Template talk:Protected template
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Template:Protected template 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. |
 |
{{pp-meta}} | Full | Semi |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dispute: | {{pp-dispute}} | N/A | |
| Vandalism: | {{pp-vandalism}} | {{pp-semi-vandalism}} | |
| High visibility 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}} | |
| Long-term: | N/A | {{pp-semi-indef}} | |
| Generic (other protection): | {{pp-protected}} | {{pp-semi-protected}} | |
| Scrutiny of the Office: | {{pp-office}} | {{reset}} | |
| Move protection (disputes): | {{pp-move}} | ||
| Move protection (vandalism): | {{pp-move-vandalism}} | ||
| Create protection: | {{pp-create}} | ||
| Talk page info: | {{Permprot}} | {{Temprot}} | |
Contents |
[edit] Suggested merge
- Comment The difference between these two templates appears to be that one is for indefinite protection, and the other makes no reference to how long the protection will last. If these are used for different situations (the way high-risk templates like {{Test}} are indefinitely protected, but images on the main page are protected as high-risk only so long as they're on the main page) then I oppose the merge. I do not know if such a difference exists for the use of these particular templates, however. --Icarus (Hi!) 18:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Avoid redirect
I think that [[Wikipedia:dealing with vandalism|vandalism]] should be replaced by [[Wikipedia:vandalism|]] to avoid the redirect in Template:Protected template. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC) {{editprotected}}
[edit] Width
An editor applied a specific pixel-width to this template a few days ago. Why? This puts it out of sync with most of the other protected-page templates, which are coded by the stylesheet to resize to a percentage of the width of the content area. If the intent is to make it look nice as a three-line statement, consider that a portion of our audience will be using fonts of different sizes and spacing, especially as we start seeing high-DPI displays come to market. Hard-coding a pixel width works against this... even em would be better here. -/- Warren 00:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Looks like this edit. Let's see if I can get his attention about this. Luna Santin 03:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Culprit here: Good point. Have removed the width specification. Thanks for spotting, David Kernow (talk) 04:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Semi-protected template
Does anyone think there should be a high-visibility semi-protected template? I'm only bringing this up because I have noticed MANY templates that are semi-protected from editing because of high-visiblity, with either no template, or worse, this template (which implies that it is fully-protected, not just semi-). Just felt that this might mislead some people, and it could be useful. Thoughts, please? Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C 16:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Revert
I've reverted the last edit on this, as it was breaking pages, besure to check all of the layers of transclusions such as Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Hprotected before modifying. — xaosflux Talk 02:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
