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%2...
SJ
On 4/28/05, The Cunctator cunctator@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@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