FANDOM

­
1,377 Pages

  • I've been thinking that we might want to add a new Policy: Protected Wiki Heritage; which would encompass and protect selective myths and internal pages on the Wiki that hold historical significance to the Wiki and/or have contributed to the Wikis popularity. We don't want to degradate the very old pages on the wiki by constant edit bombardment. I think we could balance the old and new information without shutting out editors but still something should be done.

      Loading editor
    • Not a good policy at all since locking popular pages has proven to be useless in the past. The biggest example is Bigfoot (GTA San Andreas). The page was locked September 2014 to Sysops only before a CNB vote changed it to autoconfirmed in July 2016, and unlocked totally in June 2017. Since July 2016, there has been just 43 edits to the page. 10 edits have been made to the page that affect the existence label - 5 changing it and 5 reverts. 2 more edits (1 edit 1 revert) was a rollback for other reasons. 31 good edits and 12 bad edits in the span of 2 years is not a "constant edit bombardment." In fact, many of these old pages who have had their protection recently expire, another example is Piggsy, don't even meet the modern standards of the wiki and need to be cleaned up just because nobody has been allowed to edit the page. Page protections should only be used when there is a major vandalism/edit war/etc problem, and even then, "infinite" times should only be used in the most extreme situations. Not a very good policy.

        Loading editor
    • I am not saying locking the page, but the overall context of what's there and of course the existence status should be locked in place. Not that I give two shits what GTA Wiki does, BUT they lock and heavily discourage any editing to the main game articles i.e. GTA IV, ect... So applying that same logic here makes sense since many myths on here could become targets to over-zealous myth hunters seeking to make a name, as in I DISPROVED BIGFOOT!!!!!! When in reality that is a logistical impossibility and is borderline insulting as thousands of players are still debating Bigfoot AND other myths to this day. Nothing is decided yet obviously but I see no negatives to passive protection status to some pages with editing still open/limited.

        Loading editor
    • If that's the case, then I would support this policy if the lock was changed to Autoconfirmed and not Sysops only, as was done in the past.

        Loading editor
    • Ok then there you go.

        Loading editor
    • Good idea Sasquatch. This should be added to the Policy soon.

        Loading editor
    • I absolutely agree with Sasquatch and every detail he created about the policy.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.