Wikipedia talk:Protected titles/Historical list of titles/Twinkle

Is there a point to protecting articles in this way? Just use protected titles, or protect a page directly. -- Ned Scott 06:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * TWINKLE adds things here if you use the salting system from that. I'm not quite sure why. Perhaps these should be migrated over to Protected Titles. --Deskana (talk)  06:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have been meaning to move this page to Protected titles/Twinkle for a while but haven't really got around to it. – Steel 14:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. -- Ned Scott 19:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Is this harmful?
I found this page by looking at Chocolate Rain which is apparently protected in some mystical new way which prevents the software from knowing it's protected. I.E. The "unprotect" tab does not show up! This is harmful in my opinion. Should this practice be continued? Friday (talk) 17:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * When you edit the page it tells you why it is protected, so I don't see the harm. It is the only way to protect a page that has no revision also. Until  ( 1 == 2 )  17:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It just seems like undesirable creep to have two different means of protection which are unrelated technically and require a different procedure from the user in order to protect/unprotect. I guess I can see the usefulness of it as a temporary stopgap measure, but I hope a proper solution is in the works.  Friday (talk) 18:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a solution looking for a problem. Until  ( 1 == 2 )  18:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is (I thought) obvious: letting these kinds of hacks accumulate is how software systems become unmanageable. Friday (talk) 18:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It is not really a hack though, the software is designed to allow empty pages to be protected by transcluding them onto a page with cascading protection. Until  ( 1 == 2 )  00:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's the total opposite of a hack, it's a software feature that was programmed in, called cascading protection. Until1==2 decribed it perfectly above. --Deskana (banana) 00:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Chocolate Rain
I just saw the performance of "Chocolate Rain" on Jimmy Kimmel Live and wanted to see if it had a Wikipedia page and come to find that it is protected from being created. Why?--Section8pidgeon 08:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It has been unprotected and recreated. Until  ( 1 == 2 )  00:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Protecting attack articles?
This page is currently protecting an attack article. An "Area Man" is suing a local politician, and is using a couple of Wikis to launch a smear campaign against the politician. Because this page protects articles mentioned here, regular ways of dealing with attacks are not available. Is this desirable? Would it be possible to have a recreation tracking project without preventing regular ways of dealing with recreated gunk? Weregerbil 10:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed move
I think this page should be moved as the "Twinkle" bit can confuse newcomers, it would probably be better at something like Protected titles/Misc. or maybe I'm wrong. GDonato (talk) 20:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I like the idea, but not the proposed title. Max S em 20:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I only thought of that in about 10 seconds, needs more thought. GDonato (talk) 21:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Or /Other titles. As long as Twinkle is no longer shown. I was surprise that the titles I've salted went there because the edit summary didn't show, "using TW". I only have the salt button when the sysop tools were added in my account.-- JForget 22:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Bad title
. (history) does not render properly, when the "𝄪" was accidentally changed to "�" by another user, not adding this title to the main page. 75.36.255.227 08:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks, GDonato (talk) 12:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Note a request for SALTing at RFP is likely to be responded to faster. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 12:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)