Just make it a user preference/zh

我们这些编者经常说“把它搞成个设置”之类的. 此论文将简述这种想法的难处、好处、与复杂度.

难处
每个多余的设置会：
 * 1) 提高（核心/扩展）代码的复杂度
 * 2) 提高出现 bug 的机率
 * 3) 增加要做的程序维护工作
 * 4) 成倍增加需要被测试的情况
 * 5) Adds to the complexity of the Special:Preferences tabs for users (hence making everything a bit more difficult (or less likely) to be found)
 * 6) 增加需要翻译的东西
 * 7) 增加已经要把人压垮的文档
 * 8) 给已经太大的用户选项数据库增加新行（T54777）
 * 9) Adds to the quantity of things that need to be considered, when contemplating any additional new features in the same feature-set
 * 10) 让我们更难找到 bug
 * 11) 要避免缓存碎片化

所以，开发者、设计师、老板、啥啥啥都不太想把所有要求要有的设置加上！

好处
就算这样，我（们？）很爱设置. 我感觉火狐的选项，至少对于超级用户来说，刚刚好™！

I've written a bit more about this in a section at Talk:RfC/Redesign user preferences, which I'll copy below:

An Ode to Options, A Paean to Preferences, A Serenade to Settings, A Cry for Configuration
I want to see our Special:Preferences menu become better organized, so that it can grow, with all the tweaks and power-tools that some editors need permanently available – I.e. The things the various overlapping communities have built over the last 20+ years, and continue to create and refine – So that newcomers can find what they're looking for without being overwhelmed, and so that new power-users can find the brilliant tools they didn't know they wanted.

--

When I sign up for a new website, I immediately go to the settings menu to see: What things I can turn on, and what I might want to turn off (either now, or in the future). When I install a new program, operating system, or game, I immediately look through the Toolbar and the Preferences/Options menu. They tell me a lot about the software, e.g.:
 * Technical vocabulary (concepts, keywords, and groupings),
 * which settings the developers thought were "useful enough to include, but not crucial enough to set as default",
 * which options the specialized-power-users might need, that I might want to investigate or use once I become proficient with the basics.

--

This wiki endeavour, requires tools that are as complicated as Photoshop or Autocad, for many editors but not all. Newcomers often need something simple, as do casual-editors.

We need something like Photoshop for power-users, as well as something like MS Paint for the newcomers and casual editors.


 * (MS Paint is great! It's Welcoming, and easy to learn via experimenting, and easy to create simple (sometimes even complex) projects in!)
 * (Photoshop is great! A dense abundance of menus, and a profusion of tiny and detailed-metadata, for those who need it! For those who spend many hours every day, for many years, working hard within it.)

We want and need both ends of the spectrum, and a migration path for users to slowly learn about bits of the complexity without being overwhelmed.