I don't see much usefulness in this. The only issue pointed out so far is inconsistency with some resources being linked but others not, which is easily resolved through proper moderation and reporting. Also, some of these extra resources aren't hosted in the site and will inevitably not be linked anyway.
Originally posted by Shiny Ninetales
but also to be more friendly for both moderators and users.
I slightly disagree for both sides: submitters will have one more field to fill, users will have one more to check and mods will have one more to moderate, with the added possibility of a submitter reporting what extra resources are needed but not why
they're needed in the first place, which would be sort of encouraged with such a system.
I can see some organizational value in it, however. What I suggest is, instead of putting links in Extra Resources Needed, we could use checkboxes or multi-selection so submitters can mark what kinds
of extra resources are needed, which would force the Description field to be used for details on which specific resource is needed and why. The more information on what the user will be inserting in their hack, the better. The addition of such a field would also obsolete the patch needed
tag, plus the block needed
tag we were going to add later on. For the checkboxes/multi-selection we could use:
- None (marking this would disable selection for the other options);
- Custom Block(s);
- Custom Patch(es);
- and maybe Other, although I think the previous ones already cover every possibility.