EDIT: Implemented as per forum #335739.
----
Requested feature overview description.
Since there is a lot of support of it back on my proposal thread (topic #29981) and I have yet to see anything be done about it, I'm officially submitting the proposal as a feature request.
To mirror what I have said:
thegreatwolfgang said:
I'm seeing an increasing number of people failing include a reason behind their tag alias or implication suggestions, with many of us having to remind them to do so.
I feel that it is counterproductive and serves only as spam, rather than giving a legitimate suggestion that everybody can discuss on.I would suggest making it a requirement to have something in the "Reason" box so that you can't submit an empty proposal.
Consistently failing to do so would be grounds for Abuse of Site Tools and Spamming/Trolling.
I know it is not impossible to implement from a technical standpoint since you already have error codes being thrown up when you leave the antecedent/consequent names blank (for aliases and implications) or the title and script fields blank (for BURs).
Why would it be useful?
Warns users that they are about to submit an invalid request and that they are using the site tool in a fashion that can be construed as disruptive (i.e., Abuse of Site Tools).
Users are forced to guess the logic and reasoning behind the alias/implication suggestion when no reason is provided.
Saves everybody's time so that we don't have to keep reminding people to provide a reason for their suggestions.
What part(s) of the site page(s) are affected?
Request alias, Request implication, Request BUR
Updated