Forum:Semi-protect Update: namespace

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Semi-protect Update: namespace
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 9 November 2009 by Calebchiam.

Should the Update: namespace be semi-protected? Is this even possible? It seems like the only anon edits there are... not exactly improving the content. Hello71 01:05, November 8, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Yes, it is possible, but it goes against the idea of assuming good faith. Sure, vandalism is wrong, and once an update article is written, it is usually not changes significantly. In the case that an IP may do a bit of reworking on it, the protection would prevent so, and update article not improved or reworked on. ~MuzTalk 02:42, November 8, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - per RS:AGF and RS:AEAE. Andrew talk 06:12, November 8, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Soldier Twig Talk 772kZGs.png 06:14, November 8, 2009 (UTC)

Very weak support Neutral - Only because there should be no reason for an IP to edit the Update: namespace in the first place. ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  06:53, November 8, 2009 (UTC)

And why is that? Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 09:56, November 8, 2009 (UTC)
The Update: namespace is generally only for statements by Jagex, which are usually just copy-pasted from pages on Why would an IP need to change what Jagex has said? Anyway, I'm mostly neutral on the issue, so I'm changing my vote. ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  11:19, November 8, 2009 (UTC)
To perhaps wikify the page by adding tags, HTML, and links to other wiki pages. That is the main reason why further edits to an update page are done. ~MuzTalk 12:18, November 8, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - because they also contribute well. Per RS:AEAE. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 09:56, November 8, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Per soldier and why would we need to? Liam - Beta Tester (talk) 10:05, November 8, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Last I checked, people are not allowed to propose this kind of thing anymore. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 12:47, November 8, 2009 (UTC)

They are allowed, but only if new and supporting arguments for doing so are used. See here for more details why the previous proposals were rejected. ~MuzTalk 13:19, November 8, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - per the "Reason for rejection" in this forum thread.   az talk   13:33, November 8, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Per all. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 16:04, November 8, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - ..."where anyone can edit"... Air rune.png Tollerach hates SoF Fire rune.png 16:32, November 8, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Soldier. --Quarenon  Talk 17:17, November 8, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Per all. - TehKittyCatTalk Wikian-Book 18:32, November 8, 2009 (UTC)

Request early closure - Evidently the user is unfamiliar with Forum:Previously rejected proposals - READ THIS BEFORE YOU POST. No new arguments were supplied, and this thread is a repeat of all previous threads on this issue.   az talk   20:30, November 8, 2009 (UTC)

Or perhaps the user has forgotten to read the new version of the thread, which adds "or a specific part of the wiki". Hello71 01:16, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

Support - Why even go through all of this? Proposing this is banned. just add this thread to the list and add the padlock of doom. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 02:15, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

Closed - This has no chance of passing and according to Forum:Previously rejected proposals - READ THIS BEFORE YOU POST for this discussion to continue requires new arguments. - TehKittyCatTalk Wikian-Book 04:13, November 9, 2009 (UTC)