regardless of facing, and that I don't much notice the absence of grey text or that's it's the other way. Why do we have to make it a symbol that's so similar to an existing symbol? Here's a couple of ideas: we could make the whole thing grey (or another color, dark grey comes to mind as an option); we could use a § or a • or any other ambigous not-easily-mistaken-for-another-symbol symbol, we could have no link and provide a link in the legend along with the accompanying symbol. I'm sure I can think of more if needed. Any objection to one of those ideas? Snoutwood 08:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I object to all of those ideas. I'm sorry that you mistake the left-pointing arrow for the right-pointing arrow, but no one else has reported this problem. The similarity to the right-pointing arrow is deliberate; it helps users to realize that the left-pointing arrow is similar (an auto-generated link that wasn't added by the editor) yet different (because of the direction). It also is a single character with a width that allows it to easily be seen and clicked on.

The grey lettering in question (used for section titles) is generated by MediaWiki, and I don't know what you're suggesting we make grey (or if this is possible). "§" and "•" are arbitrary symbols with no obvious meaning and poor visibility/clickability (and of course, the section sign would be a much more logical fit with the right-pointing arrow's function). The link itself is important, as plenty of users will ignore the legend (as you did). My point was that anyone who sees a symbol that they don't understand can easily consult it. —David Levy 09:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was a section arrow, as well; then I thought it might be some variant of a section or be related to right-to-left languages. After that I thought it was a vandal's idea of a cute, confusing symbol to put in a particularly blatant edit summary. Then, I discovered the meaning, having used the 2-3 seconds of confusion to click the thing.

It is in no way obvious or intuitive that a right to left arrow means "automatically generated." I'd note section links are not always automatically generated, as I have, on occasion, inserted section links to sections I just created. --CalculatinAvatar^(C-T) 13:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

1. I'm glad that your confusion was limited to 2–3 seconds and alleviated by following the link. The "particularly blatant edit summary" impression (which numerous users have reported) is precisely why I added it.

2. I didn't mean to suggest that an arrow inherently carries any "automatically generated" connotation. I meant that people familiar with MediaWiki are accustomed to this context.

3. I frequently add manually-created section links to edit summaries, but relatively few are created in this manner (and the accompanying sections spawn automatic section links from that point on). —David Levy 19:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that the auto edit summary is fine now. However, I am not an administrator. --Meno25 01:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Edit request

{{Editprotected}} Could someone change it to the following:

←Created page as redirect to $1

It would make a lot more sense.

Thanks! Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 09:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree - no objections in an hour or so and I'll make the change. ck lostsword•T•C 10:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

{{tick}} Done ck lostsword•T•C 11:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

N Actually no, not done. You don't necessarily have to be creating the page; you can be redirecting an existing page. Probably not appopriate in that context, so more general term is more appropriate. See diff for an example. ck lostsword•T•C 12:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit request

I'm thinking it'd be appropriate to change the summary to: Redirected page to $1: {{r to section}} (the latter being an example, of course) ie. the MediaWiki software would detect redirect categorisation templates and include them in the summary. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 10:26pm • 12:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Would be good, but I doubt it is possible. We only have the $1 parameter to work with, which is the name of the page. Feel free to ask at WP:VPT for more input on this. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

That's incorrect. One also has $2 which is just not used by default. ($2 is the first bit of the text added to the page). Bawolff (talk) 16:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)