ESB:Proposals/No Edit template

	Proposal Archive The following proposal has been discussed and is now marked as resolved. The page has been protected and now serves as an archive. Do not edit this page. Date Resolved: February 27, 2015 Result: 27% support for using the template as is No consensus in regards to adjusting it like Wikipedia's In-use template Those who gave suggestions for a time limit averaged 9.33 hours.

Introduction

A petition created by 120d was successful and recieved three endorsements. The proposal included:

• Allowing use of the Template:NoEdit template, which would prevent edit conflicts, especially during periods of mass editing in which as a courteousy would allow the editor to edit without interruptions.

The concerns include:

• It's restrictive of the wiki's purpose
• Alternative methods to preventing edit conflicts (such as copy & paste/editing the article in an external editor, then pasting it back in)

Due to the things this petition was meant to help and taking the concerns into consideration, there are multiple choices to proceeding.

This discussion will end on Thursday, February 26, 2015 at 11:10 a.m., eastern time. — AMK152 (Wall • Contrib) 16:09, February 19, 2015 (UTC)

Proposal

Those choices include:

• 1. Using the {{NoEdit}} template as it is.
• 2. Using the {{NoEdit}}, but adjusted to Wikipedia's In use template.
• 3. Additionally, if #1 or #2 passes, we might want to consider a time limit. This would mean after a certain amount of time, the template's purpose would expire and it could be taken down by anyone.

If you don't like the idea, just oppose on everything.

Discussion

#1 Use template as it is

• Oppose - it's a good idea, but we need to set limits on this kind of thing. — AMK152 (Wall • Contrib) 16:11, February 19, 2015 (UTC)
• Extremely Strong Oppose - Joey ^(talk)
• Oppose - Pretty much what AMK said. --BagelBoxd
• Weak Support -  Nicko756 ^{(M•C•E) Sign!}  17:57, February 19, 2015 (UTC) 
• Oppose - Like AMK said, we need to set the limits to this kind of thing. --SpongePantsSquareBob (talk) 18:02, February 19, 2015 (UTC)SpongePantsSquareBob
• Oppose - Dragonballgtgoku ^{«Talk Page/Contribs»} 22:40, February 19, 2015 (UTC)
• Strong Support - I think it looks fine the way it is. — Lewis2567 (talk) 22:46, February 19, 2015 (UTC)
• Extremely Strong Oppose - Too restrictive Auron ♫ ♪ Everything is Awesome!!! ♪ ♫   00:31,2/20/2015 
• Weak Support - I can see the usefulness of this. TheGamingSponge 04:58, February 20, 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - As it is, the template gives users too much power to lock up articles whenever they want to, which will hurt activity. Limits should definitely be set on it. ~JCM 22:40, February 20, 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - If this template does get used, i think there might be a chance, of a user, putting it on every page, and then taking them off, thus expoiting the template for extra edits. Tominator777 ^{(Wall•Contribs) 22:48, February 26, 2015 (UTC)}

#2 Adjust template toward Wikipedia's In-use template

• Support - Wikipedia has an excellent system for this. — AMK152 (Wall • Contrib)
• Extremely Strong Oppose - Joey ^(talk)
• Neutral leaning Support - They have a good system, but I'm not quite sure. -BagelBoxd
• Support - Their system is good.  AW10  Talk  Contribs  E-Mail  17:51,2/19/2015 
• Support -  Nicko756 ^{(M•C•E) Sign!}  17:57, February 19, 2015 (UTC) 
• Extremely Strong Oppose - We can't be borrowing from Wikipedia, that'd be plagiarism.

• It's not plagiarism. That's not how Wikipedia works. — AMK152 (Wall • Contrib)

• Weak Support - Dragonballgtgoku ^{«Talk Page/Contribs»} 22:41, February 19, 2015 (UTC)
• Neutral - — Lewis2567 (talk) 22:52, February 19, 2015 (UTC)
• Neutral leaning Oppose - This is the best option out of all of them but having this template at all is silly really. Auron ♫ ♪ Everything is Awesome!!! ♪ ♫   00:31,2/20/2015 
• Strong Support - I think this is a great idea. Much better than the no edit template itself. TheGamingSponge 04:58, February 20, 2015 (UTC)
• Neutral - I don't fully understand Wikipedia's system, but I feel like we'd be better off creating our own. ~JCM 22:40, February 20, 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - Tominator777 ^{(Wall•Contribs) 22:50, February 26, 2015 (UTC)}

#3 Time limit

For example, if you want it 24 hours, use {{Support|24 hours}}. For no limit, use {{Support|No limit}}. For 30 minutes, use {{Support|30 minutes}}. You can choose any time you think would be good.

• 6 hours - — AMK152 (Wall • Contrib)
• Extremely Strong Oppose - Joey ^(talk)
• 1 hour - BagelBoxd
• 7 hours -  AW10  Talk  Contribs  E-Mail  17:52,2/19/2015 
• 24 hours -  Nicko756 ^{(M•C•E) Sign!}  17:57, February 19, 2015 (UTC) 
• 24 hours - I think it's a good idea. --SpongePantsSquareBob (talk) 18:35, February 19, 2015 (UTC)SpongePantsSquareBob
• 5 hours - Dragonballgtgoku ^{«Talk Page/Contribs»} 22:42, February 19, 2015 (UTC)
• Neutral leaning Oppose - 5H MAX, 1 ARTICLE MAX - having a timelimit of 5 hours max would prevent people from abusing the template. i.e. using the template to "Protect" a page. also, restrict the number of pages a user can have this on to 1 or 2. Auron ♫ ♪ Everything is Awesome!!! ♪ ♫   00:31,2/20/2015 
• 6 hours - ~summer 03:11, February 20, 2015 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - This may seem out of the blue, but let me explain myself. A: The Under Construction template is quite similar, and it does not have a time limit. B: The amount of work needed on a page cannot be defined by time; it can only be defined by the quality of the article. TheGamingSponge 04:58, February 20, 2015 (UTC)
• 6 hours - ~JCM 22:40, February 20, 2015 (UTC)

Additional suggestions

Add any additional suggestions/ideas here.