Wiktionary talk:Votes/2012-08/Rollback edit summaries

Still customizable
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. —Ruakh TALK 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? --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 02:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Making this a real vote?
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. 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! --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 20:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, but then we would first need to make this look like a real vote page... 21:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Done and moved. You will need to add your signature though. 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. :) --Μετάknowledge discuss/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. 00:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 02:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Brevity is the soul of not getting cut off in the middle.
See : I suggest a shorter summary. Perhaps ? &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 17:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I do think the link to $2's talkpage is valuable. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 17:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't tested, but I'm guessing that you need to write ' rather than \'. —Ruakh TALK 17:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry, that was a copypaste error. I meant . &#x200b;—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? —Ruakh TALK 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")? &#x200b;—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! —Ruakh TALK 21:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. ? &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 22:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

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. --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 01:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

If you disagree please edit, or please use, my user-talk page. -- is shorter.