Problem: When watchlists become long, it is impossible to remember why you added an item to your watchlist.
Who would benefit: All editors
Proposed solution: When an item is added to a watchlist, include an optional query to the editor to add a short note about why it is being added to the watchlist. This field would be viewable only by the editor.
I find it quite difficult to manage a long watchlist. The inability to note why I've added something to my watchlist is one of the most frustrating problems. Sometimes I want to watchlist an item to remind me to edit it later. Sometimes I added it because I want to temporarily watch a page due to an uptick in vandalism on the page. Sometimes I watchlist an item because something is going to happen regarding the subject in the near future, and the article will need attention either for editing or for guarding it against vandalism. When you add an item to a watchlist, it's a catch all pile with no differentiation. A few months on, I likely will have no recollection as to why I added an item to my watchlist. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:59, 25 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Implementing this in some way might mitigate the issue brought up in Accessible List of Pages on Watchlist" Philiptdotcom (talk) 14:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I don't think we should be offering private content-storage outside of community purview. — xaosfluxTalk 02:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support The proposal is excellent because it will propose to justify all the pages that are monitored by us, in addition to showing, in the future, the reason why this page is on our watchlist. WikiFermsg 16:05, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Maybe not free-form text, but picking from a set of tags like "protect", "develop", "read" etc? This could alleviate the "arbitrary private content" issue, mentioned above. Gufosowa (talk) 11:01, 13 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is doubtful I do not think we should offer private content hosting. --WTM (talk) 01:07, 15 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support, but only in Gufosowa's tags version. Free-form content I would oppose per all the opposers above. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 08:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --NGC 54 (talk / contribs) 20:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Oppose I don't think we should be offering private content-storage outside of community purview. — xaosflux Talk 02:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Comment Maybe not free-form text, but picking from a set of tags like "protect", "develop", "read" etc? This could alleviate the "arbitrary private content" issue, mentioned above. Gufosowa (talk) 11:01, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
It is doubtful I do not think we should offer private content hosting. --WTM (talk) 01:07, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
