WebOS Internals talk:Policies and guidelines

Proposed: Protection

a policy similar to wikipedia:Wikipedia:Protection policy, where pages are only protected if they are repeatedly vandalised or if there is an edit war —X1011 04:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

see also Wikia's advice against protecting the main page and metawikipedia:Protected pages considered harmful. —X1011 03:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It will be noted --Templarian 04:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Special:Protectedpages, We only have 3 pages protected, and 2 files. The main page will most likely always be protected, please use the discussion as you are now to point out suggestions. Thanks and hopefully this answers your question. --Templarian 13:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

we currently have 5 protected pages (one is move-protected only) and 2 protected files.

there is no consensus yet on whether the main page will be protected indefinitely. see Talk:Main Page#Protection.

i have not posed a question. i have proposed a policy. you have not yet stated whether you agree or disagree with it. if you state that you disagree, please explain why.

—X1011 06:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll jump in. I think the main page should be protected. I don't know about others, but the main page is our face to the world, and the risk of defacing that exceedsthe value. I am not unaware of the common mistakes described at http://help.wikia.com/wiki/Help:Common_mistakes and am willing to re-consider. But for today, the only argument in the wikia article that is meaningful is the idea that many users will not get beyond the front page and may not even realize that the wiki is editable. While that may have been true some time ago, in this self-selected and computer-literate group we're dealing with, I can't see it.

Proposed: Redirects

i don't think we should delete redirects. see wikipedia:Wikipedia:Redirect#harmful for the reasoning. in our case, we also have redirects from the old wiki to preserve. —X1011 08:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

We killed the old wiki. Also most page movements are done to pages that are roughly very new. Some redirects have been left if they are for larger pages, but all internal links are redirected and that page becomes orphaned internally. --Templarian 04:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

the old wiki is still up, and there are links to it from other sites. i'm ok with deleting new redirects; we can add an exception for that to the policy. —X1011 05:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

All pages moved from the old wiki to the new wiki should have had redirects added on the old wiki. No exceptions. -- Rod

yes, that is part of the reason i want to preserve redirects within this wiki. —X1011 05:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

And as a general policy, I just don't see that redirects are evil on a plain old wiki. DOUBLE redirects (or deeper) are evil because they don't actually get REDIRECTED you end up on a redirect page.

So, it's my policy to go in and SPLIT double redirects, so the first side of the double ends up as a direct. But I don't DELETE them. As I said to Matt, one of my patrol pages at wikipedia has 27 incoming redirects, and that's a good thing. For example, I think we need redirect pages for Portal:Accessing Linux from rooting root login Accessing LinuxAccessing-Linux AccessingLinux and perhaps more. Redirects are good. rboatright 14:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)