Forum:The Halo wiki, forever "improving"?

I was wondering. Technically, because of the size and amount of articles you could keep endlessly improving this wiki. However, once an article has absolutely everything it needs:

- sufficient, clear, good images - a coherent, grammatically correct text without spelling mistakes written at a proficient level - a listing of all references and sources - a listing of all possible inks with relevant info

And it has been confirmed by a high-ranking person, shouldn't that article then be "closed"? Prohibited from being edited ever again. There will always be people who try to vandalise or add content which isn't relevant (even though they think it's the most important thing in the world e.g. a dude telling his own experience in a mp match on lockout - for example - on the lockout wiki article.)

Otherwise, we could keep endlessly improving this wiki. So once an article has reached that level of "perfection" we strife for; what happens to it?

Anyway, that's my question and my apologies in case this is already explained somewhere around here. I couldn't find it.


 * But suppose someone sees a way it could improve? Plus, until Bungie stops writing, no Halo subject will ever be complete. --Dragonc laws (talk ) 21:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well yes, true, but that's the problem. I don't have an idea how many halopedia editors there are at this very moment, but there'll always be somebody who thinks this word should be changed. Or his own story included (even though it's irrelevant rant) Or this scentence replaced. And in the process, your article's quality will go up and down, up and down, up and down, and we forever keep correcting.

So why not 'close it' when it's up? Besides, if a 'closed' article could still be improved, one could request one of the admins for permission to do so. He/she (the admin) will in turn decide if the request is grounded, based on valid arguments. I don't want it to be 'closed' forever so there's no possible way of ever editing it again. Hairy Ruben 21:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, that's not the way a Wikia wiki works (see here). Wikis should be full communities, not an authoritative hierarchy where certain users are to be considered better judges of articles. Note that the admins do not own the wiki, Wikia lets the community as a whole take care of it. --Dragonc laws (talk ) 21:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

That's true. But for example. An article about a certain multiplayer level. Once it has all the info it needs, all thg strategies laid out, written at a proficient level in decent English, has good pictures, lists references and links

Does it still need to be edited? I understand that the community owns a wikia and don't get me wrong, I don't want it to change. Just, perhaps, after that it may need some extra protection from vandalising. That's my only concern really

Hairy Ruben 11:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * A wiki is an encyclopedia that is "forever improving", as what you mentioned. It's not supposed to be "closed", not even a single article, unless it has been vandalised heavily. And furthermore, an article can always be improved, because there's no such thing as a "perfect" article.--Sp art an- 781  [[Image:Seaman.png|25px]] CommCSV 12:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)