Template talk:Pp-vandalism

message: Please change "ns:main" to "ns:0" (ns:main does not work). Also, you might want to change "ns:image" to "ns:6". Also, please change "NAMEPSACE" to "NAMESPACE". Thanks! --- RockMFR 17:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, apart from the ns:image change (it's slightly clearer than ns:6). --ais523 17:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ns:main

message: This template should add pages to :Category:Protected against vandalism, either instead of or in addition to :Category:Protected – Gurch 15:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Harryboyles 19:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category 

message: Can someone change this so it looks like ?  68.101.123.219 01:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done – 86.133.139.4 10:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Looks like

message: Like :Category:Protected against vandalism, for maintenance, I think it would be worthwhile that the template categorizes in :Category:Protected against vandalism only articles, templates and portals. They are the most to-be-aware-of, and other pages can be categorized in :Category:Protected project pages, etc. The only visible change in the current category is that images will be moved to :Category:Protected images. Cenarium (Talk) 02:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restricting [[:Category:Protected against vandalism]] to articles, templates and portals ? 

message: It appears that this templarte links the expiry date for autoformatting. As autoformatting has been deprecated for some time, can this linking behaviour be removed? Colonies Chris (talk) 22:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This should be requested at  -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date linking 

message: Go to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#WP:Accessability  ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 22:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Come back when you have consensus... —GFOLEY FOUR— 05:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 

message: As preventing vandalism is technically an endorsement of the current version over vandalized versions, the first sentence should be changed to something like "This protection is not intended to prevent good-faith changes." Lophotrochozoa (talk) 23:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference here is to m:The Wrong Version, which applies to edit wars and suchlike. — This, that, and the other (talk) 02:28, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence can also be removed if you think that's a better idea. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 17:21, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

text: Not done: Not sure this is necessary. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not? Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "This protection is not an endorsement of the current version" 

message: Change:
|small={{{small|}}}
|demospace={{{demospace|}}}
To:
|small={{{small|}}}
|right={{{right|}}}
|demospace={{{demospace|}}}
This allows use of the new pp-meta parameter.
Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Done --Redrose64 (talk) 21:14, 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 ♪ 23:48, 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 

message: I see that MusikBot is removing this template from pages where it detects that the page is no longer protected, but my understanding was that this template automatically detects the protection level and doesn't display the padlock if the page is unprotected.  It therefore seems unnecessary to remove it, and needs extra work to keep reapplying the template for pages which suffer from frequent vandalism and get protected fairly frequently.  I assume that the function of the bot dates back to a stage when the protection status wasn't automatically detected.  Have I misunderstood the situation?  --David Biddulph (talk) 11:53, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automatic removal by MusikBot 

message: So what does this template do? The usage is unclear so you mean that this template, when put in it will check if a page is edit protected and will show an icon if it is, but if it is not then no icon will be shown? User3749 (talk) 07:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  This, and all the other pp- templates, just use Module:Protection banner, but if the page is protected, it will show a banner or icon; if not, it gets put in a hidden category for tracking errors. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 09:50, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template?