If I went and deleted the reviews section from the WiH page on the basis that they might make people want to play it more than, say, ASW, which doesn't have a review section, you'd (quite rightly), call it vandalism.
The addition of a reviews section was
requested by the community after discussion. I'm hardly the creator on the WiH page anyway. Adding a reviews page to ASW would absolutely be a good use of time; removing them would contradict what the community seems to have agreed on. If you read the changelog on the WiH page you'll note that I actually went to pains to skew the reviews negative.
Would also be vandalism, if the rating bar was added by the creator of the campaign as a legitimate attempt to generate feedback.
It would no more be vandalism than removing a lengthy blog-style veteran comment by the campaign creator. The community has agreed that blog-style veteran comments are a bad idea. Campaign creators do not, I believe, have any special privilege over their own pages; the wiki is a community effort.
The poll refects community views, which is fine for old campaigns and such, the 'ownership' of which (or at least responsibility for) has essentially been ceded to the community because the original creators left. So a consensus view is appropriate for dealing with them. It's not appropriate to be applied when the individuals or teams who created the campaigns are still around, and can decide for themselves on things like this.
This is an entirely new assertion that I do not believe has precedent. The wiki is, as a wiki, open to editing by all. Will it be split into subdomains?
I don't at the moment recognize any special privilege that campaign creators have over their own wiki pages. This notion feels very much out of left field to me, and more appropriate for a campaign website than a wiki environment. Maybe the ratings bar could go there instead?
Additionally, you've now abandoned the original purpose of the scale, which was to provide diagnostic data to newcomers so they could decide what campaigns to play.
If only a portion of campaigns receive the diagnostic data, the following problem arises:
1. The data is not presented, because it is not available for all campaigns, and is therefore no longer diagnostic of quality.
2. The data is presented, and is taken as diagnostic of quality, in which case campaigns that do not have a ranking are either ignored or recommended as 'unranked' which is as much a slight as 'screening out of competition' or 'racing for completion, no time.'
Just seems like it's not really doing much any more.