Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012/Option 3: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Position #3: +1 |
Orderinchaos (talk | contribs) →Position #3: + |
||
Line 15:
# For pending changes, there needs to be a clear guide on what should and shouldn't use it, and when it's appropriate to add it to the article; it has to be at least remotely easy to use and navigate too, which it was far from. There are articles where pending changes would work wonders (years, schools), yet there are articles where they would be a waste of time. The two extremes above give me a bad gut feeling about how it's going to turn out, as deciding between none at all or them everywhere is a lose-lose situation. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>[[User:Wizardman/Operation Big Bear|<span style="color:#600">Operation Big Bear</span>]]</sub> 14:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
# I find myself in agreement with most of the comments in this section. FlaggedRevs needs both technical and policy adjustments to be effective here. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 17:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
# I saw it in action and, as it stood, did not see it as more useful than semi-protection. I think this is an answer looking for a question, although I can see the technology may be useful if the rationale for deploying it is rethought. [[User talk:Orderinchaos|Orderinchaos]] 03:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
| |||