Wiktionary talk:Votes/2012-08/Rollback edit summaries
Still customizable[edit]
The vote does use the phrase "default summary for a rollback", but I think it might be worth making it explicit that, and how, individual admins and rollbackers can still customize their rollback-summaries. —RuakhTALK 02:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- That's a good point. I have made some changes to that effect. How does it look now? Should I say exactly what code they ought to put in? --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Making this a real vote?[edit]
Would you mind if I made this a real vote by moving it to the right page? It wouldn't be started right away of course, but it would make it more visible and leave it open to input from other editors. —CodeCat 20:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- I planned to deal with that, but I wanted to just run one at a time. I would be quite glad if you made this a real vote. Thanks! --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, but then we would first need to make this look like a real vote page... —CodeCat 21:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- Done and moved. You will need to add your signature though. —CodeCat 21:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- Any reason for the pluralization to "summaries"? And for removing and then having me re-add my signature? I don't mind at all, and I'm sure that you have good reasons, but I'm just curious. :) --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- I changed it because I thought the vote didn't just concern the summary, but also the possibility of different summaries. I'm not sure if that was right though. I removed your signature because it was missing a date, I thought it would be better if you readded it with the current date. —CodeCat 00:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
- That makes sense. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
- I changed it because I thought the vote didn't just concern the summary, but also the possibility of different summaries. I'm not sure if that was right though. I removed your signature because it was missing a date, I thought it would be better if you readded it with the current date. —CodeCat 00:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
- Any reason for the pluralization to "summaries"? And for removing and then having me re-add my signature? I don't mind at all, and I'm sure that you have good reasons, but I'm just curious. :) --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- Done and moved. You will need to add your signature though. —CodeCat 21:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, but then we would first need to make this look like a real vote page... —CodeCat 21:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Brevity is the soul of not getting cut off in the middle.[edit]
See diff: I suggest a shorter summary. Perhaps Reverted edits by [[Special:Contributions/$2|$2]] ([[User talk:$2|talk]]) to last version by $1. If you think this rollback\'s in error, please discuss at my user-talk page.?—msh210℠ (talk) 17:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
- I do think the link to $2's talkpage is valuable.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
- I haven't tested, but I'm guessing that you need to write ' rather than \'. —RuakhTALK 17:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, sorry, that was a copypaste error. I meant
'.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)- But come to think of it, "rollback's" for "rollback is" is slightly colloquial, whereas "in error" is slightly formal. I don't think they go so well together. (I mean, G-d knows I love to mix colloquialisms and formalisms in my own writing, but I'd hate to make that a site-wide default.) Maybe If you disagree with this rollback? —RuakhTALK 17:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'd thought of that, but disagreements can be baseless, whereas "you think this rollback's in error" makes sit sound (I think) like the person should have a good reason for thinking so. (I'd prefer "If you have reason to think this rollback's in error" but that's way too long.) How about "If you have cause to disagree" (sans "with this rollback")?—msh210℠ (talk) 21:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
- I know what you mean, but y'know, if someone disagrees and can't justify it, then I'd still rather they try to discuss it, than simply undo the revert! —RuakhTALK 21:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
- Fair enough.
Reverted edits by [[Special:Contributions/$2|$2]] ([[User talk:$2|talk]]) to last version by $1. If you disagree, please discuss at my user-talk page.?—msh210℠ (talk) 22:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
- Fair enough.
- I know what you mean, but y'know, if someone disagrees and can't justify it, then I'd still rather they try to discuss it, than simply undo the revert! —RuakhTALK 21:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'd thought of that, but disagreements can be baseless, whereas "you think this rollback's in error" makes sit sound (I think) like the person should have a good reason for thinking so. (I'd prefer "If you have reason to think this rollback's in error" but that's way too long.) How about "If you have cause to disagree" (sans "with this rollback")?—msh210℠ (talk) 21:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
- But come to think of it, "rollback's" for "rollback is" is slightly colloquial, whereas "in error" is slightly formal. I don't think they go so well together. (I mean, G-d knows I love to mix colloquialisms and formalisms in my own writing, but I'd hate to make that a site-wide default.) Maybe If you disagree with this rollback? —RuakhTALK 17:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, sorry, that was a copypaste error. I meant
Note: I don't care exactly what the wording is. Whatever the hell you two agree on, just modify the vote page and I'll be fine with it. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
If you disagree please edit, or please use, my user-talk page. -- is shorter. — This unsigned comment was added by 99.108.17.6 (talk) at 05:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC).