I would like to propose that the ability to label edits as minor edits should be restricted to a specific group of users (and bots) in the same way that rollback rights are. With any luck we could revive the minor edits function so that edits that are labelled as minor actually would be and we could safely chose to ignore minor edits. Admittance to the group would be fairly easy to achieve: basically someone who has been editing for a while, who has read and understands Help:Minor edit. Editors who mislabel edits would be excluded. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 13:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• I don't believe this is a big enough problem to merit yet another level of user rights. If a particular user is misapplying the minor edit flag they can be dealt with on an individual basis. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - I appreciate the thought, but this would just force new accounts to mark their spelling corrections as major edits. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't really even use minor or pay attention to major versus minor. It's a wholly subjective and not so useful label. I'd sooner just get rid of it then make it into a user-group. That being said, I'm opposing this for three reasons.
  1. It's unnecessary bureaucracy creep.
  2. For the people that do use the minor button, this makes their lives more difficult.
  3. After watching file mover rights for a while, I am of the position that there exists a group of careless admins that are doing an outright pathetic job with assigning user rights. I have seen filemover given arbitrarily to users that do not need and did not ask for the right (which I'm mildly miffed with), given to users that asked for it at the requests page but by no definition meet the qualifications (which annoys me), and even in one case, saw it given to a user that asked for it at the requests page, was denied it for lack of qualifications, then changed his/her name and requested it on an admin's user talk page, where it was granted, despite the user having a track record of policy violations in the file namespace (which pisses me off to no end). Until admins can get desysopped for giving clearly unqualified people userrights, user groups are essentially the same thing as giving everyone access, which is what we have now for minor edits.

  Sven Manguard Wha? 20:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

  Re #3: I would assume you brought up those cases with those admins...? It would seem that they could use the feedback. --Izno (talk) 05:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

  That last one, I brought up via email. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose, but I agree that the "minor edits" feature is basically useless at this point, and I would support its removal. --joe decker^{talk to me} 20:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

  I use it on a regular basis. "Basically useless" is a fairly subjective statement which is (un)supported by the data you have not produced. :) --Izno (talk) 05:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

  I use it, in the sense of marking my own edits, on a regular basis, but I do not use it, in the sense of being able to get any use at all from other people's use of the flag. The only value of "minor" outside of the value that is redundant with the edit summary (really, do you need to tell me that "typo" should be minor?) is the ability to hide minor edits in a watchlist. However, setting that flag is only useful when people reliably do not mark major edits as minor. Which they do, sometimes abusively, on a regular basis. I'm not going to call out names, this isn't ANI, let's just say that trying to sneak POV edits into battleground articles by marking them minor is a pretty standard form of abuse. I'll turn this question back on you--do you use the "hide minor edits" flag? If so, why? --joe decker^{talk to me} 17:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - There is no need to make this more inconvenient just because people have abused it before... Ajraddatz (Talk) 04:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose as well. Adding another user right for minor edits just seems silly to me. For the people who use it correctly, it adds semantic meaning to their edits (whatever meaning that might be). For the people who really need to care whether an edit is minor, they disregard it equally. --Izno (talk) 05:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose "mark edits automatically as minor is alreay removed and was causing the most harm. If you find it being abused just resolve it with the user in question. Yoenit (talk) 11:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

  Too many users abusing it, or more often not using it, for that to be practical. As above, we have absolutely no consensus that not even using edit summaries is a problem, apathy is tenfold on the minor edit flag. And that's just fine, but it does make, in my own view, the minor edit flag a wasted bit of code and user complexity. --joe decker^{talk to me} 17:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Remember to assume good faith everyone. I'm sure alot of new editors use minor edits for spelling corrections or small grammatical errors. New accounts shouldn't be assumed vandals until proven otherwise. BurtAlert (talk) 18:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Restricting basic UI functions to certain users is just counterintuitive. Personally, I'd like the see the entire function done away with. I share the sentiments above that it's a largely vague and pointless feature, given that it is frequently abused. It would be far more useful for all edits in the history to automatically show the change in bytes in the same manner as watchlists do. That would be a much more accurate indicator of "minor" or "major" edits. --Dorsal Axe 19:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose While I don't agree the feature is useless, it is often misused. But a new usergroup is not going to solve that. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - Absolutely not. This would not only add a layer of bureaucracy but it will also create another user right for users to show off on their user pages. The template will probably be located at Template:User wikipedia/minor and it would look something like this:

This user has minor changes rights on the English Wikipedia.

Yes, minor is abused, but creating a separate user right will not solve the problem. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 02:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

In light of the discussion following a recent non-deletion decision, I propose clarifying Wikipedia:Userboxes#Content restrictions to more accurately reflect current practice on leeway given to userboxes in userspace. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 19:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Per WT:FFD -- Files for Deletion does not want to expand its scope, but some missing processes were identified in the discussion.

So a WP:Files for discussion is needed to Zdroj:https://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_71
Text je dostupný za podmienok Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 Unported; prípadne za ďalších podmienok. Podrobnejšie informácie nájdete na stránke Podmienky použitia.