MediaWiki talk:Cascadeprotected

message: Quite a long sentence! =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

message: The recent changes to this message broke it. See for example Test page. Please revert them. Thanks – Gurch 09:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done I've fixed it rather than reverting it. --ais523 13:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken 

message: Have a look at User:SunStar Net/A Test Protected Title - this is a proposed new version I have made. Feel free to edit it as you want, I feel the new softer colour looks better. --SunStar Net talk 15:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like it. I think it's too big, and I don't like images in MediaWiki:  Don't hate the pastel box idea though. — xaosflux Talk 23:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed new version 

message: Sometimes, a page is blocked from creation because of an AFD consensus.  The problem is the link only refers to the first nomination.  Is there a way to make it link to subsequest ones or do we have to use the old  tag?  Even so, we still would need to tweak that template.  I cannot do it because I am not an admin (yet). --VoltronForce 01:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lacking a 100% consistent naming scheme for repeat nominations, there's no easy way to do this via the WP:PT setup.  Our best solution is to simply place a link to the subsequent nomination pages at the top of the original.  —David Levy 02:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There does appear to be plenty of code regarding linking to certain VOTEPAGE parameters, but not sure where to pass those to it.  We could link to the Page Logs first perhaps? — xaosflux Talk 02:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, with the old template, we can use   if the nomination page is not the first one.   with no 2nd parameter would link to the first nom if the article name is the same as the votepage. --VoltronForce 05:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, but then we'd be stuck with a dummy page (instead of a truly deleted one).  —David Levy 11:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to AFD 

message: Strictly speaking, this isn't an article template...  but it seems to me it would be reasonable to make it match the new standard article space template style... no?
I've got an edited copy in :User:Coren/Cascadeprotected.  I resisted the temptation to add icons since the original messages did not have any.  :-) — Coren (talk) 23:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems odd; the cascadeprotected message only appears when the article is being edited. We haven't used message boxes for these in the past. I'd recommend asking about it at the village pump, since few people are likely to see the request here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not odd— the message changes depending on whether the page currently exists, so if you copy-and-paste to a new page, you get the working preview, but as soon as it's saved the page exists and the message changes.  — Coren (talk) 03:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: This is by design, of course, since you want the create-protected pages to show something (the "page does not exist" message) even if the page isn't there (which is the whole point).  — Coren (talk) 03:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is what you get if you view a cascade-protected nonexistent page: . This is what you get if you try to edit that page: . Here's what you get if you try to edit an existing cascade protected page: . Although I can't tell with a sysop account, I assume you only get the message for the edit page, not the display page. We haven't used boxes for edit page messages before, as far as I know. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, your examples look exactly as expected— I suppose you don't get the message during edition (you never get it on view) because you (as an admin) can edit the page and don't get the "view source" instead (which is where the cascadeprotected message ends up).  — Coren (talk) 05:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Leave it be, we don't need any more markup in MediaWiki then is absolutely required (especially not transclusion of templates). — xaosflux Talk 03:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The change was indeed just a suggestion for the sake of visual uniformity, and is certainly not necessary by any stretch of imagination.  — Coren (talk) 05:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Though this editprotected has already been disabled, I'd just like to say that I strongly oppose the use of amboxes for anything outside message boxes as included in the main namespace, regardless of technical issues. Nihiltres(t.l) 00:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to match {{tl|ambox}} per [[WP:TS]] 

message: 
Does the cascade-protected message really need to be in red text and bold? Being cascade-protected is no more severe a situation than if the page is fully protected normally, and the protected page message isn't all bold and red. Since this message is distinct from the normal protected page message, it should also have a different id attribute. Some explanatory links would also be nice.
How about changing this part of the message:
This page is currently protected from editing because it is transcluded in the following  protected with the "cascading" option enabled:
to this:
This page is currently protected from editing because it is transcluded in the following  protected with the "cascading" option enabled:
which would replace this:
This page is currently protected from editing because it is transcluded in the following  protected with the "cascading" option enabled:
with this:
This page is currently protected from editing because it is transcluded in the following  protected with the "cascading" option enabled:
More useful and much easier on the eye, I think. Thanks – 81.153.158.137 11:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree but I suppose it matches MediaWiki:Protectedpagewarning like this. GDonato (talk) 17:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So what? The 99.9999% of us who aren't administrators never see that message, but we see this one. We also see MediaWiki:Protectedtext, which has no red at all – 86.140.177.115 16:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I really like the helpful linking, but I'm a sucker for consistency (Like MediaWiki:Protectedpagewarning), and it's an important message which should stand out - toning it down might defeat its purpose. Nihiltres(t.l) 22:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  At least put the links in... – 86.140.177.115 16:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: D'oh. I was thinking of this as fulfilling the function of MediaWiki:Cascadeprotectedwarning, sorry. If only the MediaWiki namespace were documented better... Nihiltres(t.l) 20:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Color 

message: Please replace the contents of the page with the following:
This causes the full message to always be displayed, even if regular protection is also present. This should be changed before the change at MediaWiki talk:Protectedpagetext#Protected edit request on 2 January 2014 is made.
Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Done — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 04:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 2 January 2014 

message: Please replace the contents of this page with the following:
Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No. (It doesn't change the background color at all, actually). This adds support for a new parameter that I just had added to the software. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  — xaosflux Talk 03:52, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 28 August 2014 

message: Please change the protection file. File:Padlock-turquoise.svg. Not an full protected logo 38.96.9.224 (talk) 04:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Question: Please expand on the requested change and explain the rationale? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:07, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 9 August 2017 

message: Please change the color of the lock to turquoise because that is how cascade protection is described on Wikipedia's protection policy. Ups and Downs (↕) 00:44, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That can't be done here; it's on one of the subtemplates. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:50, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what you need to do.  Add | image = Padlock-turquoise.svg to the template .  Ups and Downs (↕) 07:31, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

text: Not done for now: please make the required changes to Template:Protected page text/sandbox and reactivate — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 21 August 2017 

message: Since the policy currently uses the turquoise padlock icon for cascade-protected pages, then this message should REALLY use the Turquoise Padlock icon. 2602:306:379D:1AA0:8D09:90B5:D1A8:555 (talk) 05:32, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like the image is produced by Template:Protected page text. I will leave a note over there. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:29, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Now . — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 00:30, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for update 

message: Change the line:
to:
Per this RfC. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 02:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose - It isn't broken, and the cascade-protection-shackle icon isn't a padlock. It's a shopping bag. Kamafa Delgato (Lojbanist)Styrofoam is not made from kittens. 03:51, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

text: *For any passing admin, this has been done (protected on commons). Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:24, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: *Done locally as well, off hold. — xaosflux Talk 16:26, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  The specified file does not look like a shopping bag (it has the gray shackle, which is supposed to avoid looking like a shopping bag) SemiHypercube ✎ 20:06, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

text: Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 13 November 2018 

message: If that exists, the code of this needs to account for it. I ran into this at Template:0 which is template-editor protected, but which is showing up incorrectly in :Category:Wikipedia fully-protected templates and also (when you edit it or try to edit it) it auto-reports that it's only editable by administrators due to cascading but it can in fact be edited by template-editors like myself.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:18, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cascading template-editor protection? 

message: Are there any category pages that list all cascade-protected pages? I know that it exists for autoconfirmed, extended-confirmed, template, and full protection, so is there a list of all cascade-protected pages? The only one I know of as of now is the Main Page. Thank you! 2003 LN6 17:44, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category of Cascade-protected pages