Wikipedia talk:Protection policy

message: While long durations are discouraged throughout the policy, create and protection protections are often indefinite and the policy should be more consistent with standard practices. I did some analysis of the most recent 5,000 protections going back to 8 February 2024.
There were 328 create protections and 272 (83%) of those were indefinite. Of those, 247 were protected due to a page being repeatedly recreated. 7 had no reason, 5 were restoring previous protections, 4 were due to socking, 5 were the result of AfDs and RfDs, and the rest were reasons showing up just once. I think a good starting point would be updating WP:SALT to state that 
There were 66 move protections that were ECP or higher (move semi-protection is basically a no-op), not cases where move protection was the same level as edit protection, and not done by . 29 (44%) of those were indefinite (16 of those were ECP while 13 were full protection). The reasons for the indefinite move protections were more varied than with create protection as you would expect with 11 protected due to vandalism and disruption, 6 due to move or edit warring, 2 due to socking, and the rest were reasons showing up just once. I think a good starting point would be updating WP:MOVP to state that 
We can tweak the additions later if necessary. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure about documenting "lowest protection level sufficient to stop the disruption." IMHO it's often better, for example, to semi-protect an article for a week so the disruptors get bored and move on. In this context, I wouldn't think it helpful to salt a page for less than six months because once someone gets the idea they just have to wait a bit, they will wait more and more. Similarly, if a move war is going on, why not protect for a month to allow a move discussion plenty of time? I suppose a 48-hour protection could be applied and then block someone who moves it before a discussion is finished but I would prefer to avoid that. Johnuniq (talk) 00:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I think a lot of what this section is off the mark and awkward as guidance. But I wasn't up to fixing that, just improving the exposition. EEng 01:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Which section is off the mark and awkward as guidance? Daniel Quinlan (talk) 01:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking in particular of at the end it refers to two different things, and for whatever reason I lacked the enegry to untangle that (probably because this is a policy so I didn't want to do anything that shaded the meaning even slightly differently. There was some other stuff as well that's gone now. EEng 02:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a point. We could replaces  with . I would also suggest removing  which is unnecessary. The result would be  Daniel Quinlan (talk) 03:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

text: The  part is about to protection levels for create and move protection, not protection durations. For example, it's not necessary to use full move protection when the move vandalism is only from autoconfirmed users. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 01:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yikes, I don't know how I misread that. I agree that minimum level is desirable. Johnuniq (talk) 01:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

text: Both changes look good to me. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

text: Thanks. I went ahead and made the changes. I ended up merging the create protection sentence with another sentence to avoid some redundancy. I also added a short sentence about semi-move protection not having any effect, based on a similar sentence from the create protection section. Please let me know if you have any concerns. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 01:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indefinite create and move protections 

message: I haven't checked, but I think templates can be conditionally transcluded. If a cascading-protected page transcludes a template that conditionally transcludes another one, but doesn't use it in this case, is the third one protected (assuming there's no other reason to protect it)? Orisphera2 (talk) 18:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: If  is nested conditionally inside of , and  is transcluded at Example, but the condition is not triggered, then  is not technically transcluded at Example so it would not be cascade-protected. Primefac (talk) 18:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

text: Correction: CPP. It's weird that it isn't red-backgrounded. Orisphera2 (talk) 18:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cascading protection and conditional transclusion 

message: The redirect Full protection has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Mia Mahey (talk) 04:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Full protection]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: The redirect Semi-Protection has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Mia Mahey (talk) 18:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Semi-Protection]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]