Template talk:Pp-dispute

message: Type                      	Full           	Semi
Dispute                   	               	
Vandalism                 	               	
High visible templates    	               	
User talk of blocked user 	               	
Spambot target            	               	
Generic (other protection)	               	
Move protection           	Move protection	Move protection
                          	               	
:Aren't  and  redundant with eachother? I don't think the hgihtraffic one would be needed at all. Picaroon 21:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can agree with that →AzaToth 21:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template matrix 

message: Shouldn't we be encouraging people to use  not 
--Akako|☎ 13:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No reason to subst . →AzaToth 23:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: If you subst editprotected then it is much harder to comment it out.  WHen an admin makes the changes they ordinarily just replace  with . CMummert · talk 12:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:Pp-dispute 

message: I would like to add another parameter to give a short summary of the dispute. For example,
 would make the first sentence say "This page is currently protected from editing until disputes about the point of view have been resolved." I can make the change myself, but I want to test consensus. CMummert · talk 12:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  reason= parameter 

message: It would be nice to have this template categorize pages into a reason-specific category, something like :Category:Protected due to dispute (if you can think of a better name, go ahead), in addition to (or preferably instead of) :Category:Protected. This would allow people to see at a glance all pages protected for this reason, making maintenance and review of page protections much easier, and avoiding the need to create very long and quickly out of date lists in project space. Thanks – Gurch 23:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems reasonable to me, but I want to wait for comments before proceeding. CMummert · talk 12:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No objection to this, but I'd prefer the double-categorization unless/until all the other templates also have their own category. --ais523 13:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  also double-categorizes, so I think this should too.  I am prepared to make the edit unless there are objections. CMummert · talk 01:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I made the changes. CMummert · talk 13:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorization 

message: The phrasing of "the current version (protection log)" can be easily misinterpreted by newbies to mean that a "version" and a "protection log" are somehow the same thing, or closely related. Therefore, I propose that it say "the current version (see protection log)". Does that work? Should I raise this in Proposals instead? \sim Lenoxus " * " 02:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording issue 

message: New citizens of Wikipedia may be flummoxed by a protected page.  A note on the discussion page answers their need for explanation and (in the case of semi-protection) can be used to steer them toward registration.  
One example of good template language might be something like this blurb provided by Aude, and possibly the text following, created by a new user (me):  
The page is only semi-protected, which means if you create an account then after four days you can edit this page and any other semi-protected pages. Semi-protection helps cut down on vandalism, which seems to happen (unfortunately) a lot on this page if it's left open for anonymous edits. --Aude (talk) 17:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggest to add explanation to discussion area when protecting (or semi-protecting) pages 

message: Value of attribute "valign" cannot be "center"; must be one of "top", "middle", "bottom", "baseline".--23:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  valign 

message: Please add :bg:Шаблон:Редакционна война  Thank you. --Petar Petrov (talk) 11:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interwiki links 

message: Currently pp-dispute provides pointless date links when an expiry date is given. Why would anyone need to link to an article about a year, or particular day-month from this template? Please remove it. Hohum (talk) 19:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pointless date linking. 

message: Go to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#WP:Accessability  ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 22:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Come back when you have consensus... —GFOLEY FOUR— 05:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 

message: Please see Category talk:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates#I don't understand.. to keep discussion in one place. -- œ™ 05:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why only full protection? 

message: Change:
|small={{{small|}}}
|demospace={{{demospace|}}}
To:
|small={{{small|}}}
|right={{{right|}}}
|demospace={{{demospace|}}}
This allows use of the new pp-meta parameter.
Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Done --Redrose64 (talk) 21:10, 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 ♪ 23:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to convert this template to Lua 

message: What do people think about including a link to the draft version of an article, if it is fully protected? This would allow collaboration to continue and aid discussion on the talk page. (This first came up at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 15#Draft version.) Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to draft article