{{Forumheader|Yu-Gi-Oh! Wiki Community Discussion}}

* ==Start==I agree with locking the rulings pages to registered users only. People add unofficial and incorrect rulings based on their own observation of the card. It's easier to keep track of identified users and know if they're reliable. (not to say anonymous is always incorrect.) A small number of registered users and able to keep track and update the official ones. As far as I know there have been little major contributions from IP edits and masive amounts of incorrect additions. -- [[User:Deltaneos|Deltaneos]] ([[User talk:Deltaneos|talk]]) 19:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

:Deus Ex Machina checks changes people make the rulings pages almost daily. Anything that can't be referenced gets removed. Any self-composed rulings (true or false) get removed. (It turns out almost every IP edit gets reverted.) That procedure is the only way we can really stop logged in usersadding incorrect content. Protecting the namespace from logged in users defeats the purpose of a site that anyone can edit. The issue is really whether preventing IPs editing it would even defeat that purpose. -- [[User:Deltaneos|Deltaneos]] ([[User talk:Deltaneos|talk]]) 20:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC) ::Yes but is there a group on this site that shows that they are experienced judge that knows what they are saying on here? Just wondering is all. Because if anything I am willing to do that or at least help out with it. {{unsigned|Aizen Sosuke|21:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)}} :::Being a judge wouldn't really be required, since we don't get people to make-up rulings. Any rulings we document have to be officially issued. Only rulings that were listed on the UDE website (before it was taken down), the UDE Judges lists or Konami FAQ are allowed. It's only a matter of copying them and adding a link to the site they came from. -- [[User:Deltaneos|Deltaneos]] ([[User talk:Deltaneos|talk]]) 21:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC) ::I still don't think that blocking edits by non-registered users defeats that purpose. It is still a site that anyone can edit; it's just that anyone wishing to edit (this specific page category) has to go through the five minutes necessary to create an account. I don't think that's too much to ask to better protect something as important as the rules.::[[user:cow_pi|~Specter (cow_pi)]] 21:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC) :::Not that I don't agree with you. But it's moreso would it defeat the purpose "from Wikia's point of view". I'm guessing most of the people who agree with this would also like the entire site to be locked from logged out users. If Wikia felt forcing a sign-in would still leave the "anyone can edit" enviroment they would make wikis be like that by default. We really want people who think rulings specifically should be locked. (I'm not saying you don't feel that way, but this is for anyone who reads this) -- [[User:Deltaneos|Deltaneos]] ([[User talk:Deltaneos|talk]]) 21:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC) and I understand that :D I'm just saying that:*The Rules are official enough and important enough to warrant a basic level of registration (even if it's just to stop vandals, who probably aren't going to go through the trouble of creating an account)and*even with this new measure put in place, it's not stopping the ruling pages from being editable by anyone, assuming they're willing to create an account. [[user:cow_pi|~Specter (cow_pi)]] 22:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC) == create a limited group who can post? == Wikipedia actually has some subjects that are only editable by a closed, approved group. Perhaps this should be the same -- only people who are approved judges through the program are allowed to edit the card rulings pages. It would take a while to set up and to get a group together, but it might be a solution to the problem, and if Wikipedia can create a closed group, I would think this site could also -- but I don't actually know if it is possible.  Alternately, perhaps only official card rulings should go up. If there are no official card rulings for a card, it should just say so -- something to the effect that "there are no official published rulings for X." [[User:Starwefter|Starwefter]] 23:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)starwefter :I'm not sure Wikipedia has such user groups. Could you give a link to an example of what you mean? If we were to make such a group, it would still mean protecting the namespace. I don't think restricting it to judges only is the way to go. As I said above, you don't need to be a judge to copy rulings from an official source. Rulings from official sources are all that are allowed atm. Users cannot write their own rulings, even if they are correct. Official rulings alone, should hopefully be enough. Also I don't think any of the people who usually add rulings are judges. -- [[User:Deltaneos|Deltaneos]] ([[User talk:Deltaneos|talk]]) 23:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC) *Exactly. I don't think posters should have to be judges, but they should have to be trusted. At least somewhat. I won't argue what's wrong or right about restricting the ruling pages from non-registered users, but I still think that creating an account is too easy to complain about, and that it will probably cut out a lot of vandals who aren't going to put forth that effort. Vandals want to be anonymous. Some are willing to create bogus accounts just to vandalize the wikia, but I really think that the majority of vandals probably just want to attack a page from their IP address and not worry about accounts to begin with. I really don't see why it works, but I still believe it would. For whatever reason, the average vandal isn't going to want to create an account to vandalize a page, while the average sincere constructive-poster probably would. I think it just comes down to human nature: people who want to destroy things are usually lazier than people who want to help. xD it's basic volunteer bias. if we can use that to protect the rulings' pages, then why not?  [[user:cow_pi|~Specter (cow_pi)]] 20:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC) == Beyond Rulings == Hello. I'm not terribly familiar with rulings, and I'm even less familiar with Wika/wiki...ing, in general. But the other day I came over an inappropriate entry for the lore on Snipe Hunter, and changed it to reflect what was on the lore of the card image... since then, another anonymous user has also tweaked it (Thankfully, another user caught it--checking lets me know it was PoirotH, who I thank. My question is this--is there any way to easily protect entries? It seems to be impossible, so... in that case, is there an easy way to revert an entry to a previous state, should one encounter vandalism in the obvious and direct sense? Any information would be greatly appreciated. [[User:DJSprings|DJSprings]] 21:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC) ==Mailbox==Why not make it more like a mailbox?You submit rulings, maybe the official source, and then they are checked by a designated group. I mean if you can set up a site with individual pages for each account i'm sure a submit box would work. {{unsigned|This Is My Yubel|01:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)}} :The recent changes pretty much serves that purpose. All submissions to the rulings namespace are always checked. The issue isn't that incorrect material is being posted unnoticed. It's moreso that one group of editors keep posting incorrect or inappropriate content and we'd rather stop them altogether than have to constantly revert what they post. -- [[User:Deltaneos|Deltaneos]] ([[User talk:Deltaneos|talk]]) 17:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC) == registered users only == you should make it only so registered users can edit. It would put of vandals, or make it so that unregistered users' edits aren't shown. Or if they do it three times registered then they can't edit. == Use the Ruling Forum ==* Only registered judges should be able to add official rulings to the individual card rulings page, but if there are still questions about rulings, they can just be posted on the ruling forum, for more specific ruling. Example: this card vs this card. Only people who can prove that they are judges are allowed. [[User:Messengerofthedark|Messengerofthedark]] 03:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)Messengerofthedark == Vote? == This is a very important topic, because it affects nearly everyone who visits this wiki. Therefore, rather than debating about it and eventually having to choose one side or the other, what if we take a vote? The suggestion of making card ruling pages only editable by registered users has been around for a long time (about 9 months at the time of this posting), and taking a vote could solve this quickly and easily. Also, since many people have already posted, potential voters would have a chance to read on both sides of the story. This could be accomplished by anyone who wants to vote simply leaving a post stating whether or not they think card rulings should be editable only by registered users. Then, after a predetermined date, we tally the vote and see the outcome. This is just a suggestion. {{unsigned|Extreme Card Player|19:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)}} :A vote isn't really needed. (Besides it's clear from the above comments that most people, who responded, want it protected). In the end this is going to be Wikia staff's decision. They may reject it even if more people are in favour than against. -- [[User:Deltaneos|Deltaneos]] ([[User talk:Deltaneos|talk]]) 20:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC) == Done == The Card Rulings namespace is now editable by only registered users. -- [[User:Deltaneos|Deltaneos]] ([[User talk:Deltaneos|talk]]) 09:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC):Yay! Thank you! --[[User:Deus Ex Machina|Deus Ex Machina]] ([[User Talk:Deus Ex Machina|Talk]]) 18:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC):Much obliged, Deltaneos. You have my thanks. (I was checking what some of my earliest edits were and I found this. That's cool.) [[User:Zeroblizzard|Zeroblizzard]] 05:26, December 29, 2009 (UTC)Zeroblizzard