Sj wrote:
Sounds like a good idea. Even if some people fill it
with a single
period, it will definitely increase the readability of RC. I admit to
being a culprit; I often hit Alt-S without remembering to add an
edit-summary. Perhaps we could make Alt-S move your focus to the
summary field if it's empty, and only save if it's full?
This regular appearance of this suggestion inspired the newly-created
Village Pump section for "perennial proposals".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28perennial_proposals%…
SJ
On 4/28/05, The Cunctator <cunctator(a)kband.com> wrote:
>Looking at a scroll of Recent Changes, I noticed that usage of the summary
>field has plummeted. I strongly recommend a simple change: making summaries
>mandatory for edits not checked as "minor". This is non-obtrusive and
>helpful. An example of a wiki that uses this feature is at
>http://www.technomanifestos.net.
>
>_______________________________________________
>Wikipedia-l mailing list
>Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
Hoi,
The more restrictions you put into place, the more you will find people
reluctant to do something for you. When it is ESSENTIAL that you get
specific information, you make it mandatory. But if this summary is a
good idea, it is a much better idea to have compulsory license info with
digital content. We do not even do that. Pictures without license info
are deleted and some wonderfull people do a lot of good work to get this
info. The extended descripton box is a lifesaver, it allows you to add
these fields during upload time :)
Yes, there are perenial proposals and there must a good reason why most
of these stay that way.
Thanks,
GerardM