Template talk:Pp-vandalism

Ns:main
editprotected

Please change "ns:main" to "ns:0" (ns:main does not work). Also, you might want to change "ns:image" to "ns:6". Also, please change "NAMEPSACE" to "NAMESPACE". Thanks! --- RockMFR 17:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done, apart from the ns:image change (it's slightly clearer than ns:6). --ais523 17:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Category
This template should add pages to Category:Protected against vandalism, either instead of or in addition to Category:Protected – Gurch 15:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done Harryboyles 19:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like
editprotected Can someone change this so it looks like pp-semi-protected? 68.101.123.219 01:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Done – 86.133.139.4 10:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Restricting Category:Protected against vandalism to articles, templates and portals ?
Like Category:Protected against vandalism, for maintenance, I think it would be worthwhile that the template categorizes in Category:Protected against vandalism only articles, templates and portals. They are the most to-be-aware-of, and other pages can be categorized in Category:Protected project pages, etc. The only visible change in the current category is that images will be moved to Category:Protected images. Cenarium (Talk)  02:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Date linking
It appears that this templarte links the expiry date for autoformatting. As autoformatting has been deprecated for some time, can this linking behaviour be removed? Colonies Chris (talk) 22:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This should be requested at pp-meta -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit request
Go to Village pump (proposals)  EBE123  talkContribs 22:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ❌ Come back when you have consensus... — G FOLEY   F OUR  — 05:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

"This protection is not an endorsement of the current version"
As preventing vandalism is technically an endorsement of the current version over vandalized versions, the first sentence should be changed to something like "This protection is not intended to prevent good-faith changes." Lophotrochozoa (talk) 23:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The reference here is to The Wrong Version, which applies to edit wars and suchlike. — This, that, and the other (talk) 02:28, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The sentence can also be removed if you think that's a better idea. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 17:21, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Not sure this is necessary. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Why not? Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 August 2013
Change: |small= To: |small= This allows use of the new pp-meta parameter.
 * demospace=
 * right=
 * demospace=

Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:14, 25 August 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)

Link to draft article
What do people think about including a link to the draft version of an article, if it is fully protected? This would allow collaboration to continue and aid discussion on the talk page. (This first came up at Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 15.) Regards &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Automatic removal by MusikBot
I see that MusikBot is removing this template from pages where it detects that the page is no longer protected, but my understanding was that this template automatically detects the protection level and doesn't display the padlock if the page is unprotected. It therefore seems unnecessary to remove it, and needs extra work to keep reapplying the template for pages which suffer from frequent vandalism and get protected fairly frequently. I assume that the function of the bot dates back to a stage when the protection status wasn't automatically detected. Have I misunderstood the situation? --David Biddulph (talk) 11:53, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

DumbBOT seems to be doing the same. Is the template documentation incorrect when it says that this template automatically detects the protection level and doesn't display the padlock if the page is unprotected? --David Biddulph (talk) 00:48, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Template?
So what does this template do? The usage is unclear so you mean that this template, when put in it will check if a page is edit protected and will show an icon if it is, but if it is not then no icon will be shown? User3749 (talk) 07:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. This, and all the other pp- templates, just use Module:Protection banner, but if the page is protected, it will show a banner or icon; if not, it gets put in a hidden category for tracking errors. ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 09:50, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposed new param 'sandbox'
I am proposing an upgrade to pp-vandalism to add new param sandbox, where opting in with no would have beneficial effects for sandbox testing, and especially for reducing the likelihood of error when releasing a new template version.

Background

Every time I copy a template to a sandbox and work on it there, I notice the appearance of (by ) which removes pp-vandalism from the page with the message, Removing protection templates from unprotected page (more info). While I get what this is about, it's slightly problematic, in that it disturbs an ideal development process of 1. Copy template to sandbox, 2. Alter sandbox code and test, 3. Copy working sandbox code to template; by introducing another step (replacing the protection), which is subject to human error or forgetfulness.

Details

Rather than being forced to either remove protection in the first place, or diddle the sandbox code after it is verified working to replace it, let's do this: create a new functionality in pp-vandalism which would check for the new param. If sandbox is present, then: Putting it differently: the base template is protected regardless whether the new param is present or not. Only in the case of a sandbox does the new param matter; there, it might be protected by local consensus if yes, but unprotected if no.
 * if the page is a sandbox (i.e., in Template space, and a subpage, and BASEPAGENAME is /sandbox), then the page is not protected if no.
 * if the page is a sandbox, and the param value is, then the sandbox page is protected.
 * if the page is a non-sandbox template, then the page is protected as usual; regardless whether it contains the new param, and irrespective of value if it does.

This would streamline the process of upgrading templates from sandbox copies, as well as reduce the work of MusikBot II. Adding this param is backwards-compatible, and would not affect any existing page where it is used. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:33, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As an afterthought: naming the param just sandbox might be confusing to some; maybe sandbox-prot is better. Mathglot (talk) 22:34, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You should be able to stop the bot from deleting the template by using no. Although I don't think topicons / messages will appear on unprotected pages. Terasail &#91;✉&#93; 23:19, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I think I have misunderstood here but surely most sandboxes are not protected so you shouldnt need the param to set if it is. You could just add a check to see if it is a sandbox? Since adding an extra parameter seems like more diddling for an editor? Terasail &#91;✉&#93; 23:28, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , I don't think we want to stop the bot, because it's doing the "right thing" in that editing a sandbox template does not have critical downstream implications if someone screws it up. I just think there's a better way to accomplish that, without a bot action being involved.
 * For the second part, if I understand you correctly, you would use something like a sandbox other test to only conditionally invoke pp-vandalism, is that correct? That would work, but would then have to be replicated on every template that required this type of behavior; perhaps not too high a bar but I just wonder if it's the right venue for it, as having a parameter here would allow a simpler invocation by param, with no change to all the templates that wished to take advantage of it, other than addition of that one param (which could even be inserted by bot if desired, with very low risk). The tradeoff of adding the param here is more complexity here (one place, critical template) vs. slight increase in complexity in all templates that invoke it. With your solution, this param doesn't change, and all the others do, slightly. Not sure what the right call is. Mathglot (talk) 23:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding "but surely most sandboxes are not protected ...", if you copy the entire code of a protected template, then yes, the sandbox code is protected, which is why MusikBot comes along and unprotects it. The alternative is, only selectively copy some of the code of the original template to the sandbox, and then alter the sandbox after you have tested it to include protection, and then copy that back to the template. (Or, copy the tested version, and add protection back directly to the base template, untested.)  That carries risk, imho. The point of the new param, is to make template protection completely transparent to the template writer, who need only concern themself with altering the template for whatever purpose they intend, without having to worry about protection considerations at all. Mathglot (talk) 23:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * First let me be clear, the bot task you're referring to is about removing protection templates from unprotected pages. This task does not actually protect or unprotect pages (though there is a separate, unrelated task that does protect templates).
 * That said, can the templates your concerned with use documentation? If so, that will automatically display the protection icon, so there is no need for pp or any padlock template to be in the source at all, effectively eliminating the issue you describe.
 * As for the bot, it goes off of Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. So if you wanted the bot to stop removing protection templates from sandboxes, the cleanest solution I think is to have pp check if it is being used in a template sandbox, and if so, refrain from adding the page to tracking category. I think that's basically what was saying in their last comment – that there's no need to introduce a sandbox parameter that has to be manually set, because we can automatically detect if the page is a sandbox. &mdash;  MusikAnimal  talk  19:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)