Template talk:Sprotected

Specifying the length of time

I understand the idea that we should not specify the time period necessary to become "an established user" but I don't agree with it. The idea behind semi-protection is to stop spur-of-the-moment drive-by vandalism. It does not and cannot stop determined or sophisticated vandals. Anyone sophisticated enough to get ideas like "Hey, I could build a vandalbot which creates accounts, ages them for four days and then hits semi-protected pages en masse" is sophisticated enough and interested enough in Wikipedia to get that idea regardless of the wording of this template. To me the idea of having a vague or cryptic message here is security through obscurity, a principle which doesn't really make sense for an open project like Wikipedia.

I think that words like "only established users can edit it" sound like semi-protection is way more restrictive than it actually is, making it sound like only a small elite can edit. The truth is that almost any user account is good enough to edit semi-protected pages and we shouldn't shy away from telling this to potential contributors. If people think "I'll just get an account and then I can edit this page in a few days" then that's good, not bad. Haukur 16:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

If the choice is between (a) inadvertantly alienating real newbies, or (b) inadvertantly educating the vandals (I'm not going to bother explaining my position on that spectrum), I'd suggest reverting back to the text-free floating icon version. — Jul. 2, '06 [14:55] <freak|talk>

It is a little bit pointless to suppose that anyone determined enough to make a bot or go to even the most minimal length to work around semiprotection is not going to take the 10 seconds to read the first line or two of WP:SEMI. Particularly when both the icon and the text-box version necessarily link to that page! If we are alienating real newbies, we should rework the entire policy and its implementation. We have bigger problems than vandals, despite the impression one might get from spending long periods in the CVU IRC channel. -Splash - tk 14:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Protection

Splash, you reverted to a previous version then protected, which we're not supposed to do, so I've unprotected, but I'm not sure how to proceed. What was your reason for reverting? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Protection_policy says that editing a protected page is justifiable when the edit is "Reverting to an old version of the page from a week or so before the controversy started if there is a clear point before the controversy." I would guess it is this clause that Splash had in mind. Haukur 08:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

That should be reworded, because what it's trying to refer to is situations where it would be bad to leave the material on the page for some reason. Where it's a simple content dispute between two equally acceptable versions, admins are not allowed to choose one version and then protect. Also, the part of the policy you pointed to is discussing an admin editing a protected page after it has been protected, not reverting then protecting. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

People are going to have to make up their minds either to have the small symbols and have the template on articles, or to have the words and have it on talk pages, but we can't have these very intrusive tags on articles that are continuously protected, or protected in the long-term, because they're very ugly. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that whether you revert first or protect first when you intend to do both is not an important distinction. I think that the clause I quoted from the policy page is indeed meant to refer to exactly the sort of case we have here - the case you have in mind, where one version is unacceptable, is the point below: "Reverting to a favored version." I do, of course, agree that Splash protected the wrong version - he should have protected one of mine! :) Haukur 09:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I dealt with this particular accusation and explained myself in the section above. It was the right thing to do (and I thought obviously allowed both by common practise and the part of the policy that Haukurth cites - it's meaning pretty clear - do note that I very clearly stated why I reverted to that particular version). -Splash - tk 12:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Most revert wars are about an edit that someone regards as controversial, so that sentence in the policy would allow any admin to revert and protect whenever they wanted to. We're really not supposed to do it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Not when the full sentence is involved:

Reverting to an old version of the page from a week or so before the controversy started if there is a clear point before the controversy

Is there a clear point before the controversy? Check.

Is it about a week old? Check.

I had not participated in the reversion sessions nor in any relevant way on the talk page; I don't care whether it is iconfied or not. Yes, I had edited the template prior to the iconification, but that's just because that's how the template was(!) before we try to tie me up in that one. There are a good number of controversial articles (those to do with Eastern Europe spring to mind) where there is no clear point before the controversy that would not involve a large-scale revert back over a lengthy period of time. In those cases, it would be impractical (at best) to revert, and that part of the policy would really not be useful or appropriate. It is natural that you should think I chose my preferred version and then reverted to it: this is the essence of the well-known page relating to the wrongness of the protected version; but admins shouldn't fall into the trap of complaining about that. -Splash - tk 19:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what your preferred version is, so I'm certainly not accusing you of that. What I'm saying is that, when you arrive to protect a page, you should protect it on the version you find it, unless there are strong reasons not to do so e.g. vandalism, libel, something offensive etc. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

In support of the status quo

I disagree with having to choose between moving a large box to talk pages and shrinking the box to an icon. I see several considerations here:

• Prevent confusion/frustration - Reducing the visibility of the box will definitely increase confusion and frustration. New editors are the lifeblood of the project, and it is important to make the site as friendly as possible to them. At the very least, the title "view source" tab must be changed if this box is de-emphasized.
• Improve aesthetics - I don't think it's particularly ugly. It's a little glaring, but then, that's the point. If it wasn't glaring, you wouldn't notice it.
• Transparency - "Citizens alarmed at sign indicating their freedoms are being abridged. Recommended solution: remove sign." OK, editing Wikipedia is not civil right, but I think the project would definitely get negative style points for looking like it's trying to be sneaky. Especially since as people have mentioned, it contradicts the "anyone can edit" reputation and PR.
• Separate content from scaffolding - This information is not irrelevant to readers. It is an interesting piece to know that this article apparently covers a controversial topic (that actually makes the article content seem a little more enticing) and that it has been fought over. It should put them a bit on guard - this article is not subject to the same processes as other articles, because not everyone who sees a mistake can just fix it. Then again, it may increase confidence in the project, because it shows that we're actively monitoring our content. Every reader is a potential editor, and it is useful to steer them toward the talk page because the normal process is broken for these pages.
• Help reduce overprotection - I'm an admin, and when I come across protected or semi-protected pages, I sometimes examine the talk page and history to see if it's still warranted. Having easily-noticed signs on protected articles is healthy for the project for this reason. I've seen many notice on talk pages that get quite out of sync with the article page, because people don't bother to cross-check.

In short, after considering Jimbo's suggestion, I think the current version of the template is best. -- Beland 00:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

A nicer icon

Perhaps a picture of a shield, or a suit of armour, might be a nicer way to say 'protected'? Regards, Ben Aveling 02:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Potential edit war over two different versions of the template.

There's now an imminent edit war between two versions of the template; this one and this one. I've improved on the Silver padlock icon, But, TheM62Manchester (talk · contribs) has reverted it saying it looks ugly. In my opinion, the silver padlock is an unlocked padlock which represents the article as unlocked to some, it also matches the color scheme of the template box and the other templates. I used the silver padlock since it has a more accurate symbol than a large gold lock, used on fully protected articles. I'm open for any input on this before WP:3RR gets involved. --LBMixPro ^{<Speak|on|it!>}

The silver padlock icon is only licensed under the LGPL, as a key image which was used on this template in the skin version is. We perhaps don't recommend using it, because of different licensing issues. We probably use any icon that is part of the GFDL. -- ADNghiem501 02:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Firstly the "new" icon is not an improvement but a disimprovement. Secondly the text runs all over the place and throws the box into a mess. I've reverted to the standard text and standard icon. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 02:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I've tried for something in the middle, shorter, while still being explicit. I've left the copper icon. I think the silver is prettier, but I prefer closed to open, given that padlocks can't really be half open. Regards, Ben Aveling 03:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The new silver icon looks bad on Mozilla Firefox. --TheM62Manchester 15:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

A silver icon is not identifiable on a white background. Not bothered whether it is open or shut, as long as it is visible. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I like of the silver padlock because it's semi-protected. FML ^{hi me at pt} 13:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Small font

What's wrong with smaller font? I can't see any consistency on the two other semi-protection templates I found - one has small font, the other has big font. I personally think big font just looks horrible on this template, and when used on some pages, the first sentence is on two lines (on my monitor), and the second line has only one word on it. _{J Di}^talk 21:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Not mentioning the time period, but

If you're not signed in, clicking View Source (where Edit This Page normally is) tells you "if it is semi-protected, any registered user with an account older than four days can do so." on the View Source page. If we're trying not to advertise the time period on sprotected pages... it doesn't make sense to me. It's mentioned where one would normally click Edit this page, and it's a new tab for users who haven't come across an s/protected page before, which means they're likely to click it. TransUtopian 13:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I changed it. —Centrx→talk • 14:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I just clicked View Source on an sprotected page I hadn't visited with the IE browser (and cleared my cache beforehand), and it says

“ View source

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
for Steve Irwin

This page is either protected or semi-protected.

• If the page is fully protected, only administrators can edit it; if it is semi-protected, any registered user with an account older than four days can do so.
• Why some pages are protected
• Discuss this page with others or request unprotection

You can view and copy the source of this page:

”

Did someone change it back? Also, am I correct that only admins can change the View Source dialog? TransUtopian 15:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It was reverted, you can bring it up at it at MediaWiki talk:Protectedtext. —Centrx→talk • 00:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Print a Page

You have this Template on the page self, no problem.

But why do you print it?

Or better:

Why don't you use

<div class="noprint">
</div>

this feature?

When I print a Wikipedia site, I don't want do see things like this and it doesn't look profesional.

-- MichaelFrey 18:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay. —Centrx→talk • 19:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Overuse

I'm sad to look at the what links here showing around 700 entries, is there any policy on the limits to use of protection (time limit, limits on reasons for using, etc.)? I have an Wikipedia WP account but I prefer to edit anonymously and it's one of the things I think makes WP such a huge success, the new protection policies seem to be a way of eroding that.

There's no official limit, per se, but articles should generally be unprotected as soon as possible and reasonable. We're committed to making Wikipedia as open as possible, and semiprotection was a way to reduce the number of fully protected pages. If you see a page which you think can (and should be) unprotected, please feel free to request the unprotection at WP:RfPP, or even drop a note on the talk page; admins sometimes forget to go back and unprotect some articles after a while. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Most are unprotected within a week. In general, they are checked and unprotected after about a month, but are usually unprotected before that by people at the article or on request. Note also that 700 out of 1.4 million is pretty good. —Centrx→talk • 21:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

700 pages may "link here" but that includes discsussion pages, project pages referencing this, etc. There are only 407 pages in Category:Semi-protected (normally added by this template), and this template is only transcluded onto 380 total pages. So ~400 is closer to the total. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I occasionally go through the aforementioned category and can remove the protection template from up to 10 per cent of the articles there at a time, because (usually) newbies have used the template on unprotected pages thinking it applies protection. You should factor that in. There is also usually a few user pages using the template when they shouldn't. On the other hand there seems to be quite a few semi-protected pages which do not use the template. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

They are still listed at WP:PP. —Centrx→talk • 02:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

And we are in the process of unprotecting old ones at the moment, so this was at a high ebb. —Centrx→talk • 01:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Prompted by this, I cleared about 10-20 pages a lit'l while ago. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Spanish

Add es:template:Sprotected

Has been added; thanks. Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Only "established" users

How is this true? I just witnessed a user with only 4 edits with manage to contribute to SSBB FullMetal Falcon 02:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It is done by the date the account was created. It might make sense to add a requirement for the number of edits too, but that might increase junk edits. —Centrx→talk • 03:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The template says "newly registered" not "established". —Centrx→talk • 03:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that basically the same? It's stated above the semi-protected article that's being edited. FullMetal Falcon 20:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

"Newly" is specifically about time; "established" can be interpreted to be something different than related to time. "Established" is what is used to positively assert that "established users are allowed; "new" is what is used to negatively assert that "new users are not allowed". These are not contiguous meanings; what do you suggest instead of "established" for the positive one? "Old" and "Non-new" are not good. —Centrx→talk • 22:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Recent changes

I thought I explained the changes pretty well. The template was smaller, less obtrusive for an encyclopedia that does have readers, a simpler explanation that did not have needless self-references, and divided options for action from that explanation. Which of the changes did you object to? —Centrx→talk • 06:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, the new configuration might confuse readers. Here's my objections:

1. Sprotection, if I'm not mistaken, is only supposed to be used to head off vandalism. See WP:SPP. In practice, the only other time I can think of it being used is to head off edit-warring with IP addresses, which usually are sockpuppets violating 3RR, thus a form of vandalism.
2. This is the most important point: a reader will not know why he/she cannot edit an article. They will only know that some of the more important articles are off limits. A new editor probably ought to be told why he/she can't edit the article, to avoid confusion. We don't need to baby new users and refuse to tell them the whole story because the word "vandalism" might be uncivil; as a new user, I would consider it a greater offense to not be told why I couldn't edit a page, then not be told on the grounds that I might be offended by such a term. In any case, I don't see how it's uncivil to say "this article has been vandalized". Even our subtle template message (e.g., Template:test2) use the term vandalism. You see my point?-Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I´m absolutely convinced of the new template format by Centrx.It´s and slim less obstrusive. The reader does not need reasons for a disabled page,especially not in a head line. I´m even opposed having this template at the front page. It would be more useful at the discussion page or better on the editpage itself. all the best Lear 21 11:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you could address my second point, which is that it's confusing to readers. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It is even more confusing having this template as headline in the first place. Probably more than 95% of the users are just readers, who don´t want or even need to know what kind of technical status an article is in. To minimize the template as much as possible is the most urgent priority. all the best 84.189.108.242 14:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it is ugly and is a pain for administrators to add and remove. The reasons given for having it have been that editors would be confused at not seeing an "edit this page" tab at top, and it includes the page in a category. I find the first reason not very compelling, and the second reason is not especially relevant as there is currently a bot that keeps track of them; the category could also be done without a visible messagebox. —Centrx→talk • 19:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Note that the original change[1] included the wording "Because of recent vandalism". So, there are a few options here, which can retain an explanation. Also, there were a few other minor changes, to which there appears to be no objection? —Centrx→talk • 19:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the template should be as small and unintrusive on the experience of readers as possible. Readers don't need to know that there was vandalism. Unlike a {{NPOV}} or an {{unreferenced}} template which warn the reader, these editor-only templates shouldn't be presented as first sentence in an article. Kusma (討論) 20:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm a bit dense, but I'm not understanding the reasoning as to why they can't read that the article was vandalized. Centrx, I like that other proposal you have btw. The original was a bit clunky; if we could get the message in and still make it trim and pretty, that would be nice. BTW, if people really hate this template, we could put it up for tfd and try to get a consensus on how it should work. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The reason for minimizing semi-protection information is that articles, with many more readers than editors, should be pristine and separate from the mechanics of Wikipedia, to which reader should not be exposed. (see also Wikipedia:Avoid self-references). Whereas neutrality, etc. templates inform the reader of information that is relevant while reading the article, that it may or may not be accurate, the semi-protection template does not have this purpose. Typically once an article is semi-protected the article remains rather clean, and there is no need to warn the reader about vandalism, which is pretty obvious; we also, rightly, don't use a template for articles that have active vandalism but which are not protected, such as articles on the main page. With the increasing popularity of Wikipedia, there are and will be more articles that remain semi-protected for a longer period of time. This was briefly discussed in other forums with regard to George W. Bush, which is effectively permanently semi-protected and will likely remain so at least until 2008. The information about an article being protected, and what to do about it, is present in the MediaWiki page that shows when someone tries to edit a protected page; this text can also be improved if necessary. —Centrx→talk • 20:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, the vandalism wording, especially referring to Wikipedia:Vandalism, is a WP:BEANS problem. —Centrx→talk • 02:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

*Considers* I may agree with you, if absolutely and only on that last point. But then again, it may not be a big a problem as we might think, given that the article is protected, so they'd have to go vandalizing elsewhere. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

They do, at least at the linked pages Wikipedia:Vandalism and Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy, before they were protected. For similar reasons, to discourage people creating accounts just to vandalize, we should link to Wikipedia:Why create an account? instead of directly to the Userlogin page. It is just one click more, but anyone who wants to create an account is going to create one (?), and anyone else will just see how easy it is to create a bunch of bogus accounts to vandalize semi-protected pages. —Centrx→talk • 04:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to return to having the symbol of the locked page. This template is very ugly, especially on BLPs, and particularly when they have to be protected in the longer term. Does anyone agree? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

This template does ultimately not belong on the frontpage . Keeping it as small as possible is only the first step. The protection note should be displayed on the editpage and nowhere else. all the best Lear 21 12:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Imagine a crime happening on open street, somebody gets hurt. Does the Police come and span a banner ATTENTION PLEASE! THIS WAS A CRIME! , ? NO - it is kept quiet and investigated behind the scene. all the best Lear 21 13:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm tired of the "less obtrusive" stuff. I mean come on. We need to actually say WHY the page is sprotected and what sprotection means. Just saying it is sprotected is unclear to those who don't know what semi-protected means. The problem I've had all along with the "less obtrusive" folks is that I don't think they see this from the point of view of the IP users or the newly registered users. They don't have the intimate knowledge of Wikipedia that we have. Many of them don't know what protection even means, much less semi-protection. That's why there is a need to explain why a page has been sprotected.

And I'm tired of the "well the template is ugly". Let's face it folks. ALL templates are ugly. I don't see the difference between this template and any others. I mean, Lear 21, don't all templates express things going on "behind the scenes"? Almost all templates that are put on articles (be it wikify or sprotect or clean-up) are indicative of behind the scenes work. And it's generally accepted that that's an ok thing. Most people who go to Wikipedia never read a talk page. The entire purpose of these templates is to get the attention of people in the hope that they will cleanup a page or make it more pristine. Or the template is informational, such as the protection templates. The whole purpose of informational templates is to give information to the users so we can explain why actions have been taken. If we're to make them as small as possible, what's the bloody point of having them?

Comparing this to the police at a crime scene is full of faults, the main one being what I just said. The purpose of informational templates is to be informational. Making this template as small as possible defeats that purpose. Another fault with your analogy is that without an explanational template, there is nothing to tell users what the "crime" even is. They are left to just guess.

In the end, I'm tired of this discussion. And I've been tired of it since it first started. I think those who want to make this template look like this don't seem to understand what informational templates are for. --Woohookitty^(meow) 11:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer it even smaller than that for BLP pages. The reason I don't like to see it on BLPs is that it implies there may be a problem and it encourages people to go looking through the edit history to see what the issues are. Short of deleting all dodgy edits to BLP pages, we can't avoid that if we draw attention to the issue. So my preference is not to draw attention to it, especially on long-term sprotected pages. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

There are many useful templates like the need for citation or clean up. This template is useless to any reader in the first place who just wants to read an article. It bears no value information for me as a reader and I´m confronted with it in the headline. Only as an editor, which is the vast minority, it makes sense. That´s why it has to be on the editpage and nowhere else. It has to be less obstrusve as possible, because it is dispensable. all the best Lear 21 14:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah ha. It sounds like your goal is actually just to eliminate the template totally. That's what I figured. I mean that's essentially what you are doing here. Making it this bland and uninformative is essentially eliminating it. And you basically just stated that you want it gone. So. What's the big deal with this template over say Protected? Or any of the other purely informative templates? My point is that if you really want these sorts of templates gone, I'd suggest starting up a discussion at the Village Pump instead of making this template useless because that's what is happening here. And again, I don't understand why this one is so terrible. Yes GWB and other articles are permanently semi-protected but I know of a few pages that have had the moveprotected template on for months and months. --Woohookitty^(meow) 00:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The move-protected one is completely pointless and should never be used. —Centrx→talk • 06:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Self-reference

I love it how the semi-protection templates are semi-protected and how almost all the full protection templates are fully protected :) --WikiSlasher 04:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Can someone add an interwiki please?

Can someone with admin rights add an interwiki to [[eu:Txantiloi:Erdi-babestua]], please? Thank you ;) 62.175.87.134 22:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Protected

I have protected the template because of the recent edit dispute, please discuss changes here and come up with a compromise. --WinHunter ^(talk) 03:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

If your not editing

It currently reads

Please discuss changes, request unprotection, or create an account.

Shouldn't it say

If you wish to edit this page please discuss changes, request unprotection, or create an account.

instead?

After all, if you are only on Wikipedia to read an encyclopedia, it sounds a bit like a general requirement. What do people think about this? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

This template is useless to any reader in the first place who just wants to read an article. It bears no value information for me as a reader and I´m confronted with it in the headline. Only as an editor, which is the vast minority, it makes sense. That´s why it has to be on the editpage and nowhere else. It has to be as least obstrusive as possible, because it is dispensable. Lear 21 00:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

What about the people that want to edit the article but have not looked on the talk page? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Sprotected should be a MediaWiki feature

Instead of relying on its users to add the template after an article has been semi-protected, MediaWiki should really add the notification automatically based on whether or not it is semi-protected. --Burstroc 21:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediawiki is designed to allow for policy change at the community level, I think the change you proposed would create a technical limitation on future policy change. Good idea though, perhaps a bot could go through the list of (s)protected pages and the list of pages the templates are on and make a page showing discrepencies that is updated regularly. If this idea has community support I could write this bot, although it is possible an existing bot can do this easier. Opinions people? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget to make sure it uses the right html tags on sprotected template pages so that it doesn't include it in the template itself. --WikiSlasher 01:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protect for featured articles

I'm thinking of semi-protecting featured articles of the day because they might be visible to many vandals... Bigtop 23:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Don't protect Main Page featured articles. (Also note that simply adding this template doesn't semi-protect a page; only administrators can protect and unprotect pages.) Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 04:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Removing sprotected

I think we should add a sentence to the template documentation indicating that "Removing this template does not unprotect the article", perhaps with a link to RFPP. It seems like some people don't grasp that, so if it's stated right here with the template, that'll help clarify the issue when informing users of how this works.

Also, if there is a talk page template being used out there for good-faith notification of users that remove this template, that should be linked to as well.

Finally, would it make sense to use the template doc transclusion pattern here?

Thanks... -/- Warren 18:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added the /doc subpage. Hoping for a little more input before we go ahead and add that other note to the template, though. Anybody have any thoughts, on that? Luna Santin 08:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed the editprotected request as the doc page can be edited freely. --Ligulem 08:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Eeerm... apparently I need more better reading skills, I had the idea we were adding the note to the template itself. But there it is, in black and white. Silly me, heh. Luna Santin 08:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Luna. -/- Warren 03:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Wording change

I'm not an admin, so I can't edit the template, but I believe the second sentence should read, "Such users may discuss changes, request unprotection, or create an account and log in." Xiner (talk, email) 22:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The "log in" is also for users who have an account, but have not yet logged in. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Unregistered?

I think the template wording "Editing of this page by unregistered or newly registered users is currently disabled." isn't correct. I haven't Signed in as User:Dzubint so I'm just plain old unknown IP 68.146.221.56 however I was able to make an edit to the Ian Richardson page which has the {semiprotected} tag on it. Or am I just confused as to what "unregistered" means? 68.146.221.56 11:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

(in case you're wondering why I haven't signed on, it's because I'm on a computer that I haven't done a security lock-down on yet...I'll sign on in about twenty minutes)

Someone had put the template in the article by mistake. The page was not protected in any way. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 12:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Request: Adding interwiki

I wish to ask the admin if it is possible to add the following interwiki within the template's page:

• [[ar:قالب:حماية جزئية]]

- Qasamaan 23:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. Picaroon 03:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)