MediaWiki talk:Cascadeprotected

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quite a long sentence! =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Broken

{{editprotected}}

The recent changes to this message broke it. See for example Test page. Please revert them. Thanks – Gurch 09:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Y Done I've fixed it rather than reverting it. --ais523 13:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed new version

Have a look at User:SunStar Net/A Test Protected Title - this is a proposed new version I have made. Feel free to edit it as you want, I feel the new softer colour looks better. --SunStar Net talk 15:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't like it. I think it's too big, and I don't like images in MediaWiki: Don't hate the pastel box idea though. — xaosflux Talk 23:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link to AFD

Sometimes, a page is blocked from creation because of an AFD consensus. The problem is the link only refers to the first nomination. Is there a way to make it link to subsequest ones or do we have to use the old {{deletedpage}} tag? Even so, we still would need to tweak that template. I cannot do it because I am not an admin (yet). --VoltronForce 01:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Lacking a 100% consistent naming scheme for repeat nominations, there's no easy way to do this via the WP:PT setup. Our best solution is to simply place a link to the subsequent nomination pages at the top of the original. —David Levy 02:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
There does appear to be plenty of code regarding linking to certain VOTEPAGE parameters, but not sure where to pass those to it. We could link to the Page Logs first perhaps? — xaosflux Talk 02:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, with the old template, we can use {{deletedpage|votepage}} if the nomination page is not the first one. {{deletedpage}} with no 2nd parameter would link to the first nom if the article name is the same as the votepage. --VoltronForce 05:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Right, but then we'd be stuck with a dummy page (instead of a truly deleted one). —David Levy 11:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changes to match {{ambox}} per WP:TS

{{editprotected}}

Strictly speaking, this isn't an article template... but it seems to me it would be reasonable to make it match the new standard article space template style... no?

I've got an edited copy in User:Coren/Cascadeprotected. I resisted the temptation to add icons since the original messages did not have any.  :-) — Coren (talk) 23:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This seems odd; the cascadeprotected message only appears when the article is being edited. We haven't used message boxes for these in the past. I'd recommend asking about it at the village pump, since few people are likely to see the request here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
It's not odd— the message changes depending on whether the page currently exists, so if you copy-and-paste to a new page, you get the working preview, but as soon as it's saved the page exists and the message changes. — Coren (talk) 03:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
This is by design, of course, since you want the create-protected pages to show something (the "page does not exist" message) even if the page isn't there (which is the whole point). — Coren (talk) 03:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
This is what you get if you view a cascade-protected nonexistent page: [1]. This is what you get if you try to edit that page: [2]. Here's what you get if you try to edit an existing cascade protected page: [3]. Although I can't tell with a sysop account, I assume you only get the message for the edit page, not the display page. We haven't used boxes for edit page messages before, as far as I know. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, your examples look exactly as expected— I suppose you don't get the message during edition (you never get it on view) because you (as an admin) can edit the page and don't get the "view source" instead (which is where the cascadeprotected message ends up). — Coren (talk) 05:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Leave it be, we don't need any more markup in MediaWiki then is absolutely required (especially not transclusion of templates). — xaosflux Talk 03:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
The change was indeed just a suggestion for the sake of visual uniformity, and is certainly not necessary by any stretch of imagination. — Coren (talk) 05:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Though this editprotected has already been disabled, I'd just like to say that I strongly oppose the use of amboxes for anything outside message boxes as included in the main namespace, regardless of technical issues. Nihiltres(t.l) 00:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Color

{{sudo}}

Does the cascade-protected message really need to be in red text and bold? Being cascade-protected is no more severe a situation than if the page is fully protected normally, and the protected page message isn't all bold and red. Since this message is distinct from the normal protected page message, it should also have a different id attribute. Some explanatory links would also be nice.

How about changing this part of the message:

<span style="color: red; background-color: white;" id="protectedpagewarning"><strong>This page is currently protected from editing because it is transcluded in the following {{PLURAL:$1|page, which is|pages, which are}} protected with the "cascading" option enabled:</strong></span>

to this:

<span id="mw-cascadeprotectedtext">'''This page is currently [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|protected]] from editing''' because it is [[Wikipedia:Transclusion|transcluded]] in the following {{PLURAL:$1|page, which is|pages, which are}} protected with the "[[Wikipedia:Cascading protection|cascading]]" option enabled:</span>

which would replace this:

This page is currently protected from editing because it is transcluded in the following pages, which are protected with the "cascading" option enabled:

with this:

This page is currently protected from editing because it is transcluded in the following pages, which are protected with the "cascading" option enabled:

More useful and much easier on the eye, I think. Thanks – 81.153.158.137 11:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree but I suppose it matches MediaWiki:Protectedpagewarning like this. GDonato (talk) 17:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
So what? The 99.9999% of us who aren't administrators never see that message, but we see this one. We also see MediaWiki:Protectedtext, which has no red at all – 86.140.177.115 16:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I really like the helpful linking, but I'm a sucker for consistency (Like MediaWiki:Protectedpagewarning), and it's an important message which should stand out - toning it down might defeat its purpose. Nihiltres(t.l) 22:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
At least put the links in... – 86.140.177.115 16:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I've made the requested changes. This message is only viewed by non-admin users (admins see MediaWiki:Cascadeprotectedwarning), so the whole consistency argument doesn't make sense. --- RockMFR 19:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

D'oh. I was thinking of this as fulfilling the function of MediaWiki:Cascadeprotectedwarning, sorry. If only the MediaWiki namespace were documented better... Nihiltres(t.l) 20:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)