Wikipedia talk:Historical archive/Logs/Protection log/Archive 1

I guess it's possible to auto-generate a Currently protected pages page either by analysing this page or by querying the database. This page is not that readable from that perspective. This page would be more accurate than the hand-created list at Protected page. Not a high priority perhaps, but would certainly feature on the "nice to have, and wouldn't wallop the db too much" section of the feature wishlist. Pete 16:02, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * This is something that can be done using SQL but it is fairly database intensive so shouldn't be overused. Personally, I prefer the hand-created at Protected page because there you get a reason for something having been protected. Without that, you don't know whether the protection was just accidental, and how long you should wait before unprotecting it. I ran such a query recently and found 39 articles not listed on Protected page. Without any way of knowing whether they supposed to be protected, I unprotected them, and Martin did the same with the 15 sysop pages that had no reason presented. Angela 18:23, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info, Angela. I appreciate that SQL queries should be used sparingly. I guess what I was thinking out loud was that if this log gets auto-updated everytime someone (un)protects something, as appears to happen, the same could happen for a protected page list page.. i.e. on a sysop hitting "protect page" a line gets added to the end of this page (and a message from the protecting-sysop added to the page, as here, which would go a good way to addressing your second concern). On a sysop hitting "unprotect page", the page gets parsed and the newly-unprotected page removed. Keeping the page continuously up-to-date in this way is not database-intensive... the only remotely time-consuming operation is to search a list of protected pages for a particular protected page. This would be quick compared with your SQL query which was probably something like FROM (ALL_ARTICLES) SELECT (PROTECTED_FLAG=1) which involves running over all articles in the database and being slow. Pete 19:17, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC) (who doesn't know about databases, so this could be a wasted discussion!). Pete 19:17, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I'm sure that's possible, in the same way the the Special:Ipblocklist lists reasons for blocking people, but I'm not a developer so I don't know how easy that would be to implement. Angela 19:42, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Whoopsie-doodle, accidentally protected Luna. The "protect this page" link is right next to "discuss this page", and there's no confirmation page in between clicking there and engaging protection. Perhaps there should be. :) Bryan 07:08, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"Are you sure you want to protect this page?"
Judging from the log, three times in the past few hours, experienced admins accidentally protected pages. The button lies right between the delete and discuss buttons. Wouldn't it be helpful to ask us "Are you sure you want to protect this page?" Kingturtle 03:32, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Already submitted as a feature request. Angela. 03:44, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)


 * I've just become one of those admins, having accidentally protected Image:Barnstar.png and then unprotected the protection log (or did I? it seems protected again) in my furious attempt to correct the slip. Ack! Chris Roy 21:29, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I think log pages are self protecting. Angela. 21:32, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)