Template talk:Protected2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Template:Protected2 is permanently protected from editing, as it is a heavily used or visible template.

Substantial changes should be proposed here, and made by administrators if the proposal is uncontroversial, or has been discussed and is supported by consensus. Use {{editprotected}} to attract the attention of an administrator in such cases.

Contents

[edit] Interwikis

Please, add sl:Predloga:Zaščiteno2. Thanks. --Eleassar my talk 14:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. -- JLaTondre 16:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Click

Template:click uses a wikitext/HTML/CSS hack to make links unclickable in graphical browsers (adding confusing links to other browsers), was proposed for deletion. Although there was a clear consensus about the problems caused by this template, the result was "no consensus" because this template is used in thousands of pages. However, great ideas were proposed to fix the accessibility problems (also for top icons), and a new WikiProject was created to replace it. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability/Clickable images

I'd like to ask you to substitute the Template:Click inside this Template:protected2 as done in other top icons like Template:Featured article or Template:Featured portal or Template:sprotected2 (that is, to make a {{subst:click|...}} to insert its contents in the template). This won't fix the accessibility problems yet, but it would help the WikiProject to find which pages use the Template:Click directly. Don't hesitate to contact us for more information. Thanks! --surueña 15:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Ligulem 00:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Different image

Did anyone ever consider using a different image for this template, seperate than that of Template:Sprotect2? Only mentioning this because without hovering over it, someone might not recognize the difference. Possible a different color, a larger lock, or the letter "P" on it, etc. Just a thought. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C 08:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need guidelines for using this template

When should this template be used instead of the more commonly-used {{protect}}? I think it would be good to come to consensus here, as I can see it being less contentious if discussed here than on a case-by-case basis in article Talk. My own opinion is:

  • As this template gives no rationale, we should be cautious about using it in places where an ordinary reader may wonder why the "Edit this page" tab is not available. Per Jimbo's third principle.
  • I cannot think of any reason to use this on articles. For ordinary edit wars, {{protect}} is carefully worded to notify the reader that there is a dispute over the current text and to disavow endorsement of the current version. In any edit war, there is at least one set of people unhappy with m:the wrong version and they would find it reassuring to have this stated at the top of the article.
  • My experience is that a prominent protection notice at the top of the article exerts some pressure on people to resolve the dispute quickly, due to being somewhat embarassing. Kla'quot 08:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    • If I may comment, a good time to use this template may have been a good way to protect Reality, and also keep the logic of WP:DENY in mind. GracenotesT § 16:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it should be left up to individual admins which template they use. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, contrary to what's argued above, the protected template gives troublemakers reason to want to keep the article protected and disfigured; they dislike the more discreet one because it doesn't carry a giant sign with it that they've succeeded in causing a problem. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with both the above comments. and given the almost non-existant Whatlinkshere for this page, I don't see any urgent need for creepy instructions. – Steel 16:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
There are no instructions at all for using this template, so I'm not concerned about creeping them. Templates for use in the Main space are, to a reader, part of Wikipedia's user interface, and consistency in user interfaces helps readers. It is important to handle edit wars as fairly as possible, and using the same template for every edit war helps to maintain fairness. Kla'quot 17:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I was asked to comment here by Kla'quot. I personally feel that this template should be the one of choice, as it is less intrusive and keeps the article's appearance cleaner and more professional. The verbose 'protected' is ugly, and does not add anything of value beyond the lock icon to the casual reader, who is our most important 'customer'. Anyone interested can always click on Discussion and get the details about the entry's current status. Crum375 18:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I think, in any protection longer than a day or so, this template would have to be the one of choice. A sensible guideline might be "Use the verbose one for protections of one day or less, use this for anything longer than a week." (allowing judgement calls on the medium-length protections.
That said, why not make a more verbose template to go on the page's talk page, to explain why it was blocked? 19:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC) Adam Cuerden talk 19:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree that {{protected}} should be used in most cases; the high visibility serves to remind everyone that protection is not the norm, rather that open editing is. That said, I commonly use this template in cases where high visibility is not desirable, the best example being many OTRS related protections. --bainer (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested edit

This template is protected, and should be tagged with {{protected template}}, or another suitable protection template. Thanks – – Qxz 19:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Y Done – Steel 19:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deprecation

Can this template be redirected or deleted? --MZMcBride 18:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

This template should not be redirected and especially not deleted. Nor is this template deprecated as users can still use it, although they should be pointed towards the newer version. — Moe ε 19:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)