Template talk:Protected

message: Use lock image?
UPDATE: ince this poll was started, there have been numerous new proposals and icons entered into consideration.  To view a complete listing of all proposals, see User:Squash/Templates.
Support
#Cantus 22:49, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)
#squash 06:34, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC) See: User:Squash/Templates for template proposals. This is only a poll for 'Use lock image ?', however not a poll for an overall change to the Wikipedia template 'system' and therefore it is pretty unfair that people oppose against this poll (protected template) and people think the results are to oppose the idea of an overall change. I am voting support, because I want to see both this template and other important templates CHANGED! :-). See my The 'For' Proposition in the comments sections for all of you who think this is such a bad idea.
# —siroχo 04:58, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC) (After seeing some better designed templates, I think they shoudl be distinguished from the article better.)
#⟳ausa کui × 13:05, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll

message: While I'm not a professional interface designer, I have taken some courses on the subject, and designed a fair few interfaces, both good and bad. I'd like to share a few thoughts on the proposed templates.
* To justify being large and brightly-coloured, something has to be pretty important. I am not convinced that "editing this page is forbidden for now" is important enough to make a big box worthwhile. That box will probably be the first thing a reader notices: do they really need to be told in quite such a loud voice? This visual style should be reserved for the messages that really are important, because otherwise the distinction is lost. Remember that we occasionally see messages like The server will be down for an hour starting 0400 UTC This is the most important class of message, but is less obvious than the proposed new templates! To keep the distinction, how large would the server-down message have to be? There are plenty of subtle ways of giving emphasis - like "putting something in italics and indenting it" - and if that's not enough, it doesn't mean that a big bold border is better.
* Images should be used with extreme care. When looking at the proposed templates, imagine that you cannot read the attached text: all you can see is the image and border. What does it mean to you? That is the impression that someone will have when they see it for the first time. To me, the speedy-delete proposal (big red X) signifies "error" or "forbidden", for example. (There is a UI convention for this to mean "delete", in the context of a command - like on a toolbar button. When in the context of a report, it is much more common for it to mean "something's wrong".) It is very, very difficult to choose good images: if they are wrong, it looks bad - worse than having no pictures at all. Images must be consistent and understandable, and fit in with the overall style of the site. Which leads me on to the next point...
* This site's interface is a large system; changes should be considered in the context of the whole system. Consistency is important: the new templates need to be thought about in relation to other article messages, and in terms of what they look like on the page. Just as an example, many articles with images have those images near the top of the page: how would coloured messages look there? Remember that people complained about this when categories first appeared, and were displayed in this position. (I'm not saying that this is a show-stopper, just that the issue needs addressing.)
* I think that Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason makes a very good point in the poll above. This is somewhat orthogonal to the question of what templates should look like, but it would mean that they could look good in any skin.
I strongly favour a more subtle look as being more consistent with the existing Wikipedia style. I think that Squash's "minimal" designs are on the right track, but I'd much rather see something more minimal still! Sorry to splurge so much text out. --AlexG 18:38, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Some thoughts on interface design

message: I have created Template:Protected/sandbox.  I'd like to propose that radical new and experimental changes to this template be made there and played with before going "live", and we can discuss style issues here.  Personally, I think the color scheme, font style (non-italics), and line breaking of the "yellow" version looks much better and clearer than the grey "message box" style one.  But it's the killing of the history link due to the parser problems that makes it "cutting edge" technology that doesn't fully work. VV 22:34, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sandbox 

message: First of all this template and then another one for something like whats happening over at Richard Stallman now where there is no dispute but just repeated vandalism from multiple ip addresses, this template suggests that there is a dispute, somtimes there isnt. --  Ævar Arnfjörð [ Bjarmason]   18:53, 2004 Aug 17 (UTC)
:There's already a template for protection due to vandalism, Template:Vprotected Goplat 19:13, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  This template needs to be split in two 

message: Standardized message box discussion and voting moved to Template talk:Message box -- Netoholic 04:29, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal

message: There's no need to link Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute or Wikipedia:NPOV dispute. The protection policy allows editing protected pages to add such links, but does not require it. Also, many articles that get protected already have those because of other tags that have been placed on them. It's quite good enough to tell readers once or twice that the content of a page is disputed; no need to repeat it twenty times before they get to the actual text. --Michael Snow 00:24, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template bloat 

message: Just a comment- isn't it ironic that the protected template is protected? Thus, the protected template page is right with a protected template! :-) Flcelloguy | A  note? | Desk  20:35, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: Can an admin please edit it so the last lines look like this—
|}Category:ProtectedCategory:Talk header templates
(removing the spacing between the includeonly and noinclude). Unless the spacing below the template is intentional, I'd like to think it shouldn't be there though. =) —Locke Cole 04:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Rdsmith4! —Locke Cole 04:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I prefer this version. The current version takes up half the page. IMO the notice should be as small as possible. Izehar 19:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Small change

message: Please mention that you can make a request to edit the protected page using  -- Zondor 09:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|editprotected}} 

message: The current image is a copyvio. Please replace with GFDL graphic :Image:Crystal file locked.png. —Cantus…☎ 03:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Change icon

message: I'd like to change the template, so all protection templates look alike. From:
	action=history} page version]. Please discuss changes on the talk page or request unprotection.
To:
	This page is protected from editing until disputes have been resolved. Please discuss changes on the talk page or request unprotection. (Protection is not an endorsement of the current [page version].)
I made the border a little thicker, so the difference between semi-protection and full protection is still obvious. Alternatively, the semi-protection template could use a dashed line, to indicate less-than-full protection. -- Ec5618 16:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. howcheng  {chat} 18:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Consistency

message: Please add sort keys to the categories.  The following
:Category:Article header templates
:Category:Permanently protected
should change to
:
:
– Doug Bell talk•contrib 08:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. howcheng  {chat} 17:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request to have sort keys added 

message: Can someone but a line break between the two sentences please Gerard Foley 01:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  line break 

message: The  should be , not . æle ✆ 23:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken history link 

message: _ _ The template refers those dissatisfied with protection to a page with the same title except for having " talk" suffixed to the namespace's name. If the namespace of the protected page is already a talk namespace, the result is a non-existent namespace, and thus something that looks like it should be a namespace but is instead puts the discussion within the main (article) namespace.
_ _ IMO, the proper fix is to suffix "/protection talk" on the title, no matter what the namespace.  If there is no quick agreement for a sub-page solution, i propose the interim measure of putting a msg (ugly but necessary) to the effect of "This template may not be used on pages that have "Talk" or "talk" anywhere before the colon (:) in their titles.", and some interim solution for talk pages that correspond to any namespace.--Jerzy•t 01:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can this be addressed?  Protecting talk pages does occur, especially those of stubborn users.  Possibly the creation of a  and , without the talk links? ~ PseudoSudo 10:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Discovered at  and . ~ PseudoSudo 01:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of  [[Template:Protected]] on any talk page considered harmful 

message: I propose using a smaller version of this box, which could be placed floating at the right side on the article.
Example:
{| cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" style="margin: 0 0 1em 1em; background: #f9f9f9; border: 1px #aaa solid; border-collapse: collapse; width:160px; font-size:90%; float: right"	
	Ths article is currently protected from editing(See why)
The See why link would direct the user to the article's Discussion page, where he or she would find the full explanation box for the article's protection, as well as helpful links on what to do.
What does anyone think about this? Is it preferably to have a little box in the main article, and then the full box in the Talk page? I mean, do we really need this. Comments? —Cantus…☎ 10:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the idea, but some layout problems may occur in combination with infoboxes, images and other right-aligned elements. RexNL 17:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: An idea

message: I just want to make the links shorter! damnit. --Col. Hauler 09:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've shortened the link by replacing the two variables  with . // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 19:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please unprotect this template for a while 

message: Hi. I want someone to do something to this page. I want to change where it says, "This page is protected from editing" to 
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]]
}} is protected from editing
This change also applies to 
--GeorgeMoney T·C 01:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done the change on , but I don't see the need here. This tag should only be applied on the actual page it is protected on, eliminating the need for the code. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Out of curiosity, what does #switch: if there's no matching case, e.g. talk or image pages? Using #switch: also requires :Category:Templates using ParserFunctions. -- Omniplex 02:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing; it's left blank. When I added this to , I added a case for talk pages. But I still don't think that this should be applied to this template for the reasons I outlined above. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit please 

message: You may notice that the semi-protection template has been simplified down to an unobtrusive padlock (Template_talk:Sprotected#Horse_and_Cart for the discussion). I did wonder about whether a similar change might be appropriate here too as it would certainly improve the reader's experience of the site, although I accept that as 'full' protection prevents editors from editing it might need the larger info box, but maybe not something quite as obtrusive as at present. Comments? --AlisonW 23:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sprotected template 

message: With the new sitenotice, the image is floating right over the text of the sitenotice (in monobook at least). Over at Template:Sprotected, they added top: 26px to the icon's div (see the diff), and I'd propose the same here. Cheers! --james(lets talk) 10:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.--Commander Keane 14:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now it's too low (or maybe that's because I turned the sitenotice off with my css).  Is it even necessary at all? The reason it's on sprotect is because they don't have a boilerplate, but there's a boilerplate here. --Rory096 23:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image floats over sitenotice 

message: The image was changed back (to the lock, :Image:Padlock.svg) on Template:Sprotected as the keys image is LGPL, which requires attribution.  This presents a problem as when the image is combined with the CSS hack to link to the protection policy, that you cannot easily get to the image description page (which has the licensing and other details required) from the pages where it is used.  Thus, I believe that the image should be changed back to Padlock.svg unless there is a more suitable image that is also public domain. Kotepho 04:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently no one has this in their watchlist. On a related note, I cannot find Wikipedia's copy of the LGPL (or GPL) so uhh, should probably fix that. Kotepho 18:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've contacted Voice of All on his talk page. He only should be the one adding the keys image to this template. -- ADNghiem501 08:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He reverted to a version before he edited. Done. -- ADNghiem501 08:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Icon - licensing issues

message: Hello there. I am from Wookieepedia, another Wiki project. After countless vandalism attacks, the vandals have begun to destroy our beloved project. In order to counter, and stop the vandals, many of us believe a true vandal-proof code should be used. Now, we've created Protection templates similar to the ones on Wikipedia, but the articles are never truly protected (the EDIT and MOVE buttons still remain). So, I'd like to request the proper coding necessary to completely lock our articles and save our Wiki project. Would you be so kind as to provide a code we could use to protect our pages? We thank you dearly. 154.5.130.212 03:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is your site using MediaWiki? If so, any sysop can protect a page (there'll be a "protect" tab at the top of each page). The person who set up the site can head to Special:Userrights on your site, enter a username, and add that person to the sysop group if you want to make more sysops. --james // bornhj (talk) 03:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coding 

message: Please, add ru-interwiki: ru:Шаблон:Protected.
* Done. Petros471 13:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  Thanks for letting us know. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Done. -- Steel 12:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Done. -- JLaTondre 16:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interwiki 

message: Would anyone be interested in adding a link to the protection log to this and other protection templates? It could be done with the following wikitext:
:[ protection log]
If there is interest, let's come up with where it should go in the template and I'll slap an  on here to get the change made. Mike Dillon 04:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection log link 

message: Most people using this template should know what they're doing with it, but some don't. Can we add a noincluded instruction similar to  to say:
This template is not to be used as a bluff. Only use it on PROTECTED pages.
-- zzuuzz (talk) 19:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. I've modified the message a bit, hoping to forestall those who believe adding the template protects the page, as well. Luna Santin 20:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that looks ideal. I don't know why I forgot to ask for that - the vast majority of inappropriate use is of that sort. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit request - not for bluffs

message: I've started a discussion at Template_talk:Protected2 about when to use that template instead of this one. If you have an opinion, please add it over there. Kla'quot 16:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using this template versus {{[[Template:Protected2]]}}