Wowpedia talk:Protection policy

Votes

 * Yes :


 * No :

Comments
The single motivating example for this presented in Forum:Protection policy seems unconvincing to me (Wrath of the Lich King, indefinite autoconfirmed protection applied was equivalent to the page not being protected at all); it's unclear why this policy is necessary. Are any editors actually negatively affected by the current set of protected pages?

On the surface, the guidelines appear to call for unprotecting e.g. Infobox Alliance, but I'm not sure whether this is actually an intended effect or not. — foxlit (talk) 17:49, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The go-to practice for administrators is to indefinitely protect articles when they don't deserve it, which is sub-optimal. The purpose of this policy is to lay out a rationale to be able to determine an appropriate duration for protection, or decide if it is even required. Re: Infobox Alliance, it's included only on Alliance, why is it protected anyway? --- (•) 17:55, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The go-to practice for administrators is to do what they think is appropriate. After taking a random sample of recently unprotected articles, I fail to see the sub-optimality: autoconfirmed protection doesn't actually affect anyone (and most instances of it were inherited from long ago), and a few cases of "this page should not be edited anymore" seemed justified. Do we have an epidemic of pages that prevent edits without cause somewhere? — foxlit (talk) 18:31, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Bump. Xporc (talk) 13:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree with foxlit that it's much more of a guideline than an actual policy. That being said, I much prefer the re-write pcj did. I suggest moving this page onto Wowpedia:Protected pages while keeping the protected page example from the original lede section. -- Alayea (talk / contrib) 21:52, 24 October 2018 (UTC)