Forum:Protection on historical items, npcs, etc

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Protection on historical items, npcs, etc
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 26 September 2010 by Ajraddatz.

I think historical items should be semi-protected because most people performing maintenance edits would have been around for 4+ days and have 10+ edits. I think this should be added to protection policy.

Discussion

Support - As nominator. HaloTalk 17:44, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Could you give us some examples of what you would want to be protected? Farming cape (t).png Lil cloud 9 Talk 18:07, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
Romeo & Juliet (and related stuff) are most current examples. HaloTalk 18:15, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - What? Did you notice that non-autoconfirmed users over-vandalised those or something? bad_fetustalk 18:11, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

No, this is just like protecting archives though. These pages are essentially archives of past runescape things. HaloTalk 18:15, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Pages should be protected after heavy vandalism or edit warring, nothing else. ajr 18:16, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - wut the smoeker said. bad_fetustalk 18:17, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

nou ajr 18:20, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support - IP's on the whole have little to no reason to change these pages. This will help to maintain the integrity of the info on these pages. --Aburnett(Talk) 18:21, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

There's this thing called the "RC". Don't know if you've heard of it before, but I hear that it is handy for finding and reverting vandalism. Anyways, seriously, assume that anons do have a good reason to edit it. ajr 18:24, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
That isn't what AGF is for. AGF is for assuming that if somebody deleted a large portion of text, you assume that they didn't intend to do so. By that argument, we should have no protected pages, and mediawiki/css/js shouldn't be auto-protected either, because someone might have a reason to edit those. HaloTalk 18:29, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
Wut? That's only a small portion of AGF. AGF also applies here. bad_fetustalk 18:49, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
Don't give me that about the recent changes. I'm not stupid, and I expect that you are smart enough to realize that not all vandalism gets caught by our editors. --Aburnett(Talk) 22:59, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
99% of it does; the RC doesn't move so fast that we miss stuff. We may be Wikia's most active wiki, but we aren't that active. ajr 23:06, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - I can see why protecting them would be beneficial, but as Ajr said, if they were to be vandalized, they could be quickly reverted. Suppa chuppa Talk 18:36, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

So could most any other protected pages. Yet we still protect them. These articles should have very low editing being done, and all of it by autoconfirmed accounts, so it shouldn't be a big deal. Just saves time and such. HaloTalk 18:45, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
Just because we do some stupid things doesn't mean that we should do more. I've got a great idea that goes with your logic; restrict editing to User:Morian Smith!!! No more vandalism!!! ajr 21:56, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - Most pages about historical content, especially those from the early to mid 2000s, are severely lacking on information. Most of the reason behind that is that many editors were not around for events such as those. Some IPs and newly registered contributors may have done the events and thus may wish to information to it. Why limit their ability to do so? kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 19:01, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Weak oppose - Though I do like the logic behind this proposal, I am still a firm believer in the principle that a wiki is a place that anyone can edit. Since I really haven't seen much instances of vandalism on historical pages from IP's (or at all, for that matter), I don't see much justification for protecting them. --LiquidTalk 22:42, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Everyone who knows of historic stuff isn't a registered user. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 23:44, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Now, that's not a valid argument. I'll disprove it logically.
Premise: 1. I am a registered user. 2. I know of historical information.
Intended conclusion: Everyone who knows of historic stuff isn't a registered user. (copied from above)
Line Statement Reason
1 Everyone who knows of historic stuff isn't a registered user. Assume the conclusion.
2 Any registered user does not know historic information. Law of contraposition (1)
3 I am a registered user. Premise 1
4 I do not know historical information. Modus ponens (2, 3)
5 I know historical information. Premise 2
Because lines 4 and 5 are contradictions of each other, the assumed conclusion cannot be true. I hope that logic proof convinced you. The only thing you can argue is that my premises are invalid, but since I can easily prove that I am a registered user and know historical information, the issue is dead. --LiquidTalk 00:02, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
...I should of worded it better. I think more along what I mean to say was, Registered editors are not the only ones who know history. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 00:06, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
It's fine; I had a bit of fun doing that proof. Lol I used an indirect proof, but in this case it's as effective as a direct proof. --LiquidTalk 00:08, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
Except that your entire proof is nonsense because you completely misinterpreted his premises and conclusion. (wszx) 03:23, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
^What he said. bad_fetustalk 13:28, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
Huh? 222 talk 06:37, September 22, 2010 (UTC) <--- Someone who hasn't learnt all that yet...
I also can't believe that you would actually say that only registered users know stuff about historical items. How naive are you, anyways? There are more anons that make productive edits than there are those that vandalise, and quite honestly, just because they don't edit a wiki on a regular basis doesn't mean that we know more than them. Please, leave your bs behind and use common sense next time. ajr 13:32, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

Support - It's semi, not that bad. We semi protect forum archives... Why? To have people not edit them except for maint. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 00:11, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - This is restricting users from editing for what I think is no good reason. If they vandalize, chances are we will catch it. I think the advantages of possibly having new information outweigh whatever chance we take by not protecting it. And I would argue that AGF definitely applies here. ʞooɔ 01:17, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - There is no reason to semi-protect the pages unless they are severely vandalised. Like someone said above, pages about older events may lack information, and an IP may have the information required to expand it. 222 talk 06:34, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose - I made a proposal for deleting the Historical article template. As I have done such, I disagree with this proposal. Don't you see that Sidney Smith is being used in the past tense? --Coolnesse 01:17, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I really don't think it's necessary, even a semi. Vandalism is still easy to revert and they may just be fixing up small spelling mistakes or the like - [Pharos] 13:33, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per all. I think this really goes against the principles of the wiki of anybody editing the wiki. Farming cape (t).png Lil cloud 9 Talk 22:03, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

Request for closure - Clearly this isn't a popular idea, mine as well clean out the YG a bit. HaloTalk 18:27, September 26, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - Nominator has withdrawn. ajr 19:16, September 26, 2010 (UTC)