SmashWiki talk:Edit summaries

I feel like the possibility of including an edit summary is often ignored, when it could easily help prevent unnecessary arguments are edit wars by providing a quick explanation as to why the edit was made.

Discuss. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe Nutta. 22:07, 26 August 2015 (EDT)

Possibly add to "When creating a new page" that edit summaries should not be necessary for creating redirects? (as the system does it for you) Serpent King (talk) 22:10, 26 August 2015 (EDT)

Oh also, possibly add a section on reading edit summaries before one acts? That's been a problem lately. Serpent King (talk) 22:17, 26 August 2015 (EDT)

Still more: Always summary when removing content from a talk page (archiving, formatting fix, spam talk page, personal info, etc) Serpent King (talk) 22:24, 26 August 2015 (EDT)

Hm yes that all seems important. I guess I add them now? ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe Nutta. 13:56, 27 August 2015 (EDT)

...okay, so I reiterate: Discuss. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe Nutta. 20:50, 29 August 2015 (EDT)

Hello? ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe Nutta. 21:14, 30 August 2015 (EDT)

Support - It seems a tad rigid, but it would help enforce a feature that makes reviewing edits much easier and standardizes things a bit. Nyargleblargle (Talk) 13:08, 31 August 2015 (EDT)

...bump. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe Nutta. 20:28, 9 September 2015 (EDT)

Support However, I suggest that the "situations where edit summaries are unnecessary" be removed, as I feel that an editor adding a summary for those situations would be perfectly fine. Awesome Cardinal 2000 23:06, 9 September 2015 (EDT)

I mainly included it to keep people from going "HEY YOU DIDN'T ADD AN EDIT SUMMARY!" when it's unnecessary. I attempted to word it in a way that made it clear that edit summaries are always appreciated, but one isn't required in this scenario. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe Nutta. 08:08, 14 September 2015 (EDT)

Anyone else? ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe Nutta. 10:16, 16 September 2015 (EDT)

...bump ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe Nutta. 11:45, 22 September 2015 (EDT)

Bump? ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe Nutta. 00:20, 3 October 2015 (EDT)

Still in Support for what it matters. Serpent∞King (talk) 00:28, 3 October 2015 (EDT)

...so... does it usually take this long? ---Preceding unsigned comment added by BOO! Or maybe Nutta. 00:04, 22 October 2015 (EDT)

Needs more input. I'll start by saying I've changed my position to weak oppose; I'm not really sure that edit summaries are the kinds of things that need policies. Nyargleblargle Let's go Mets! (Talk · Contribs) 16:17, 26 October 2015 (EDT)

What if this were a guideline instead? Serpent∞King (talk) 16:18, 26 October 2015 (EDT)

I would still be a bit meh on it, but I probably wouldn't oppose. Nyargleblargle Let's go Mets! (Talk · Contribs) 16:20, 26 October 2015 (EDT)

Bump, also support. However, if it becomes a guideline rather than a policy, then my vote would probably be a strong support. Ganonmew, The Thankful Evil Clone 22:05, 6 November 2015 (EST)

BUMP Ganonmew, The Thankful Evil Clone 10:13, 15 November 2015 (EST)

Oppose, leaning towards neutral On one hand, this can be really useful for newer users who don't quite know how edit summaries work, but at the same time, it's so obvious how one works that I also feel like this shouldn't be an official policy. At the same time too, it's also useful for some more experienced users as well, ones who may not necessarily have a clear indication on what they should put in it. It could really help with people who are making edits that need to have edit summaries, but the question that needs to be asked is, "Exactly how many people don't use edit summaries when they actually should be?" Long story short, it's helpful, but is it really necessary? Disaster Flare (talk) 00:47, 16 November 2015 (EST)

Strong Support: As is the case with the Username policy, we pretty much enforce this already, so having it set in stone isn't a bad idea at all. I also don't see any flaws with the current version, so...yeah. --MeatBall104 16:34, 17 November 2015 (EST)

Support: The policy seems useful, and it may help to minimize trivia-changing arguments as well as add clarifications in cases where large portions of pages are changed. Fenyx4 (talk) 21:29, 17 November 2015 (EST)

Definitely support. While summaries don't have to be mandatory, they are still very helpful in order to understand what happened in the page. Drill Blaster Mark 2 (talk) 08:45, 22 November 2015 (EST)

A couple comments:

• When creating a new page: this feels kind of unnecessary, as most new mainspace pages are likely to be immediately recognized as useful or not per SW:CREATE.
• When adding a template such as Template:Image or Template:D: redundant with the content of the templates themselves, like this proposed policy already notes. If anything I'd recommend noting in the summary that the template has been added (especially for d/delete), to make the need for attention more evident when browsing RecentChanges.

-Menshay (talk) 17:00, 23 November 2015 (EST)

Let's do this proper.

Support as a policy

1. Strong support: I made it, so why wouldn't I support it? ---Preceding unsigned comment added by a turkey! Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 16:45, 23 November 2015 (EST)
2. Support: I have always found edits on this wiki, or at least the parts I frequent, to be lacking in summaries. A policy might help change this. —Fenhl 22:56, 25 November 2015 (EST)
3. Support I find a lot of people remove content without any explanation. How do we know why it's removed. ZeldaStarfoxfan2164 (talk) is made in America 23:02, 25 November 2015 (EST)

   Click "diff" or "prev," look at the changes, reason with what you see and what you know, and make guesses and/or inferences, and inquire if needed. Smashedpotatoes (talk) 23:29, 25 November 2015 (EST)

   Yes I do click on those links and found that a few people removed content without leaving a summary. ZeldaStarfoxfan2164 (talk) is a never lover boy 00:05, 26 November 2015 (EST)

   The point in clicking those links are to see the content changed in the edit. Once you see them, you can analyze them and reason through as to why those changes were made. Unless you're not good at that or don't do that altogether, in which case you should try doing that. But if you do do that, then I don't see why you'd want to push for a policy such as this. Smashedpotatoes (talk) 00:12, 26 November 2015 (EST)

   If you find the removal of content unreasonable, I can understand the frustration. But you gotta think through it first before coming to that conclusion. Smashedpotatoes (talk) 00:13, 26 November 2015 (EST)

4. Support: I feel that this is more in a policy format. Awesomelink234 PK FLASHBOMB! 09:35, 26 November 2015 (EST)

Support as a guideline

1. Guideline: Here's why. Even I sometimes omit edit summaries if I am mass editing a ton of pages at once, and as such, I think this should be only a guideline. There really is no reason for us to actually go to someone's talk page about not leaving edit summaries, thus dis-validating the need for a policy. However, it could be useful for people to have an idea on when an edit summary could be appropriate. Serpent King 19:26, 22 November 2015 (EST)
2. Weak support as a guideline per Serpent King. Omission of an edit summary should not be a policy violation, but it should be frowned upon. Nyargleblargle (Talk | Contribs) 19:32, 22 November 2015 (EST)
3. Strong support. Per Serpent and Nyargle. Ganonmew, The Thankful Evil Clone 20:09, 22 November 2015 (EST)

   By the way, I strongly oppose this becoming a policy. Ganonmew, The Thankful Evil Clone 06:30, 26 November 2015 (EST)

   I switch from an oppose to a moderate support whatever it becomes. Ganonmew, The Festive Evil Clone 23:07, 28 November 2015 (EST)

4. Weak support: (Am I actually allowed to support both...?) I'd prefer it as a policy, but I'm also fine with it as a guideline. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by a turkey! Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 16:45, 23 November 2015 (EST)
5. Support as guideline as per errone above. Smashedpotatoes (talk) 19:07, 25 November 2015 (EST)
6. Strong support As I said before, edit summaries are overall very helpful, but cannot be mandatory for reasons mentioned by SK. Drill Blaster Mark 2 (talk) 05:15, 26 November 2015 (EST)
7. Strong support. A policy on edit summaries sounds pretty silly, as who would want to get hated on all because they fixed a normal typo without an edit summary, or maybe their edit was to add the D tag on a page... See? Policies. On. Edit. Summaries. Don't. Work. But... Guidelines do work IMHO. INoMed ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 05:38, 26 November 2015 (EST)

   note the fact that it specifically says typo/grammar fixing doesn't require an edit summary :P ---Preceding unsigned comment added by a turkey! Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 09:32, 26 November 2015 (EST)

   I added another example to my support. INoMed ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 09:38, 26 November 2015 (EST)

   That's... not better. SmashWiki Status System requires edit summaries. Your change will be undone if you don't include one. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by a turkey! Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 09:40, 26 November 2015 (EST)

   I changed it. INoMed ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 09:41, 26 November 2015 (EST)

   Which is listed as recommended, but not necessary. So they would not get in trouble if they didn't include it (unless someone just wanted to be picky). ---Preceding unsigned comment added by a turkey! Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 09:43, 26 November 2015 (EST)

   We had to go through all this all because I used reasons of which an edit summary 1. Is unneeded. 2. Is required. 3. Is optional, but not required. All I was trying to say is that I like this proposal, but I feel as if a policy just doesn't cut it. INoMed ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 09:46, 26 November 2015 (EST)

   Well I was just pointing out that all of your reasons for why was false. Obviously I can't change your opinion, but since we're sort of on opposite sides here if I can make my reasoning seem more sound than yours that benefits me :P ---Preceding unsigned comment added by a turkey! Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 09:50, 26 November 2015 (EST)

   I now re-support this, as Nutty made me rethink my opposition. INoMed ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 12:44, 28 November 2015 (EST)

8. Support as a guideline. That's all I can say. Pika, Wild Turkey Appeared! 17:27, 26 November 2015 (EST)

   If you can't supply a reason, why are you voting...? ---Preceding unsigned comment added by a turkey! Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 19:28, 26 November 2015 (EST)

9. Support I can't really say anything on the matter, as all of the valid points have already been stated and would be redundant if I repeated them... Disaster Flare (talk) 01:05, 28 November 2015 (EST)

Oppose

1. I oppose this altogether. Let people be responsible for their own summaries, and their own analyzation of other people's edits. Don't want to put a summary? Alright. Don't see a summary? Look at the changes made. It's not even difficult, it's literally a click away, requiring minimal time, energy, and common sense on everyone's part. We don't need a policy or guideline for this. Smashedpotatoes (talk) 00:07, 26 November 2015 (EST)

   If that were true, why do you think I would make it? A lack of edit summaries or poor usage of edit summaries has created more conflict than I can count. I'm simply trying to put an end to it. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by a turkey! Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 09:32, 26 November 2015 (EST)

   Could you possibly link me to some instances of this happening? Just to get an idea. I know I've failed to give good edit summaries and gotten negative responses but that was me not being wise with it. But I want to see other examples of this creating conflict. Smashedpotatoes (talk) 14:08, 26 November 2015 (EST)

   Also, doesn't Help:Edit summary suffice? Smashedpotatoes (Talk) 16:09, 27 November 2015 (EST)

   Kinda having trouble supporting this in any capacity if there's that serving the same purpose. Maybe material proposed here could be added there. Smashedpotatoes (Talk) 16:26, 27 November 2015 (EST)

   I think that's actually a fair point. I can definitely say that I do not want to go to talk pages, berating those who don't edit summary... as a guideline, I wouldn't have to do that, but if there's already a help page (to be honest, I forgot about that) serving the same purpose, then maybe that just needs amended. Serpent King 16:48, 27 November 2015 (EST)

   Yeah. However, it's not like it appearing as a Help page provides much incentive to read it. Case in point, you've been here awhile and you're an Admin now and even you forgot about it. If it were to appear as a Policy or Guideline, it would give more incentive to read into, because those are things that are enforced and strongly suggested, respectively. You read Help pages primarily if you need help. I could be wrong, but I hardly think a lot of users are like "How do I summarize what I changed?" Smashedpotatoes (Talk) 17:41, 27 November 2015 (EST)

   Yes, I'd say that "Summary:" and then a text box gets the point across. Serpent King 17:44, 27 November 2015 (EST)

2. Oppose This isn't badly written by any means, there's nothing strictly wrong with it, it just all seems a bit... needless. Our userbase who edit actively generally do use edit summaries already, and editors who don't use edit summaries much aren't likely to find this guidelines page in the first place. I share a lot of opinions with the neutral crew, but this is kinda just padding for the guidelines/rules section of the wiki more than anything, we can do without. Toast ltimatum 23:55, 27 November 2015 (EST)

   This is also true. It doesn't help that neither the Policies nor Guidelines are visible either; you're going to have to find them to see them! They don't even have links in the sidebar. Sure, they're a click away after clicking on Help, but even then, they're at the bottom of the page. Smashedpotatoes (Talk) 00:59, 28 November 2015 (EST)

   Plus, those pages likely aren't pages the typical user would want to particularly seek out and read. Smashedpotatoes (Talk) 01:10, 28 November 2015 (EST)

   I did. you'll notice that I signed my first comment. This is the only wiki I have ever contributed to, also. Serpent King 01:13, 28 November 2015 (EST)

   Then you're not a "typical user," or I'm just incorrect in my assumption. Smashedpotatoes (Talk) 01:23, 28 November 2015 (EST)

   I was trying to go along the lines of what Toast was saying: those who aren't doing it now probably have not read them, and likely won't see them. Smashedpotatoes (Talk) 01:26, 28 November 2015 (EST)

   Then again, if users don't read the Policies and Guidelines then sucks to their ass-mars. But we could refer to them Policy, Guideline, and Help pages if need be. Smashedpotatoes (Talk) 01:37, 28 November 2015 (EST)

3. Oppose on the basis that Help:Edit summary already exists. Toomai Glittershine The Steppin' 09:25, 28 November 2015 (EST)
4. Oppose per Toomai. Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 09:56, 28 November 2015 (EST)
5. weak oppose i just remembered Help:Edit summary existed Nintendofan1653 (talk) 10:33, 28 November 2015 (EST)

#Weak Oppose upon realization per Toomai, NyBlargle, and Nintendofan. I'm sorry.... Ganonmew, The Festive Evil Clone 11:16, 28 November 2015 (EST)

1. Oppose upon realization that there is a help page about edit summaries, rendering this unnecessary. INoMed ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 12:27, 28 November 2015 (EST)

   I do Support a merge of this proposal and the help page though. (This proposal would merge into Help:Edit summaries.) INoMed ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 12:31, 28 November 2015 (EST)

   I don't think this really works as a help page... I think it would be better to merge the help page into the policy/guideline. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by SANTY CLAWS! Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 12:33, 28 November 2015 (EST)

   Upon realization, I'm now re-supporting as a guideline. INoMed ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 12:44, 28 November 2015 (EST)

Neutral

1. Eh. Edit summaries are to be encouraged, definitely, but the response to someone forgetting to use one shouldn't be anything more than a "hey, you probably should use these". It wouldn't hurt as a guideline, but I'm not convinced it's specifically needed either. Either way, this isn't anything worth trying to strictly enforce. Miles (talk) 20:14, 22 November 2015 (EST)
2. Resounding "meh" I dunno really. It's nice to have written rules instead of unwritten ones, but even if we call this a guideline (which it would be), it feels...almost toe-stepping actually. Regardless, the extra capped "S" in the title has to go. Toomai Glittershine The Aurum 23:42, 25 November 2015 (EST)

   True, that's a point, I kinda get that feeling too. Besides that, must we explain ourselves with every thing we do? People can reason through things themselves. If people are gonna choose irrational, unfounded responses over analyzing edits themselves, then dat's on dem. Smashedpotatoes (talk) 23:52, 25 November 2015 (EST)

   On the other hand, we gotta take into account that not one person has completely sound reasoning, some more or less than others. An edit summary would help with avoiding conflict. But then again...if the person editing REALLY cared about his or her edits being understood, and/or know that it's prone to being undone or changed by certain people, and then they'd likely put a summary. And if not...dat's on dem. Smashedpotatoes (talk) 23:59, 25 November 2015 (EST)

   Yeahhhh... I wasn't really paying attention to the formatting of other titles when I named it and just never felt like moving it.

   Should I do that now, or wait until we've decided? ---Preceding unsigned comment added by a turkey! Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 09:32, 26 November 2015 (EST)

   Now's good. Serpent King 19:01, 26 November 2015 (EST)

   Done. —Fenhl 19:10, 26 November 2015 (EST)

3. This is pretty neat but no, not as a policy, but its better as a guideline. This policy/guideline is probably something minor however. Dots (talk) The Falcon 10:49, 26 November 2015 (EST)

   ...This sounds more like a support for guideline than a neutral. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by a turkey! Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 11:37, 26 November 2015 (EST)

   Well technically this means that I think edit summaries are not too important to put in edits. Dots (talk) The Medic 10:35, 28 November 2015 (EST)

4. neutral leaning to support this is a great idea but it has its flaws Nintendofan1653 (talk) 15:38, 27 November 2015 (EST)
5. Neutral. I personally feel that Help:Edit summary is sufficient and pretty much covers everything you need to know when adding edit summaries. John PK SMAAAASH!! 16:55, 27 November 2015 (EST)
6. Neutral. I think that while there is the Help:Edit summary page, upon further comparison and analyzation of the content there and what is proposed here, I think that perhaps it is not as sufficient as it could be. Couple this with how that page is a Help page, which provides little reason for users to read it due to the oh so simple nature of writing Summaries in general. Policies and Guidelines do provide more reason for reading, as they are enforcement and strong suggestions, correspondingly. I know that content written in summaries, as well as the lack thereof, has been the spawn of some issues here, many of them being my fault, and perhaps if one or both of my eyes had caught a Guideline written about Summaries at the very bottom of the page, those could have been avoided, or perhaps not. Or, I could have just chosen to be wiser and more effective in communicating what I had changed in the pages I edited. Either way, and regardless of my personal and feelings and speculative thoughts, this a very minor thing to be dealing with, and people are responsible for how they write, fail to write, or respond to Edit Summaries. Therefore, this doesn't seem to be especially necessary. I would be mildly fine with it either being a Guideline or not existing at all, but definitely not a policy. Smashedpotatoes (Talk) 22:47, 27 November 2015 (EST)

Comments

Bumping this, I want this resolved soon Serpent King 19:02, 25 November 2015 (EST)

Just a note: I am leaning towards passing this as a guideline at the moment, but I'll let it run for a few more days to see what happens. Serpent King 12:28, 27 November 2015 (EST)

The main reason no one wants it as a policy is because they themselves don't want to have to use it (at least, that's what it strongly feels like to me- your reason was that you didn't want to have to make them in mass edits (Idk if I'm allowed to amend now that voting has started, but it would probably be worth considering that if several of the same edits are being made, only the first requires an edit summary) and most of the others were just "per sk"; Smashed's reason for opposing is that he wants to be responsible for his own summaries, even though his summaries have actually been the cause of several problems). If it's passed as a guideline, nothing's going to change. A policy will actually fix it, because if people don't listen they can actually get in trouble if they don't.

Also, there's the fact that there's already, effectively, a guideline, which clearly people don't care about because otherwise the problem wouldn't have risen. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by a turkey! Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 17:12, 27 November 2015 (EST)

Yeah, it appearing as a Help page provides less incentive to read it than it appearing as a Guideline or Policy. But, I don't see a problem with looking at specific edits to spot out changes and work through it yourself. Must we rely on summaries like this? Smashedpotatoes (Talk) 17:19, 27 November 2015 (EST)

Also note that edit wars and conflicts happen despite having put sufficient edit summaries. And sometimes, people don't reason through things. So, having it as a policy won't change those who are stubborn/lazy/unwilling to negotiate. Smashedpotatoes (Talk) 17:32, 27 November 2015 (EST)

Well, obviously nothing will completely fix it. But it can still help. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by a turkey! Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 21:57, 27 November 2015 (EST)

Just an FYI, yes, you are allowed to change it as long as any major changes are noted here. Serpent King 22:03, 27 November 2015 (EST)

Got it! ---Preceding unsigned comment added by a turkey! Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 22:16, 27 November 2015 (EST)

Oh also, I disagree with the whole "Use an edit summary when tagging for deletion" thing. That's what the template description is for. Serpent King 22:18, 27 November 2015 (EST)

On that same note, though, it could be useful to have edit summaries for removing tags...for anything really. Serpent King 22:20, 27 November 2015 (EST)

Eh, I put it in recommended-but-not-necessary for a reason. That said, I agree with the removal thing. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by a turkey! Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 22:21, 27 November 2015 (EST)

Okay, so I added mass edits and removing image/merge/move/deletion tags. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by a turkey! Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 22:21, 27 November 2015 (EST)

The part about tags is good because what if a tag is removed, say Cleanup, and it still needs to be cleaned up? What if page's Incomplete tag is taken off, but it is still incomplete? It makes sense. Smashedpotatoes (Talk) 22:52, 27 November 2015 (EST)

I'm not convinced that Help:Edit summary is really sufficient. First of all, even our beloved bureaucrat didn't know it existed until Smashed dug it up, so clearly not many people will read it. Secondly, it doesn't really cover when an edit summary should or shouldn't be used very well, with only a couple of bullet points as opposed to the relatively detailed sections this provide, and is instead focused on what it is and how it works (which is all well and good, but not what this was written up for). Comparing the two pages, I see very little similarities beyond the one tiny section on the Help and the basic subject. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by SANTY CLAWS! Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 12:16, 28 November 2015 (EST)

I'm also not convinced this comment was sufficient because no one seems to be acknowledging it. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by SANTY CLAWS! Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 12:28, 28 November 2015 (EST)

We see your comments, but maybe we don't want to respond yet, or don't know how to respond yet, or just have no response to it. Anywho, take note that Wikipedia's Help:Edit summary page is much more meatier; we could further expound our own. This doesn't really help with people not looking at Help pages much in the first place, though. Smashedpotatoes (Talk) 13:06, 28 November 2015 (EST)

I am now leaning towards failing this due to a clear lack of consensus. I'll let it run for a little while longer, but if nothing improves... Serpent King 21:52, 28 November 2015 (EST)

If there's no clear consensus, then it shouldn't fail; it should be left open until there's a clear consensus. At least, that's how I see it. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by SANTY CLAWS! Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 21:58, 28 November 2015 (EST)

Maybe, but I don't feel comfortable in passing a policy that so many people oppose. Serpent King 22:03, 28 November 2015 (EST)

then that would make it a clear consensus, right?

I still feel like the opposition is baseless though. Help:Edit summary really doesn't cover what this policy/guideline would. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by SANTY CLAWS! Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 22:05, 28 November 2015 (EST)

Yeah consensus is the way to go, keeping it going is not the same as passing it. This has aroused a lot of input, but unfortunately it has not elicited especially strong responses. In addition, the votes are pretty even all around. Smashedpotatoes (Talk) 22:07, 28 November 2015 (EST)

@Nutta No, there is no consensus here, other than that most seem not to want this as a policy. Votes are very split between guideline and opposing this all-together. Can you explain what this would cover as a guideline that the help page wouldn't? Serpent King 22:10, 28 November 2015 (EST)

Well, my point is that if you don't feel good about passing it because of the amount of opposition obviously the opposition is enough for it to not be passworthy, but whatever. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by SANTY CLAWS! Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 22:24, 28 November 2015 (EST)

I'm going to go ahead and explain why it would be better as a policy too because HOPE! (rainbows, angel chorus, and adorable puppies behind me) ...Did that help convince you at all? No? Okay.

What the help page covers (a summary): What an edit summary is. It is the absolute simplest explanation you can get: it's a box where you put the summary of your edit. (duh.) While it has a usage section, it is merely four undetailed bullet points that cover very little- edit summaries aren't necessary for grammar/typoes, edit summaries should be used for sourcing, edit summaries should be used to explain massive rewrites, and edit summaries should be used when a section is removed. It also mentions automatic edit summaries (for redirects and new pages), and the explanation for the weird "/* SECTIONTITLE */" thing.

What the guideline would cover (a summary): Honestly, a guideline would probably be an expansion of the help page. However, there is a large difference between a help page and a guideline page- while a help page is intended for advice when needed, guideline pages are, well, guidelines that users should follow. Unless you are confused about edit summaries, you likely would not go to Help:Edit summary, and therefore would not follow its dos and don'ts. Furthermore, it's not particularly enforceable. Guidelines, on the other hand, are where most users will go if they actually want to understand the function of the wiki. Therefore, they will be more likely to know about the dos and don'ts, and therefore follow them. And if they don't, it's much more enforceable because help pages tend to be suggestions, while guidelines are more specifically "what you should do".

What the policy would cover (a summary): A policy would then be an expansion of the guideline (not content-wise, but usage-wise). Even more than guidelines, a user is likely to read the policies of the wiki (I know I did, albeit only the absolute most important ones in my mind and even that was skimming, but I never stopped by the help or guideline pages at all), and it would be completely enforceable. Actually, a good example happened today: An IP readded something that Jamal had changed and explained in an edit summary prior. Clearly, the IP, who appeared to be good faith, did not bother to read the help page and therefore did not know to check the edit summary. (That's about as strict to AGF as you can get, but whatever.) The result? An edit that should have been unnecessary and could have been prevented if there was a policy Jamal could have thrown at the IP, or that the IP could have read in the first place. Even if the IP hadn't read it, if Jamal had been able to supply a policy he had broken, the IP would be much more likely to pay more attention next time, and such a situation would not happen again with said IP (again, sticking to AGF.)

...Idk I feel kind of stupid now but I'm going to hit save page anyway. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by SANTY CLAWS! Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 22:24, 28 November 2015 (EST)

Sensible, not especially strong, but sensible. This is a case of someone not paying attention to an edit summary? I mean, it's pretty straightforward, it's right there in your face if you're gonna undo something. Unless I'm missing something here... Smashedpotatoes (Talk) 22:37, 28 November 2015 (EST)

Please understand that as it stands now, I cannot pass this as a policy. There simply isn't enough support. Serpent King 22:52, 28 November 2015 (EST)

Well, duh. The goal of that was to get more support so that it can stand differently later. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by SANTY CLAWS! Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 20:51, 29 November 2015 (EST)

How about merging these two pages? Drill Blaster Mark 2 (talk) 06:07, 29 November 2015 (EST)

I have drafted the new help page for if this proposal fails. If it passes, the help page should be deleted. Serpent King 19:33, 29 November 2015 (EST)

This proposal does not look like as if it is gonna pass anytime soon, with 4 Supporting for policy, 9 supporting for guideline, a few opposing, and 6 neutral. (I need to update once I check, hold on) INoMed ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 12:03, 30 November 2015 (EST)