Last modified: 2011-03-13 18:05:05 UTC
I think it would be helpful if the editing software issued a popup warning when one submits an edit and the edit summary field is blank or only contains a section title, i.e. text bracketed by /* ... */. This would encourage edit summaries and reduce the incidence of clicking "save page" when "show preview" is intended (I know I do this from time to time).
This has been suggested a few times. There are many instances where this would not be desirable: * changes to user pages which are private (change intended for myself, no summary needed) * simple comments on talk pages (auto-summary often sufficient; people who would read the summary are often only the ones who will look at the talk page anyway, as opposed to articles, which are reviewed randomly) * votes in polls (auto-summary sufficient if poll is set up properly) * cases where you just want to quickly fix something without bothering to type much (writing a summary is by no means mandatory) * creation of new pages These are just some cases which I can easily anticipate where such a "feature" would be annoying. I don't really see the point of nagging users. There are more useful ways to improve edit summaries, e.g., by generating "mini-diffs" for small edits, or by providing some statistics on the RC page (how much text was removed/added/changed). Will change to WONTFIX unlses someone can present plausible arguments why we need this.
The fact that this has been proposed a few time before means others would like this feature. It could be a facility that can be turned off in preferences. Hopefully the majority of editing affects articles, not internal sruff. There edit summaries make it easier for other to decide how to use the time they spend reviewing changes. I want this feature to remind me, not to nag others.
If it's possible to create an entire wikitext parser purely using MediaWiki's user JavaScript features: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pilaf/Live_Preview .. then I'm sure it's possible to hack something like that via Monobook.js. I think this would be a more promising approach than Yet Another Obscure User Preference.
See also bug 4630 (force), bug 1307 (automate).
