Template talk:Protected

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Protected Template:Protected has been protected indefinitely. Use {{editprotected}} on this page to request an edit.
Protection templates +/- Full Semi
Dispute: {{pp-dispute}} {{N/A}}
Vandalism: {{pp-vandalism}} {{pp-semi-vandalism}}
High visible templates: {{pp-template}} {{pp-semi-template}}
User talk of blocked user: {{pp-usertalk}} {{pp-semi-usertalk}}
Spambot target: {{N/A}} {{pp-semi-spambot}}
Sockpuppetry: {{N/A}} {{pp-semi-sock}}
Generic (other protection): {{pp-protected}} {{pp-semi-protected}}
Scrutiny of the office: {{pp-office}} {{N/A}}
Move protection: {{pp-move}}

Contents

[edit] first talk

What was wrong with the more elegant original lock image? --Cantus 08:55, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

Apparently you forgot to include GFDL info.-SV

Do we need a cheezy icon anyway? Dysprosia 03:06, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

And who is this User:Msg:Protected? Who is such that can dictate such with such suchness, regardless of the regards of the guarded and regarded? -SV

[edit] Poll

Use lock image?
UPDATE: ince this poll was started, there have been numerous new proposals and icons entered into consideration. To view a complete listing of all proposals, see User:Squash/Templates.

Support

  1. Cantus 22:49, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)
  2. squash 06:34, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC) See: User:Squash/Templates for template proposals. This is only a poll for 'Use lock image ?', however not a poll for an overall change to the Wikipedia template 'system' and therefore it is pretty unfair that people oppose against this poll (protected template) and people think the results are to oppose the idea of an overall change. I am voting support, because I want to see both this template and other important templates CHANGED! :-). See my The 'For' Proposition in the comments sections for all of you who think this is such a bad idea.
  3. —siroχo 04:58, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC) (After seeing some better designed templates, I think they shoudl be distinguished from the article better.)
  4. Ryan Delaney talk 13:05, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. David Gerard
  2. —Kate | Talk 06:08, 2004 Aug 2 (UTC) It adds nothing to the notice (which is only directed at editors, the minority of people who will see it) and only serves to distract readers from the article itself.
  3. Snowspinner 01:52, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC) It's bad enough edit wars lead to protected pages. Do they have to lead to ugly pictures too?
  4. Jmabel 03:07, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC) Like we need an empty graphic? Does it communicate anything not in the words?
  5. Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason this should not be done manually, rather by stylesheets. See User:Tim Starling/Feature poll#Feature suggestions for what needs to be done to make that possible. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 17:59, 2004 Aug 3 (UTC)
  6. Dysprosia 09:24, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC) Images add little, and are unnecessary. Ditto various above.

It depends which one

  1. Angela
  2. Johnleemk | Talk 12:51, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC) Ditto Siroxo.
  3. Neutrality 16:14, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  4. Radagast 23:19, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC) - So long as it obviously LOOKS like a typical padlock.
    I added a version to User:Squash/Templates with the more realistic padlock image Cantus uploaded. —Stormie 00:59, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)
  5. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 00:42, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC). Wow...it actually looks nicer than I thought it would. I support Squash's proposal!
    I also added a new template idea for stubs. If we do this imagifying stuff, let's go all out :D — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ)
  6. AlexG 01:29, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC) - see comments below
  7. I'll support if you find a better lock. That one sucks. Looks like a crayon to me. No offence. I really like the templates at the French pedia. If we had something like that, I'd def. support. blankfaze | (беседа!) 02:05, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    You can create your own lock that doesn't look like crayon :-)
  8. On Squash/templates, I like speedy delete and protected with Cantus's lock icon. I think the stub there is ugly. (Were there other choices? I didn't see any listed on this page.) I'd like to see a Vfd template that is less obnoxious than speedy delete. I don't know if stub can be improved--its on so many pages, and if you make the template too big, it'll be bigger than the stub page content. --ssd 05:23, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    I made it a bit smaller (stole from French Wiki), also, there needs to be a new picture, cuz the tree thing was made in photoshop within 30 seconds
    I hate the yellow lock icon. The -- is ugly, a real mdash would be better possibly. Ilγαηερ's icon for Vfd is confusing and unrecognizable. — ssd 04:46, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  9. I support, but with only with Cantus' lock icon. — Tasty Sandwich | Talk 14:33, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

We should have a separate default CSS for logged-in (i.e. editors) and not-logged-in (generally readers) so that things like this can be hidden from readers. Then we get as carried away as we like with flashy, noticable icons. Pcb21| Pete 11:03, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What about people who are new to Wikipedia and/or computers in general who like the visual things with coloured things... :-) squash 10:12, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)
They're beyond help. :) Pcb21| Pete 11:30, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm not completely decided about this but I'm not convinced the message is needed at all. You know a page is protected by fact it says "view source" rather than "edit this page" (or you see a warning if you're a sysop) so what does the template add? If the message is staying, adding an image doesn't make much of a difference, but I think I'd rather not have the message at all. Angela.

Ha, maybe "you" know that the page is protected because of the view source text, but what percentage of the readers are as sophisticated a wikipedia user as you are? For someone who has no clue about how things work because they're completely new or somewhat new, being able to edit pages and then suddenly come upon one that they couldn't edit could be quite confusing. We need the message. I have a preference for informative icons so that you don't have to read all those pesky words if you don't have to, but it does have to be an informative icon... Elf | Talk 19:25, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The French Wikipedia has been using images in their template messages quite heavily: see fr:Modèle:DesaccordDeNeutralite (NPOV dispute), fr:Modèle:Ébauche (stub), or fr:Modèle:Suppression (listing on VfD). I don't think there's a message for protected pages, interestingly enough. While DesaccordDeNeutralite is a bit garish, the others actually look quite good in my opinion; for one thing, the message is clearly distinguished from the article text. Something fairly subtle would be more appropriate for the visual style of the English Wikipedia, but there's still room for an image in there. Pictures, when used with care, can be a big help to navigation, even for experienced users - the brain parses colours and shapes more readily than words. If there are to be images, they must be good ones: recognisable, distinct from one another, and in keeping with the overall "feel" of the site. --AlexG 01:26, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The 'For' Proposition by User:Squash

Editors matter in times of trouble 1. Most of the articles on the Wikipedia doesn't need to be listed for deletion, protection etc. So how can that distract readers. But when the time when there is a page to be deleted and so forth - who is really the article important to now ? ... the editors and so it makes sense to make it usable to the editors and make life easier for them. There is no point in creating a bad speedy delete message for editors to see which the article is soon to be deleted anuway and there is no point for the reader to read the article either! :-)

John Kerry was recently semi-permanantly protected at a time when rather a lot of people are likely to be looking for information on him. George W. Bush is currently protected. I think that covers a reasonable number of readers.
I suspect that most people don't find speedy deletion candidates by looking for pages with the {{delete}} header on; they've more likely to use the category, csd page, or What links here on the template. It therefore hardly matters what the speedy deletion notice looks like.
I agree there is no point in "creating a bad speedy delete message," which is why I would like to keep the current perfectly functional one we have right now. —Kate | Talk 22:55, 2004 Aug 4 (UTC)
Ah, But Kate what about the people AFTER the person who have voted the article for deletion ?!... How would they know how to save an article ? squash 05:50, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)
Because it says to go to VfD and comment on why it should be kept. —Kate | Talk 09:19, 2004 Aug 5 (UTC)
Despite, your comments, I still think that it is better for editors to see the site notice clearly then make life difficult for them :-) squash 09:45, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)

Text-only messages look like part of article I don't like the text only templates for important site notices. They are distracting and when a person reads an article they have to see the article and people are more likely to confuse it with part of the article itself. The templates below that I have designed (including the icons) are supposed to be plain good. And so when a person sees a notice, they would not confuse it with the text. To many people they may seem too distracting and an annoyance. In opinion they are better then the text only ones because of the previously mentioned.

Indented italicised text, as the standard for notices about articles, should be quite hard to confuse with an article. Put a ---- below it if you really want. —Kate | Talk 22:55, 2004 Aug 4 (UTC)
That makes it even worse!, adding a ---- makes it even look more like the article even MORE! and makes it consmetically unappealing. IMO, the ---- should be used sparingly!. If the French Wikipedia has had sucess with their templates (they have a coloured table and small image) why can't the English Wikipedia do something more like that... The French have creative many spectacular pieces of work like The Eiffel Tower... :-) squash 05:50, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)
So don't add a ----. I don't see how the indented italicised text looks like part of the article. —Kate | Talk 09:19, 2004 Aug 5 (UTC)
Never the less, it is still text - and text with text still makes it look like part of the article! squash 09:45, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)

Help in navigation and usability The images assist in navigation with different colours and depth to make navigation better and easier... they are not distracting, In my opinion I think that making a site notice that looks like part of the article is EVEN more distracting then a site notice. And the minimal designs aren't THAT distracting at all!... The brain processes pictures quicker then text... as they say... a picture is worth [number] of words :-). But they add nothing to the template? ... They do, A person can easier distinguish a site notice from the article itself instead of some text only message and so it adds 'usability' in one meaning or another.

Minimal designs? WHAT minimal designs? They all have a border and an image. —Kate | Talk 22:55, 2004 Aug 4 (UTC)
Minimal-er then the previously proposed ones... do you have just have to think that everything I say is correct... I'm not PERFECT, you know... :-| I'm human... squash 05:50, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)

Help non-technically advanced users You may think, it is appropriate for individual templates, what about the techinilogically inadvanced users out there who like the appealing icons and know what to do, if they see something bad in the Wikipedia... do we just lock them out and wondering what to do or ask other people. It would be efficent for the Wikipedia that more people work on articles - whether they are really smart or not. See the logo - Wikipedia - The Free Encyclopedia... what does that mean ? ... I think it means it is open to all users out there not just those who are smart!

People who "know what to do"? If they can't even understand "This article is protected from editing" I really don't think it matters whether we add an obnoxious border and a picture. —Kate | Talk 22:55, 2004 Aug 4 (UTC)
Eh, it's supposed to have a visual impact on the person ?... so it provides a consistent site notice look with the speedy deletion notice ? squash 05:50, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)
The speedy deletion notice should look exactly like the protected page one, unless someone has changed that too. —Kate | Talk 09:19, 2004 Aug 5 (UTC)
Eh, what about those people with sight impairements who use the Wikipedia eh ?... how would they recognized the text from the site notice itself easily at a glance. And it allows people with no sight impairments to just have a glance and know what site notice it is! :-) squash 09:45, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)
If you mean partially-sighted people, then the issue is about the same as for anyone else: they tend to just use larger-sized fonts overall. If you're talking about people using screen readers, the existing template is actually better. Almost all modern screen readers will recognise italics and read the text in a slightly different voice, but they will not be able to recognise images and borders. As for Braille pads, I think that the results would be the same in any case, though I don't know for sure as I've never used such a device. --AlexG 18:38, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Some thoughts on interface design

While I'm not a professional interface designer, I have taken some courses on the subject, and designed a fair few interfaces, both good and bad. I'd like to share a few thoughts on the proposed templates.

  • To justify being large and brightly-coloured, something has to be pretty important. I am not convinced that "editing this page is forbidden for now" is important enough to make a big box worthwhile. That box will probably be the first thing a reader notices: do they really need to be told in quite such a loud voice? This visual style should be reserved for the messages that really are important, because otherwise the distinction is lost. Remember that we occasionally see messages like
    The server will be down for an hour starting 0400 UTC
    This is the most important class of message, but is less obvious than the proposed new templates! To keep the distinction, how large would the server-down message have to be? There are plenty of subtle ways of giving emphasis - like "putting something in italics and indenting it" - and if that's not enough, it doesn't mean that a big bold border is better.
  • Images should be used with extreme care. When looking at the proposed templates, imagine that you cannot read the attached text: all you can see is the image and border. What does it mean to you? That is the impression that someone will have when they see it for the first time. To me, the speedy-delete proposal (big red X) signifies "error" or "forbidden", for example. (There is a UI convention for this to mean "delete", in the context of a command - like on a toolbar button. When in the context of a report, it is much more common for it to mean "something's wrong".) It is very, very difficult to choose good images: if they are wrong, it looks bad - worse than having no pictures at all. Images must be consistent and understandable, and fit in with the overall style of the site. Which leads me on to the next point...
  • This site's interface is a large system; changes should be considered in the context of the whole system. Consistency is important: the new templates need to be thought about in relation to other article messages, and in terms of what they look like on the page. Just as an example, many articles with images have those images near the top of the page: how would coloured messages look there? Remember that people complained about this when categories first appeared, and were displayed in this position. (I'm not saying that this is a show-stopper, just that the issue needs addressing.)
  • I think that Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason makes a very good point in the poll above. This is somewhat orthogonal to the question of what templates should look like, but it would mean that they could look good in any skin.

I strongly favour a more subtle look as being more consistent with the existing Wikipedia style. I think that Squash's "minimal" designs are on the right track, but I'd much rather see something more minimal still! Sorry to splurge so much text out. --AlexG 18:38, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Sandbox

I have created Template:Protected/sandbox. I'd like to propose that radical new and experimental changes to this template be made there and played with before going "live", and we can discuss style issues here. Personally, I think the color scheme, font style (non-italics), and line breaking of the "yellow" version looks much better and clearer than the grey "message box" style one. But it's the killing of the history link due to the parser problems that makes it "cutting edge" technology that doesn't fully work. VV 22:34, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Revertion madness

Please take the edit wars to Template:Message box. That is where you get to change the format. We only have a skeleton here. --Cantus 23:05, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cantus#Final Decision, I've just blocked Cantus for 24 hours for blatant edit warring in violation of WP:3RR - David Gerard 23:32, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Do you think I'm stupid enough to violate that rule? The 3RR states "Don't revert any article more than three times in the same day.". I did not violate this rule. Unblock me now. (Cantus)
This might be an appeal to either of two technicalities:
  1. Cantus is arguing that a template is not the same as an article
  2. Cantus is arguing that day refers to something other than a 24-hour period (such as a UTC day, or a day in Cantus' time zone)
In either case, the ruling itself quite clearly says "any page" and "any 24 hour period". The three-revert rule has now been rewritten accordingly, and hopefully Cantus will know better than to expect that such semantics will protect him in the future. The block was completely justified. --Michael Snow 17:07, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Nope. It only clearly said "any page" *after* you changed it to say so, which was *after* I was blocked. Nice going, Michael. --Cantus 05:15, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)
1. Cantus is placed on revert parole, indefinately, as was applied to Wik. As a result, he may not revert any page more than three times in any 24 hour period. This may be enforced by 24-hour temp-bans at sysop discretion, as per Wik.. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Cantus. Seems clear enough to me. — Kate | Talk 05:26, 2004 Aug 18 (UTC)

Diffs of reverts:

—Guanaco 00:34, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

These links seems to be broken (there's no actual diff). I can only find the original change [5] and 3 reverts [6] [7] [8]. Where's the 4th? — Kate | Talk 00:46, 2004 Aug 17 (UTC) Ah—on a closer reading of WP:3RR I see it applies to any 3 reverts, not 3 of the same revert. — Kate | Talk 04:26, 2004 Aug 17 (UTC)
Guanaco's links are fine, they're actually diffs between the versions reverted to, and the versions after those reverts, which are identical. Goplat 03:00, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
And even if they weren't identical, a slight rewording doesn't make it not a revert - David Gerard 07:16, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] This template needs to be split in two

First of all this template and then another one for something like whats happening over at Richard Stallman now where there is no dispute but just repeated vandalism from multiple ip addresses, this template suggests that there is a dispute, somtimes there isnt. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 18:53, 2004 Aug 17 (UTC)

There's already a template for protection due to vandalism, Template:Vprotected Goplat 19:13, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Proposal

Standardized message box discussion and voting moved to Template talk:Message box -- Netoholic 04:29, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Template bloat

There's no need to link Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute or Wikipedia:NPOV dispute. The protection policy allows editing protected pages to add such links, but does not require it. Also, many articles that get protected already have those because of other tags that have been placed on them. It's quite good enough to tell readers once or twice that the content of a page is disputed; no need to repeat it twenty times before they get to the actual text. --Michael Snow 00:24, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

Just a comment- isn't it ironic that the protected template is protected? Thus, the protected template page is right with a protected template! :-) Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 20:35, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] protection log?

I agree with providing advice for how to get unblocked, but is the protecting admin the best choice if you're only going to list one way? Considering we don't want to get too wordy, maybe linking WP:RFP instead would be better? --fvw* 23:47, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Small change

Can an admin please edit it so the last lines look like this—

|}<includeonly>[[Category:Protected]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Category:Talk header templates]]</noinclude>

(removing the spacing between the includeonly and noinclude). Unless the spacing below the template is intentional, I'd like to think it shouldn't be there though. =) —Locke Cole 04:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Rdsmith4! —Locke Cole 04:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Who the heck made the template so small? I've just added it into a page and it showed up so small it was unreadable. I've reverted to a legible version. We don't want to get WP sued for damaging someone's eyesight!!! FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I prefer this version. The current version takes up half the page. IMO the notice should be as small as possible. Izehar 19:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] {{editprotected}}

Please mention that you can make a request to edit the protected page using {{editprotected}} -- Zondor 09:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Please edit this protected page to mention that it automatically categorises tagged pages into Category:Protected. -- Zondor 06:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC) or at least via noinclude -- Zondor 07:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Done. howcheng {chat} 20:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    • It is not relevant to mention in words the categorization, since that is what the categories bar at the bottom of the screen does. I'm glad that this has been removed as part of the revert. Admins do note that, just because a request is made, you are not required to make it, and some discretion is required. -Splashtalk 04:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Change icon

The current image is a copyvio. Please replace with GFDL graphic Image:Crystal file locked.png. —Cantus…☎ 03:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Done. howcheng {chat} 20:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Howcheng, please note that just because some requests a change, you are not obliged to make it. In this case, we finished up with a terribly ugle template, which repeated its own categorization, represented a substantial change to a long standing design, and was in general not particularly great. Please tread carefully when editing MediaWiki pages. -Splashtalk 04:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
      • This is not a MediaWiki page, but I generally agree, I'd wait at least a day before making changes to protected templates unless the change is obviously OK (spelling error, minor position tweaking, etc). —Locke Cole • t • c 04:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The image that was there is an image you uploaded under the GFDL, it can't be a copyvio unless you misrepresented the original license. The image is also used on Template:Vprotected and Template:Sprotected (and doubtless others). Please explain? —Locke Cole • t • c 20:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes. Please explain how an image you claimed to be the author of, and which you released under GFDL, is now a supposed copyright violation. If it is, then either you by accident or deliberately claimed the wrong licence for it. If your original categorisation is correct then there is no copyvio. A statement now by you that there is a copyright violation is worthless without explanation. After all, if you were wrong the first time, how do we know you are right now? FearÉIREANN\(caint) 20:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The lock icon.png file should be used, to ensure consistency. --Sunfazer (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consistency

I'd like to change the template, so all protection templates look alike. From:

This page is protected from editing until disputes have been resolved on the discussion page.
Protection is not an endorsement of the current page version. Please discuss changes on the talk page or request unprotection.

To:

This page is protected from editing until disputes have been resolved. Please discuss changes on the talk page or request unprotection. (Protection is not an endorsement of the current version.)

I made the border a little thicker, so the difference between semi-protection and full protection is still obvious. Alternatively, the semi-protection template could use a dashed line, to indicate less-than-full protection. -- Ec5618 16:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. howcheng {chat} 18:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request to have sort keys added

Please add sort keys to the categories. The following

[[Category:Article header templates]]
[[Category:Permanently protected]]

should change to

[[Category:Article header templates|{{PAGENAME}}]]
[[Category:Permanently protected|{{PAGENAME}}]]

– Doug Bell talk•contrib 08:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. howcheng {chat} 17:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] line break

Can someone but a line break between the two sentences please Gerard Foley 01:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Broken history link

The action should be history, not historypage. æle ✆ 23:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of Template:Protected on any talk page considered harmful

_ _ The template refers those dissatisfied with protection to a page with the same title except for having " talk" suffixed to the namespace's name. If the namespace of the protected page is already a talk namespace, the result is a non-existent namespace, and thus something that looks like it should be a namespace but is instead puts the discussion within the main (article) namespace.
_ _ IMO, the proper fix is to suffix "/protection talk" on the title, no matter what the namespace. If there is no quick agreement for a sub-page solution, i propose the interim measure of putting a msg (ugly but necessary) to the effect of "This template may not be used on pages that have "Talk" or "talk" anywhere before the colon (:) in their titles.", and some interim solution for talk pages that correspond to any namespace.
--Jerzy•t 01:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Can this be addressed? Protecting talk pages does occur, especially those of stubborn users. Possibly the creation of a {{protect-talk}} and {{vprotect-talk}}, without the talk links? ~ PseudoSudo 10:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Discovered at {{usertalk-vprotect}} and {{usertalk-sprotect}}. ~ PseudoSudo 01:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An idea

I propose using a smaller version of this box, which could be placed floating at the right side on the article.

Example:

Ths article is currently
protected from editing
(See why)
George Walker Bush (born July 6, 1946) is the 43rd and current President of the United States. Prior to his political career, he was a businessman in the oil industry and served as the managing general partner/owner of the Texas Rangers baseball team.

Bush, a member of the Republican Party, was elected 46th Governor of Texas in 1994 and was re-elected in 1998. From there, he moved on to win the nomination of the Republican Party for the 2000 presidential race and ultimately defeated Democratic Vice President Al Gore in a particularly close and controversial [9] general election. In 2004, Bush was elected to a second term, defeating Democratic Senator John Kerry. This term will expire January 20, 2009.

The See why link would direct the user to the article's Discussion page, where he or she would find the full explanation box for the article's protection, as well as helpful links on what to do.

What does anyone think about this? Is it preferably to have a little box in the main article, and then the full box in the Talk page? I mean, do we really need this. Comments? —Cantus…☎ 10:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea, but some layout problems may occur in combination with infoboxes, images and other right-aligned elements. RexNL 17:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea too. As RexNL said, there could be problems with infoboxes, etc. if placed to the right. A solution would be to place everything to the left. Slightly more intrusive, but gets the necessary attention. ☆ CieloEstrellado 06:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I have started a topic on this issue at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Unobtrusive_Protection_Templates and someone pointed me to this talk page. My idea is a little different, ad while I mention an option similar to the one presented here, I also introduce another possibility that I prefer. I had acutally though to check this page before posting my suggestion, but the heading 'An idea' didn't draw my attention and I thought it hadn't been brought up. Since this proposal should be implemented in all templates under Category:Protection templates, and another user has informed me that this may have been discussed on yet more talk pages, I propose that we move this discussion to the Village pump. I would also be willing to move my suggestion here, but it has implications on Wikipedia policy (overall use of title templates), and again, I belive would be better suited in the Villiage pump. I will copy the conversation there for the time being. --Inarius 22:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please unprotect this template for a while

I just want to make the links shorter! damnit. --Col. Hauler 09:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

{{tl:Editprotected}} Transclusion of template inserted w/o sig by Col. Hauler 09:57, 14 May 2006 & converted to lk by Jerzy•t 18:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Discuss clearly here how you want to change it; when there is consensus, an admin will make the change. (When the cost per edit is too high, as with widely transcluded templates, std. free-for-all Wiki editing becomes inefficient, and prior consensus substitutes.)
--Jerzy•t 18:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I've shortened the link by replacing the two variables {{SERVER}}{{localurl:}} with {{fullurl:}}. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 19:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Please someone change the border's color to the Wiki standard 1px #aaa. Thanks. ☆ CieloEstrellado 08:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Edit please

{{editprotected}} Hi. I want someone to do something to this page. I want to change where it says, "This page is protected from editing" to

This {{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}
|=article
|Category=[[Wikipedia:Category|category]]
|Help=[[Help:Contents|help]] page
|Portal=[[Wikipedia:Portal|portal]]
|Template=[[Wikipedia:Template messages|template]]
|User=[[Wikipedia:User page|user page]]
|Wikipedia=[[Wikipedia:Project namespace|project page]]
}} is protected from editing


This change also applies to {{sprotected}}

--GeorgeMoney T·C 01:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I've done the change on {{sprotected}}, but I don't see the need here. This tag should only be applied on the actual page it is protected on, eliminating the need for the code. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, what does #switch: if there's no matching case, e.g. talk or image pages? Using #switch: also requires Category:Templates using ParserFunctions. -- Omniplex 02:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Nothing; it's left blank. When I added this to {{sprotected}}, I added a case for talk pages. But I still don't think that this should be applied to this template for the reasons I outlined above. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I've decided to drop the request. --GeorgeMoney T·C 22:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sprotected template

You may notice that the semi-protection template has been simplified down to an unobtrusive padlock (Template_talk:Sprotected#Horse_and_Cart for the discussion). I did wonder about whether a similar change might be appropriate here too as it would certainly improve the reader's experience of the site, although I accept that as 'full' protection prevents editors from editing it might need the larger info box, but maybe not something quite as obtrusive as at present. Comments? --AlisonW 23:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image floats over sitenotice

With the new sitenotice, the image is floating right over the text of the sitenotice (in monobook at least). Over at Template:Sprotected, they added top: 26px to the icon's div (see the diff), and I'd propose the same here. Cheers! --james(lets talk) 10:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Done.--Commander Keane 14:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Now it's too low (or maybe that's because I turned the sitenotice off with my css). Is it even necessary at all? The reason it's on sprotect is because they don't have a boilerplate, but there's a boilerplate here. --Rory096 23:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Icon - licensing issues

The image was changed back (to the lock, Image:Padlock.svg) on Template:Sprotected as the keys image is LGPL, which requires attribution. This presents a problem as when the image is combined with the CSS hack to link to the protection policy, that you cannot easily get to the image description page (which has the licensing and other details required) from the pages where it is used. Thus, I believe that the image should be changed back to Padlock.svg unless there is a more suitable image that is also public domain. Kotepho 04:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Apparently no one has this in their watchlist. On a related note, I cannot find Wikipedia's copy of the LGPL (or GPL) so uhh, should probably fix that. Kotepho 18:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I've contacted Voice of All on his talk page. He only should be the one adding the keys image to this template. -- ADNghiem501 08:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
He reverted to a version before he edited. Done. -- ADNghiem501 08:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Coding

Hello there. I am from Wookieepedia, another Wiki project. After countless vandalism attacks, the vandals have begun to destroy our beloved project. In order to counter, and stop the vandals, many of us believe a true vandal-proof code should be used. Now, we've created Protection templates similar to the ones on Wikipedia, but the articles are never truly protected (the EDIT and MOVE buttons still remain). So, I'd like to request the proper coding necessary to completely lock our articles and save our Wiki project. Would you be so kind as to provide a code we could use to protect our pages? We thank you dearly. 154.5.130.212 03:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Is your site using MediaWiki? If so, any sysop can protect a page (there'll be a "protect" tab at the top of each page). The person who set up the site can head to Special:Userrights on your site, enter a username, and add that person to the sysop group if you want to make more sysops. --james // bornhj (talk) 03:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interwiki

Please, add ru-interwiki: [[ru:Шаблон:Protected]].

  • Done. Petros471 13:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Please add an interwiki link to the Vietnamese version of this template:

[[vi:Tiêu bản:Trang được bảo vệ]]

Thanks.

– Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 18:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for letting us know. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Please, add uk-interwiki:

[[uk:Шаблон:Protected]]

Thanks. --Yakudza 11:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. -- Steel 12:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Please, add sl:Predloga:Zaščiteno. Thanks. --Eleassar my talk 13:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. -- JLaTondre 16:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protection log link

Would anyone be interested in adding a link to the protection log to this and other protection templates? It could be done with the following wikitext:

[{{fullurl:Special:Log|type=protect&page={{FULLPAGENAMEE}}}} protection log]

If there is interest, let's come up with where it should go in the template and I'll slap an {{editprotected}} on here to get the change made. Mike Dillon 04:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Sounds like a good idea. I've added the link. >Radiant< 16:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit request - not for bluffs

Most people using this template should know what they're doing with it, but some don't. Can we add a noincluded instruction similar to {{Usertalk-sprotect}} to say:
This template is not to be used as a bluff. Only use it on PROTECTED pages. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. I've modified the message a bit, hoping to forestall those who believe adding the template protects the page, as well. Luna Santin 20:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, that looks ideal. I don't know why I forgot to ask for that - the vast majority of inappropriate use is of that sort. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Date parameter

Following a request on AN I added an optional parameter to display a date that temporary protection will expire. This can either be set manually via {{protected|<date of expiration>}} or computed with {{subst:protect|<days until expiry>}}. So, {{subst:protect|7 days}} will compute a date 7 days after the template was substituted. If no date is specified then the normal text is displayed. Note that 'protect' alone without substitution or a date parameter works fine, but {{protect|7 days}} would display incorrectly... if a date parameter is included on 'protect' it must be substituted. For 'protected' substitution is not required, but you have to do the math of computing the 'target date' yourself. Is this a useful feature / implementation? --CBD 13:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Sounds good to me, let's see how it fares in use. Guy (Help!) 13:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
This is a good idea, but I don't think using {{protect}} is right. As a note, I didn't even know about this expiry feature. When was it added?
Anyway, {{protect}} was just a redirect to {{protected}} before, and I think it should stay that way; people won't remember that {{subst:protect}} is different from {{protected}}. I've created a new template, {{subst:protectdays}}, that can be used for the purpose you've given {{subst:protect}} here. Superm401 - Talk 20:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I have moved {{subst:protectdays}} to {{subst:protect-ex}} and created a similar {{subst:sprotect-ex}}. If these templates maintain a consensus for staying, {{tprotected}} should probably be deprecated. -- tariqabjotu 04:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Note that {{subst:sprotect-ex}} currently does not work because Centrx keeps removing the functionality per his reasoning here. -- tariqabjotu 04:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Consensus does not consist of a series of "Sounds okay" statements in 10 hours. —Centrx→talk • 05:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Nobody said it was. What I don't understand is why you as (so far) the lone objector feel your position overrides the four of our's, especially when that position calls for people to not even have the option of mentioning the time of expiration. -- tariqabjotu 05:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Why is this needed? Wouldn't this just encourage edit warriors to mark the date on their calendars and come back and edit war when it becomes unprotected? —Centrx→talk • 04:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
That kind of logic would suggest that we not tell people how long they're blocked or else they'd just mark their unblock date on their calendars. I seriously don't envision that being a serious problem; if it does happen the page could be protected again and/or the offending users could be blocked in violation of 3RR, et, al. -- tariqabjotu 04:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
For any temporary block, it is acceptable that the user return and edit. Protection is often for situations where we really do want the offending users to just go away. For semi-protection, this can mean a host of IPs or sockpuppets—the equivalent in blocking terms is an indefinite block, where there is no time limit to tell them about. It should not enter the person's mind that he can just come right back at a fixed time. For full protection, we do want them to Wikipedia:Resolving disputes#Second step: Disengage for a while and come back with clear heads at staggered times that allow for reflection, not to both show up the day the protection expires and just start edit warring again. "if it does happen the page could be protected again": the page should not need to be protected again, pages should be protected for the least amount of time possible. —Centrx→talk • 04:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
the equivalent in blocking terms is an indefinite block Okay... so you protect the page indefinitely, like was done prior to the introduction of the new feature. And, again, no one is required to use any of these templates to specify the time period. If you fear a problem will arise just use the regular ole' protection. However, there are likely to be readers who would like to know when an article may be unprotected so they can get a chance to edit it. With the expiration date and time clearly showing in the histories now, I fail to see how this functionality will do anything for experienced vandals except save them the three seconds it takes to look at the history. -- tariqabjotu 04:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
It's not just for experienced vandals. It's also for jokesters who may not even consider looking in the page history—but who do know their days of the month and can recognize when a page glaringly says "This page is protected from editing, until you come back in a week to vandalize it again." Regarding blocking indefinitely: Pages are not protected forever, but user accounts are. An indefinite protection is significantly different from an indefinite block. If any use of protection expiry inevitably leads to using indefinite protection like before, that defeats the entire purpose of it. —Centrx→talk • 05:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Indefinite and infinite are not synonyms; I was suggesting that pages could be, if necessary, just be protected indefinitely and then unprotected after some arbitrary time (as before). I also don't understand what you mean in the last sentence. -- tariqabjotu 05:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Additionally, the use of the parameter is optional. If you don't want to put the expiration time (which appears to show in the history now) in the template, you don't have to. -- tariqabjotu 04:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
The question is whether it should be put in the template at all, especially whether it will be possible for someone take it upon himself to come around and set the date on every template used (and that will happen). —Centrx→talk • 05:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Is it not too unreasonable to let the optional feature go and try it out on a few pages to see if a problem arises. Right now, all we have is your gut feeling about infrequent (i.e. not experienced) vandals keeping a Wikipedia vandalism calendar. You could be correct, but I just see conjecture right now. -- tariqabjotu 05:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
They don't need a calendar, they only need to realize that the page will be unprotected—and soon. —Centrx→talk • 09:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
They already know protected pages will be unprotected soon (that's policy). The only advantage here is that it's done automatically so admins don't have to remember. There's no point in keeping this info out of the template either, since vandals can just go the log. Superm401 - Talk 00:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
This is not about whether expiry or unprotection is appropriate or whether someone could find out when it will expire. The message is notice to everyone looking at the page, not just long-term vandals engaging in a concerted effort of disruption who know how to look at protection histories, and creates a list of articles by the date they will be unprotected. —Centrx→talk • 01:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
What you want is security through obscurity. That's not how Wikipedia operates. The template ensures people know the protection is temporary, and that's a good thing. Superm401 - Talk 04:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
The template already says it is temporary. This is not security through obscurity, this is more WP:BEANS. Security through obscurity is when obscurity is used in place of some other security. Not announcing the expiry date has no security cost, closed-source software does. —Centrx→talk • 05:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
People won't really be convinced it's temporary unless there's a defined and public end date. However, I'm not going to press this anymore. Superm401 - Talk 06:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Using this template versus {{Template:Protected2}}

I've started a discussion at Template_talk:Protected2 about when to use that template instead of this one. If you have an opinion, please add it over there. Kla'quot 16:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/r/o/Template_talk%7EProtected_1077.html"