Template talk:RFPP

message: Should the page be semi-protected? I think it should. FictionH 18:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at the page history. Only one account of vandalism. It is a highly used template, but if it starts to be vandalised, then it should be protected. –Spebi 11:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm convinced that although the vandalism rate is low, it will cause more good than harm to semi-protect the template - newbies generally don't need to edit this. I'll semi-protect it. Nihiltres(t.l) 13:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-protect

message: I've update the template - a couple of people wanted a "already unprotected" option. I've also switched to clearer set of icons - its particular better for the "declined" and "already" ones IMO. WjBscribe 19:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. I must admit, I liked the old icons much better. What was the improvement in particular for those icons you mentioned? I'm decent with vector images, so I could probably mirror improvements in the older style. Nihiltres(t.l) 21:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Have to say, I like the new ones better, as well as the clarification around SALTing and the 'already done' options. The new icons are ... more subtle or something - Alison ☺ 21:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Oooh, shiny new icons. :-) By the way, shouldn't we have a "RFPP's not for fishing" icon like the one at WP:RCU? On a related note, I think that the periods should be removed from the first three templates. One often intends to write something immediately after the template and the period just cuts it.--Húsönd 01:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I have to add that after seeing the new icons on WP:RFPP, I think I prefer the old ones. These seem too dead or too dim or too whatever prevents them from standing out like the old icons.--Húsönd 01:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  Agreed re. the periods. I still like the new icons, mind. Also, a "Protection is not pre-emptive" option would be neat - Alison ☺ 01:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's another good idea.--Húsönd 03:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a "not pre-emptive" option. Haven't managed to sort the full stops yet though. WjBscribe 03:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No more full-stops :) Thanks for the pre-empt update - Alison ☺ 04:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, thank you, thank you for removing those periods. I'd been using the raw template syntax just to avoid them :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Update

message: Is it possible to create an RFPP template similar to this?
 Declined — Featured articles on the Main Page are not protected unless there is severe and unrelenting vandalism.
I ask because I see a large amount of requests at WP:RPP asking that the day's FA be protected because of vandalism. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 23:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added this in  – Steel 23:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank'ee. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 01:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible update 

message: The template spat out the following:
 Semi-protected for a period of indefinite. After indefinite the page will be automatically unprotected.  
When is "after indefinite"?--Thinboy00 talk/contribs @955, i.e. 21:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is this? WjBscribe 21:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This was on the page it's supposed to be used on, but i forgot the link... this is an old version, i just realized....-- Thinboy00 talk/contribs @958, i.e. 21:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The template should only have a time parameter if the protection is for a given time. If the page has been protected indefintely, it should should be  only, not  which will result in the output you described. WjBscribe 22:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please fix this 

message: For indefinite protections (EG. Userpages), the template returns things like "Semi-protected for a period of indefinite. After indefinite the page will be automatically unprotected.", which is a load of nonsense (The latter part). Can some recognition of "indefinite" be added so it returns a difference sentence like "The protection will never expire, but must be manually revoked if need be" ? 68.39.174.238 (talk) 05:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OOps, I missed the above. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 05:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for a change for "Indefinite" 

message: I tweaked the template to use :Image:Stop x nuvola with clock.svg as opposed to :Image:Pictogram voting info.svg for user blocks. Please reply with comments/concerns/complaints/etc. caknuck ° is not used to being the voice of reason 18:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Updated image

message: For "already done" options (ad, ap, au) shouldn't there be a third optional field for the name of the administrator that protected it? For example:
:{RFPP|ap|Causa sui}
would yield
: Already protected by 
Just a thought. I'd add it, but I have no idea how. ⟳ausa کui × 02:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: Is it just for admins to use or can anybody do the blocking? The C of E.           God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Only admins can actually protect pages. –xenotalk 19:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I thought so, just checking because I got the instructions how to add one when I tried to edit the protection page The C of E.           God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who can use it 

message: Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. 
Notice the comma and repeat of the time. Ryan Norton 21:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What comma and repeat of the time are you talking about? – Steel 23:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small redundancy bug with pending changes with time parameter 

message: I've switched the symbol for the 7 decline options to :File:Pictogram voting oppose.svg as discussed at Wikipedia talk:Requests for page protection#Choice of symbols. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 21:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decline symbol 

message: Given the introduction of the new "template editor" right, we need to expand things a little: we now have a new "template" level of protection, which can be edited by admins and template-editors, because the right doesn't enable its holders to edit fully-protected pages. As a result, we should soon see requests that fully-protected templates be downgraded to "template" protection.  Nyttend (talk) 16:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template editor 

message: WP:RFPP is getting a permanent archive instead of the current rolling-archive. Details can be found at WT:RFPP/Archive9#Archiving RfPP requests and WT:RFPP#Technical roadmap.In Special:Diff/882556628,  noted that a permanent archive should probably contain substituted templates. I agree.In the next few days, we will be converting this template to automatic substitution.  is blocked and needs a major rewrite anyway, making this an uncontroversial maintenance decision. The automatic substitution by  will ensure backwards-compatibility with all tools. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:03, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: How are you going to ensure that the subst result will be bot parsable? — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:57, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The templates will substitute to HTML comments that can be parsed easily. Huggle and ClueBot NG do this kind of HTML comment parsing all the time, on user talk pages, where all templates are substituted. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Substitution