GuildWiki talk:Criteria for protection

=] -- Warwick (Talk)/(Contr. ) 17:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Pretty good, although if a page is COMPLETELY finished (such as this), then there's no problem with protecting it either.--[[Image:Marcopolo47 signature new.jpg]] (Talk) (Contr.) 17:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose so, then. But what happens if a change is made? --[[Image:Warwick sig.JPG]] Warwick (Talk)/(Contr. ) 17:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As in, removing skills from the game, or adding new ones in? If that happens (which I highly doubt it will), contact an admin to change it or unprotect it temporarily. But, for such a minutely probable situation, the protection is better kept on.--[[Image:Marcopolo47 signature new.jpg]] (Talk) (Contr.) 17:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

necessary?
I don't really see how this policy is necessary. First of all, the decision to protect a page is a decision taken by sysops. Now although we have policies on article retention (GW:AR)and only sysops can delete a page, article retention deals with article creation which is not a job of sysops (in their capacity as sysops). This policy would basically only serve to guide the actions of sysops. Its generally accepted that protection should be used extremely sparingly as this is a wiki and the spirit of wikis is that anyone can come in an edit them. Now some pages are major targets for vandalism and vandalizing them would be extremely detrimental to the wiki (such as the main page. note that we still have an edit copy of the main page where our regular contributors can still edit it) so they are protected, but the protected pages are few and far between. No page is finished. We have pages are clearly lacking so we mark them as stubs but many edits are still made to our unstubbed pages. The game is frequently updated and we would have to chase down all our protected "finished" pages and unprotect them so they could be edited. So we only use protection in cases of extreme and repeated vandalism. Generally no guide is needed as the sysop's discretion is considered to be in the best interests of the wiki and they tend to be right in such cases. This policy would only serve to weigh down sysops with unnecessary rules that we already know how to handle. Was there an incident that inspired this policy to be written at all? &mdash;♥Jedi ♥ Rogue ♥ 17:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, i did think that it may be useful, and in some cases (User:Jennalee) it is very much so required. --[[Image:Warwick sig.JPG]] Warwick (Talk)/(Contr. ) 17:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * (EDIT Conflict)As admins are active, and RC is small, we don't realy have this problem (wikipedia has a request page protection), see no reason to have this RT | Talk  17:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * =] --[[Image:Warwick sig.JPG]] Warwick (Talk)/(Contr. ) 17:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Correction: in the case of User:Jennalee, protection was required. This policy was not. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 04:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Guideline
Once again, this policy proposal needs to be a guideline for admins. This could do some good here, but not as a policy. I would say re-create it as a guideline and it mightbe more generally accepted. -- Shadowphoenix  17:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * We use guidelines as policies. Criteria for deletion and banning are both policies. &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 17:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Welcome to GuildWiki, where nearly everything is a guideline. Lord of all tyria 17:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I say we don't need it at all, we don't really have any pages that get enough vandalism to warrant protection, and our admins are good enough to protect without a policy or guideline.[[Image:Entrea Sumatae.png|Entrea Sumatae]]Entrea  [Talk]  01:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This doesn't need to be a separate article, no. The paragraph on protection at GW:ADMIN could maybe use some clarification, though.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 03:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)