Right, but my point was that it doesn’t need to be voted on by the community because they already think it’s a good idea and would like to do it at some point. FWIW they did confirm 2 years ago:
Not scrapped.
Why did you cut out the part of the quote about identification? How would a list of observations with ID tips not be a tool for ID?
One of the glaring problems being, say I use the same approximate ID tip on 100 observations (and also include some other text about the observation in my comment or ID, so they are not true duplicate comments), and then different people check the box saying it contains ID tips. It’s not very useful to have the same tip repeated over and over. Someone else’s tips might be much better but hidden among all my duplicates simply because I choose to add more comments or make more IDs. If I’m not copy/pasting the exact same text it would be hard to deduplicate automatically.
And should it be upvote/downvote? For cases where the ID tips were actually inaccurate or outdated (or duplicated?)? And purely community-driven or would curators be able to remove or nullify inappropriately marked ID tips?