Template talk:Pp - Revision history

Bmueller: /* Red padlock */

2022-02-23T16:47:26Z

Red padlock

Bmueller: /* Red padlock */

2022-02-23T16:46:44Z

Red padlock

Bmueller: /* New reason proposal */

2022-02-23T16:42:18Z

New reason proposal

Bmueller: 1 revision imported

2021-11-23T23:20:00Z

1 revision imported

Wikipedia>MarnetteD: this is not a chat room

2021-06-23T12:34:44Z

this is not a chat room

Show changes

@@ Line 180: / Line 180: @@
 ::::::::::The reason for the complexity is that we use <code><nowiki>{{PROTECTIONEXPIRY}}</nowiki></code>, which has recently been enabled on this wiki, and to make it easier to use from Lua, [[User:Cenarium|Cenarium]] has created [[Module:Effective protection expiry]]. Effectively, if <code><nowiki>{{PROTECTIONEXPIRY}}</nowiki></code> returns "infinity", then <code>protectionObj.expiry</code> is set to "indef". If it's a date, then <code>protectionObj.expiry</code> is set to that date as a number in Unix time. If the expiry is unknown - which at the moment means that the page is unprotected or under pending changes protection - then {{para|expiry}} is checked, and if it's a value similar to "indef" then <code>protectionObj.expiry</code> is set to "indef", and if it's a date, then <code>protectionObj.expiry</code> is set to that date as a number in Unix time. If the expiry is unknown and there is no {{para|expiry}} parameter, then <code>protectionObj.expiry</code> will be <code>nil</code>. So essentially, <code>not protectionObj:isTemporary()</code> checks whether we were not able to find an expiry date, either from <code><nowiki>{{PROTECTIONEXPIRY}}</nowiki></code> or from {{para|expiry}}. — '''''[[User:Mr. Stradivarius|<span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr.&nbsp;Stradivarius</span>]]''''' <sup>[[User talk:Mr. Stradivarius|♪&nbsp;talk&nbsp;♪]]</sup> 11:03, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 :::::::The distinction between indef and permanent is too vague and will be lost on most people (myself included). I really see no advantage in distinguishing between the two. The fantastically weird hacks with the expiry dates suggested by davidwr will overcomplicate things for no benefit. &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;[[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 09:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
-::::::::You make some valid points, but any discussion to treat "permanently protected" pages differently than they are now (e.g. changing the padlock color from red to gold) needs to happen at [[Wikipedia talk:Protection policy]].  [[User:davidwr|davidwr]]/<small><small>([[User_talk:davidwr|talk]])/([[Special:Contributions/Davidwr|contribs]])</small></small> 14:54, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
+::::::::You make some valid points, but any discussion to treat "permanently protected" pages differently than they are now (e.g. changing the padlock color from red to gold) needs to happen at .  [[User:davidwr|davidwr]]/<small><small>([[User_talk:davidwr|talk]])/([[Special:Contributions/Davidwr|contribs]])</small></small> 14:54, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
-:::::::::That's why I attempted to initiate a discussion on [[Wikipedia talk:Protection policy]] a few days ago but you turned up here instead ;) &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;[[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 09:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
+:::::::::That's why I attempted to initiate a discussion on  a few days ago but you turned up here instead ;) &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;[[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 09:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 Just to follow up on this, the red padlock is now history. &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;[[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 09:49, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

@@ Line 154: / Line 154: @@
 ::::{{ul|Mr. Stradivarius}}, {{ul|Jackmcbarn}}: can we get some advice on this please? &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;[[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 09:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 :::::I think the red lock is kind of pointless and poorly specified as it exists now. Perhaps we should completely replace it with the gold one. [[User:Jackmcbarn|Jackmcbarn]] ([[User talk:Jackmcbarn|talk]]) 17:07, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
-::::::That sounds like a reasonable idea. I'll open a thread at [[Wikipedia talk:Protection policy]] &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;[[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 19:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
+::::::That sounds like a reasonable idea. I'll open a thread at &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;[[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 19:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 ::::::'''Keep''' the red for "permanently" protected pages and '''use gold''' for indef-but-not-permanently-protected pages.  Now, what do we do about pages that are "indef-protected" but which are not "permanently" protected?  My recommendation:  If you see a an indef-protected page that isn't "forever" change the protection to expire "a long time from now (such as 2099-12-31)" and slap a gold lock on it.  If you see an indef-protected page that IS "forever, at least as far as the eye can see" slap a red lock on it and put a note in the edit summary explaining why (or un- and re-protect the page and put the note in the protection log).  [[User:davidwr|davidwr]]/<small><small>([[User_talk:davidwr|talk]])/([[Special:Contributions/Davidwr|contribs]])</small></small> 21:54, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 :::::::But what exactly is the difference? At the moment, a "permanently protected" page seems to be defined as one that has full edit protection and is either a template or a module. There are also two somewhat-obscure rules, the lines <code>reason and obj._cfg.indefImageReasons[reason]</code> and <code>not protectionObj:isTemporary()</code> in the test above, which neither {{user|Mr. Stradivarius}} nor {{user|Jackmcbarn}} (they being the people who made all but four edits to [[Module:Protection banner]]) seem willing to explain properly. Those two rules aside, why is an indef-full-protected template described as "permanently" protected, whereas a page in another namespace, which should rarely (or never) be altered because of legal implications (such as [[Wikipedia:Content disclaimer]], [[Wikipedia:Copyrights]] or [[Wikipedia:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License]]) apparently is ''not'' permanently protected? --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 23:34, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

@@ Line 229: / Line 229: @@
 Hello, I have a new suggestion for a reason proposal. I have been loooking for a bit, and I figured that a disruptive editing reason should be added (because the two main causes of semi-protection is either vandalism or disruptive editing. It would be great for this to be added, as there are a high amount of articles being protected from disruptive editing (I'm not too sure if vandalism and disruptive editing mean the same thing, or if they both have the same point). If you could consider the option for disruptive editing as a reason for this heavy used template, that would be great. Thank you, and have a good day. --[[User:Redolta|<font color="red">'''Red'''</font><font color="black">'''olta'''</font>]] [[User talk:Redolta|(talk)]] 01:58, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
-:{{replyto|Redolta}} See [[WP:DE]] and [[WP:VAND]]. Vandalism is a special case of disruptive editing: the difference is basically one of intent. But this is the wrong page to discuss extension of reasons for protection: the {{tlx|pp}} template merely reflects the current protection of a page which was protected in accordance with [[WP:PROT]], so, a far better place to discuss changing the policy would be [[WT:PROT]] or even [[WP:VPP]]. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 10:22, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
+:{{replyto|Redolta}} See [[WP:DE]] and [[WP:VAND]]. Vandalism is a special case of disruptive editing: the difference is basically one of intent. But this is the wrong page to discuss extension of reasons for protection: the {{tlx|pp}} template merely reflects the current protection of a page which was protected in accordance with [[WP:PROT]], so, a far better place to discuss changing the policy would be WT:PROT or even [[WP:VPP]]. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 10:22, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 ::Ok, thank you for the explanation. I now understand. [[User:Redolta|<font color="red">'''Red'''</font><font color="black">'''olta'''</font>]] [[User talk:Redolta|(talk)]] 13:47, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

← Older revision	Revision as of 23:20, 23 November 2021
(No difference)