This Forum has been archived

Visit Discussions
Forums: Index > Wiki Discussion > Anonymous/unregistered edits
Note: This topic has been unedited for 3901 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not continue it unless it really needs a response.

Note: copied from Morrigan's discussion page, I thought it was more appropriate here. --vom 18:38, January 7, 2010 (UTC)

Someone just edited away the whole page. I undid their changes. It was an anonymous user. Why are any of these pages open to anonymous editing? I'd assume it's possible to make a registered user only edit wiki. Wouldn't that make more sense here? I mean, registering *is* free! And it would force people to read the rules (in theory) before editing as well. Tivadar 16:16, January 7, 2010 (UTC)

Generally speaking, I'm in agreement with a "members only" policy for submitting new edits, though I think that goes against the grain of what a lot of Wikia/Wikipedia stands for. In my experience the signal/noise ratio of unregistered users as a whole is rather borderline; I understand the argument of making it as convenient to edit as possible, but I do wonder if people who are put off by having to register would be committed to making good quality contributions anyway. But some people may think that's a rather Draconian point of view... --vom 16:59, January 7, 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not allow anonymous editing. And I'm afraid I have to agree that this page, at least, it getting more anonymous noise than signal. I removed some verbal abuse last weekend. Teamnoir 17:38, January 7, 2010 (UTC)

They don't? That's a step forward, then, and a significant one: I'm inclined to think we should take cues from them in that case. I think I may move this discussion to the forum, if nobody objects, since it's likely to be missed lurking over here! --vom 18:33, January 7, 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure where you've got that info from Teamnoir, but a look through recent changes shows plenty of edits from unregistered users on Wikipedia. To the question at hand, the only way I know of to make it registered users only would be to manually protect all pages (considering where now over 2000 pages that would be quite the task!). Even if it were easier I wouldn't want to make the wiki so restrictive, as on the whole I think the unregs do more good than harm. That being said there a few pages where there have been problems caused by over editing. Morrigan, Alistair, Easter Eggs, and Specializations spring to mind as being candidates for protection. As there any others that people have noticed? Loleil 21:37, January 7, 2010 (UTC)
From my experience, there are generally more good edits from unregistered editors than bad ones. And high-profile, important pages can always be semi-protected. Ausir(talk) 21:40, January 7, 2010 (UTC)
I've noticed the unwanted edits in character articles are usually in the strategy sections where everyone shares their opinion of how a certain character should be used in combat etc. And having said that, I'd vote for completely removing the strategy sections or making a separate section only for strategy that doesn't have any content within the character articles. Character articles should only be cannon and what we know from the game, thus avoiding ambiguity and personal opinion which inevitably leads to speculation. @ Loleil: Leliana's page gets a lot of attention as well, not sure about anything else in particular. That's my 2 cents.--Gvg870 21:45, January 7, 2010 (UTC)
I don't think Ser Cauthrien's page has enough tactics suggestions yet. Smiley Seriously, though, I think even having as Draconian a viewpoint as is my wont, I'd certainly concede that selective protection from anonymous edits may well bring almost as much benefit as would be seen from an across-the-board change, since there are certain pages which seem to be particular problem areas such as the ones mentioned. I still wonder if Easter Eggs in particular could do with its own babysitter who could add appropriate nominations. I'm still not volunteering for the job. Tonguesmiley --vom 21:49, January 7, 2010 (UTC)
Most of the tactics suggestion at Ser Cauthrien's page are utter rubbish anyway. Who would kill Cauthrien first instead of dispatching the archers just boggles my mind (if you're not luring her into the closest room, that is). It's utter rubbish. Also, it works so much better to have either a separate strategy section or a forum where people can discuss stuff and agree on what works and what not. Strategy in its essence lends itself much better into a forum rather than a wiki (which is designed to be objective). So, yeah, my final vote would be - remove strategy/tactics sections, and select the articles which need a registration-only edit rights.--Gvg870 22:00, January 7, 2010 (UTC)
I've been worried about the tactics section for the reason that it's personal opinion too. I think moving them to the forums, or at least to a separate page will be a good idea, but may require further discussion. However, assuming there are no objections, I'll protect the pages by the end of the day. Loleil 22:24, January 7, 2010 (UTC)
I would tend to think a semi-protect is enough to stop the majority of malicious edits. Although it's free and all that, it does require an e-mail and a few minutes, which is probably more than a person who wants to put (insert genital reference here) on a popular page is willing to do. And if pages have continual problems, motivated individuals with spare time can babysit the page.
Also, as to the more general problem of "strategy/tactics pages breed discussion", I agree. See here for an introduction to it. In a nutshell, any in-depth strategy/tactics is moved to (Character name)_(Tactics) for the reasons you folks have already raised. Unless the rules have changed ... - Pwr905 22:29, January 7, 2010 (UTC)
What do you think we should do with the build suggestions on the companion pages? Same approach? Loleil 22:39, January 7, 2010 (UTC)
Yes, same approach. Mods & patches are only beginning to come out now so in the future we'll see a lot of different opinions concerning different builds of characters, and since it's mostly down to personal preference, it has no place within an objective article.--Gvg870 23:03, January 7, 2010 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly (and point out if I'm misunderstanding you), but you mean what should be done with the Strategy headings on the Companion pages? If so, then, yes, my initial thought would be to move them as well - for the same reasons as the creature strategy sections. - Pwr905 22:47, January 7, 2010 (UTC)

That is indeed what I meant. I guess we can get started on making those changes too. Loleil 23:00, January 7, 2010 (UTC)
Um, possibly jumping in too late here (sorry!), but would CharacterName_(Strategy) be a better title, just because "Tactics" has a technical sense in the game? Even though I accept that what's on offer is more likely to be tactics. --Zoev 00:59, January 8, 2010 (UTC)
Nope, not too late. I think the only reason tactics is used because that is the title the user who first made them picked. I think strategy might be a better term too. Loleil 01:11, January 8, 2010 (UTC)
I tend to agree, as well. Strategy is a better description of the purpose of the page(s). - Pwr905
Good stuff. I'll get started on making some new pages and moving some old ones. Loleil 01:52, January 8, 2010 (UTC)
I ummed and erred over the capitalisation of a new page - should've known that trying to do it without checking here first would result in me eventually choosing the wrong one! I just stopped by to say "bah!", really. --vom 14:37, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

At The Vault we used to have strategy sections in articles, but they got so cluttered with personal opinions that we decided to just move them to the talk pages. Ausir(talk) 14:37, January 8, 2010 (UTC)

Pages Locked

The pages are now locked. Hopefully editors can now focus on improving pages rather than undoing damage. Loleil 09:58, January 8, 2010 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.