Difference between revisions of "User talk:Svengali"
From Elite Wiki
(→A plea!: answered) |
m |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
::::Recent Changes gets cleared down regularly, so this shouldn't be a problem. [[User:JazHaz|JazHaz]] 00:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC) |
::::Recent Changes gets cleared down regularly, so this shouldn't be a problem. [[User:JazHaz|JazHaz]] 00:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC) |
||
| + | |||
| + | ::::: History is stored for every change - even for talk pages, so using comments/summaries for a typo-fix seems a bit overdosed. [[User:Svengali|Svengali]] 11:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 12:19, 15 July 2010
A plea!
I've seen that you have made lots of edits recently. Please, please, can you always use the Summary field when making the edits?? Without, it is difficult to see what has changed when viewing the Recent Changes page. JazHaz 06:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- For important bits, sure - I'm already doing it (like ISO8601). But for fixing a typo, templates (self explaining) or talk/user pages it's just a waiste of ressources. btw: some talk pages could need a cleanup (e.g. Talk:OXP ), no need to carry 3 years old discussions. A short summary and a list of past contributors will be enough, what do you think?
- Would be? Changes (like typo fixes) are pretty, but shouldn't produce unnecessary overhead for the database. Maybe I'm wrong, but describing every tiny bit will likely blow up everything. And if necessary there's still the history. Svengali 12:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Recent Changes gets cleared down regularly, so this shouldn't be a problem. JazHaz 00:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- History is stored for every change - even for talk pages, so using comments/summaries for a typo-fix seems a bit overdosed. Svengali 11:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
