Template talk:Pp-semi-indef

message: Brilliant! This is just what we need for long-term high profile semi protected pages (I'm thinking George W. Bush. Any chance of moving it into the main template space? Perhaps, for continuity as ? (Barnstar pending)--Docg 14:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've brought this up here.  Chick Bowen 17:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd not be so bothered at restricting this to long term pages, as restricting the common one to short term pages.--Docg 17:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great idea. Thanks, Moe. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your welcome, my pleasure :) semper fi — Moe 21:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: If they try to edit, they are told it is protected and what they can do about it. No need to muck up a clean article. —Centrx→talk • 06:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New template

message: this should probably be protected...216.37.131.119 19:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you state why? Theres currently no reason too, no ones editing it right now. semper fi — Moe 03:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be at least semi-protected, since all of the other semi-protection templates are currently semi-protected. Plus, it may be another way for anons/new users to edit long-term sprotected pages (if they're that knowledgeable). —Whomp (myedits) 23:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, requested protection :) semper fi — Moe 23:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's protected :) semper fi — Moe 23:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, thanks. —Whomp (myedits) 23:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  protection 

message: I think this is too subtle in appearance. Couldn't we at least make it so that you don't have to hover over the lock to see "This page is semi-protected"? We could add it as a small hatnote as well. - Jmabel | Talk 19:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to take a stab at it to where it will be better looking, go ahead, but since the Image of the lock links to the semi-protection policy and the hover effect, it seems like it would be excessive. semper fi — Moe 21:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not including a message stating that the page is semi-protected is confusing to those interested in editing and new to the game. This is a de facto attempt at preventing new editors from trying to edit via confusion, and this is contrary to the goals of Wikipedia. —  Rickyrab | Talk 02:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes no sense. Anyway you approach these protected pages, at all, you will get a link to the semi-protection policy. Clicking the padlock, hovering over it, trying to edit the page regardeless the protection, or simply asking why doesn't prevent anyone from editing. It's actually a de facto attempt to make articles less like targets with a big bullseye in the center and make them more tidy and theres nothing contrary about that. semper fi — Moe 23:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: yeah, but aren't semiprotect notices intended for anon users? after all, experienced users aren't affected by the sprotect, so why are we putting this notice in a form that its target audience won't notice or understand?Borisblue 22:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I second Borisblue here. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of editors AND readers, and excluding one of those is contrary to the service of all Wikipedia stakeholders.  —  Rickyrab | Talk 02:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If anons try to edit the page thats protected, they are meet with the same kind of message, and that one is automatically-generated when you try to edit the page. The template doesn't exclude anyone from anything. If you click on the lock Image (in the top right corner), hover over it, know how Wikipedia works, or try to edit the page while it's protected (either way) your going to find out it's protected. The old template provides a decent explanation, but doesn't a link to the policy page provide the same thing, even more in depth? And why would a bulky template that makes a page look like a target help? Readers aren't going to be bothered with editing, that doesn't excluded them from anything, but it just helps out in regards to the subtle template being more helpful and causes less confusion to the reader as to why it's there. And if you edit this site, then you have probabaly seen this template by now since it's on nearly every long-term semi-protected page. Report to me a real problem, not a hypothetical one. semper fi — Moe 22:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They can't "try to edit" because they don't see any "edit this page" button. This template needs a text-based component, an obscure icon in one corner is not enough. Users deserver an explanation for why they can't edit an article. Haukur 16:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A quick question would be why would someone just using this site for viewing want to know 'why they can't edit it?'. Since most websites don't offer the ability to edit it's content, readers aren't going to be bothered to look for a way to edit it. If they are familiar with Wikipedia, then they will know where to go to edit, then eventually see that it's protected (either by the template or, by being familiar with Wikipedia, see the instant message that appears when you try to edit a protected page). I think it's pretty guarrenteed that they will figure it out one way or the other and the subtleness of this template only enhances our ability to get straight to the encyclopedia entry and avoi the muck. semper fi — Moe 22:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Too subtle

message: I just ran into this, a bit ago. When closing an XfD that's been protected with this template, you'll need to move  above  (or whichever), or else the nice archive color box will abruptly stop as soon as it hits the extra divs the sprotect template brings up. I don't have the technical know-how to say for sure, but I don't think there's an easy fix for that, so it's probably easier to just move the protection template (as in this example). Luna Santin 02:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  XfD pages with this template 

message: As a side-note to the above discussion, this template's use on templates has always seemed completely unnecessary to me. Template pages are of use to editors, not readers. -- zzuuzz (talk) 03:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because they are meant for editors, doesn't mean that others can't edit them, especially now-a-days when template vandalism is high. semper fi — Moe 22:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Do not use on templates

message: Thank you for reverting this "deprecation" that title is horrible.  Keep it simple or it's use will be even less.  If there is consensus for a redisgn then redirect this and make sure the default option works. — xaosflux Talk 01:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome. I agree that we need to keep things simple, and once people have memorized templates we shouldn't change them without very good reason. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: If you had any objections, you could have commented on it before. →AzaToth 13:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: /me looks up ^.  I don't see any discussion to deprecate this template above, somehow I missed that a fork had been made, which is kind of easy to do considering the nature of forks.  Debating that process is a waste of time now, but if I'm expected to remeber the new esoteric tempalte name everytime I need to use this template, I'm rather likely to not use it at all. — xaosflux Talk 22:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Azatoth, how were we to know we needed to comment? The key to good template management is to keep them simple, short, minimalist in terms of numbers and functions, and stable so that people don't have to remember a thousand templates and a thousand changes whenever they want to write something. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:Pp-semi-protected]] 

message: I've returned the reference to BLPs, because one of the reasons this template was developed was so that BLPs don't have an ugly, visible template suggesting there's a dispute. My recollection is that this was Jimbo's initial concern when he first raised it on the mailing list. I also removed "extremely long periods," or whatever it said, because it's not defined; longer periods gets the same message across. It's up to individual admins to decide when the tag is appropriate. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: BLPs

message: Why was the old bronze padlock replaced with a gray one that looks like ?  ~Steptrip 01:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question!  Looks like it's part of the whole new "pp" scheme, whoever made that scheme up liked the new color I guess.  Apparently there was some discussion that many of us missed (see above).  This template is getting it's guts from  now though, so I'd check there. — xaosflux Talk 02:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: They're now both deprecated. Bronze padlocks now indicate fully protected articles, while blue is for semi-protection; ideally  with a parameter of small=yes should be used instead of Sprotect2, because further parameters can be set. -Phoenix 19:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old Image 

message: The little icon is too subtle and it is confusing new users. Many anons who don't know why it is protected may ask "Where did that edit button go" since the "edit button" will be replaced by "view source". I think that there needs to be at least some text that at least tells the user that this page is protected and to link to a page that shows the reason why. Maybe a small note beside the icon saying "Page protected see (link to reason) for details" or something. -- Hdt83  Chat 23:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  template is too subtle (again) 

message: Why are people saying this template is deprecated? SlimVirgin (talk) 03:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I came here to ask the same thing. --Mel Etitis  (Talk) 21:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Query

message: Why have "protection" if you say it doesn't do what it is supposed, to do: Protect? But my real question has to do with semi-protection I added to a small article subject to vandalism. I personally do not like having to monitor it. More specifically, the problem is that the address I wanted to block is a shared one. I'm assuming that light protection will stop someone who is not an established user, but not stop everybody who has the shared address? Brian Pearson 14:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection question 

message: Go to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#WP:Accessability  ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 22:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Come back when you have consensus... —GFOLEY FOUR— 05:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 

message: This template is about semi-protection, but it looks like it's about full protection. Does it need fixing, and how if it does? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protection or full protection? 

message: Change:
|small=yes
|demolevel={{{demolevel|undefined}}}
To:
|small=yes
|right={{{right|}}}
|demolevel={{{demolevel|undefined}}}
This allows use of the new pp-meta parameter.
Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Done --Redrose64 (talk) 21:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 25 August 2013 

message: There is currently a proposal to convert this and other protection templates to Lua at Module talk:Protection banner#Proposal to convert all protection templates to use this module. Please join this discussion over there if you are interested. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 23:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to convert this template to Lua