Thread:Hackey5/@comment-25407271-20171014213103/@comment-17897872-20171017060640

Man, I come back to my dorm room and it's like 10:30PM.

Hackey, I'll take a look at the manual of style and see what's up with it. Probably everything's good and I can start looking through a few pages myself too.

I'm still in opposition about page protection. If there's a page that has been protected without a reason that it was a target page for vandalism, I will unprotect it.

As this is already a small wiki, there is absolutely no reason that we need to protect pages. We only have so few pages in the first place. Protecting them will make us look lazy. User have to ask us for permission to edit a protected page? When were we so perfect? Protection should only be used for mass waves of vandalism for temporary periods of time. If this isn't the case, then the revision is in good faith. Undo the user's revision with an edit summary (or revert if it's obvious vandalism), and case closed. No such Wikia let alone page of it will ever be "perfect" at any time, regardless how old it is. Hence leaving pages unprotected creates a more inclusive environment, even if that means reverting to a previous version of the page here and there. There are surely plenty of other outstanding wikis that don't protect their most popular oldest pages except for their home page, perhaps you may consider the implications of that. Some even continue leaving anons to contribute. Anything can be improved.

I'd also like to cite WP:Be bold. Users are encouraged to go for it! Wikis grow, develop and improve over time when everyone adds facts, fixes grammar, and everything. Wikis also want users to edit, right? By protecting pages, you're inhibiting the rights of other users. If users see every "perfect page" locked for no justifiable reason, except for Map Packs or Level Editor, wouldn't they be discouraged or afraid to edit the work in progresses because they think would make a mistake in the eyes of those that protected everything else? Because I would be, and such instances have occurred in my experiences.

I'll take your example of Stereo Madness again. Prior to Update 1.5, this was perhaps the most "perfect" page on the wiki. There were barely any revisions to it. Then secret coins were added much later into the game, along with some other template infobox tweaking in the mean time. This sparked activity on even the oldest pages. It may never happen again, but just to counter on your argument there. Don't underestimate the abilities of newer users, even on the oldest pages.