Wikipedia talk:Minor edit

What is a minor edit?

I was just wondering, what constitutes a minor edit, anyway?

JB82 23:59, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)

There is no clear guideline, but it's mainly something that you could reasonably presume that someone keeping an eye on the article and feeling a certain degree of "ownership" over it wouldn't care to have called to their attention: e.g., minor copy editing, increasing consistency of spelling, disambiguating a link, things like that. Maybe adding a clarification that you know to be merely a clarification: for example, indicating the actual name of an obscure organization previously referred to only by its acronym.

Beyond that, it gets to be dubious, in my opinion, but there is no firm rule. Or at least if there is, I haven't been let in on it. -- Jmabel 00:10, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Of course you have to consider the type of page you're editing. If it's about the difference between spelling in two English speaking countries, changing the spelling of a word isn't minor. In most cases though spelling errors, typos, punctuation, diambiguating links, wikifying one or two words, etc are minor. It's more important, in my opinion, to write something accurate and clear in the "summary" box. If in doubt, don't mark a change minor on a page, especially if it's a sensitive topic/ disputed page.  :) fabiform | talk 02:48, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

In my book, a minor edit involves changes in spelling, grammar or punctuation; or fixing improper formats, or disambiguating an internal link, or adding another sentence to a TALK post just seconds after the original post because you remembered to add something. Anything more deserves a summary and peer scrutiny. Kingturtle 06:16, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I really wonder how many people actually use the minor edit feature. I know that many people try to mark their edits appropriately, but how many people, seeing an edit marked as minor, will actually let the change go unchecked? OK, maybe if it's done by someone you know and trust.

As it is, there is no consistency to the use of "minor edit", so I ignore it (again, aside from trying to mark my own edits appropriately...whatever that means). It's no use in checking for vandalism, and if there's a change to a page I particularly care about, I'm going to check the change whether it's marked as minor or not. -Rholton (aka Anthropos) 13:03, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I use it all the time. The pages I'm usually interested in (e.g. fluid dynamics topics) are not normally "controversial" in a conventional way. That is, they don't have strong political disagreements, so there's little incentive for an author to mark a major change as minor. However, I do like to check the accuracy of new information, topics, examples. There's much misinformation out there on aeronautics topics, and people are sometimes wont to put in inaccurate statements. But I don't want to check it out every time someone makes a spelling edit in Lift (force) or disambiguates, or formats, or clarifies my incoherent sentences. moink 18:13, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Ditto on that. On the other hand, when I'm just cruising for something to spend an hour copy editing, I'll usually ignore all the recently changed pages marked "M". Elf 03:09, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm just going to point out that regular editors who are interested in the topic of the article, and not on RC patrol, would be rather displeased at this practice. If I'm interested in an topic's article, I'm very definitely interested in any discussion of the said article. pfctdayelise 13:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

A minor edit is anything that, if reverted, would get reverted with a major edit. If I add soemthing that someone doesn't like, and then fix the spelling, nobody is going to revert to the misspelled version.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 01:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Anon users and minor edits

copied from the Village Pump

I tried to fix a typo on a page without logging in, but could not find the "Minor edit" option. Wasn't it supposed to be there ? Jay 07:19, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No, minor edit is for looged-in users only. It's to prevent vandalism. Wyllium 08:39, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Some people choose to hide minor edits from recent changes, so preventing anons (who are the most likely vandals) marking edits as minor means their vandalism is less likely to go unnoticed. Angela. 18:45, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This looks like a very weak logic for blocking vandalism. A lot many edits (the majority I would say) of anon users are minor. Also a lot many users do not have the "hide minor edits" option set, which means vandalism will continue to be reverted. If anon users are being equated with vandalism, stop the facility to anon users. Jay 17:18, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It's not blocking (or even directly preventing) vandalism, it's just making it harder to hide, so that the wonderful contributors who keep an eye on unregistered user contributions can more quickly see the bad stuff and jump on it. Jay, you can probably save time (and do it quite safely if you have full control of your computer) by checking the box below the login button so that in future you are always logged in as soon as you come along. (A copy of that last sentence is going to your Talk page.) Robin Patterson 03:29, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Some points to mull about.

1. Minor edits are minor edits. Period. Don't mix it up with fighting vandalism.
2. A vandal who uses minor edits to vandalize is an intelligent vandal who knows the workings of Wikipedia. Such vandals are few and no amount of tactics will help fight such a user except patience.
3. An anon user who uses the Minor edit is an intelligent user who knows the workings of Wikipedia. He has most probably made a useful edit.
4. A lot many people do not have the "hide minor edits" option set, so I don't buy the "minor edit-anon user-vandalism" connection logic.

Thanks Robin for the logging in tip. Jay 04:57, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Would tagging a page for speedy deletion be considered a minor edit? --Mr Bound 02:05, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

'Bad behaviour'

Marking a real change as a minor edit is considered bad behavior, and even more so if it involves the deletion of some text.

I've come across a user that's made almost 700 'minor' edits, almost all of them real changes, many involving deletion of text. Indeed, he's made all of one edit that wasn't marked as minor. Can anyone quantify how 'bad' this is, if it continues? (I've asked him to stop this practice.) RfC-worthy? Alai 20:15, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Depends. If the user continues to do so after being warned, then it's RFC-worthy. If the user stops after being warned, not RFC-worthy. —Lowellian (talk) 22:44, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

umm ...

Okay, I am 100% convinced on the need for minor edits to be flagged. Shall I go on for another 3,562 words in support of that agreement or can someone just post somewhere PROMINENTLY what words a new wiki contributor like myself can actually use to show that I am making a minor or major edit?

Why not just register? Then you have the ability to mark minor edits, plus some other perks like a personal page and a talk page. Watchlists too. Heck, the reason I'm replying to you is because I saw this edit made on my watchlist. Go ahead and register, nothing to lose. --Mr Bound 13:25, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Coalescing?

Are multiple consecutive minor edits coalesced in the revision history, even if made by different people? If not, then I've been mistakenly given credit for link-twiddling done on 100th meridian west... --Tardis 06:31, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Err... the revision histories seem to just be whacked at the moment. I'm no longer responsible for Livajo's work, and my question's been answered. --Tardis 08:24, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Categories

Should adding/deleting/modifying a category on an article be marked as minor ? This project page does not mention categories. -- Ze miguel 12:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

My opinion: adding non-controversial categories to a page that has none, minor. Changing a category to make it more specific, minor. Removing or adding controversial categories, major. I would say, when in doubt, don't mark minor. pfctdayelise 13:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Abusing automatic marking as minor edit

Anyone else find that many people marking all their edits as minor by default in Special:Preferences have a misguided understanding of what in fact constitutes a minor edit? I'm seriously questioning the usefulness of this option. pfctdayelise 13:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Signing for other users with Template:Unsigned

When I use the template {{unsigned}} to designate other people's comments, should I mark it as a minor edit? -- King of Hearts | (talk) 01:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I would say no. I tend to mark edits as minor when I feel the changes are not major enough for other editors to take notice (such as small corrections). — TheKMan^talk 19:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

non-admins reverting vandalism: minor?

I know this has to have been addressed somewhere, but I can't find it. I see that all admin rollbacks are marked minor. But as a non-admin, should I mark vandalism reverts as minor? Thanks. --Allen 16:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

If it's a case of taking the "George Bush is a nazi poopie head" out of the article, then I always do. I'm just returning the article to how people should recognise it, nothing new to see, just dealing with kids. If it's something like a breach of WP:3RR over a disputed page, where both sides consider the other one to be vandalizing the page, then I would say not. A fair measuring stick could even be to say...if the person who edited it feels strongly about the subject, no matter how POV, it's not minor. If it's random vandalism like inserting cursewords, changing around dates or similar, then I would say it's minor. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 07:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Requirement?

I was just wandering if putting a edit down as a minor edit is required, because I have made nearly 600 edits and need to know if I need to start doing that? The Eye of Timaeus 23:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It's never required. It's possible to set Recent Changes to hide minor edits -- I have -- and if a change is marked as "minor" people who've done that won't rush over only to find that the change is just a typo correction. Frankly, I think using the edit summary box works just as well. It's a courtesy, though.--♥ «Charles A. L.» 17:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Adding tags

What is the position on adding tags to articles, such as: 'stub-statistics' or 'cleanup' (in the curly brackets)? Hynca-Hooley 12:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

New definition?

The definition I've always had in mind of a minor edit would be something like "An edit which no one would ever consider reverting". That is, an edit so uncontroversial that it's not even worth people's time or effort looking at it. The current definition on this page "An edit that most people would consider to be minor" is a bit too circular and not helpful.

If anyone agrees with my proposed definition, please implement it. Stevage 12:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)