Template talk:Sprotected

message: I disagree with having to choose between moving a large box to talk pages and shrinking the box to an icon.  I see several considerations here:
* Prevent confusion/frustration - Reducing the visibility of the box will definitely increase confusion and frustration.  New editors are the lifeblood of the project, and it is important to make the site as friendly as possible to them.  At the very least, the title "view source" tab must be changed if this box is de-emphasized.
* Improve aesthetics - I don't think it's particularly ugly.  It's a little glaring, but then, that's the point.  If it wasn't glaring, you wouldn't notice it.
* Transparency - "Citizens alarmed at sign indicating their freedoms are being abridged.  Recommended solution: remove sign."  OK, editing Wikipedia is not civil right, but I think the project would definitely get negative style points for looking like it's trying to be sneaky.  Especially since as people have mentioned, it contradicts the "anyone can edit" reputation and PR.
* Separate content from scaffolding - This information is not irrelevant to readers.  It is an interesting piece to know that this article apparently covers a controversial topic (that actually makes the article content seem a little more enticing) and that it has been fought over.  It should put them a bit on guard - this article is not subject to the same processes as other articles, because not everyone who sees a mistake can just fix it.  Then again, it may increase confidence in the project, because it shows that we're actively monitoring our content.  Every reader is a potential editor, and it is useful to steer them toward the talk page because the normal process is broken for these pages.
* Help reduce overprotection - I'm an admin, and when I come across protected or semi-protected pages, I sometimes examine the talk page and history to see if it's still warranted.  Having easily-noticed signs on protected articles is healthy for the project for this reason.  I've seen many notice on talk pages that get quite out of sync with the article page, because people don't bother to cross-check.
In short, after considering Jimbo's suggestion, I think the current version of the template is best.  -- Beland 00:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  In support of the status quo 

message: Perhaps a picture of a shield, or a suit of armour, might be a nicer way to say 'protected'?  Regards, Ben Aveling 02:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A nicer icon 

message: There's now an imminent edit war between two versions of the template; this one and this one. I've improved on the Silver padlock icon, But,  has reverted it saying it looks ugly. In my opinion, the silver padlock is an unlocked padlock which represents the article as unlocked to some, it also matches the color scheme of the template box and the other templates. I used the silver padlock since it has a more accurate symbol than a large gold lock, used on fully protected articles. I'm open for any input on this before WP:3RR gets involved. --LBMixPro <Speak|on|it!>
:The silver padlock icon is only licensed under the LGPL, as a key image which was used on this template in the skin version is. We perhaps don't recommend using it, because of different licensing issues. We probably use any icon that is part of the GFDL. -- ADNghiem501 02:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tried for something in the middle, shorter, while still being explicit.  I've left the copper icon.  I think the silver is prettier, but I prefer closed to open, given that padlocks can't really be half open.  Regards, Ben Aveling 03:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The new silver icon looks bad on Mozilla Firefox. --TheM62Manchester 15:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: A silver icon is not identifiable on a white background. Not bothered whether it is open or shut, as long as it is visible. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential edit war over two different versions of the template. 

message: What's wrong with smaller font?  I can't see any consistency on the two other semi-protection templates I found - one has small font, the other has big font.  I personally think big font just looks horrible on this template, and when used on some pages, the first sentence is on two lines (on my monitor), and the second line has only one word on it.  J Ditalk 21:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small font 

message: You have this Template on the page self, no problem.
But why do you print it?
Or better:
Why don't you use
 
 
this feature?
When I print a Wikipedia site, I don't want do see things like this and it doesn't look profesional.
-- MichaelFrey 18:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. —Centrx→talk • 19:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Print a Page 

message: I'm sad to look at the what links here showing around 700 entries, is there any policy on the limits to use of protection (time limit, limits on reasons for using, etc.)? I have an Wikipedia WP account but I prefer to edit anonymously and it's one of the things I think makes WP such a huge success, the new protection policies seem to be a way of eroding that.
:There's no official limit, per se, but articles should generally be unprotected as soon as possible and reasonable. We're committed to making Wikipedia as open as possible, and semiprotection was a way to reduce the number of fully protected pages. If you see a page which you think can (and should be) unprotected, please feel free to request the unprotection at WP:RfPP, or even drop a note on the talk page; admins sometimes forget to go back and unprotect some articles after a while. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most are unprotected within a week. In general, they are checked and unprotected after about a month, but are usually unprotected before that by people at the article or on request. Note also that 700 out of 1.4 million is pretty good. —Centrx→talk • 21:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 700 pages may "link here" but that includes discsussion pages, project pages referencing this, etc.  There are only 407 pages in :Category:Semi-protected (normally added by this template), and this template is only transcluded onto 380 total pages. So ~400 is closer to the total. — xaosflux Talk 00:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I occasionally go through the aforementioned category and can remove the protection template from up to 10 per cent of the articles there at a time, because (usually) newbies have used the template on unprotected pages thinking it applies protection. You should factor that in. There is also usually a few user pages using the template when they shouldn't. On the other hand there seems to be quite a few semi-protected pages which do not use the template. -- zzuuzz (talk) 01:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are still listed at WP:PP. —Centrx→talk • 02:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Prompted by this, I cleared about 10-20 pages a lit'l while ago. — xaosflux Talk 03:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Overuse

message: Add es:template:Sprotected
:Has been added; thanks. Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spanish 

message: How is this true? I just witnessed a user with only 4 edits with manage to contribute to SSBB FullMetal Falcon 02:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is done by the date the account was created. It might make sense to add a requirement for the number of edits too, but that might increase junk edits. —Centrx→talk • 03:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The template says "newly registered" not "established". —Centrx→talk • 03:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't that basically the same? It's stated above the semi-protected article that's being edited. FullMetal Falcon 20:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Newly" is specifically about time; "established" can be interpreted to be something different than related to time. "Established" is what is used to positively assert that "established users are allowed; "new" is what is used to negatively assert that "new users are not allowed". These are not contiguous meanings; what do you suggest instead of "established" for the positive one? "Old" and "Non-new" are not good. —Centrx→talk • 22:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Only "established" users

message: I love it how the semi-protection templates are semi-protected and how almost all the full protection templates are fully protected :) --WikiSlasher 04:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-reference 

message: Can someone with admin rights add an interwiki to eu:Txantiloi:Erdi-babestua, please? Thank you ;) 62.175.87.134 22:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 00:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can someone add an interwiki please? 

message: I have protected the template because of the recent edit dispute, please discuss changes here and come up with a compromise. --WinHunter (talk) 03:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: It currently reads
:Please discuss changes, request unprotection, or create an account.
Shouldn't it say
:If you wish to edit this page please discuss changes, request unprotection, or create an account.
instead?
After all, if you are only on Wikipedia to read an encyclopedia, it sounds a bit like a general requirement. What do people think about this? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 22:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about the people that want to edit the article but have not looked on the talk page? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  If your not editing 

message: Instead of relying on its users to add the template after an article has been semi-protected, MediaWiki should really add the notification automatically based on whether or not it is semi-protected. --Burstroc 21:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mediawiki is designed to allow for policy change at the community level, I think the change you proposed would create a technical limitation on future policy change. Good idea though, perhaps a bot could go through the list of (s)protected pages and the list of pages the templates are on and make a page showing discrepencies that is updated regularly. If this idea has community support I could write this bot, although it is possible an existing bot can do this easier. Opinions people? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 21:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't forget to make sure it uses the right html tags on sprotected template pages so that it doesn't include it in the template itself. --WikiSlasher 01:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sprotected should be a MediaWiki feature 

message: I'm thinking of semi-protecting featured articles of the day because they might be visible to many vandals... Bigtop 23:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Wikipedia:Don't protect Main Page featured articles. (Also note that simply adding this template doesn't semi-protect a page; only administrators can protect and unprotect pages.) Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 04:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protect for featured articles 

message: I think we should add a sentence to the template documentation indicating that "Removing this template does not unprotect the article", perhaps with a link to RFPP.  It seems like some people don't grasp that, so if it's stated right here with the template, that'll help clarify the issue when informing users of how this works.
Also, if there is a talk page template being used out there for good-faith notification of users that remove this template, that should be linked to as well.
Finally, would it make sense to use the template doc transclusion pattern here?
Thanks...  -/- Warren 18:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added the /doc subpage. Hoping for a little more input before we go ahead and add that other note to the template, though. Anybody have any thoughts, on that? Luna Santin 08:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the editprotected request as the doc page can be edited freely. --Ligulem 08:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eeerm... apparently I need more better reading skills, I had the idea we were adding the note to the template itself. But there it is, in black and white. Silly me, heh. Luna Santin 08:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks, Luna.  -/- Warren 03:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing sprotected 

message: I'm not an admin, so I can't edit the template, but I believe the second sentence should read, "Such users may discuss changes, request unprotection, or create an account and log in." Xiner (talk, email) 22:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "log in" is also for users who have an account, but have not yet logged in. — xaosflux Talk 02:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording change 

message: I wish to ask the admin if it is possible to add the following interwiki within the template's page:
*ar:قالب:حماية جزئية
- Qasamaan 23:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Picaroon 03:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request: Adding interwiki