Help talk:Edit summary

Still not possible to edit edit summaries?

Been a Wikipedia editor for almost two weeks now, and after reading this page, I learned that even to this day, it's still not possible to edit edit summaries. Why is this? Wouldn't it make sense for anyone to correct their own edit summaries if they believed they did a typo error or used the wrong brackets for linking words to special pages? For example, in this edit I made to the Earthworm article, where my edit summary says "Adjusted edit protection template; protected due to vandalism", I intended to use square brackets ([]) in order to link the word "vandalism" to the Wikipedia:Vandalism page, but I used brace brackets ({}) instead, so the link doesn't exist. How am I suppose to correct this? BriDash9000 (talk) 11:10, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

See Help:Edit summary#Edit summary properties and features ("Can't be changed after saving" bullet point) and Help:Edit summary#Fixing - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:58, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Butwhatdoiknow Yeah... not really helpful. BriDash9000 (talk) 16:15, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

BriDash9000 You asked "Why is this?" and "How am I suppose to correct this?" Did I misunderstood your questions? If so, that may be my fault, or it may be yours. In either case, please consider being more civil to folks who are trying to help you with a problem. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 21:36, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

@BriDash9000: This isn't going to happen, see for instance Help talk:Edit summary#Corrections above, and other threads in the archives. IIRC, on another page, WhatamIdoing (talk · contribs) recently replied to somebody else who made pretty much the same request. Basically: edit summaries are entries in an action log. If you allow a log entry to be edited, you need another log recording that edit. Ad infinitum. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:48, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I've added a note at the top of this talk page. Maybe it will reduce the number of times people need to ask. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:26, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Thats a good idea, I support it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:20, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

It may not be about to happen, but there really should be a way to correct significant errors in edit summaries. I've been an editor since 2009, and saved thousands of edits, but it's still easy for your fingers to slip and hit "return" when you're reaching for quotation marks, closing brackets, or "shift". I just saved an edit with a summary ending in the middle of the sentence intended to explain what I'd done, without getting to two of the three things I changed in the space of two short paragraphs. Since there's just nothing to be done about a useless edit summary, I found an excuse to make an additional edit in the same area, and summarized the rest there. Not ideal, but at least it explains what I was doing.

Perhaps the solution would be to make it harder to save edits: simply hitting "return" or "enter" must lead to countless accidents like this every single day. If you leave the summary blank, you're prompted to add one, I believe—maybe there should always be some sort of prompt to make sure edit summaries aren't saved by accident. Perhaps even an edit summary preview that would help people avoid leaving bad links or formatting in edit summaries. Or maybe a check box that would indicate the summary is finished—you'd probably have to be able to check it with a keystroke anyway, but at least it would require an additional step, making it harder to save everything before it's finished. P Aculeius (talk) 01:41, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

@P Aculeius: I have the script User:Anomie/nosubmitsummary.js in my common.js page, which disables the "return" or "enter" key in the edit summary box. You can preview your edit summary by clicking either "Show preview" or "Show changes". -- John of Reading (talk) 07:55, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Policy on repeated breaches of H:FIES

Hi! I was wondering if there is a policy about how to deal with users who repeatedly breach the “all edits should be explained” policy. I haven't been able to find one but I admit I'm unfamiliar with the innards of wikipedia (templates, conventions, policies) and find it difficult to navigate the WP: namespace for information on them, so maybe I simply didn't know where to look.

Extra context: I recently had a technical edit reverted with a mere “invalid” summary, which I found very much unhelpful (invalid how? wrt content? if so I fail to understand why. wrt proper (conventional) use of the template? if so it would call for an edit rather than an undo and I believe it could be automated). Upon reading the user's talk page, I found that there had already been multiple requests from other editors for them to provide relevant summaries when editing pages and in particular when reverting edits. One editor provided a link to the aforementioned user's xtool statistics, according to which only 62% of their edits provide a summary, and that includes minimal, unhelpful summaries like the one I described. I find this all the more concerning as they have no less than 96,053 edits under their belt for an average of 34.6 edits/day. In contrast, they only seem to answer messages on their talk page about once a month and all requests for them to adhere to H:FIES have been left unanswered for about a year. I find such a lack of communication concerning and wonder if users with such behavior may be more trouble than anything.

P.S.: I'm expecting & hoping that this page is on some admins or otherwise experienced editors who may answer me. If someone would take the time to check the revision history pertaining to my technical edit and tell me what they believe I did wrong (or not), that would also be appreciated, considering it doesn't look like I can count on the user's cooperation to explain their undo. Arandomfolk (talk) 01:56, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Regarding your P.S.: I am not an admin or a particularly "otherwise" experienced editor. I wonder whether the text in the first box at Category:Redirects to sections might hold the answer? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:38, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Edit summaries not in English

User:Capitalkyoto has been making edits, some contentious, with extensive edit summaries in a foreign language (Japanese). This seems very unhelpful, but I cannot see anything in the guidelines explicitly saying that edit summaries should be in English. Should such be added? Imaginatorium (talk) 05:27, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. I will try to write in English from next time. Capitalkyoto (talk) 05:50, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Weird problem I noticed

I just used an edit summary that included the Russian word "Самолёт", but I noticed the word is rendered as "Самолёm" in the revision history and diff page of the article. I confirmed it's not just my browser by opening the pages in Chrome. Is this a known issue? - ZLEA ^TǀC 14:42, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Not an issue - edit summaries are shown in italics, in the Cyrillic script some letters look very different in italics (see Russian alphabet#Letters) including т looking like m. SlimyGecko7 (talk) 09:14, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Re revert of my "Good edits make good summaries" reminder from "How to write an edit summary"

@Nikkimaria I respectfully disagree with your reversal of my entire "§ Good edits make good summaries" (preview in old revision, diff). I ask to reconsider, given the below rationale. Else I'd like a 3rd opinion.

I would understand the concern of this being misplaced if this was in § How to add an edit summary, but I disagree with the judgment that this very short paragraph is misplaced in § How to write an edit summary. All of the HTWaES is essentially good practices about expressing the summary well, not mere mechanical instructions. Following the particular good practice of incremental changes, is actually very influential on being able to express the summary well. I don't think there's any better place for such a paragraph. When people are referred to this section, it's likely that some concern has been made about their summaries, so thinking about their edits is really something they should also do. You opined it was misplaced, so do you mean there's a better place for it? If so, where? Zlamma (talk) 10:05, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

In my opinion, it is misplaced on this page. This page is meant to be tightly focused on how to provide an edit summary. This is especially important given that newbies are more likely to be directed to this page, as it's linked in multiple welcome and warning templates - direct and focused help documentation that supports/summarizes policy should be prioritized. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:45, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Well, there's an entire "Edits should be explained" section on this page that is all about "why" not "how." Perhaps the proposed text should go there? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:55, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

I find the parent argument of "this is meant to focus on how" to be a distraction. The claim of there being some purpose to the page as characterized so inconcretely is baseless.

The heading may say § How to write an edit summary, but if one looks at the section's content, it actually answers the question of how to write a good/useful/helpful edit summary. (in yet other words: "How" can be interpreted as "In what way")

My section is very much one of the answers to this question. Regarding a placement elsewhere, my addition at the very beginning was purposeful, because if the reader reaches it after reacting to any of the remaining points, it's too late. (I separated the other question also for this reason, though if both changes are accepted, a rewording is warranted). Zlamma (talk) 20:26, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, below you say "If anything we should be looking to streamline this page rather than making it fluffier." That sounds like your fundamental concern is wp:KUDZU. Do I have that right? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:55, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

That is certainly one of my concerns, though not the only one. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:10, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Re revert of my "better yet ... make multiple small changes ..."

Re @Nikkimaria's reversal of my one sentence educating about small edits also being a solution to misleading summaries: I consider this change independent from the above discussed "Good edits make good summaries", and I mentioned that one in my edit summary only for transparency, hence a separate topic.

Here, the reasoning behind making the change is different and specific: The current wording goes to such details as suggesting to use "and misc." in the summary, which is more likely to discourage rather than encourage writing summaries that explain edits properly. If anything, mentioning this even more helpful practice is the first to be in the paragraph, while the "and misc." detail could be considered for removal.

@Nikkimaria, is your objection based on the linked page having essay status? If so, a version without a link and a slight rephrasing can be a good new consensus.

Or is the issue perhaps that the wording is too strong? If so, I'm open to any other wording that at least brings awareness to the good practice that avoids the whole problem of misleading summaries. Zlamma (talk) 18:01, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

My objection is the same as it was to putting this elsewhere on the page. Tweaking the wording or the linking doesn't change that.

We ask newbies to read an extraordinary amount of policy/guideline/help text. If anything we should be looking to streamline this page rather than making it fluffier. No objection to removing the "and misc" sentence on that basis. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:50, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

I can offer a separate edit to remove the entire "and misc." sentence, but only after I insert this much shorter "Consider making separate small edits to avoid the problem." before it (copyediting welcome). The net effect will be much shorter and simpler text. But then we have to see if the removal gets reverted - if so, this will be a separate talk subject with the reverter where I can take part. Zlamma (talk) 05:22, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't think substitution would be a net improvement. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:10, 31 October 2026 (UTC)