-
This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.
For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here. -
We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.
Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.
Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page. -
Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.
Converting Explanation Blogs to Official Pages
- Thread starter Sera_EX
- Start date
-
- Tags
- vs battles wiki
- 6,104
- 5,106
- Thread starter
- #42
@Saikou
It's called being a wikia. Don't we let people edit profiles? Gatekeeping is unacceptable on a wikia of any kind. We may as well just lock everything and only let "knowledgeable/trusted users" edit specific verses.
It's called being a wikia. Don't we let people edit profiles? Gatekeeping is unacceptable on a wikia of any kind. We may as well just lock everything and only let "knowledgeable/trusted users" edit specific verses.
- 6,104
- 5,106
- Thread starter
- #43
To reiterate. These pages would follow the same major change criteria as character profiles. Meaning other than minor changes, dramatically changing the information without a CRT would be considered a rule violation.
- 15,637
- 5,392
@Sera
We kind of already do that if you think about how we don't allow anon editing and require a certain edit count prior to contributing to pages.
It's a measure against sockpuppet accounts, but my point is that not every protective measure we take is because we don't like 'normies' editing our profiles.
That said I mostly agree with you, explaination pages should be open to editing as long as they aren't frequently vandalized.
We kind of already do that if you think about how we don't allow anon editing and require a certain edit count prior to contributing to pages.
It's a measure against sockpuppet accounts, but my point is that not every protective measure we take is because we don't like 'normies' editing our profiles.
That said I mostly agree with you, explaination pages should be open to editing as long as they aren't frequently vandalized.
- 5,336
- 1,216
I agree with this.
- 10,758
- 6,491
Keeping them locked might be best
Not like it will dissuade much more than grammer fixes from regular users anyway, they would still be able to bring important changes through CRTs
Not like it will dissuade much more than grammer fixes from regular users anyway, they would still be able to bring important changes through CRTs
- 167,862
- 76,484
I agree with Wokistan. These pages should preferably be admin-locked, and then temporarily opened for regular members due to content revision threads, specific requests to the staff, and the like.
- 6,104
- 5,106
- Thread starter
- #50
Only Tier 1 verse explanation pages should be admin locked, otherwise it defeats the purpose of converting them into pages. Even still, blogs that are frequently updated should remain blogs until they are completed. For example the I Shall Seal the Heavens blogs are frequently updated. It'd be counterproductive to admin lock the pages when the most knowledgeable member is non-staff.
We lock powers and abilities
In the first place, those shouldn't be admin locked, not all of them anyway. Immortality, Regenerationn and the like? Absolutely. Fire Manipulation? Of course not.
We lock powers and abilities
In the first place, those shouldn't be admin locked, not all of them anyway. Immortality, Regenerationn and the like? Absolutely. Fire Manipulation? Of course not.
- 5,336
- 1,216
Sera makes a lot of sense.
- 10,065
- 5,294
I'm cool with the OP's suggestion.
- 31,462
- 34,326
Any verse explanations page that's prone to vandalism would also need to be Admin locked Tier 1 or not. However, ones that aren't Tier 1 or aren't for a super popular verse are probably pretty straightforward.
- 10,065
- 5,294
I do agree with DDM on that. Stuff like Undertale and Dragon Ball would need to be locked to prevent people from screwing with it.
- 167,862
- 76,484
I agree with Wokistan, Medeus, and Elizhaa. It isn't a big problem to temporarily unlock these important pages for regular members if required, but there will most likely be a lot of errors added to them if we keep them completely open.
- 7,413
- 3,301
^Sir Ovens said:
- 7,413
- 3,301
I agree.Andytrenom said:
- 15,970
- 8,187
I think we overall agree with the OP. We agree that the pages should be admin-locked; we also overall agree the explanation pages would link to their respective verse page. A lot of us agree with Dargoo's idea on the page title.
I think what is left is to apply the changes.
I think what is left is to apply the changes.
Similar threads
