User talk:Bregalad: Difference between revisions
From NESdev Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(→"idem" edit summaries: new section) |
Rainwarrior (talk | contribs) (→"idem" edit summaries: suggestion) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
The edit summary for [http://wiki.nesdev.org/w/index.php?title=MMC5&curid=91&diff=10029&oldid=9918 this edit] is fine. But the edit summary "idem" for [http://wiki.nesdev.org/w/index.php?title=INES_Mapper_004&curid=198&diff=10030&oldid=9386 this], [http://wiki.nesdev.org/w/index.php?title=INES_Mapper_001&curid=195&diff=10031&oldid=7957 this], [http://wiki.nesdev.org/w/index.php?title=INES_Mapper_002&curid=196&diff=10032&oldid=5596 this], and [http://wiki.nesdev.org/w/index.php?title=GxROM&curid=126&diff=10033&oldid=9650 this] confuses future readers of the individual articles' edit histories. Recent Changes isn't the only place where edit summaries are shown; they're also shown in individual articles' edit histories, where they aren't correlated with edits to other pages on the same day. Will other editors be able to tell what "idem" means [http://wiki.nesdev.org/w/index.php?title=INES_Mapper_004&curid=198&action=history here], [http://wiki.nesdev.org/w/index.php?title=INES_Mapper_001&curid=195&action=history here], [http://wiki.nesdev.org/w/index.php?title=INES_Mapper_002&curid=196&action=history here], and [http://wiki.nesdev.org/w/index.php?title=GxROM&curid=126&action=history here]? --[[User:Tepples|Tepples]] ([[User talk:Tepples|talk]]) 07:17, 20 April 2015 (MDT) | The edit summary for [http://wiki.nesdev.org/w/index.php?title=MMC5&curid=91&diff=10029&oldid=9918 this edit] is fine. But the edit summary "idem" for [http://wiki.nesdev.org/w/index.php?title=INES_Mapper_004&curid=198&diff=10030&oldid=9386 this], [http://wiki.nesdev.org/w/index.php?title=INES_Mapper_001&curid=195&diff=10031&oldid=7957 this], [http://wiki.nesdev.org/w/index.php?title=INES_Mapper_002&curid=196&diff=10032&oldid=5596 this], and [http://wiki.nesdev.org/w/index.php?title=GxROM&curid=126&diff=10033&oldid=9650 this] confuses future readers of the individual articles' edit histories. Recent Changes isn't the only place where edit summaries are shown; they're also shown in individual articles' edit histories, where they aren't correlated with edits to other pages on the same day. Will other editors be able to tell what "idem" means [http://wiki.nesdev.org/w/index.php?title=INES_Mapper_004&curid=198&action=history here], [http://wiki.nesdev.org/w/index.php?title=INES_Mapper_001&curid=195&action=history here], [http://wiki.nesdev.org/w/index.php?title=INES_Mapper_002&curid=196&action=history here], and [http://wiki.nesdev.org/w/index.php?title=GxROM&curid=126&action=history here]? --[[User:Tepples|Tepples]] ([[User talk:Tepples|talk]]) 07:17, 20 April 2015 (MDT) | ||
:You are correct, I only had recent changes in mind. Unfortunately I don't know how to edit the edit summary of past edit to fix the problem.[[Special:Contributions/128.179.154.122|128.179.154.122]] 07:55, 20 April 2015 (MDT) | |||
::A subsequent trivial edit with an edit summary to explain could do it fine, and would be easily read in the page history. - [[User:Rainwarrior|Rainwarrior]] ([[User talk:Rainwarrior|talk]]) 20:31, 20 April 2015 (MDT) | |||
Latest revision as of 02:31, 21 April 2015
"idem" edit summaries
The edit summary for this edit is fine. But the edit summary "idem" for this, this, this, and this confuses future readers of the individual articles' edit histories. Recent Changes isn't the only place where edit summaries are shown; they're also shown in individual articles' edit histories, where they aren't correlated with edits to other pages on the same day. Will other editors be able to tell what "idem" means here, here, here, and here? --Tepples (talk) 07:17, 20 April 2015 (MDT)
- You are correct, I only had recent changes in mind. Unfortunately I don't know how to edit the edit summary of past edit to fix the problem.128.179.154.122 07:55, 20 April 2015 (MDT)
- A subsequent trivial edit with an edit summary to explain could do it fine, and would be easily read in the page history. - Rainwarrior (talk) 20:31, 20 April 2015 (MDT)
