Template talk:Sprotected/Archive 2

message: I think we should have some kind of code that makes it so this template doesn't show up in the printable version a page. If you print out an article on wikipedia, you don't care if a page is semiprotected, because you cant edit a page when it is printed. --GeorgeMoneyTalk  Contribs 02:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I fully agree. And I'd like to take this argument a step further, even. People who read the online version of the article don't care either, and IMO we should really just move this editor centric, obstructive and completely offtopic template to the talk page where editor info like this belong. Shanes 02:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or what would be even better is that it only shows up when you edit. Then the people who don't want to edit (not me, I do want to edit) don't have to deal with it. --GeorgeMoneyTalk  Contribs 03:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A note does show up if you try to edit and aren't authorised to. So the big box is really redundant and only intrusive and distracting. Interestingly the Germans have understood this. On the excellent German Wikipedia the protection notes are put on talk pages and kept away from article space. Shanes 00:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Shanes. Will a whole shitstorm descend upon on us if we actually try to do this? People seem to be massively resistant to change... Pcb21 Pete 08:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Shanes and Pcb21. --GeorgeMoneyTalk  Contribs 22:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Printable version 

message: Just before the last link, there should be a space. The current version says "mayrequest unprotection", but it should be "may request unprotection". Could an administrator fix this? Mathias-S 16:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whups! Thanks for noticing, and thanks HappyCamper for correcting it. My fault! -Mysekurity [m!] 20:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A small error 

message: Someone removed banned users, which I've restored, because vandalism isn't the only reason for using sprotection, as the policy makes clear. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Banned users

message: There should probably be a <noinclude> section that tells non-admins (like myself) not to use this template without properly sprotecting first. That way, we won't end up with a lot of bluffs with no page protection. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 02:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage 

message: I propose chaning "new editors" to "very new editors" to be more in line with other pages. — xaosflux Talk 04:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As there were no objections, I've added this. — xaosflux Talk 03:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about that, just noticed this. Which other pages? - RoyBoy 800 17:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, guess it was selective memory, went looking for them but not to the point of going through histories :)  WP:SEMI says "accounts less than 96 hours old", but that may spill the BEANS on this template.  I was hoping to come across [[WP:BITE:nicer]
] to new accounts interested in contributing positively, guess they could read the policy though.  Anyone else got any input on this? — xaosflux Talk 20:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor change prop 

message: I made some changes again; removed the bolding and the padlock and the vague one-size-fits-none wording. Personally I'd prefer if this template read simply: "Editing of this page by new or unregistered users is currently disabled. See Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy." Haukur 13:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's such a thing as too muted. We don't want it to overwhelm the page but the whole point of a template like this is to give people important information. Telling them that they can request unprotection is important. It is also important to tell them that they can create an account. Remember, we are writing this for those people who are being blocked due to the semi-protection. Lacking the hows and the whys on how to end the semi protection defeats the purpose of the template, IMO. Again, we're not writing this for us. We're writing it for people who cannot edit the page as a means to prevent endless questions. --Woohookitty(meow) 13:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The "current" minimalist template addresses your concenrcsn.  It has the request for unprotection and links to create an account. --Supercoop 13:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: That's all true but if the reader needs more info it's all in WP:SPP. Of course not everyone will follow the link and maybe some will be left annoyed, I don't know. Haukur 13:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Haukurth, the problem with saying "this page" is that, if it's on a talk page, it won't be true, and we don't want newbies to think they're not allowed to edit the talk page. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. That's why "project" was included. Though. I think a better word needs to be found for that too. I mean. Newbies will not know what "project page" means. Honestly, I didn't know my first few months on the site. Would there be a way to make it so that when it says "article", it links to the article itself? I'd think there must be a way to make the template do that. So when it says "this article" on say Talk:George W. Bush, the word article would link to the George W. Bush article. That's an  idea too if it's possible. --Woohookitty(meow) 13:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We could just say editing is currently disabled, without saying "this page" or "the article" or whatever. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I thought about that - but it's hard not to make it sound like editing is disabled project-wide, which is the last thing we want to imply. I understand where you're coming from with "this page" and "the article or project page" but I think the latter is as likely to cause confusion as the former when put on a talk page. And we still haven't answered the question of what template to use when you really do want to protect a talk page, as Woohookitty mentioned. Haukur 13:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: What's wrong with the padlock? It's been used in all protection templates for quite a while now, and didn't add to the size of the template that much. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right that it doesn't add much to the size - but here's why I personally don't like it: It looks scary and threatening and makes the semi-protection out to be a bigger deal than it is. The article isn't really "locked" - any Wikipedian can edit it and anyone else can edit it too if they're willing to wait for a few days. Haukur 23:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The padlock forms a universal image on protected pages and should not be removed unilaterally from one in the series. The whole point of graphics is to visually communicate content because all too often people simply ignore an image-free box. As to thinking that it looks "scary" — who in their right mind would be scared of a small padlock? Millions of Wikipedians lock their bikes with them every day. I see no justification whatsoever for its removal. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What I mean by scary is that it looks like something is wrong - like the reader is being warned to behave or scolded for making the protection necessary. But that's just my perception, I'm glad you have a different one. Haukur 23:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Readers (the people we write this encyclopedia for) don't care about semi-protection policy, banned users, or editing in general. They just want to read the article to learn about the article topic. The information we put in this box is completely irrelevant to the subject of the article, and the wordier, bigger and flashy we make the box, the more distracting and confusing it becomes to our readers. A wikipedia article should (as the style manual states) begin with explaining the subject of the article, not with a note on article-protection and banned users on Wikipedia. So I'd like the box to be as discreet as possible, preferably no box at all. It should go on the talk page. Shanes 00:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Em this is supposed to be an open-edit encyclopaedia. If we prevent people for some reason from editing a page then we need to do it upfront, in a way they can see, on the article page. Burying it where they can't see it, in a talk page they might never visit (or even know about) is a non-starter. As for making it discreet, if you mean hide it, that is not on. If we are stopping them edit, then they have a right to be told upfront and clearly "sorry, guys, because of vandalism, you may not be able to edit this page", not require them to get a magnifying glass, squint or search pages they may not know even exist.  FearÉIREANN\(caint) 01:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a ballance between presenting a nice-looking and to-the-point article to our readers (without off topic and obstructive distractions), and giving information to editors about the current editing status of the article. I feel we are being too editor centered (self-centered) when we put a big wordy box on top of all these articles. Editors will find out about the protection anyway if they try to edit it. The German wikipedia puts the sprotection tag on talk pages, and I think we should too. Shanes 01:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But how do you "try to edit" the article if you're not logged in? All you have is a "view source" button and it's by no means obvious that this will yield the information you need. Haukur 10:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's maybe not obvious to everyone, but it's a trade off, a ballance, between being obvious to (new) editors and presenting a good article to readers. I'm guessing here, but I'd be surprised if more than 1% of those reading a wikipedia-article are any interested in editing it. And of those very few interested, the "view source" being there instead of the "edit this page" (like on the main page) is quite a good hint to the page being uneditable to them. We are here for the readers, and presenting clear and good artcles to the readers, without confusing distractions, should be our first priority. Shanes 14:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Excellent job in my opinion.  It could stand to be more noticeable - bold text and the use of more color can do that.  There's no reason for it to consume as much screen real estate as the old template was, and this new "slim" template allows more of the article to be seen and doesn't clutter up the page so badly.  Kasreyn 11:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Don’t make it scary and distracting to readers. Ax the bold text, keep it simple as possible and I would say camouflaging it as a test study. --Supercoop 15:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minimalist version? 

message: Since this page is protected (why not sprotected?), I didn't manage to add the fr interwiki: fr:Modèle:Semi-protection.
Thanks. Plyd ✉ 14:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interwiki 

message: Hi. I want someone to do something to this page. I want to change where it says, "Editing of the article or project page" to 
Editing of this {{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}
|=article
|Category=[[Wikipedia:Category|category]]
|Help=[[Help:Contents|help]] page
|Portal=[[Wikipedia:Portal|portal]]
|Template=[[Wikipedia:Template messages|template]]
|User=[[Wikipedia:User page|user page]]
|Wikipedia=[[Wikipedia:Project namespace|project page]]
}}
This change also applies to 
--GeorgeMoney T·C 01:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit please 

message: Just "You may discuss changes on the talk page" → "You may discuss changes on the talk page".  Tested in my sandbox and in 3 other namespaces, and it works fine.  The talk is the best way to suggest changes for an sprotected article, and immediate unprotection is unlikely, so it's silly to point to requests for unprotection while not linking to the talk page. --Rory096 03:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, now "Please discuss changes" → "Please discuss changes," since it was changed. --Rory096 06:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dammit, does nobody read what I say? Sigh, I'll put the template on. --Rory096 21:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody read what I said when I wanted the same change. --GeorgeMoney T·C 21:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know the problem with linking to the talk page. It makes the link bold when it is a talk page. we need to do a  --GeorgeMoney T·C 21:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since when does  go on talk pages?  Anyway, it would actually mess up (and send you to talk talk:pagename), not make it bold, but I've never seen sprotected go on a talk page anyway. --Rory096 22:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about talk pages of blocked IPs that remove warnings? I always see talk pages get sprotected. Also, User:AmiDaniel's talk page got sprotected today. --GeorgeMoney T·C 00:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See the discussion on this page - Jimbo first suggested the idea on the mailing list, having the tag go on the talk page of a semi-protected articles in some circumstances. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: There's a different template for talk page protects, btw. --Rory096 03:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small change 

message: I think we should change, "By newly registered or unregistered users" to "By newly registered users or unregistered users", because people might get confused and think that "newly registered or unregistered users" means that it is either newly registered or newly unregistered.
Also, we should add a few parameters like where it says, "users is currently disabled" we should add "users is currently disabled ", and we should have an option, Editing of this template page by newly registered or unregistered users is currently disabled . Please discuss changes on the talk page, or request unprotection. You may also wish to create a new account. and we should have a parameter for the image.
Also, we should have a link to the talk page. 
Thanks, --GeorgeMoney T·C 23:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The first change is ok. The second I'm leery about. The problem with adding a reason part is that most admins won't use it, so we'll end up with an ugly template with  in the middle of it or whatever. --Woohookitty(meow) 00:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, it is not the template, . It is a template parameter. Notice how it has three curly braces "{", not two. Also, that is an optional parameter. Which means that it won't show up if you don't put anything there. All of those are optional. --GeorgeMoney T·C 00:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd agree with that. --Woohookitty(meow) 07:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But, what if you want to say, "Has been sprotected due to spam" --GeorgeMoney T·C 23:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Spam is vandalism. -Splash-tk 21:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know, but shouldn't there be an option to define the vandalism? --GeorgeMoney T·C 21:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the utility in that, no. If someone cares, they can read the history, the protection log etc. -Splash-tk 21:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think people should go out of their way to find the protection log and then look at the summary of the protector. What if a blocked IP is removing warnings from his/her talk page? Then instead of saying, "Due to vandalism this pages is s-protected" it can say, "Due to warning removals". Even though blanking talk pages is vandalism, I still think there should be an option. --GeorgeMoney T·C 21:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would only make sense if the tag was there for a reader. In increasingly hypothetical situations where all sorts of things might happen, doing your research is easily the best way to go. If an editor even cares what specific flavour of vandalism it was, then they can click a mouse once more. In any case, for talk pages, there's a seperate tag. -Splash - tk 21:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess you're right. --GeorgeMoney T·C 22:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  change 

message: : Splash – you reinserted the word vandalism back into the template so let’s address the cons of that wording. You stated that there is only one reason to protect an article?  ...to advertise that Wikipedia is a troll hangout?  Placing words like this blazing at the top of high profile articles gives the appearance that Wikpedia has a problem and might give the inexperienced users a feeling that if this article is vandalized then what other articles are vandalized and not noticed – The new user might say "Wikipeida is untrustworthy; therefore, I should look elsewhere for information."  The words also don’t assume good faith and Vandalism isn’t the only reason to sprotect an article; sometimes, new or anonymous users might be inserting unreferenced or POV into an article which isn’t quite vandalism. There isn’t any reason to put why an article is protected; if someone really wants to find out, then that person can read the talk page which will contain a more in-depth reason as to the why – one word reason isn’t going to be save-all of Wikipedia.  Sometimes, things are quite complicated and you’ll have to read a few lines to understand what is going on.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Supercoop (talk • contribs) 
::The few lines I would suggest that you read are those contained in WP:SEMI. Furthermore, Wikipedia is untrustworthy and people should be looking elsewhere for information. Anyone protecting an article because an anon inserts POV or unreferenced material is abusing the tool in a manner not supported by the relevant policy. Serious, current vandalism is the only reason to semi protect an article, with really very few exceptions. Assuming good faith doesn't have a great deal to do with this. -Splashtalk 13:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I read it, now will you re-read Wikipedia:Assume good faith - the entire banner protection wording is going against this; therefore, we have two official policies which must be followed. Just step back and think about what the banner looks like to ~250,000 people; not what I think about it or you think about it but what kind of message is this really delivering and is this what you really want as a intro to any subject. --Supercoop 13:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's an argument for removing the tag entirely, something I do not support. Jimbo has suggested the idea recently, but it didn't take. I do not agree that AGF has anything to do with this. If someone has been seriously vandalising an article, then they have exhausted any assumptions of good faith, and may well have got themselves blocked as a demonstration of that fact. Insofar as protection prevent editors who have not been bad from editing, well, yes, I agree heartily that we are temporarily suspending assumptions of good faith towards them and this is one reason why I have spent so much time trying to minimize the impact of sprotection. It is tiring to do it by myself, however, and so I have largely abandoned that cause. None of this changes the fact that the only reason for using this tag is a prevalence of vandalism, and that almost all other uses are wrong. Putting the word "vandalism" in a tag when such is the precise cause of the use of the tag is not itself an assumption of anything. It is a statement of fact. -Splashtalk 14:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Header

message: The template is a bit big now, I'm removing "recent" as it adds nothing and can be inaccurate given long protections; and registered is redundant. That will condense it by a line. - RoyBoy 800 22:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It worked for 800x600, still 3 lines in 1024x768. Ah well. - RoyBoy 800 22:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored some of the old wording. This tag can now be placed on the talk pages of articles semi-protected instead of the article, per Jimbo's suggestion; see the discussion above. Thus, the wording has to be modified to reflect that, and I've done so, trimming down the template and making sure "talk page" doesn't appear if the tag is on the talk page. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove "recent" and "registered" 

message: Re: Discussions to just not use this at all. Personally, I'm against this, it serves to say why this page is not normal, would a compromise be simply in positioning?  I've recent sprotected Wikipedia:About and the banner looked horrible, so I put it at the bottom of the page.  It's still there, but not nearly as intrusive to a reader. — xaosflux Talk 04:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not a bad idea actually. There was some step toward not using the tl at all, and just using a cat. I think the template encourages people to get it unprotected asap which is the mindset they should have. -Splash - tk 21:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not using this template. 

message: It's a minor point, but currently it suggests you "discuss changes (talk), request unprotection or create an account". Shouldn't registering be suggested first, then discuss, then request unprotection? Registering should be encouraged, not seen as a last resort. BigBlueFish 17:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested courses of action 

message: : To reduce the amount of changes to this template page, it has been "semi-protected". If you are a new or unregistered user, and see a passage that needs updating, please discuss changes, request unprotection, or create an account.
How does this sound? Yes, it's not as straight forward, but the word "vandalism" et al is just very off-setting for visitors. NL doesn't even display a template, it only mentions s-protect in its category section.  --  Zanimum 15:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds not right, I think. "To reduce the amount of changes" is just wrong: there are many articles that could use fewer changes, but they do not amount to vandalism and would not result in semiprotection. What did the New York Times say? I guess they got something wrong, or something? -Splash - tk 15:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed text 

message: I've got Safari 1.3.2, and the keys float (below, I think) the donation message. Is there any way to seperate them, so that they don't overlap?  --  Zanimum 12:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A quick hack would be to move the donation message. The position of the icon is such that it fits with the spoken and featured icons. I guess we should either stop putting new icons in the top right or find a software solution to automagically arrange stuff there in a non-overlapping way. Kusma (討論) 13:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that possible, though? It's a Mediawiki message, Mediawiki:Anonnotice. -Splash - tk 14:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It probably works if we simply put a couple extra  s in there (that's how space is reserved for the featured star), or (better?) a placeholder with the correct width. Not a very elegant solution though. Kusma (討論) 23:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Position still wrong on Safari

message: On my page (classic) it puts the word right over some other text and produces an unreadable mess with layers of words on top of each other. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 02:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have copied some code from the Spoken Wikipedia template, which seems to mostly fix the issue in the skins I tried (Classic, Cologneblue). Kusma (討論) 03:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, wrong part of the discussion, sorry. Anyway, my edit should still improve things for non-Monobook users. It still looks a bit strange if a page is features, spoken and sprotected, though. Kusma (討論) 03:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues with non-Monobook skins 

message: In the Monobook skin, the image of this template is placed right in front of the "Your continued donations keep Wikipedia running!"-text. This looks messy and should be fixed.
:I've added top: 26px; to push the icon down slightly so that it misses any site message on the default skin. --AlisonW 08:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks really ugly on featured articles, see Boston, Massachusetts. We really need a central (software?) solution for the site message and icon area. Kusma (討論) 15:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmmn. I see what you mean, although at least it doesn't overlap (on default skin, anyway). I wonder whether it would be possible (I'm guessing not though) to have an area at the top of a page that would be reserved solely for icons (such as protection, featured article, etc) that would be available in all skins. --AlisonW 10:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keys float above donations message 

message: Okay, this is the version I'm currently suggesting:


This  is currently semi-protected. Anyone with a user account older than four days can edit it.

I think this is good because it emphasizes that almost any user can edit the article. It's just one line, it doesn't have any scary icons, it's not threatening or obtrusive and it tells the newbies all they need to know. I think we should fight misconceptions about the semi-protection feature and I think this does a good job of doing that. Haukur 23:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are failing to follow the discussion above. There has been widespread support for using the discreet graphic that does not disrupt the general Wikipedia readership. If you want to go back to the "bad old ways" of a long piece of boxed text then please get more support first rather than acting unlaterally. --AlisonW 23:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: btw, I just noticed your comment in your locking/unlocking of the template: "Briefly unprotecting so non-admins can get a chance to edit." This is a Wikipedia template that aids in the management of the project. It will be used by sysops (given that only admins can actually change the protection referred to!) so "get a chance to edit" is way offbase. --AlisonW 23:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not the only one who has objected to the removal of the text. And there is no "long piece of boxed text", there are fewer than 20 words. You've so far been the only person to remove all text from this template and you've done it four times. Haukur 23:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then discuss it here and on list and get support - as I did before making the first change - rather than just going ahead with your personal preference. --AlisonW 23:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been discussing it for days. You waited six hours after posting your initial idea until you implemented it. Half-an-hour later I noticed it and strongly objected. I still object - a single cryptic icon is not enough and one sentence of text is not obtrusive. And though the keys are slightly better than the lock they're a part of the same flawed analogy about "locking" pages. This is the part that the media keeps getting wrong and we should do nothing to encourage misconceptions. Haukur 23:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The box you're proposing is still obtrusive and its content has nothing to do with the article topic at all. People look up a wikipedia article to learn about its topic, and they shouldn't be distracted from that by having articles begin with any irrelevant message. Wikipedia articles should first and foremost be reader friendly. We are writing this encyclopedia for the readers, not for ourselves. The icon is more than sufficient. Shanes 00:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, it's the place where we come together to create all this wonderful free content. As such, the place has got to be editor friendly. Anyone who wants to create a purely reader-oriented site (like answers.com) can do so with the same content. Haukur 08:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, there was six hours on here before I went ahead, but there has also been (well-supported) discussion on list about the effect that large messages have on readers of Wikipedia, especially those readers who happen to be journalists. We create far worse misconceptions by having large "in your face" text boxes that shout at all users whether they are interested in editing the page or not than some small icon of a padlock, a shield, keys or whatever. --AlisonW 08:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many people agree that large boxes with threatening messages are bad - which is why I've been arguing for weeks for a minimalistic box with as short text as possible. Haukur 08:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  *shrug* Several non-admins have commented on what they think would be good design for this template, it seems to me that their opinions are as valid as any. We protect pages to stop edit wars and vandalism, not to keep non-admins away from editing project pages :) Haukur 23:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Haukur's proposal 

message: Why is this template not protected or at least sprotected? If ever there'd be a great target for vandalism this template'd be it. Netscott 23:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, spoke to soon.. seems to be sprotected. :-) Netscott 23:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No protection for this template

message: How about adding a section to MediaWiki:Sidebar that shows the article stats and it links to the associated policy. I have created an example at http://wiki.xyrael.net/mediawiki/index.php/Main_Page?action=purge . If you look on the side, you should see a box that says "article status" and see a link to wikipedia's semi protection policy.--GeorgeMoney T·C 23:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting idea, though as we are only talking about a couple of dozen articles out of over 1.2 million it wouldn't be sensible to reserve permanent space on every article we display. --AlisonW 23:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm sure the devs can make it so it only shows up on semiprotected pages. --GeorgeMoney T·C 23:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another Idea

message: I reverted it; it's a notice template. --Sunholm(talk)  23:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I remember correctly there was talk on the WikiEn-I mailing list about the garishness about a large notice template on simple sprotected pages. Is that not was the latest changes are about? If I recall correctly User:Jimbo Wales was discussing such matters. Netscott 23:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm putting a newer design... --Bigtop (customer service - thank you for your cooperation.) 23:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's better to have it like above!; it may be garish but it's like a 'work in progress' roadworks sign. --Sunholm(talk)  23:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Revert wars are bad. I've full-protected the template for the time being, though probably on the wrong version. Please come to some agreement here about what the template should be, and then ask that it be unprotected. Jude (talk) 23:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The problem with the old template is that is looks hostile. It gives strong attention to semi-protection status while it is not a big deal. It is also bad PR. There are if you campare to total amount of articles 0% articles semi-protected. But those few articles after the zero are mostly high profile articles. Many readers see those few articles. The whole media attentions about Wikipedia now resent and "that wikipedia is no free anymore to edit" is I believe only happened because of the template .(See section "Media").  Besides ugly and not relevant to the article is is also not necessary. Any template to indicate semi-protection status is a courtesy. The message shown when you try to edit this protected page by the "view source" is already sufficient for those few non-vandal editors who are not logged in or very new. --Walter 20:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is entirely unfair to blame journalistic ignorance on a template. They should be doing their research properly, which would require them to read the first line ro two of WP:SEMI, which is (or was, but isn't anymore) linked to from the template they are so excited about. The message shown is not really adequate, since it does not properly distinguish between the 4-day and 'never' mode of editing. The articles in question would receive much less bad press if an admin would occasionally actually unprotect something - CAT:SEMI is testament to the fact that they do not. When I used to go through it regularly, I would routinely finish up with 20-40 articles at a given time that actually continued to need protection. This would have dealt with at least a couple of the ones that NYT picked up on. -Splash - tk 22:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: How about something like this? It's not hostile, compact, something uninterested people can just disregard, and will work in all skins (and our mirrors).  We could even make it even smaller, saying "This page is currently semi-protected. New users may discuss changes on the talk page." (with wikilinks to explain).  The tiny icon in the corner is barely noticeable, and could leave new users confused.  --Rory096 07:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about this? It's small, links to a page for more information and links to the talk pages so people can request changes.  It's visible, though, so people who are wondering why they can't edit can see it. --Rory096 07:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Small, and links to pages for users to get more information and request changes ("talk page") links to the talk when not on talk pages). It's visible, too, so people wondering why they can't edit can see it. --Rory096 07:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks fine. I have no problems with making it smaller. --Woohookitty(meow) 07:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I join Splash and Alex here. I have major league problems with this template being invisible. First of all, I think it's more hostile not to have it than to have it. Having it invisible means that there is absolutely no explaination as to why these new users can't edit the page. And there is no explanation as to that eventually a user will be able to edit a page. Walter, have you tried editing Wiki as an IP and then try to edit an SP article? Without the template, you get absolutely 0 indication of why you can't edit this page. None. Zero. Zip. It just says that page is protected from editing. It doesn't say why. It doesn't say how to avoid the protect. Yes it gives links but it says nothing direct. We need to make this easy for new users. Hiding a template and making it so they have to try to edit the page...and then click on protection or semi-protection...and then hope that they guess what is going on isn't the way to go. To me, it's essentially biting the hands of newcomers. So. I think it's more hostile than what we had. And I don't think that Jimbo's intention was to hide the template. I think the intention was to make it less obtrusive, which I have no problems with. But hiding it sends the wrong message to everyone. "Hey, you can edit any page on Wikipedia! But not this one! And we won't tell you why!". --Woohookitty(meow) 07:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert

message: The image that is currently used is licensed under the LGPL.  IIRC, this requires citing the author, like the GFDL does.  Since we're using the  function on this image, wouldn't it be violating the license it is under? --Rory096 05:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: SFAICT, no. On commons there is an authorisation, although I don't read spanish that well. --AlisonW 10:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's actually portuguese, and there's no explicit license given by the creator.  He just says that we must credit his website.  Technically we probably shouldn't use the click function, but I'm not sure how that usually works. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 17:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If he says we must credit him, it's a copyvio, because it's not.  --Rory096 06:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this a copyvio? 

message: I don't understand why display:none was added to the div tag, making the hole template invisible!!! Mariano(t/c) 08:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  display:none 

message: The template's been protected for three days now, anyone mind if I unprotect? Haukur 15:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We're still debating it. I'd say no. --Woohookitty(meow) 07:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't mean we have to revert war while we're debating it.  If everybody would promise not to edit war, it should be fine, and it's a bad thing that I had to annoy AmiDaniel for 10 minutes to get him to remove the copyvio. --Rory096 07:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the history of this template, it's been changed every day since early May. I think there's a high risk for a revert war. --Woohookitty(meow) 07:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotection 

message: "by anonymous or newly-registered users is presently disabled." (emphasis added)
The word presently means soon or in a short time.  I think this message is supposed to mean that editing is currently disabled, not soon to be disabled. Ryanminier 06:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: er ... "presently" means "for the moment but not forever" where I come from. Correct choice of word therefore! --AlisonW 08:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well then, where you come from, the word is used incorrectly.  It's a common usage problem.      I realize that there is regional and growing acceptance of presently meaning now, but when the word currently is available and has undisputed usage, why not use it instead? Ryanminier 19:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, I'm not wrong ;-P 'Presently' is one of that list of words which are recognised as having quite different meanings depending on which country/variation of "english" you speak. It isn't an" elemtary error" either. It is a UK -v- USA/non-UK (primarily). "Presently" in the UK is very much a "applies now" term not an "applies future" one.  --AlisonW 15:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: My, you are rude, aren't you. I was taught english properly in England and what I said was completely correct. Please take your opinion and attitude elsewhere, thankyou. --AlisonW 13:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar/Word Choice Error: Presently 

message: Look at this hours old diff:  This is good evidence that the icon-only version of the template is ineffective in informing new users about editing a semi-protected article. Nor does a button that says "View source" help much when you are unfamiliar with the interface and looking for an edit button. Fortunately this user posted a question to the talk page so we can sort him or her out. I bet that for every one of these there are many that simply give up in frustration and confusion. Haukur 10:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would consider that a perfect example of semi-protection and talk pages working! PLus if you start adding every little appearance of a politician on TV then all political articles would get very silly very quickly. --AlisonW 10:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The person may not have a very good contribution in mind but that's besides the point. The point is that people shouldn't have to make inquiries on talk pages (which very few will do) to find out why they can't edit, we should tell them up front.  Haukur 10:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence - this just in 

message: This template was protected (2006-06-20 23:34:20 Bookofjude (Talk | contribs | block) m (Protected Template:Sprotected: Revert war = bad. [edit=sysop:move=sysop])) to stop editing that is causing reversions due to lack of consensus.  This appears to STILL be happening by admins ignoring the protection.  Either UNPROTECT this, or bring changes to the talk page first. — xaosflux Talk 17:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you please remove the protection template from this template. This template was protected for a long time and the full protection template wasn't there because it would be confusing. You shouldn't use a protection template on a protection template. Please remove it. --GeorgeMoney (talk) (Help Me Improve!) 18:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you unprotect it as well? I don't see how the current protection has brought us any nearer to a solution. The template may say that protection is not an endorsement of the current version but the fact remains that those who prefer the current version have no incentive to negotiate while the page is protected with it. Haukur 18:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I just reduced protection to sprotected.  Be sure that we bring up changes to this popular template here before changing it. — xaosflux Talk 02:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: One thing that keeps coming up is the idea that all an anonymous or newly registered editor has to do to find out about protection is to "try to edit" the article. But the problem is that a user who can't edit the article doesn't see any edit button. Granted, if the user is familiar with MediaWiki then she may know the normal location of the edit button and notice that it has been replaced with a "View source" button. She may then possibly try to click on that button in hopes of finding something out but I don't think many will. And even if—heroically—they do click on the button the message they get isn't very helpful. This is it:
"This page is protected from editing. If the page is fully protected, only administrators can edit it; if it is semi-protected, only registered users can do so." 
"So", our valiant newbie will think, "which is it? Is the page protected or semi-protected?" Struggling on, she decides that the page is semi-protected. "Oh, okay, so what I have to do edit it is to sign up for an account. Let's go do that." A few minutes later the newbie has a brand new Wikipedia account and goes to the semi-protected page again. No edit button. Huh? She clicks on the "View source" button again. The same unhelpful message appears. At this point even the most persistent newbie is likely to quit in frustration. "Encyclopedia that anyone can edit my a**."
We can't assume that newbies are familiar with MediaWiki. We can't assume that they'll find out things we don't tell them. We don't want to have a frustrating newbie experience. 
I still think we would be best off with a clearly visible banner explaining semi-protection. Failing that I'll settle for a short message in italics. But as long as the software works the way it does we have to have something and a tiny padlock up in the right corner just doesn't cut it.
If the interface were changed so that users who can't edit saw an "Edit this page" button or (better) a "How to edit this page" button then we wouldn't need to have any visible template at all. But as long as all we have is "View source" we do need such a template. Haukur 09:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Try to edit" 

message: Okay, how about this. We edit MediaWiki:Viewsource to read "How to edit / view source". I'd like to put "how to edit" before "view source" because I think the first is a much more common use case. Haukur 13:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd also like to modify Template:Tooltip-viewsource. Maybe someone can suggest a good wording? Haukur 13:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Modification to MediaWiki:Protectedtext is also needed, I've already done some. Haukur 15:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Did I finally manage to bore you all to death? :) I'll go ahead now and make the changes I was suggesting - if you disagree just revert. And if you disagree and you're not an admin then tell me and I'll revert back for you. Haukur 19:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks fine to me. I never really understood the point of that "view source" label anyway. Shanes 20:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that part of the reason it's there is to make sure that the GFDL is satisfied. And I suppose it can happen that you're exporting a protected page from one MediaWiki wiki to another, but I should think that would be quite a rare use case. Wanting to edit a protected page is probably much more common. That's my thinking, anyhow. Haukur 20:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: and there is also the case of "how did they do this cool thing?" or perhaps you are wanting to copy wikitext from a protected page, internally. Morwen - Talk 13:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True. It does happen and it's good that we support it. But I think it's also important to make sure newbies don't get frustrated and I'm sure there's a way for us to keep everyone happy. Haukur 13:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New proposal - modifying [[MediaWiki:Viewsource]] 

message: I still think we should get rid of the misleading lock icon and go back to a short text message akin to this. Who are in favor of that? Haukur 20:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You keep asking/trying. I and others keep saying no. --AlisonW 23:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I and others have presented a variety of arguments and offered a series of compromises while you haven't yielded an inch and keep reverting back to your favored version, while pretending that no-one disagrees with you but me. Haukur 23:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is not just another website, it's a wiki which anyone can edit and we should never try to hide that nature from our readers. In the rare cases where everyone can't actually edit right away we should say so up front. And personally I think the lock is worse clutter than the words. Wikipedia content is freely licenced and redistributors making read-only versions remove metadata. But we've got to think of our contributors as well as our readers and we have a large array of metadata templates to put on articles. Haukur 23:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we put messages about articles' neutrality and writing style on the article page, any restrictions on a supposedly open edit article must be stated on the article too. It would be farcical in the extreme to refuse millions of potential contributors the right to contribute to an article, and then bury in the information on a talk page they might not know exists, or might not want to visit. If something is protected, they have to be told straight off, not lied to about being able to edit an article until they try to. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are confusing notes about article content with messages about editing that content. If an article is biased or factually disputed or otherwise has flaws, it is of course appropriate to tell the reader this. Whether or not my mother can edit it right there and now has nothing to do with that, the readers don't care. And we aren't lying to anybody by protecting a page without an obtrusive note, we are being considerate and reader friendly when instead presenting a clear and to-the-point article to them. There is also no sucht thing as "the right to contribute". Editing wikipedia is a privilege, not a right. Shanes 02:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing the template 

message: BTW - Why not change word semi-protected in the template, which newbies won't understand, to something like restricted editing or limited editing, both of which are self-explanatory? FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wording

message: The current language "Anyone with a user account older than four days can edit it" appears to compromise the security of semi-protected pages, by advertising the manner in which semi-protection can be defeated, and implying that semi-protected pages could be repeatedly vandalized by a certain techinque that I won't describe.  I suggest that we merely state that "Only established users can edit it." (quoted from the dialog produced when one edits a semi-protected page).  This language avoids unnecessarily publicizing a potential security vulnerability in exactly what we mean by "established users" for semi-protection purposes. John254 00:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree the "4 days" statement doesn't even sound good.  I'm much more in favor of either "established users" or the use of "very new users" for the description. — xaosflux Talk 02:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I thought there was broad consensus to replace the words with an image. Did I get that wrong? SlimVirgin (talk) 06:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would personally prefer words over an ambigous image. Most readers can read words, not all of them can read the hidden meaning of the image abakharev 06:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't see a consensus, or even majority support, for replacing the words with an image, though I respect your opinion. If you think it would be helpful we could call a poll. Haukur 09:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: No, I don't see a 'broad consensus', but I do see a lot of disagreement. AlisonW rather over-robustly asserts that the mailing list and IRC didn't object and thus opts to enforce the image, but overlooks the various dissenting opinions on this talk page (with the implication that because it's on-wiki, such dissent should be secondary). Furthermore, the image approach is established as causing technical problems in non-monobook skins and there isn't even agreement on waht the image should be if it is to be an image. -Splash - tk 16:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't the language come up when one seeks to actually edit the page? I think that's good enough. bd2412 T 02:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Let's not give the vandals any ideas

message: I suggested earlier, but didn't get a lot of feedback, about just moving this to the BOTTOM of the articles instead of the top.  The tabs would be updated, a notcie would be there, it would be categotrized, it would explain the reason, but it would not be in your face'. Any feedback? — xaosflux Talk 23:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's alot better than starting the article with this box. I support this. Shanes 23:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Placement

message: I'm placing this here to ensure there is no objection to Haukurth's change, since reverted, consisting of:
*an interwiki link nl:Sjabloon:Semibeveiligd
*categorization in 
*a grammar correction of in to --> into.
If no objections I think these should be reinserted. — xaosflux Talk 23:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you spot that edits don't get made to protected pages? One of the principal reasons for the continuing instability is the inability of people to stop editing this while they work things out. That edit would implicitly endorse a version of the page that at least a number of people do not like. It being non-critical, it can wait. -Splash - tk 23:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I never said it couldn't wait...this is all about consensus.  I fully support pages made form consensus (see my comments way up above the last time substance was being changed while protected) But these types of changes have not appeared to caused any contention, for example ANYONE please reply here if you truely object to this page having an interwiki link to nl: on it. — xaosflux Talk 02:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit protected