The Travellers' pub is the place to ask questions when you're confused, lost, afraid, tired, annoyed, thoughtful, or helpful. Please check the FAQ and Help page before asking a question, though, since that may save your time and others'.
Please add new questions at the bottom of the page and sign your post by appending four tildes (~~~~) to it, but otherwise plunge forward!
If you have a question or suggestion about a particular article, try using talk pages to keep the discussion specific to that article.
Please sweep the pub
Keeping the Pub clean is a group effort. If we have too many conversations on this page, it will get too noisy and hard to read. If you see an old conversation (i.e. dormant for a month or more) that could or should be moved to another page, please do so, and note there that it has been swept in from the pub.
A question regarding a destination article should be swept to that article's discussion page
A discussion regarding a policy or the subject of an expedition can be swept to that policy or expedition discussion page
A simple question asked by a user can be swept to that user's talk page, but consider if the documentation needs a quick update to make it clearer for the next user with the same question.
A pointer to a discussion going on elsewhere, such as a notice of a star nomination or or a request to comment on another talk page, can be removed when it is two months old. Any discussion that occurred in the pub can be swept to where the main discussion took place.
Any discussions that do not fall into any of these categories, and are not of any special importance for posterity, should be archived to Wikitravel:Travellers' pub/Archives and removed from here. If you are not sure where to put a discussion, leave it alone—it's better to spend your efforts on those that you do know where to place.
"There are three possible formats for "external" links. For the sake of consistency and to avoid those confusing, incrementing little footnote-style numbers appearing all over the place, we only use the first format below for external links as a general rule:"
*Example, to create the standard hypertext-style of external link seen all over the world wide web, the syntax is to place one open square bracket, then the URL (not forgetting to include the http:// part since the software won't recognize a link if that's missing), then at least one space, then the text you wish to hyperlink and that will be coloured blue and finally one closing square bracket. eg: [http://www.example.com/ '''Example'''].
"This "good" style means that it is very easy for our readers to spot when they will be taken away from this great site to another website because the upward and right pointing arrow symbol like this is very visible. This "good" style also does not interrupt article prose with meaningless, footnote style numbers and nor does it occupy valuable screen space or confuse screen readers for the visually impaired with huge, ugly, unpacked URLs."
Is the management able to task their tekkies to bring our listings into conformity with this advice? --220.127.116.11 19:28, 16 February 2014 (EST)
Request What is it exactly that you want? This is a style issue which (I think) you're asking to get fixed by a bot. Is that right? Koavf (talk) 23:50, 16 February 2014 (EST)
No, this can not be fixed by a bot.
Compare the following two listings.
The first uses our listings template, the second doesn't.
Can you not see the obvious difference (and I'm talking about the appearance on the page, not the underlying code)?
Company A (A compagnie), (down the lane to the left), ☎ +33 1 26 41 32 55, . Daily 07:15-20:30. €36. edit
Company A (A compagnie), (down the lane to the left), ☎ +33 1 26 41 32 55, Daily 07:15-20:30. €36
Listings Ah, I see—you mean that the listing tags don't add the link URI to the listing name's text. Yes, this is a straight-forward problem and one that must be addressed by the developers. This is an excellent point to bring up at Shared. Koavf (talk) 00:39, 17 February 2014 (EST)
Granted I don't hold out a lot of hope either but if you want to get someone from IB to respond, I suppose it could happen here at en. My point is simply that Shared exists in part for precisely these kinds of issues. Koavf (talk) 02:34, 24 February 2014 (EST)
For me this is one of the litmus paper issues.
Some technical tasks are quite time consuming or difficult to solve. That is not the case with getting rid of all those confusing and meaninglessly incrementing footnote style numbers when listings use our templated editor. If I can get some indication from IBadmins as to whether they think this desirable or, if not, why not, I can then spend some time on laboriously translating things into other languages and canvassing the change on other language versions of Wikitravel. --Ttcf (talk) 03:24, 24 February 2014 (EST)
For them, the default image width of thumbnails is rather small at 180px.
Please may we increase that to 250px, please? --Ttcf (talk) 20:45, 16 February 2014 (EST)
Tech issue Any technical request can be made at shared. That's the best venue for getting the developer folks to see your preference. Koavf (talk) 23:42, 16 February 2014 (EST)
That's useful information. However, I think the way things work may be something like this:
Folks here decide whether it would be a good thing or a bad thing to raise the default image width.
If the answer to (1) is yes, IBadmins and management decide if that would be a good use of the tekkies time or not...
I've raised the issue here in the Pub to see if there are any community objections to raising the size from 180px to 250px width. --Ttcf (talk) 00:42, 17 February 2014 (EST)
Ah Well, for my two cents, I don't have a strong opinion. A decade ago, screens were smaller on desktops and users connected with dial-up. But today, mobile screens are far smaller. The utility of a site like this on mobile is actually a pretty huge consideration. Koavf (talk) 00:52, 17 February 2014 (EST)
Don't we show a different mobile version if we detect the user is using a mobile? --Ttcf (talk) 01:04, 17 February 2014 (EST)
Style I believe so and this is one of the basic functions of stylesheets but I do not have a smartphone. Koavf (talk) 01:06, 17 February 2014 (EST)
Hello. I‘m a newbie here. Regarding default image size. Small size, like a current one, is not bad. I don‘t use a smartphone nor a laptop, but work on a desktop computer with an older (not wide) monitor, and also with a wide monitor. If the article's paragraph is short, the larger pictures distort the composition of the page. Especially if there are several pictures, then only the upper one is at its right place, others do not fit. The composition (general appearance) looks better with a "narrow" screen, however the larger pictures start to distort the text then, appearance of the text, i.e. the left side of the page while the right side with images looks good. The smaller screen the worse is appearance of the text, it may turn almost to a column. Current small size (of the pictures) then looks quite reasonable.
If the screen is wide – the paragraphs become even more shorter (visually), and several pictures near to each other (a column of them) distort the composition of the page again. The smaller pictures – the less distortion.
I think that some sort of a pop-up (say, half screen size) would be useful. One click – you see a big picture, another click – big picture has gone. Now if you want to see details you have to open a page with a picture and then click it again in order to enlarge. It take time and annoys. It could be a possibility to open a page with a right click->open page, or something. Then you have a possibility to have a quick look at the picture of a decent size, and also have another possibility to look at it properly, along with all attributions.
Practically, to me there is an uncertainty, but it is not related to size, it‘s about the picture policy that reads Image use in articles should be kept at the minimum necessary to get across a point or impression. Is this still really valid? Visual information is more informative than text. Proper informative images can tell more than most detailed description. In such case current small size makes sense. It saves space. If images are almost absent, then they could be larger, just "to make the article beautiful". In my extremely humble opinion information should prevail, not ornaments. And the beauty of the article usually is determined by the orderly composition where everything fit in its proper place, sort of. Sorry for the intervention :) --Local (talk) 15:51, 19 February 2014 (EST)
Puerto Asese marina in Granada (thumbnail image at the current default of 180px)
We're not talking about a huge increase in the default here. Wikipedia upped their default from 180px to 220px several years ago and it could be argued (as you seem to have done above) that images that are evocative of the general feel and ambience of the destination should be a tad larger in a travel guide than an encyclopaedia.
To address your point about enlargement, unfortunately many of our readers don't realise that, if you click the little widget in the lower right corner, you will be taken to a page where often you can make a choice from a range of image sizes. (For example, after you click the "enlarge" widget, the "Puerto Asese marina in Granada" thumbnail image at the right can then be viewed at either 800 × 600 pixels or at its full resolution of 1,280 × 960 pixels)
Perhaps we can take things one stage at a time and first agree on the default image size before we discuss (under a separate heading[s], please) other changes to image policy?
Incidentally the two images I've used here are examples from the current version of our Granada (Nicaragua) article.
Please also remember that changing the default size does not prevent editors overriding that default by specifying a larger or smaller size. It's just that, at the moment and with such a small default size of 180px, a lot of editors feel the need to specify larger hard-wired sizes of 190, 200, 205, 210, 220, 225, 230, 240 and (very often) 250px and that causes at least three problems:
(1) We end up with a range of different widths in the same article which looks awkward
Typical horsecart in Granada (thumbnail sized to proposed new default width of 250px)
(2) The servers are overburdened by generating such a huge range of thumbnail sizes
(3) Registered readers who have set their preferences to display a smaller thumbnail size than the current default (for both not-logged on users and logged on users who have not changed their preferences) of 180px, eg 150px, then actually get served the larger hard-wired size of 210, 220, 225, 230, 240 and (very often) 250px and incur extra data roaming charges or slow loads. Contrariwise, those with fast, cheap connections and large screens who have set their preferences to display a larger thumbnail size of 300px, then actually get served the smaller, editor hand crafted size of 210, 220, 225, 230px or whatever. --Ttcf (talk) 17:29, 19 February 2014 (EST)
Of course i agree that my post was too broad. To me, as a reader/user/"consumer", the current default image size is sufficient and better than a larger one, no matter how much larger. Some images (as you say) can be larger when necessary, and of course i don't like several images with different sizes in one article. I purposefuly posted my opinion slightly off-topic to illustrate that i don't see relevance in increasing default image size. I recently reduced the size of several pictures to 180px in one article, appearance then became better. But how it is better depends on concrete article, i think. In other words, to me the current situation is suitable. And all policies of everything are suitable too :). Just, like you see the relevance in image sizes, i see it in image policy (though accept it and agree with everything).
BTW, these 2 examples of the pictures: one 180px, another 250px, but there is no essential difference in perception of their content, they both are too small to perceive the details, and both are nearly equal in their general effect. If other users are uploading different sizes for no reason, then maybe their edits are ignorant and need to be fixed. Maybe they don't see the whole "picture" of the article and only want to stand out. Is it a problem of default image size? To me current size is good, but i won't express any objection if it will be increased :) --Local (talk) 07:57, 20 February 2014 (EST)
At the end of the day this is largely a question of subjective aesthetics and your opinion is just as valid as mine in that regard.
I do worry, though, that you have not understood my argument about NOT specifying an image width in pixels (as opposed to a relative sizing expressed as a factor of the users default by using the "upright=n" image syntax) when it is within about 10% of the default of 180px.
It would be nice to hear others opinions as to both the aesthetics and the other reasons I gave for making this change... --Ttcf (talk) 13:28, 20 February 2014 (EST)
Large scale deletions without adequate explanation
Most probably it was a vandal edit because all the content that 18.104.22.168 deleted was valuable. I brought it back. Thanks! IBAlex (talk) 15:08, 24 February 2014 (EST)
I had a suspicion that the deletions might be related to the edit that immediately preceded the series of edits I complained about. That preceding edit summary talked about removing material not properly attributed to another travel website, and I wondered if it was sufficient attribution to mention that other Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 licensed website in the edit summary or whether something more was needed when restoring the excised material?
Obviously the question is now moot since you've restored it, IBAlex. --Ttcf (talk) 16:03, 24 February 2014 (EST)
As far as I am aware, the publishing collaboration with User:Peterfitzgerald, User:Jpatokal, User:Maj and User:Evan, etc ceased in 2011, so may we now remove the special markup such as <!--WEB-START--> and <!--WEB-END--> that still lingers on in some articles such as Chicago, Paris and Singapore? --Ttcf (talk) 17:42, 23 February 2014 (EST)
Except for about 50 countries with universally known currency notation exceptions, our Wikitravel:Currency policy requires most currencies in the world to be formatted with the three letter ISO 4217 code for the currency in block capitals and no intervening space.
eg: AZN100 in Azerbaijan, not100 Azerbaijani New Manat.
I have been thwarted on more than 20 occasions today with the message: "This action has been automatically identified as harmful, and therefore disallowed. If you believe your edit was constructive, please inform an administrator of what you were trying to do. A brief description of the abuse rule which your action matched is: Vandalism in all caps" when trying to make an edit such as the following:
If you get the train from Aguas Calientes to Ollantaytambo, there will be a bunch of combis waiting for you outside the train station that go to Cusco Plaza de Armas. Some are PEN10 and some are PEN15.
Please would someone with sufficient privileges adjust this demonic filter? --Ttcf (talk) 01:31, 24 February 2014 (EST)
Hi Ttcf! Great that you told me about it! Let me explain what happened. The filter mistakenly assumed you wanted to use the profanity word for "PENI*", encrypting it with "1" and "5". The reason we have a filter for this encrypted word is because in the past we had many examples of profanity edits like that. The filter has been so far 100% effective, creating no false-positives at all. I changed it now so that it won't stop you again. Thank you for helping us improve the site. Best, IBAlex (talk) 15:01, 24 February 2014 (EST)
Yes I did think that was probably the case. It's unfortunate that the recommended ISO symbolization for Peruvian currency is "PEN" and obviously Peruvian prices will sometimes include a figure one as the next character. Is there a trusted user level that might bypass these filters? That way you could still keep this filter to weed out the onanistic vandals but allow bona fide edits (I have been editing on this particular site for more than ten years now...) --Ttcf (talk) 15:52, 24 February 2014 (EST)
For the last decade or so we have not made much of a distinction between editors who have admin rights and those who don't.
Traditionally all editors have had both the ability and the opportunity to plunge forward and make edits that benefit the traveller.
Sometimes these edits are reverted because they are clearly against policy or our Manual of Style or simply because the reverting editor simply doesn't like the change.
However, if reverts are to be constructive it's important that the editor that rolls back an edit made in good faith then explains their viewpoint on the editor's talk page if the reason is not obvious or - if it's a general point or concerning a policy development - on the relevant article's discussion page.
If this discussion does not take place, then editors may become discouraged or simply confused at the difference between what is written on our policy pages and their personal experience.
PS: Obviously I except you from this little sermon, Koavf! --Ttcf (talk) 21:39, 24 February 2014 (EST)
Community It's true that making a community, establishing one over time, or re-building one is difficult and requires some kind of communication. Unfortunately, there aren't many editors here who are willing to do that. I'm glad that you're evidently interested in talking and adding to content here, Ttcf. Koavf (talk) 04:43, 25 February 2014 (EST)
Historically most of my thousands of edits have been copyediting and syntax corrections. Occasionally I do add content - but I'm reluctant to do that if my work is just going to be reverted without explanation or discussion. --Ttcf (talk) 05:06, 25 February 2014 (EST)
I think we have quite a nice group of editors at the moment, we are all doing our best to work on the articles and communicate with the editors when needed. For this I use the summary field a lot as well, everyone can see there why an edit was reverted and this works well. My focus is really to remove spam and actually add content, no need to discuss everything I do here, and I greatly appreciate anyone who is trying to contribute to Wikitravel and interact with each other in a positive way. Happy editing all! Adzas (talk) 11:46, 25 February 2014 (EST)
Yes, the edit summary field can be very useful for those quick explanations where no dialogue or discussion is needed. However edit summaries do have some limitations:
1) IPs and inexperienced editors may not even know about (or bother to check) the edit histories and, therefore, may never see the summaries
2) They are not really designed for dialogue and, therefore, limit any in-depth discussion
3) Particularly for developing policy and preserving a record of the arguments raised they are very clumsy.
I do appreciate that your focus is on fighting spam and that is a huge and necessary task here. However, if we are to remain up-to-date and relevant, then It will be necessary from time to time to have multilateral discussions and I do hope that you will "interact with each other in a positive way".
I was archiving my talk page this afternoon when my system crashed, just didn´t have a chance yet to correct that but was not my priority either, as it is only my talk page. I did not see the need to discuss the other edit further, I´m not here to have endless discussions about who is right or who is wrong. Happy editing! Adzas (talk) 18:58, 3 March 2014 (EST)
I'm sorry you've been having problems, Adzas, and I hope you get them solved soon.
However, wikis do function better when people have the time to communicate one with another. That communication doesn't have to be long-winded or endless. Just a simple acknowledgement of a mistake or that the mistake has been corrected or the reasoning behind a reversion by reference to a particular established policy is often sufficient. I don't expect immediate replies, but it's not a good look when comments on a discussion or users talk page just disappear (three times) without a response. --Ttcf (talk) 19:07, 3 March 2014 (EST)
There are some points of etiquette in using User Talk pages that have built up over the years. Here are a few that come to my mind:
Reply on the User Talk page that a question was posed or a comment made rather than going to the User Talk page of the user that posed the question or made the comment. (That user should be "watching" the page where they posted!)
If, in the heat of the moment, you said something you regret, go back and change it.
And, Forgive and forget when someone changes a nasty comment to something more civil and productive.
As an exception, it's impolite to remove a comment if someone's responded to it. It makes them look ridiculous.
In general, conversations aren't deleted from talk pages but are instead archived when they are old or no longer relevant. To archive discussions simply create a new page such as User talk:Mypage/Archive and copy the old discussions to it.
It's usually considered acceptable to remove something from your own User Talk page if you consider it embarrassing or harassing - after all User Talk pages are for communication and once the User has read it, it may not need to be kept for "pillory purposes".
It's best to wait until the page has grown quite long before archiving, and such archives should always be clearly linked from the principal talk page, so that everything is easy to find. Avoid archiving discussions on destination and policy article discussion pages. Archives should not be edited.
Unlike everything else in Wikitravel, it's considered bad form to change someone else's posts on a talk page — even to correct spelling or grammar (unless what they wrote is obscene or illegal or drastically effects the profitability of the website of course).
It's usually perfectly OK, though, to change something you wrote on a talk page, for any reason. If you made spelling or grammatical or syntax errors, feel free to change them.
Is there anyone editing here that feels these rules of etiquette are now outmoded and, if so, why please? --Ttcf (talk) 21:39, 24 February 2014 (EST)
It's heartening that, after 2 weeks, nobody seems to to feel that these rules of etiquette for User Talk pages outlined above are now outmoded, so I'd go on to summarise what I believe is the the current etiquette for other pages in User name space:
You don't have to create your main User name page but, if you don't, your user name will show in red. Usually, your User name page is used for a brief introduction about you. This can clarify if you have any business interests (or conflicts of interest) relating to travel and may point to personal or business connected websites. (However, if this page looks like it's been written by a robot and other Wikitravellers don't see you making constructive and substantive edits in other name spaces, they may think you are just abusing Wikitravel for your business interests and remove those links until you're able to justify them.) Unless by invitation or when there are egregious breaches of important polices, nobody other than you should edit your main User page.
You can include other stuff on your main User name page such as a portrait or other images or links to policy or other aides memoire, but all of this content must comply with our intellectual property licensing. Remember that Wikitravel is not a "personal home page" or a "holiday snaps" service.
You can create other sub-pages like User:MsTraveller/project1 or User:MsTraveller/Sandflies are a nuisance to work on projects or ideas outside the "main" travel guide, but don't forget that they're publicly accessible, and anyone can read them. Each of these sub-pages can also have a discussion page associated with it for collegiate co-operation.
It's up to you whether anyone else edits these other sub-pages. You can invite or dis-invite everyone or nobody or just a select few to edit and you should be the final arbiter on edits. Again, all contributions on sub-pages are subject to our licensing and must conform to our goals but, historically, a fairly wide latitude is given if it's clear that the general direction will assist our project. --Ttcf (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2014 (EST)
Objections These edits I made to userpages are clearly beneficial and I shouldn't be dissuaded from making them: 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. I'm hesitant to disallow anyone to edit much of anything, since there are small changes that can clearly be beneficial, even if someone is not specifically requested to edit a user (sub)page or if said page doesn't breach any particular policy. Koavf (talk) 23:11, 6 March 2014 (EST)
The edits you reference are all to main user pages and all are clearly small syntax and copy editing changes that most users would be grateful for, Koavf. The tricky part is in drawing the line between these changes (which were presumably effectively sanctioned after the event by the user when they did not object or revert them) and more substantive ones. (I know I've made these sort of interferences myself from time to time - and inwardly censored myself for succumbing to copyeditor's affliction). Perhaps you could draft appropriate wording for a caveat that I could add above? --Ttcf (talk) 23:27, 6 March 2014 (EST)
Draft Here's some language that might be useful. I'm just making it up and I'm not married to it. "Your userpage is space that you can use to introduce yourself to the rest of the Wikitravel community: Give a bio of who you are, list areas where you've travelled, even add photos of yourself and your destinations from Shared. Userpages have more relaxed guidelines to their content than the actual travel guide articles and individual users are responsible for the content on their userpages (including blank ones). Generally, there is no need to edit someone else's userpage, except for non-controversial editing (such as correcting typos), removing spam or other violations of our site-wide policies, and if you are requested to edit someone's userpage." Something like that, I guess. Koavf (talk) 00:42, 7 March 2014 (EST)
Please would someone explain to me why it is helpful for travellers to have "maintenance" categories visible (as opposed to hidden) at the foot of many pages?
For example, how does it benefit the traveller to have visible at the base of our article about Jammu and Kashmir:
Articles with warnings
Articles needing style fixes
exactly? --Ttcf (talk) 22:13, 25 February 2014 (EST)
Hidden categories We can make these hidden categories, then. It's a feature of MediaWiki that's used on the English-language Wikipedia. These are useful for editors if not necessarily readers. Koavf (talk) 02:34, 4 March 2014 (EST)
That would certainly be my feeling if nobody is able to answer my (somewhat rhetorical question), Koavf.
As I'm sure you're already aware (but others may not be) categories that a page is in are normally listed at the bottom of the page, but in versions of Mediawiki after 1.13, (and I believe ours may be 1.17) a category can be hidden from this list by adding the magic word "__HIDDENCAT__" to the category page. MediaWiki category help page. --Ttcf (talk) 02:42, 4 March 2014 (EST)
Site visit statistics show that wikitravel.org has increased its total site visits in the last quarter and remains second only to lonelyplanet.com in global visits to on-line travel guides with all other wiki travel sites trailing far behind due to poor search engine optimisation. This is a vital metric for our editors to understand and appreciate since there is not much point contributing to an on-line travel guide that few people actually read.
The Israeli site reports the weekly number of visits in the last 6 months as follows:
lonelyplanet.com 12.5M estimated visits
wikitravel.org 7.2M estimated visits
fodors.com 4.3M estimated visits
virtualtourist.com 3.9M estimated visits
frommers.com 2.25M estimated visits
roughguides.com 1.35M estimated visits
WMF travel site 1.05M estimated visits
worldtravelguide.net 330K estimated visits
tripwolf.com 290K estimated visits
arrivalguides.com 120K estimated visits
concierge.com 110K estimated visits
letsgo.com 50K estimated visits
dktripplanner.com 10K estimated visits
(travel.yahoo.com is a bit of a wildcard because of the way that its travel guide domain is arranged with estimates going as high as 22.6M estimated visits and as low as 988K.)
However, Alexa also reports under "How fast does wikitravel.org load?" that wikitravel.org is "Very Slow (4.126 Seconds), 88% of sites are faster." and this may have important implications going forward since Google increasingly takes speed of loading into account when delivering organic search results... --Ttcf (talk) 18:44, 3 March 2014 (EST)
IBAlex: It took quite a bit of effort for me to collect and then to post the details above which you just casually deleted with an inappropriate edit summary of "" there is not much point contributing to an on-line travel guide that few people actually read"...no need for those biased opinions. Keep them to yourself. Thanks!" contrary to our stated policy at Wikitravel:Using_discussion_pages#Etiquette.
Now I do realise that you are very busy making lightning decisions about deleting linkspam, linkspam accounts and inappropriate plugs from business owners.
I can only think that perhaps you did not take the time to actually read what I had written before you deleted all of it.
To try and put it in simple terms, I was trying (unsuccessfully it seems) to make the points that
1) Wikitravel had seven (7) times as many eyeballs reading it as any other travel guide that had user authored content
2) Wikitravel was maintaining its second place position overall.
Do you really still think that the idea that editors should want to continue to contribute to Wikitravel because their contributions will be actually read by more readers than any other to which they could contribute should be censored? --Ttcf (talk) 02:29, 4 March 2014 (EST)
Wikitravel:Protected page policy currently states: "The revolutionary nature of Wiki is the ability for any reader of any article to edit that page right now. Wiki is the enabling technology that is making Wikitravel into a really great travel guide. Wikitravellers know that we need to keep Wikitravel open and available to make it succeed. We depend on the distributed effort of the millions of people on the Internet to get high-quality, up-to-date and reliable articles.
"However, in some circumstances, it may be necessary to protect a page on Wikitravel. When a page is protected, it can only be edited by administrators. This is an extreme measure and shouldn't be taken lightly. Whenever possible, we prefer to counteract abusive actions by some users with the ability of other users to edit a page."
Is this a mistake? --Ttcf (talk) 22:58, 5 March 2014 (EST)
Protection For what it's worth, I unprotected it. Koavf (talk) 01:02, 6 March 2014 (EST)
Thanks, Koavf. I can make a few fiddly, MoS fixes now - but it would still be nice to hear from the protecting IBadmin the reasons (or lack of them) for the original protection... --Ttcf (talk) 04:09, 6 March 2014 (EST)
The Walking Dead 1 is a special page that we've been working on. It's not finished yet therefore I protected it for the short time being. I was planning to make it editable once we're done with all the content. I should have kept it in Sandbox but figured that the protection status will save me the hassle of copy pasting the content from one place to another. Next time I will just keep it in Sandbox. IBAlex (talk) 13:17, 6 March 2014 (EST)
Thanks for the explanation, IBAlex.
However, I do think the general principle of "everyone can edit" is important to preserve in main article namespace and should not be sacrificed just because of the "hassle" of copy pasting the content from one place to another (?!).
If you work on stuff like this in your own User namespace you can have more flexibility. You can invite everyone else to edit - or just a select group. And while it's in your own User name space, you should be the final arbiter for all edits so that should provide you with all the flexibility and control you need. --Ttcf (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2014 (EST)