MediaWiki talk:Protect-text

Why the "Page $1"?
Why does the protection infobox contain the phrase "...for the page $1" (Wikimarkup  $1 < /nowiki > )? It has been that way since the page was created in 2007. Are the nowiki tags an error that stop the $1 from being substituted? Guy Macon (talk) 12:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The $1 is a placeholder, and is replaced by the actual page title when the message is displayed on the protection interface. E.g., on this page the interface reads "You may view and change the protection level here for the page MediaWiki talk:Protect-text". Not sure whether the nowiki tags are actually required (don't known at which point of parsing the placeholder is substituted), but they don't hurt. Amalthea  13:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Guy Macon (talk) 14:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Confirm protection dropdowns
I realize this is almost certainly the wrong place, but I'm leaving this here because for the life of me I can't find the correct page. In the "Edit" and "Move" dropdown boxes in the "Confirm protection" area of the protection MediaWiki page, the top selection for both is currently "Allow only template editors and admins". This seems counter-intuitive to me; I think it is more logical for the topmost option to be no protection at all, as has traditionally been the case. So, if someone with the proper know-how would be so kind - and provided it won't break anything - could you please move "Allow only template editors and admins" down to the third or fourth slots in both boxes. Thanks. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:35, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think that order is being driven from MediaWiki, but from the source.  or  were involved with the code on this, pinging. —  xaosflux  Talk 02:00, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The order is actually coming from the configuration, $wgRestrictionLevels. I'll follow up with a bug and patch. Anomie⚔ 02:21, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for the quick responses. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:25, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Anomie's proposed patch is and is being currently opposed by odder, Steinsplitter and Ricordisamoa. Guys, can any of you explain that, because I honestly don't understand? Matma Rex talk 11:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * @Matma Rex: I don't think that is required.  Why don't you just continue calling the three of us fucking retards? That's helpful, thanks! odder (talk) 11:28, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Ricordisamoa has always been a nice person in my experience and I'd never say such a thing about them. Matma Rex talk 11:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * @Matma Rex: Fine.  If you consider myself and @Steinsplitter fucking retards, why are you pinging us and asking for information? It is clear that you don't really want it, so why bother. odder (talk) 11:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Just wanted to note that this has been fixed. Thanks again for the help. --Bongwarrior (talk) 16:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The drama about the patch was that it mentioned the Superprotect level, however this patch had nothing to do with that other than making sure if it appeared it would be at the bottom of the list. — xaosflux  Talk 01:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit request
The page links to Special:ProtectedTitles when it should link to Special:ProtectedPages, which is the actual protected pages list.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ — xaosflux  Talk 15:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, it applies to both create-protect, and normal protect - adding both links. — xaosflux  Talk 15:10, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Using a different version of the lock image?
Looking at the new full protection lock, I'm not sure the is a good fit for our use case here. My understanding is that we used the old full protection lock to represent protection generally, not specifically full protection. Given that the new one has a large "F" on it which, in my estimation, makes it look out of place in this context, are there any opinions on using one of the below images to represent protection generally instead?

I personally like the keyhole version (disclaimer: I made the keyhole one from the base SVG) and wanted to see if there were opinions either way. Best, Mifter (talk) 04:26, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah — I replaced it to match, but I agree having a good generic lock for "protected" or "unprotected" would be good. I have no strong opinion.  Courtesy ping . ~  Amory  (u • t • c) 15:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Agree, for this specific message a more generic lock is better - since it is on the message about setting the level. OK with either one, image should be locally uploaded then upload protected. —  xaosflux  Talk 15:58, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Seeing no opposition (or further input) despite the sudo tag, I'm willing to make this (relatively minor) change — let's say the keyhole., do you want to upload per ' request?  Not nearly as high-visibility as the others, but worth protecting nonetheless. ~  Amory  (u • t • c) 16:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * - ✅ -Mifter (talk) 00:28, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ — xaosflux  Talk 01:02, 20 November 2018 (UTC)