Wikipedia talk:Perennial proposals

Proposed blanking - not worth listing?

In the "Deleted pages should be visible" section, one of the "See also" items listed is WP:Proposed blanking.

I do not think this is worth mentioning, since it does not appear to have ever been a serious proposal; a user since banned appears to have created the page by find-and-replacing the word "deletion" with "blanking" in WP:Proposed deletion. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 23:57, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I wonder why you didn't send that page to MFD all those years ago. As for it being here, it's not necessarily a bad example of the "let me see deleted stuff, too!" line of thinking. The original proposer says on its talk page that part of the motivation is that it hurt his pride to have to ask for a WP:REFUND from an admin when he wanted to see a deleted article, instead of being able to do everything himself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Should implementing Extension:Variables be included on the list?

The MediaWiki Extension Variables is not installed on any of the Wikimedia wikis. Apparently it causes problems with other extensions, but I want a more detailed explanation, even if it is not suitable to be placed in the Perennial proposals page. JsfasdF252 (talk) 16:02, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

If you want a better explanation, here definitely is not the place... --Izno (talk) 20:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Edit summaries

I find the supposed reasons not to make edit summaries mandatory to be pretty absurd. Are they really supported by a widespread consensus? To comment briefly on them:

1. forcing (or reminding) users to enter edit summaries may annoy them enough they will not save their (possibly constructive) edits.
   • I find this completely implausible. If there is anybody out there at all who would rather throw away their edit than add a brief edit summary explaining what they changed, then I doubt that what they were adding was in any way worthwhile.
2. Forcing users to type something in the edit summary box does not mean that they will provide accurate, honest, or useful edit summaries.
   • True, but if asked to provide an accurate, honest and useful edit summary, what percentage of users will do so? I would be very sure that it would be the overwhelming majority. WP:AGF and all.
3. Manually added edit summaries also suppress the automatic edit summaries.
   • Can't see how this is an argument not to require edit summaries
4. Blank edit summaries are a good way to spot possible vandalism.
   • Blank edit summaries are so common that this is no way at all to spot possible vandalism.

Myself, I see no convincing reason at all for edit summaries to be optional. I find it discourteous and arrogant for anyone to think that they do not need to explain what they are doing (if anyone really thinks that). If you make a change to an article, it is no burden at all to explain what you did. It requires no thought and very little time. So are there some substantial reasons that I have not thought of, that are more convincing than those given, for edit summaries not to be obligatory? 46.208.236.129 (talk) 11:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Automatic Semi-protection of TFA's

I was reading through the page and noticed that the part about automatic protection of TFA's needing an update. I dug and found a RfC that was closed in favor of a trial for semi-protection of TFAs, but then checked the protection logs of a few articles in September and October 2021 (RfC was closed at the end of August 2021) and it seems to never have been implemented by anybody. I thought here was a good place to note its non-implementation. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 20:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

IP edit stats are widely outdated

All estimates of IP activity are given as of 2007. An update is warranted. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 04:24, 19 August 2022 (UTC)