MediaWiki talk:Protectedpagewarning

Proposal
Proposal: something like this:

WARNING: This page has been locked so that only users with sysop privileges can edit it. Be sure you are following the protected page guidelines, and specifically that you are not involved with this page and are making only very minor changes such as linking NPOV disputes if this page is temporarily protected.

Is this too long? -- Pakaran 03:27, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure all that is necessary. I've added a link to the policy, and really should know they shouldn't be editing a protected page. There seem to be more issues with sysops protecting pages they are involved with rather than editing them after they protected anyway. Angela. 03:31, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Agreed. It was just a thought.  I think the number one thing to keep in mind is just not to do anything that might have the appearance of protecting a page in order to force an opinion on the community.  -- Pakaran 03:32, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Another idea
Since this warning can look rather close to the warning about 'This page is in excess of 30KB', I think making it stand out more (e.g. putting it in some nice red text :-) might be a good idea. Any thoughts? &mdash; Kate Turner | Talk 17:22, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)

Semi-protection
At the moment, this page is also served on semi-protected pages. This is confusing! Either the software needs to put up a different page, or this page needs to mention s-p. William M. Connolley 13:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC).


 * I think it should use a different message as well. I also think that this message (as well as any new semi-protected message) needs to be formatted differently. See MediaWiki talk:Editingold for a format that is small but hard to ignore/miss. I'd suggest an identical box (using the "usermessage" CSS class), but perhaps with a yellow or green color scheme. (To indicate this isn't an error or an important warning, but just a notice/minor warning). Something like this–

This page has been protected so that only administrators can edit it. Be sure you are following the protected page guidelines.


 * And something like this for any semi-protection message–

This page has been semi-protected temporarily, preventing anonymous and very new users from editing it.


 * Thoughts? The wording for the semi-protection message is just a suggestion, there's probably a better way to word it. =) (And could use some input at MediaWiki talk:Editingold since the discussion there has gone stale...) —Locke Cole • t • c 23:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * How hellish. Get rid of the colours immediately! -Splash talk 01:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Better: "This page has been semi-protected temporarily, preventing anonymous and very new users from editing it." I hate to break it to you, but four-day-old editors are not experienced. :) Superm401 - Talk 06:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'll confess the wording was poor, I was more concerned with the appearance. =) But I did change the wording to what you suggested because it does sound better, heh. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Make sure non-admins know it's okay to proceed
I'm seeing a drastic reduction in editing on George W. Bush which is semi-protected, and I wonder if it's because the wording doesn't make it plain that, if the user can see the notice, he is allowed to edit it.

So here's my wording:


 * Important Note: Editing of this page is currently restricted, but you are allowed to edit it. Administrators are advised to read the protected pages policy first.  All other editors may proceed.

--Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm a little confused by why we ask admins to first read protected pages policy, but instruct all other editors to proceed. This language would make more sense if admins didn't get warnings on semi-protected pages (only on fully protected), but I don't believe this is the case. Is it possible to display different messages based on whether the page is semi-protected of fully protected? This would be the ideal solution, though from reading above, this message is apparently used for both cases (and thus the wording that attempt to cover both cases). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Carbonite (talk • contribs).
 * Until very recently, this message was not displayed at all on semi'd pages, and I continue to think we should return to that. User:Robchurch is the person to bug; it was some change he made that caused it to appear on semi'd pages in the first place. He says it's not possible to have a unique semi'd page warning since MediaWiki has no concept of semi-protection; it's just one of a large number of configurations that can be made available (or something). -Splash talk 11:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, we now have MediaWiki:Semiprotectedpagewarning, so I've reverted to the original message. 01:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC) &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ral315 (talk &bull; contribs).

Proposed improvement
Frankly, I find the current warning message aweful. I much prefer this one:

Comments? Ingoolemo talk 22:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What is your point exactly? -Splash - tk 22:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ugh, no. — xaosflux  Talk  02:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

More similarity to this warning?
Could someone change the display to that similar to the warning on the aforementioned page? ~ Magnus animum  ∵ ∫ φ γ 21:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Why? – Steel 21:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to keep a consistent style between prot-warnings. ~ Magnus animum  ∵ ∫ φ γ 01:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Editing a semi-protected page is rather trivial. Editing a fully protected page is slightly less so, hence why this message is in red to ensure people see it. – Steel 16:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps something like:

 WARNING: This page has been fully protected so that only administrators can edit it. When editing this page, please ensure that you are following the protected page guidelines.
 * would work? ~ Magnus animuM BRAIN FREEZE! 20:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This appears to be change for the sake of it. – Steel 21:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's &mdash; like I said above &mdash; just to keep consistency between prot warnings that a sysop may see while editing; in addition to that, it's just a walk on the creative side, instead of red text.
 * Also, your replies are quite prompt; do you have this page watched or something?  ~ Magnus animuM  Brain Freeze!  02:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Div?
Would anyone object to me adding a div box to the this message (like below), for consistency?

 WARNING: This page has been protected so that only administrators can edit it. Ensure that you are following the protected page guidelines.

--MZMcBride 20:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed change
I have proposed a change to the format of this box in this AN/I thread. Bovlb (talk) 04:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The discussion you are linking to seems to be this one that now is in the archives: Administrators' noticeboard/Archive80. But I don't see any proposal there to change the format of this box and I don't see any comments from you on that page.
 * --David Göthberg (talk) 12:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Standardised styles
A discussion to standardise the styles for boxes of this kind has been started at Template talk:Fmbox.

--David Göthberg (talk) 12:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

wording
I was just thinking that at the end where it says "..can make edits" sounds kinda weird and redundant; and that it should follow the same format as the semi-protected warning and end with "... only those with administrative rights can edit it." Thanks, —Tommy 2010 21:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Update for template editors
Instead of an edit COI, I'm just pinging and asking him to take a look at this. :P

Or something like that. Thoughts?

See magic word demonstration at Wikipedia:Sandbox/Template editor thing.

 — PinkAmpers  &#38;  ( Je vous invite à me parler )  16:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅, thanks. Legoktm (talk) 16:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 October 2013
Change: WARNING:

To: WARNING:

This removes some complexity (no need to refer to templates or modules specifically, "page" is good for everything), and it also handles any future case where PROTECTIONLEVEL might not be sysop or templateeditor, by replacing sysop with #default. Also, changes "administrative and template-editor rights" to "administrative or template-editor rights". Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 03:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 24 February 2015
Please replace the administrative |undefined with [[Wikipedia:User access levels#Administrators_and_bureaucrats|administrative |undefined in both places where that occurs because the section name at [[WP:UAL has changed.

--L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 21:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ — xaosflux  Talk 23:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi xaosflux, you replaced administrative |undefined with [[Wikipedia:User access levels#Administrators_and_bureaucrats_and_stewards|administrative |undefined, however the section name is "Administrators and bureaucrats", so could you replace it with [[Wikipedia:User access levels#Administrators_and_bureaucrats|administrative |undefined in both places? Thanks, --[[User:Lixxx235|L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 23:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ — xaosflux  Talk 00:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Question
How come "extended confirmed" protection is covered under this warning? Should it be covered under MediaWiki:Semiprotectedpagewarning? It seems like extended protection is more similar to semi-protection than it is to admin or template editor protection. epicgenius @ 15:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC) (talk) 15:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It should be under semi instead of this. This will require something along the lines of T126607 to be completed by a dev. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 16:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This is being worked on. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 17:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update on the Phabricator task. epicgenius @ 20:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC) (talk) 20:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The software now uses MediaWiki:Semiprotectedpagewarning for extendedconfirmed (qqx example) so I have added a check to that message.[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Semiprotectedpagewarning&diff=714224585&oldid=419357245] MediaWiki:Protectedpagewarning now has unnecessary code for extendedconfirmed but new software features sometimes regress so let's keep it for the moment. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 21 May 2016
Per the change at the protection policy page,  should be changed to.

Mz7 (talk) 03:20, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅, thanks. Nakon  03:35, 21 May 2016 (UTC)