Help talk:Dummy edit

Can be potentially disruptive

I have observed some editors repeatedly making dummy/null edits on articles they created so they show up as the latest editor and "own" the article. This appears to also be a way of artificially inflating their edit count. I think we should add something here discouraging that kind of behaviour as un-collegiate. FOARP (talk) 08:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Wrong forum. That's a behavioral issue. If you see it and feel it is a problem, report the user.

BTW, can you point to an example? I've been around for a while, and I've never seen this before. Paradoctor (talk) 06:51, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2022

Please change "good faith edit" to "good-faith edit", since this is a compound adjective. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 01:31, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

reinstating alternative name

For those who like me hesitate before using the term "dummy edit" because of its connotations "a dummy" = something silly, there is "summary only" edit. I feel this is vastly preferable in that it actually describes the type of edit. CapnZapp (talk) 10:40, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

As for the "display only well-used shortcuts in the linkbox" argument, I don't think the vast majority of uses were counted. The primary use case for H:DUMMY or WP:SUMMARYONLY is in individual edit summaries, where you want to make it clear the edit was intentionally inconsequential and people should focus on reading the edit summary the dummy edit allowed. I exemplify in the edit summary of this edit if you are unsure what I mean. CapnZapp (talk) 10:51, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

@CapnZapp: Speaking of silly, that hesitation is silly. Words have multiple definitions. How many people believe that a dummy corporation is a company run by imbeciles, that a dummy pronoun is a word used only by idiots, or that a dummy round is ammunition fired by unintelligent people? What evidence do you have that said hesitation is sufficiently widespread to warrant this added complication? I am reverting you per standard BRD process. Please wait for consensus before instituting this change. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 19:21, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

I would like to ask you to respect my impression, User:Mandruss, and my desire to helping users avoid labeling their edit summaries "dummy edits", by clearly providing an alternative. By the way, you say I'm "adding complication". I'm not actually adding anything new. The shortcuts have always existed, and in fact, remained on this page until 16:42, 18 October 2025, which I didn't spot until now. That edit, from about two months ago, removed the SUMMARYONLY shortcuts with the reason "keep only the ones that are actually used (14 incoming links vs. ~150...)". I would argue that not only does SUMMARYONLY provide an harmless alternative name for this feature, which I believe should be clearly stated. Furthermore, I don't think the count includes links in edit summaries, arguably missing the true usage. Okay, so now about the "standard BRD process". First off, have I persuaded you I'm not merely "silly" and in fact believe I have legitimate reasons for my edit? Either way, the "silly" argument is kind of hard to meet or constructively move forward from so I have to wait for your response. CapnZapp (talk) 21:57, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

It is always a complication to create multiple names (shortcuts) for the same thing. New editors would have to learn that DUMMY and SUMMARYONLY mean the same thing, thereby doubling the learning curve for that thing. And we wonder why we have trouble attracting and retaining new editors. The added complication needs to be justified, and you have yet to justify this one. If you can gain a consensus for the change, I will defer to it of course.

Experienced editors should be looking for ways to simplify the editing environment, not complicate it even further. Very little of the former is being done, while much of the latter is being done, resulting in ever-increasing complexity without end. This is a recipe for ultimate failure, and it needs to change. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 09:27, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Please stop framing this as me adding a complication, User:Mandruss. This discussion is about me restoring the well-established shortcuts removed just two months ago and you opposing this. Also please don't expect other editors to enter this discussion, or make that a condition of your cooperation. Their input would be welcomed, but until such time they do, you and I need to sort this out between the two of us. Thank you, CapnZapp (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Please stop framing this as me adding a complication I will "frame this" in any way I see fit. No editor gets to dictate the parameters of discussion. You are adding a complication in my view, that's my sole objection, and I will state it.

I have failed to persuade you and you have failed to persuade me. I don't see either changing since we both have strong opinions and views (and I'm guessing your personality is about as strong as mine, which is pretty strong). How do you propose to resolve this dispute? ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 10:06, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

The reason I (politely) asked you to stop framing it the way I did is not because I desire to control or limit the way you discuss, but instead because I genuinely don't see it as a complication and I don't see it as an addition. I genuinely don't understand how you or someone else can see it as an addition, when AFAIK it was introduced back in 2014 with pretty much the same argument as mine. I genuinely don't understand how you or someone else can see it as a complication since all I'm doing is offering two shortcuts instead of one. Please note I have not reduced your ability to use WP:DUMMY or refer to the practice as dummy edits. I have only made sure the alternative phrase "summary only edit" receives equal billing.

I fully understand you want to avoid additions without consensus and that you want to avoid complications. My edit genuinely was not meant as or intended to be an addition or a complication. Happy holidays, CapnZapp (talk) 13:12, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

I trust you're aware of WP:CONTENTDISPUTE, User:Mandruss? You reverted and opposed me - can you suggest any of the options listed there? Do you see any possible path to getting what you want, while also leaves a path forward to me getting what I want? Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 13:13, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

I have self-reverted.[1] ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 15:51, 27 December 2025 (UTC)