Wikipedia talk:Cascade-protected items/Archive 2

Confusing section names
Hi! I just noticed that, in the section Cascade-protected images, two of the sections have names which imply that they have a certain exact number of images within them. However, these sections have a number of images similar to what their names imply that they contain, but not exactly the number that their names imply that they contain. Here are the sections:


 * The 50 most-used images contains 48 images.
 * The 51-100 most used images contains 51 images.

If someone could let me know why this is, I would greatly appreciate that!

Thanks!

Noah Kastin (talk) 04:55, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The reason why the numbers are wrong is because the images were added as a batch by the admins who made this page, but later some images were delisted from here but the counts weren't updated. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know, ! That makes sense.
 * Should the counts be updated or left as is? Also, is there some wiki-markup that can be installed into the header to recognize how many items there are in section?
 * Thanks again for the answer!
 * Noah Kastin (talk) 00:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Fairly sure that there is no such markup. Updating manually probably is the only way. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response, !
 * Should the numbers in the section headers be updated to match the content, or should images be added to or deleted from sections to match the headers?
 * Thanks again for the response!
 * Noah Kastin (talk) 01:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Moving one image from the "50-100" section to the "top 50" section? Yes, that could be done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:52, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion! Unfortunately, I don't think that this would completely solve the problem, as the "top 50" section would still have only 49 images. Moving two images from the "51-100" section to the "top 50" section would give the "top 50" section 50 images, but the "51-100" section would then have only 49 images. I can foresee a few ways this could be resolved:
 * Move one image from "51-100" to "top 50", rename "top 50" to "top 49", and rename "51-100" to "50-99".
 * Move two images from "51-100" to "top 50", and rename "51-100" to "51-99".
 * Move two images from "51-100" to "top 50", and add one to "51-100".
 * What do you think of these ideas?
 * Thanks again for the suggestion!
 * Noah Kastin (talk) 23:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I'd prefer #2 myself. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for picking, ! I'm not quite sure which two images should be moved. If you can let me know which two should be moved, I would greatly appreciate that! Thanks! Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 15:48, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's very important which image gets moved. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I suppose if you want it to actually be accurate and not just correctly counted then someone should identify which are currently the 100 most-used images and update the page accordingly. Anomie⚔ 20:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 12 July 2017
Please add Template:Submit an edit request to the Interface section; it is transcluded in an interface page, which should only be editable by admins and interface editors. Ups and Downs 1234 (🗨) 06:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * However, I did increase protection on that template and noted on the protection log. —  xaosflux  Talk 03:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Fully-Protected Edit Request on 12-12-2017
Please change the header "Meta Stuff" to "Meta Templates" to be more concise. --97.118.29.158 (talk) 02:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:41, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion
The template,, is not cascade-protected and should be, despite just being fully protected. Additionally, the templates,  ,   and  , have   transcluded onto these pages and should be cascade-protected as well. These are highly-visible templates. 2600:1700:A2A0:FB50:9112:9678:8358:6295 (talk) 18:09, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * ❌ I dont' see these pages needed special cascading fall backs from this page. You can discuss changing their protection levels at WP:RFPP if needed. —  xaosflux  Talk 18:21, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion
, the padlock image used to indicate cascading-protection, should be added to the list. It is now a high-risk image. However, a local copy of the image should first be uploaded here from Commons. 2600:1700:A2A0:FB50:9112:9678:8358:6295 (talk) 19:08, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That file is already cascade protected from Cascade-protected items/content. Additionally, it is present on under 50 pages. Please explain in more detail why you think it is such a high risk to need this page to provide fall back protection? —  xaosflux  Talk 19:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 26 November 2018
Change Image:Padlock-turquoise.svg to File:Cascade-protection-shackle.svg SemiHypercube ✎ 01:52, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ — xaosflux  Talk 12:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 28 November 2018
After the padlock icon change I think all the new padlocks in Category:Page Protection Padlock Redesign - (Grey shackles) (2018) should be cascade protected just as the old padlocks were. Currently the semiprotect padlock seems to be the only one included on this page, but we should add the rest. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 01:07, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- WOSlinker (talk) 08:03, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 25 February 2019
Remove lang, was reduced to template-protection by. &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 00:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done ~Swarm~   {talk}  00:09, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

List of pages on here that lack normal full-protection

 * Template:Are you sure?
 * Template:Book reference
 * Template:Book reference url
 * Template:Check talk Category
 * Template:Check talk Category talk
 * Template:Check talk Image
 * Template:Check talk Image talk
 * Template:Check talk Talk
 * Template:Check talk Template
 * Template:Check talk User
 * Template:Check talk User talk
 * Template:Check talk Wikipedia
 * Template:Check talk Wikipedia talk
 * Template:Checktalk
 * Template:Citation-needed
 * Template:Citation/Link
 * Template:Citation Needed
 * Template:Citation core
 * Template:Citation missing
 * Template:Citation requested
 * Template:Citation required
 * Template:Citationeeded
 * Template:Cite-book
 * Template:Cite-needed
 * Template:Cite-news
 * Template:Cite Book
 * Template:Cite DVD
 * Template:Cite Journal
 * Template:Cite Magazine
 * Template:Cite article
 * Template:Cite audio
 * Template:Cite blog
 * Template:Cite books
 * Template:Cite citation
 * Template:Cite dictionary
 * Template:Cite dvd
 * Template:Cite encyclopædia
 * Template:Cite magazine
 * Template:Cite magazine article
 * Template:Cite mailinglist
 * Template:Cite maps
 * Template:Cite media
 * Template:Cite missing
 * Template:Cite news-q
 * Template:Cite news2
 * Template:Cite newspaper
 * Template:Cite press
 * Template:Cite press release.
 * Template:Cite pressrelease
 * Template:Cite show
 * Template:Cite source
 * Template:Cite usenet
 * Template:Cite webpage
 * Template:Citeencyclopedia
 * Template:Citejournal
 * Template:Citenewsauthor
 * Template:Citepaper
 * Template:Citesource
 * Template:Class col
 * Template:Class color
 * Template:Class colour
 * Template:Classcolor
 * Template:Classcolour
 * Template:Conference reference
 * Template:Cute news
 * Template:Harvard reference/core
 * Template:Image other
 * Template:Needcite
 * Template:Needs citation
 * Template:Needs citations
 * Template:Needsref
 * Template:Pipedash
 * Template:Proveit
 * Template:Ref?
 * Template:Refneeded
 * Template:Refplease
 * Template:Source?
 * Template:Source needed
 * Template:Sourceme
 * Template:Tp
 * Template:Uncited
 * Template:Web-reference
 * Template:Web citation

Something should probably be done about these, whether it is removing from them from the list or full-protecting them. &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 19:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ I added full protection to match. Any admin further reviewing is welcome to reduce if they remove from here. —  xaosflux  Talk 14:22, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit request to add modules
After Module:Toolbar's protection level was erroneously reduced as part of a batch protection (it's my fault) it came to my attention that the modules used on templates listed here should probably be listed here too. Therefore, please add Module:Citation/CS1 and its submodules (excluding Module:Citation/CS1/Suggestions), as well as its CSS page I was expecting there to more modules to add, but I can't find any more. &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 03:53, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

There are several other modules that in theory belong here, but I excluded them because they're already cascade-protected through the main page. &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 04:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The module should be cascade-protected thanks to the transclusion of the citation templates? ... Oh, I see, someone decided to be overly "clever" by using Scribunto  in a Module:Lockbox instead of actual transclusion. But that doesn't actually do what cascading protection is supposed to do. Anomie⚔ 12:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Pinging . &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 12:39, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * To clarify: The point of this page is that you transclude the template on the page and all its subtemplates and modules automatically get protected too (but not its doc page or templates used there). But Module:Lockbox doesn't do this, it just "transcludes" the one template and that's it. If that's all you want, don't bother with this page, just protect the template directly (without cascading!) and be done with it. Anomie⚔ 02:12, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * ❌ per above. If there are small number of pages you want protected just request at WP:RFPP. —  xaosflux  Talk 18:48, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 6 February 2020
Per the discussions and arguments mentioned at Files_for_discussion/2020_January_29, File:Padlock-skyblue.svg, File:Padlock-black.svg, File:Padlock-olive.svg, File:Padlock-pink.svg, File:Padlock-silver-light.svg and File:Padlock-silver-medium.svg can be removed from this page. It's my deletion request so I won't action it myself. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:24, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC)