WWII Archives:WWII Archives Manual of Style

Welcome to the official full-length version of the WWII Archives Manual of Style (shortened to WAMoS), which is comparative to the short version that was required for everyone to read while creating their account. This includes many of the specifics to the things mentioned in the short version, as well as describing technical things that the short version called for people to see this version to learn about.

The WAMoS is divided into different sections, the first being about the proper mentality of historical analysis, the second being about sources and citing them, the third

For anything that has to do with Multimedia (uploaded files), see the Multimedia Guide.

Principles of the historical process and debating on the WWII Archives

In order to participate in a history project of this magnitude, it will be required to have at least a basic understanding of the historical method, having debates, discussions, arguments, how to analyze sources, how to think critically, asking questions, and more. This is especially for those who just readily accept claims and sources as fact without questioning the source, where it came from, who created it, etc. Therefore it is vitally important to read this part of this article carefully, so as to fulfill the goal and philosophy of the WWII Archives. This not only applies to writing about historical events, but every kind of subject out there that could be written about on the Archives, such as your ancestors, places, other people, etc.

Keep the conversation civil

In order to remain as much on focus to achieving the goal of the WWII Archives, everyone must participate and debate peacefully and in a civil manor. Even if you disagree with the the opposing side's point of view or world view, you must debate and speak to them respectfully. Throwing around insults just wastes time and is counterproductive.

Remember, history changes!

The study of history has been changing and been revised to for thousands of years. This is due to the process of bringing to light new evidence, reasoning, interpretations, challenges to the consensus, new arguments, counterarguments, etc. This cycle of questioning, interpreting, and debating has brought to us our interpretations of history today. But, just as in the past, our interpretations of history aren’t perfect, and so history is constantly in need of changing and revising, and therefore a historian, is always a revisionist (unlike those who wish to distort or deny history, referred to as denialists or distortionists). If they aren’t, then we won’t get closer to that correct interpretation and knowledge of what happened and what is true. That is why the following must be followed and read carefully.

Consensuses aren't always correct

Consensuses aren't always correct. Just because an "expert" or multiple experts (such as historians) of a subject say something, or a consensus is made about a subject, doesn't make it true. Everyone is a human, and so everyone has a bias in some way. The experts who claim the consensus to be true might be limited in some way, which could include their bias, not having access to the right materials, might not have looked at the other side's arguments, not having come up with the right interpretation, have a bias towards one side, or at worst, having an agenda and distort facts and information, or outright deny things to suit their agenda and world view. Therefore you always need to have people challenging and questioning that consensus, with sources, evidence, and reasoning. When this happens, a debate is created, where ideally the best argument with the best interpretations of sources and reasoning come out on top.

This doesn't mean though that consensuses are always not correct, thats far from it. Most of the time, historians and other researchers spend hours, days, weeks, months, and years studying things and trying to come to the right conclusion, and so much of the time they're at least right about most things. However it is still a good exercise to think critically and for yourself, as well as to question things.

Asking the right question and question your beliefs

In order to properly conduct the historical method to contribute on this site, you must not only question the consensus, but also other claims that you hear, and even your beliefs. One of the best questions you can ask when hearing any claim is to ask: "But is that actually true?". Here are some examples:

• The German Wehrmacht was the best army in the world, and could defeat anyone!
  • But is this actually true?
• The French were a bunch of cowards during the war
  • But is this actually true?
• The Battle of Midway was a decisive battle that turned the tide of the Pacific War
  • But is this actually true?
• The Germans used a brand new tactic called "Blitzkrieg" that no one could match
  • But is this actually true?
• The Soviets invasion of Manchuria was the only true reason that Japan surrendered
  • But is this actually true?

Once you get into the habbit of constantly asking this question, you will be brought to trying to discover the real truth.

Sources, sources, sources!

Of course, when making historical arguments or participating in a historical debate, one cannot go without sources. These are important as you need them to back up what you're saying. The following is information about different types of sources, how to contextualize them, question them, evaluate them, and interpret them.

Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources

Generally, there are three types of sources, primary, secondary, and tertiary sources (usually you don't need to worry about tertiary sources and will almost always have to deal with the primary and secondary).

A Primary source is a source of information (such as an artifact, photograph, document, memoir, diary, journal, letter, speech, drawing, film, vital record, etc) of the event that you are studying. For example, if you're writing about Operation Neptune, some primary sources would be memoirs, journals letters, documents, photographs, official orders, maps, items, and others from both German and Allied soldiers, officers, commanders, and leaders, as well as from members of the French resistance, and even from Norman civilian eyewitnesses. If you're looking at the life of a particular individual, personal items, letters, documents, photographs, journals, interviews from them, interviews from people around them that talk about them, census records, and much more. These are used to try to reconstruct and know what happened of a given event or time period. A source can become either a primary or secondary source depending on how its cited. For example if there was a newspaper opinion piece complaining about a certain event happening at the time, then on its own its a secondary source, because it wasn't an account of the event its talking about. However If you cite that opinion piece to make an argument about what kinds of sentiments there were about an event, then that would become a primary source, since it is an original account of the sentiments towards a certain event at the time.

A Secondary source is a source that usually discusses and interprets primary sources, and can even do so for secondary sources. This can come in the form of history books by historians, historical journals, documentaries, presentations, videos on the subject, etc. For this site, this will also include articles (from the website), discussions/arguments making claims and backing them with evidence, among others. Typically for secondary sources they will make a claim, and use evidence and sources to try and support that claim, along with interpretations of those sources and evidence. When beginning your journey of research, it is always best to look at the newest Secondary sources to see what the current consensus is and/or what current historians and researchers are saying about that topic. This is important because it is better to stand on the shoulders of giants instead of starting from square one. Current researchers and historians have already navigated the whole field of primary sources as well as previous secondary sources. This is why going for older secondary sources isn't as good because more modern arguments aren't as much accounted for. One other thing to account for is how narrow it is. Try to get sources that narrow down their study. This is in contrast to works that are incredibly broad such as the entire history of a region. They should be considered as bad for use to ok for starting points for research. Lastly, one good way to

Lastly, and probably least importantly, you have tertiary sources. A tertiary source is a source that indexes, compiles, and consolidates information or data on a topic, but don't actually do the interpreting, discussing, debating, etc that secondary sources do. The biggest examples of tertiary sources are encyclopedias, especially one like Wikipedia.

The WWII Archives can either be considered a primary or secondary source, depending on what you're citing from here. If it's an article or a post analyzing or participating in a debate, then it would be considered as a secondary source. If it's a file of an original object, document, photograph, film, etc, then it is a primary source. For interviews, it could be either one depending on what is being talked about at the moment.

Context required

When evaluating sources, it is critical to know the context behind the source. You should know where it comes from, what time period it came from, who the author was, what was happening at that time period, as well as what was happening at the time in the place it was happening, etc. Asking the questions for these is explained more in depth in the next section. Doing this will give you the ability to put the source exactly in its correct place.

Be skeptical about sources, how to interpret sources

When analyzing, interpreting, and evaluating sources, it is important to be skeptical about them. This not only goes for primary, but also secondary sources as well. Every source was created by one or more human beings. Every person (including experts) have their own biases, because every human being is brought up in a certain time period, place, have a certain personality, experiences, opinions, perspectives, etc. Therefore all primary and secondary sources should be put under the same scrutiny. In order to find what these biases, perspectives, opinions, etc are, you need to ask yourself some helpful questions (including the "But is that actually true" question). For primary sources these can include:

• Who authored/created this source?
• When and where did they create/author it?
• Who was their intended audience?
• Why did they create it?
• What are their perspectives and biases?
• What are they saying?
• What is the surrounding context behind this document and person?
• What possible motives did they have?
• How does it stand up to other sources, does it contradict them?
• How did they create it?
• How authentic is this source? is it the original or faithful copy?
• How valuable is its content?

etc.

For secondary sources:

• Who authored it?
• When or where was it written?
• What is the context (good in some cases)?
• What sorts of perspectives or biases do they have? How do they try to mitigate that bias and be objective?
• Are they trying to push a certain agenda?
• What evidence do they use?
• Is their evidence contextualized and represented well?
• Is there evidence that they are leaving out?
• Are there any contradictions in their argument?
• Have anyone else, especially other researchers, scholars, and academics, said or peer reviewed their works and/or their argument?
• Does their evidence support their claim?

etc.

With these kinds of questions, instead of just taking what you hear at face value, and question what you hear or read, you will be able to get on the path to finding truth. This is one of the principles that the WWII Archives and the fields of studies such as history, genealogy, etc are built upon, so learn it, and cherish it.

Back up your claim with good evidence, sources, and reasoning

When you've gathered your sources, you will begin to interpret them and use them to back up your claims. You must provide reasoning as to why your or others' certain interpretation of the sources is the correct one. Make sure as well, that there aren't other sources, evidence, and arguments that contradict or go against your claims and arguments, this isn't about winning the argument, its about advancing our knowledge.

Recognize your Bias

Of course when trying to interpret and read sources, and debate, you must also recognize that not only does everyone else have a bias, but that you as well have one. Because of the way you are, you see the world and things a certain way compared to others, and especially past peoples. Therefore one must recognize this and their limitations of knowledge and sight over everything when participating in the historical process on the Archives.

Be open-minded and willing to listen and accept the other side's arguments

In a historical debate it is always great to keep an open mind to other ideas instead of just clinging to one point of view. This is so that if a better interpretation of sources and evidence comes up on top over the other ones that you didn't believe before, it will be easier to accept them. Too often do people want for their point of view to be the truth, but its uncommon for people to actually be willing to accept that they might have been wrong. In that case, you must be willing to look at other arguments and viewpoints and consider them (but also apply those questions mentioned earlier to those arguments but also yours as well). You might go into a debate/argument thinking that the other side is absolutely wrong, but before you dismiss their argument out of hand, try and actually listen to them, and determine if they're right or wrong in the end. Another thing to note is to not dismiss their arguments because you think they're wrong about something else. If they have some sort of world view or points of view on other things that you disagree with, it doesn't matter, as long as they've created an argument and claim that they back up with evidence, sources, interpretations, and reasoning, it must be addressed before you can for sure conclude that they're wrong.

Be clear about your argument/message

If you're going to create an argument and claim to be backed up by evidence, you need to be clear about what you're saying and actually arguing. Read through what you've written before it is published. This goes for not only posting in discussion sections but also articles as well. Make sure that you don't have contradictions or other errors as well.

A good claim should be able to withstand going back through the sources

When making a claim, you must make sure that it can withstand going back through the sources, evidence, and context. You must look out for contradictions and address them if they don't agree with your argument or claims.

A good claim should be able to withstand going back through the primary sources and historical context without any presumptions

Reach a compromise and see which argument is the best

History is not black and white, and often neither do absolutes actually work. Almost always is the true answer somewhere in the middle. You may claim that the Panther tank was absolutely the best tank in the world at the time, "but is that actually true?" Sure it may have had big heavy sloped frontal armor and a big gun, but it also had its downsides. Its side armor was thin compared to the front, its engine often got stressed, its interlocking wheels would get full of mud and get stuck, etc. So, it was good in some ways, and bad in others, whereas some other tanks at the time had good things in the aspects that the Panther was bad and bad things in the things it was good at. The same goes for battles, "Side A absolutely won this battle!", "but is that actually true?" Side A might have had a tactical victory, but side B might've won a strategic one in the end in the battle.

This is why taking the pros and cons, making concessions and compromises, and taking what each side of the argument got right and trying to form a new argument, is best. People need to get out of the idea that one thing was absolutely true or wasn't true. History doesn't work that way.

In doing this, the goal is to see which argument gets to the top or is the best of all of the interpretations of the sources. Unless if that argument is challenged, then the best argument has been reached.

Writing articles

This section deals with how articles are to be written.

How articles should be written

1. Be objective as possible. It is important to try and be objective as possible while writing a history, although it must be recognized that every writer has biases and therefore nothing written is neutral. However, it is still important to try and be objective and to try and fit yourself into the shoes of the person being written about or the situation.
2. Write in a chronological order kind of matter. This is not an encyclopedia, almost everything about a subject will be written out chronologically through the Background, event, Aftermath, Legacy, etc sections of each article, and each individual part will be written out as it develops, instead of the different aspects of the subject. For example, if you're writing an article about the life of a politician, you won't write in separate sections his public and private life, they will be written out chronologically when each part occurs. Conclusions/claims about a subject will be written at the point it happens, but why and when that conclusion was made will be written when it was made. An example is if there is a dispute of the casualty numbers of a certain unit, then the developments of the dispute will be written out when that dispute began to rise. The conclusion will be written when those casualties happened. The same goes for the historiography.
3. Write in neutral language. That is, do not use "you", "I", "me", etc unless if you are quoting something that uses those kinds of pronouns in reference to you or you and a group. Instead use things such as "He", "she", "they", "It is __ that…", "One might __ that…", etc, or just use names.

General structure of an article

There are multiple different types of articles, but an article always follows this layout:

1. Summary
2. Index table
3. Main information template box to the right
4. Article content
5. Citations
6. Bibliography
   1. Works Cited
   2. Other Sources (if necessary)

Types of articles

There are eight different types of articles. Each one's content is specific to its own type of article because of its subject. Theres Event, Biography, Geographic Location, Group, Technology, Work, Idea, and Other. The structure of these articles should be followed exactly as stated, unless if the editor is in a unique situation and sees something better as fit. Under are a list of the different types of articles, with an explanation about each one. Under is a table listing each type of article, and each section of the article that should be used or recommended to be used in order. On the side of each list of each type, are notes for each section. If there are no sections listed under one of the types of articles, then it means that it is up to the editors to decide how it will be exactly structured.

Event

An event article will describe a certain event that happened. Examples range from the 1929 Stock Market Crash, the Nuremberg trails, the Holocaust, the Battle of Kursk, Operation U-Go, etc.

Biography

Biographical articles are articles of biographies of an individual people. There can also be biographical articles on individual animals, and maybe insects.

Geographic Location

These types of articles describe a geographical location. These can range from a city, specific forest, country, state (US state but also the main definition of a state), village, town, specific building, house, street, mountain range, continent, ocean, planet, moon, and all others that weren't mentioned. The scope of this type of article is so broad that the structure is up to the writer on what the exact structure of their article will be.

Group

This type of article is incredibly broad. The types of groups of people it encompasses are: People/Ethnic people, Government/state (not to be confused with a Geographic location. For example, the article for "France", the geographic location and country will not be the same as the article for the "Fifth French Republic", the governmental body), Organization, Governmental group, organization, agency, branch of government, Business organization, Community, Race, Political party, Collective, Group, Military unit, and more that weren't mentioned.

Technology

This is a very broad category that includes things such as tools, vehicles, machines, electronics, etc, and can be defined as something that serves a functionality

Work

This is another broad category as well that includes famous works of art, books, manuscripts, films, photographs, and other types of works that are well known enough publicly that they are worth an article, but would also have a Multimedia Page for it linked to it (depending if there is only one of that work, or multiple copies of it, to which if there are multiple copies of a book for example, then there would be an article, but with no specific Multimedia (File) Page attached to it. However if it is a single painting for example, then there would be an article that is linked to a Multimedia Page on the same subject). Otherwise the topic of the work of art would be written on just the Multimedia Page. The structure shown for the Work articles should be generally followed, but can be modified and done differently based on your decision.

Idea

This is also another very broad category. This category fits things such as political, economic, scientific, mathematical, philosophical, religious, etc theories, concepts, ideas, laws, ideologies, beliefs, etc. This can range from National Socialism, Communism, libertarianism, to Einstein’s theory of Relativity. This one's structure also could be followed, but that's up to the judgement of the authors.

Other

If no other type of article fits the category that your article is about, then you are free to choose who the article is structured (but still chronological)

Types of articles and their sections in order

	Event		Biography		Geographic Location		Group		Technology		Work		Idea		Other
1	Background	Context, what was happening before the event	Before birth				Background		Background	Not used if not necessary	Background		Background
2	Prelude	Just before the event	Childhood				Beginning/Creation/Formation	Can be one of these options	Development	May go with development header	Creation	Can be rewritten as The writing of …, The painting of …, etc	Conceptualization
3	Event	This section can be named whatever depending on the situation	Adulthood				Fall/Dissolution/Destruction	Can be one of these options	Production	Can be renamed, reused, and split into many different ways	Use	If necessary	Legacy
4	Aftermath		After death				Aftermath	Only if group no longer exists	Use	Can also be renamed, reused, and split into many different ways, unless if it is still used	Reaction/ Reception
5	Long term effects	Optional	Legacy				Legacy		Discontinuance		Legacy
6	Legacy	Can be merged with Long term effects Also optional							Legacy	Only if necessary

Units of Measurement

When putting units of measurement, the metric system will always be either the only one used, or used with another system of measurement (especially imperial). For the latter case, you will have one unit being presented, with the other in conversion in parenthesis. For example, "Exactly 270 miles (434.5229 km)." Whichever way that the source or context you are dealing with presents a system of measurement, will be presented first, with the conversion presented in parenthesis. For the context, if it is a country or group that uses a particular system of measurement (such as the US, Canada, UK, etc with the Imperial system) then the measurement will be presented in Imperial first. If the context is one that uses both metric and another system (for example in a battle in Europe that involved the US against the Germans and others), then metric will be presented first in metric then in imperial.

Different systems of measurement that will be commonly used include:

• Distance and length
• Mass
• Time
• Temperature

When dealing with time, the same applies as with the metric vs other systems of measurement. This time the 24-hour clock (whether its military or non-military using the : or not) in place of metric and 12-hour clock in place of the imperial system.

Other systems of measurement for scientific purposes can also be used.

Using the conditional perfect conjugation

On the WWII Archives, the conditional perfect conjugation (would have + simple past tense verb, such as would have had, would have wanted, would have walked), as well as the conditional perfect continuous (would have been + simple past) serves almost a second purpose other than its normal use. On the Archives it is also used to indicate something that can be guessed to be true, but no source has ever directly said it. For example, if you are writing about an individual soldier who arrived to a snowy front, and you know his unit began wearing winter clothes after arriving, then you would say "After getting off the train, he would have been given winter clothing, which his unit was given." Because the sources never directly say that he in particular got winter clothing, you have to use one of those conjugations. You can also use words to indicate possibility, such as "probably", "possibly", "likely", "unlikely", etc. An example of this is "The family, or at least some of the family, probably would have seen the tornado in the distance." Of course you will need to cite evidence as to why you think this is, so almost always will it be citing a section of another article. See the sections below.

Sources, citing, quoting, and linking

This section described how to cite, quote, and link.

Citing

In order to cite a source, you must click on the "Cite" option in the toolbar which will give you a list of options. You will have multiple options from books, journals, websites, the Archives, etc. When citing any source that has a url, you must always archive that url in an archiving website such as web.archive.org. The archived url will then be added to the "archive" field in the citation options.

Citing claims made by others and ones only made users on the Archives' Discussion Pages

Generally if there has been someone, some researcher, historian, scholar, academic, genealogist, etc that has made a claim about something somewhere, and is accepted, it should be the thing that is cited along with the sections later in the article or in other articles (see the next section) that produce the evidence to back up that claim. If someone else had already produced a claim and the evidence to support that claim before you or others did, then they should be the ones given credit for it.

However at some point (usually coming up when writing about small subjects), there will be times when only someone or some people on the WWII Archives Discussion Pages have made a certain argument, claim, or point that you’d like to cite, that hasn't been made anywhere else. In this instance it is best to use neutral language when referring to them mentioned in the "How articles should be written" section. However, it is possible to use names as well. Otherwise if there isn’t any person that has made an argument or claim that you are making, it isn’t necessary to put it all down in the Discussion Page if it is a small subject. However if it is a larger or broader subject it is suggested that you do put your claim down in the Discussion Page (on something like a larger battle, war, a large unit, theatre of war, leader, etc).

Citing other articles

At first to the reader this may sound like a bad idea, "why would you cite yourself?" In truth, this isn't a site like Wikipedia. In some aspects it may be a little like it, but on a fundamental level isn't the same thing. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, but the Archives isn't, it is different secondary sources that use evidence to make claims and conclusions on the most detailed article about a subject. Each article is written by one or multiple users using multiple sources, therefore it isn't something "citing itself". The reason why we are actively encouraging the citing of other articles, other sections of articles, and other sections of the same article, is because it serves as making articles more organized, the process of writing articles more efficient, and access to the full list of detailed evidence and explanations more accessible and easier to find.

As stated before, the goal of the WWII Archives is to have the most detailed articles about the subject they are talking about, with the most evidence, sources, data, analyzations, interpretations, arguments, counterarguments, information, etc. This means that it would be less efficient to try to find external secondary and primary sources to back up a claim, when that has already been done on the Archives which goes into a lot more detail and has even more evidence. For example, lets say you were writing an article about an individual soldier that you don't have that many sources from him to go on, and you were describing a battle him and his unit went through. If you made the statement that "The members of the unit going into the battle, didn't have a very high morale.", you would go to the article about that unit that makes that claim, which uses as much primary evidence, interpretations, other sources, etc to back it up. This is much better than trying to find a secondary source somewhere, and trying to find that claim with cited evidence (if they directly cite it), because it is easier to verify and check the evidence and interpretations, partially because the WWII Archives uses a lot of crowd sourcing to bring to light new primary evidence and data.

This is why this is also beneficial for data and numbers as well. If you make the claim of a casualty number of a certain division during a battle, ideally the goal is to be able to count up the known casualties of each unit in that division. So you add up the casualties of each platoon of a company, which the total will be displayed on the article for that company (by citing the numbers of each platoon from each article of each platoon). This will be repeated for each platoon of each company. Then the totals of each company will be added up, cited, and displayed on the articles of each regiment. Then the same process will be repeated for each regiment to the division's article. On the division's article this total could be added alongside the estimations that were made of the casualties. This in the end creates a sort of tree, where each citation links back to the main source of where each piece of information came from, and can be checked and verified. This also applies to stuff other than data. If for example, an article about a battle said that many companies of a certain division suffered many casualties, then that would cite the section of the article of that division that talks about the division's part in the battle. It will mention which companies suffered what casualties, each statement of which will link to the individual sections of the articles of those companies, which can either go even further or just provide the full explanation of the casualties of those companies during the battle there.

A general rule of thumb is that the broader subject articles, the more they'll link to articles on smaller subjects that provide the most details about that subject. However this ultimately depends on the situation, and the editors must decide what they cite for what claim.

Linking

One of the main purposes of linking on the WWII Archives is linking to other articles. Any type of subject can range from any of the types of articles. This includes Geographic Location, an individual you mention (biographical), an idea, technology, event, etc. If there is a topic or subject that you mention, it should be linked to some sort of article on the Archives. The general rule of thumb is that the first time that thing is mentioned on the Summary section, or the first time mentioned in the Content part of the article, is when you link to that article. Notice how for both the Summary and the Content parts of the article, they're different. So if you mention WWII for the first time in the Summary, and link to the main article on WWII, then you will have to do it again if you first mention it in the content part. After that, for both sections, you won't have to link to those articles again.

There are two ways of linking. In both ways you click on the link button in the toolbar. The first is linking to an article on the Archives. You can either search for the article, or paste in the url (especially if it is a Multimedia or something else, although usually for those you'd cite them). The other is to link to an external site if needed.

Quoting

When quoting something, you are usually quoting one of the following:

• Quoting someone saying something, or a short message
• Quoting a document, letter, message, speech, something written, etc

For the first situation, you will use the "Block Quote" option in the dropdown menu on the left side of the toolbar. Every time someone speaks, it will be put in block quote. If you are quoting someone saying something in a foreign language, then you will put whatever was said in the original language, then press return, and then provide the translation.

For the second option, you will click on the "Insert" dropdown, then "Template". If you are quoting something in English, then you will search for the "Doc_quote_single_lang", to which then a template with an input field to type out what the document says will be given. Generally the text of a document should already be written on its Multimedia page, and you should just be able to copy it from there.Then there is the time when you have writing in a foreign language. In this case the template that you will be searching for is called "Doc_quote_multi_lang". For both the first and second templates, to insert text into the first section, search for the "content1" field. Then for the second template, search for "content2" as well. Unfortunately you cannot use the toolbar from the editor and so will have to use sets of symbols and other html tags to format the text. These include:

• : - indentation (the tab button)
• <b></b> - Bold
• <i></i> - Italic
•  - ^Superscript
•  - _Subscript
• <u></u> - Underline
• <s></s> - Strikethrough

There are other tags that you could find and use if you need. Finally you can combine the tags (put one set into another) to form a combination, like "<b><s>Hello</s></b>" for Hello.

Another thing about quoting is the use of specific characters. If in a text a specific character is uesd, it should be represented as such. If in the case where you have someone who writes their i's without the dot like this: ı, then you have the choice to write either way, such as "lıfted", or "lifted".

Submitting articles

To submit an new article or an edit, you must click on the "Save changes..." or "Save page..." button, which will bring a pop-up. This will include a text box where you can detail the edits you have made. If you are saving changes to an edit, this will include an option in the pop-up to indicate that this edit was a "Minor edit". A minor edit is an edit that doesn’t really change the debate of the subject, such as a grammatical or spelling error, or in some cases rewording something (where it doesn’t change the meaning but makes more sense). However if a change becomes long enough it should not count as a minor edit.