Template talk:Pp-template

View Source
editprotected I would like to know if you can put the code of the template onto the page, because I need to get the template onto my wiki on my website. --Redbear81 17:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You can view the source of the template. Click the "edit" or "view source" tab. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 17:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for edit : W3C standard
editprotected Please use instead of to be valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional.

- Aither (Talk to me) 20:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * done. CMummert · talk 00:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Server load
editprotected

Could we add to this template a notice, to admins, to be aware that when editing templates that are widely transcluded, This probably needs to be summarized a bit more pithily. Grace notes T § 00:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) All pages that use it will not be updated instantly
 * 2) A fair amount of server load could result from editing templates that are very widely used, so while we shouldn't worry about performance, there is no reason to not exercise caution. Preferably discuss changes on the talk page first.


 * Seems OK to me. Not a lot of admins edit templates, though, so individual counseling is probably adequate. &mdash; Carl (CBM ·&nin education) . I've been going through Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests and find some awareness of this problem, like ais523's comment here. What's more, I'm not sure this is appropriate since many of these templates are substituted rather than transcluded. Look at this list for example.--Chaser - T 19:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's a proposal. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 14:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Carl and Chaser. The primary purpose of this template is to indicate that the template has been locked to prevent vandalism. If an admin needs to be educated regarding not editing a high-use template needlessly, then let's do that instead. Cheers. --MZMcBride 00:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm going to disable the editprotected request. Gracenotes, how about adding something to the administrator's how-to guide WP:AHTG? &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 01:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

== They're not protected from e

It should say "protected from editing by non-administrators." A.Z. 04:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Not done. The template does imply that administrators can edit the article. No need to make it longer than it al20:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Five Two words longer is too much? I am a person reading the template and I feel there is a need to make it clear and explicit that the page is not protected from editing, but that only a specific group of editors are unable to edit it, and it doesn't bother me if it becomes five two words longer. A.Z. 20:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * None of the other protection tags make this specification. I don't see a need to specify that admins can edit protected pages, as there doesn't seem to be any confusion about this fact. ---R]] 20:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I feel the form "protected from editing by non-administrators" is better than "protected from editing", and then some time after that the template tells you "by the way, despite the fact that this page is protected from editing, you can ask an administrator to edit it." This is confusing. Administrators would not be able to edit a page that is "protected from editing," but they would be able to edit a page that is "protected from editing by non-administrators." A.Z. 20:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * First "protected from editing by non-administrators" is not precisely correct. I believe that bureaucrats, stewards, and the like, would all be able to edit a protected page. And, no, I am not suggesting you expand the list of types of editors to whom the protection does not apply. In other discussions you have started, A.Z., about similar abilities that admins (and other "titled" editors) have, the point has been made that it would be an unusual circumstance where an admin, on his/her own, or at the request of a single non-admin, would make a change to a protected page. If enough non-admins make the request, of course, there would be concensus for the change and then an admin might either override the protection or, indeed, remove it. The articles Administrators and Protection policy are both readily available to any editor who is not sure about who can do what to what, and any admin will answer a question about how she/he is prepared to use the tools. Bielle 22:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * First, I believe that bureaucrats et cetera awell, that only have extra titles/tools.


 * You said that "it would be an unusual circumstance where an admin, on his/her own, or at the request of a single non-admin, would make a change to a protected page." So, to you, a page being protected doesn't mean at all that only administrators can edit it: it means that no-one, including administrators, can edit it unless there's a consensus for the change. If and only if there is consensus, then an administrator can "override the protection," that applies to him/her, the administrator, as well. In this case, the current phrase "protected from editing" would be a correct way to explain the situation.


 * If the above is true, then the page Protection_policy should say something about it, but it doesn't. I don't know if your theory is true, but I believe that many users disagree that it is. I remember when the reference desk guidelines talk page was semi-protected, everyone continued editing it normally, though that was a talk page, and perhaps the rule is different to non-talk pages. A.Z. 23:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Semi-protection is not the same as protection. As I understand, semi-protection only stops new editors from editing, and then only for a few days. (The talk page is often left open so that matters can be resolved in an effort that will result in the lifting of the protected status.) What admins can do, and what, in practice, they do do, are often quite different. An admin can (i.e. has the tools to) edit a protected page on his/her own behalf or at the request of another; however, in practice, admins don't do such things lightly or very often. (It's often an ethical matter: just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean it is the right thing to do.) That's my experience, and that, I believe is what has been said a number of times about this issue.  That there are wayward admins from time to time, or unusual circunstances, is true, but that it happens often, I would doubt. Bielle 00:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't the page Protection_policy say that? A.Z. 00:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Having looked at User access levels, it would appear that I was wrong about bureaucrats et. al. being able to protect pages. That surprises me, but I will assume that the chart shown there is correct. It does show who can do what, down to the smallest detail. however. I was also wrong about who is limited in semi-protection; the barrier extends to all non-registered users, too. Teach me to write before I check. To answer your immediately preceding question, no, I don't think Protection_policy  needs to say more than it does. Such an addition smacks of Instruction creep when the process follows quite logically from the requirement for concensus for change in disputed areas. Bielle 03:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki
Please add: no:Mal:Pp-template --Lipothymia 18:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Moved to no:Mal:Pp-mal. Please add. Nsaa 10:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Rich Farmbrough, 16:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC).

Please explain use of imagemap here
I am happy for someone to tell me how obvious it is. However I cannot see a reason at this point for the ⇒ s → protected  /  p → protected
 * ⇒ s → protected  /  p →  protected
 * ⇒ s → protected /  p → protected
 * There are other ways of doing it:
 * ⇒ s → protected /  p → protected
 * ⇒ s → protected /  p → protected
 * and of course  ⇒ s →  / p →
 * - Evad37 (talk) 14:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks. I usually use nbsp for that, but this seems just as well. FYI I just made the only change that seems to be necessary for use on modules -- let me know if you can see any other changes that might be required. equazcion   →  14:15, 22 Oct 2013 (UTC)


 * I created Template:Documentation/sandbox2 to test these changes as they'd actually affect the calls from the documentation template. You can basically pick any template-protected template (eg. from here) and use preview with documentation/sandbox2 in place of documentation to see the effects.
 * As far as module testing goes, we're presented with kind of a unique problem. Documentation and protection templates are placed onto module pages via "magic" from on-high. I don't fully understand it but via IRC I found out that it's either done directly via extension code or via MediaWiki:Scribunto-doc-page-show, or some combination. Even if it's purely the MediaWiki: page, and even if we could duplicate that to call pp-template/sandbox2, there would be no way I'm aware of to actually see it in use on a module page.
 * Pinging, , , for suggestions on the module testing issue, as it's frankly beyond me.  equazcion   →  20:45, 22 Oct 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I am not a Lua guy. Matma Rex talk 21:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify (I don't know if this changes anything for you), but this isn't actually a Lua code issue. We're just trying to test changes to a template that displays when Module: space pages display. equazcion   →  21:26, 22 Oct 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right, as far as I'm aware - there's no way to test the code on a module page on enwiki before we deploy it. You could test the same setup on a test wiki instead. I seem to remember that this is possible with Labs? — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 21:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * We could just implement it and tweak as needed. There aren't all that many modules, let alone protected ones, and this wouldn't actually affect module use -- only the display when someone navigates to a module page. What do you think? equazcion   →  21:49, 22 Oct 2013 (UTC)
 * Thinking about it, I think the module-space testing is a bit of over-caution. I'm gonna wait a couple hours and if no one has posted an objection I'm going to implement Template:Pp-template/sandbox2. equazcion   →  22:16, 22 Oct 2013 (UTC)

And, done
I made the edit. It seems to be okay except for the topicon rollover text -- it currently produces "...indefinitely permanently..." equazcion  →  00:22, 23 Oct 2013 (UTC)
 * Found the issue and made the correction at Template:Pp-template/sandbox2. Not sure if I should be making a quick successive correction though so I'll wait a bit to deploy that. equazcion   →  00:29, 23 Oct 2013 (UTC)
 * The queue seemed to be done so I made the correction. Let me know if anyone sees issues. equazcion   →  00:53, 23 Oct 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to convert this template to Lua
There is currently a proposal to convert this and other protection templates to Lua at Module talk:Protection banner. Please join this discussion over there if you are interested. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 23:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 24 August 2017
Modrick Buck Munatsi (born August 19, 1997) better known by his stage name Modrick Buck is a songwriter, Rapper and Actor from Hatfield, Hertfordshire. He is best known for being the lead singer of DB Dopeboy$ with his friends — Preceding unsigned comment added by Modrick1 (talk • contribs) 15:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 24 August 2017
ame Modrick Buck is a songwriter, Rapper and Actor from Hatfield, Hertfordshire. He is best known for being the lead singer of DB Dopeboy$ with his friends — Preceding unsigned comment added by Modrick1 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC) mann ]]''' (Talk to me/What I been doing) 15:23, 22 March 2019 (UTC)