| Revision as of 17:05, 9 September 2006 editCentrx (talk | contribs)37,287 edits →Enforce American (or British) spelling: Add further reason why not← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:13, 9 September 2006 edit undoNewyorkbrad (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators45,481 edits adding another perennial proposal: automatically prompt for missing edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
| *'''Proposal:''' inactive admins should have their admin status revoked automatically after a given time period. The reasoning behind this is generally that the accounts might be compromised. | *'''Proposal:''' inactive admins should have their admin status revoked automatically after a given time period. The reasoning behind this is generally that the accounts might be compromised. | ||
| *'''Not a good idea because:''' an inactive account is ''less'' likely to be compromised than an active one (and also, if a vandal had succesfully breached an admin's account, he would presumably use it for something and not let it stay inactive). | *'''Not a good idea because:''' an inactive account is ''less'' likely to be compromised than an active one (and also, if a vandal had succesfully breached an admin's account, he would presumably use it for something and not let it stay inactive). | ||
| *'''See also:''' ? | |||
| ==Automatically prompt for missing edit summary== | |||
| *'''Proposal:''' when an editor is about to post an edit without an edit summary, he or she should automatically be reminded that no summary has been provided and given another opportunity to include one. (At present a user has the ability to configure Preferences to this option, but many users are not aware of this.) | |||
| *'''Not a good idea because:''' allegedly, users would become annoyed at having to either enter the summary or decline to enter one. | |||
| *'''See also:''' ? | *'''See also:''' ? | ||
Revision as of 18:13, 9 September 2006
Shortcut- ]
 | This list is incomplete; you can help by adding missing items. |
This is a list of things that are frequently proposed on Misplaced Pages, and have been rejected by the community several times in the past. If you make a proposal along these lines, it is likely to be swiftly closed for the exact same reason. See Misplaced Pages:Village pump (perennial proposals) for discussion on several of these.
Content warnings
- Proposal: images of sexual nature should be labeled as such, hidden from users, or even deleted entirely.
- Not a good idea because: Misplaced Pages is not censored for the protection of minors. In an encyclopedia, it is to be expected that articles on sexual subjects are illustrated as such. Suggestions of what is and is not acceptable for pictures vary wildly between cultures.
- See also: Misplaced Pages:No disclaimer templates
Legal issues
- Proposal because of such-and-such law, Misplaced Pages must do so-and-so (e.g. implement censorship as above, or require identification of editors, or defer certain rulings to the U.S. Supreme Court)
- Not a good idea because: You are not a lawyer, and neither is most of the community. Misplaced Pages employs a lawyer who will inform us if and when such measures are necessary. The community need not use its incomplete comprehension of legality to impose restrictions upon itself.
- See also: WP:OFFICE.
Protecting the main page article
- Proposal: the daily article on the main page is often subject to vandalism, and therefore it should be protected.
- Not a good idea because: the main page showcases what Misplaced Pages is about, and one of the things we're about is free editing. Also, said article is frequently improved during its stay on the main page.
- See also: User:Raul654/protection
Prohibit anonymous users from editing
- Proposal: everybody should register an account from editing; IP addresses are insufficient.
- Not a good idea because: a significant part of our good edits comes from IP addresses.
- See also: ?
Enforce American (or British) spelling
- Proposal: for consistency's sake, we should pick one style of spelling (British or American, generally) and stick with it.
- Not a good idea because: It is widely impractical and there is no agreement on which style should be chosen, which has in the past resulted in repeated, needless edit warring.
- See also: ?
Numerical rules for WP:AFD
- Proposal: something like "people can only nominate three articles per day", "articles cannot be nominated more than once per year", etc.
- Not a good idea because: strict numerical limits fall under m:instruction creep. This is a solution in search of a problem.
- See also: ?
Demote inactive admins
- Proposal: inactive admins should have their admin status revoked automatically after a given time period. The reasoning behind this is generally that the accounts might be compromised.
- Not a good idea because: an inactive account is less likely to be compromised than an active one (and also, if a vandal had succesfully breached an admin's account, he would presumably use it for something and not let it stay inactive).
- See also: ?
Automatically prompt for missing edit summary
- Proposal: when an editor is about to post an edit without an edit summary, he or she should automatically be reminded that no summary has been provided and given another opportunity to include one. (At present a user has the ability to configure Preferences to this option, but many users are not aware of this.)
- Not a good idea because: allegedly, users would become annoyed at having to either enter the summary or decline to enter one.
- See also: ?