Talk: Protected

Using this template

It seems like this template is transcluded on very few pages, and I'm not quite clear when it should be used. Should it be used on any page in the main namespace that's has any kind of protected level (obviously not the main page)? Any fully-protected page in certain namespaces? Right now, it seems to just be scattered across a few random protected pages in the article namespace. Personally, I would support adding something to signal that a page is protected, for all pages in the main namespace of any level, and possibly even other namespaces, although this may be confusing for templates and such.-- Madminecrafter12^{Talk to me} 13:51, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Maybe we should just get rid of the template? Users who edit or try to edit any protected page get far more information about the status of its protection than this template provides. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 14:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I do think it would be nice to have an easy way to see that a page has been protected and what level of protected it is without having to edit it. Also, for a page that one doesn't have permission to edit, viewing the source doesn't show the level of the protection - one would have to view the protection log. However, I'm not sure that a big yellow message box is the best way to convey that a page is protected. Maybe it would be better to do what Wikipedia does and just have a small lock or something similar in the top right corner of the page? Suggestions are welcome here.-- Madminecrafter12^{Talk to me} 14:10, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

 Support page protection status as <indicator>s. They're far less obtrusive than navboxes. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 14:18, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

What kind of indicator are you thinking?-- Madminecrafter12^{Talk to me} 14:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Locks, same as on Wikipedia. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 14:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I guess I'll start testing in my sandbox.-- Madminecrafter12^{Talk to me} 14:48, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

@AttemptToCallNill: Take a look at my sandbox. How do you think that looks? Obviously I'm going to replace "the bla bla bla category" with something else, that's just a placeholder. I would also like to add "Category:Semi-protected pages," Category:Director-protected pages," and "Category:Fully protected pages" as needed. I would probably definitely want the opinions of other users before moving it to the template namespace, though.-- Madminecrafter12^{Talk to me} 15:56, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Corrected your category titles. Also, a more descriptive tooltip would be really helpful. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 16:09, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Looked at your code. I guess I'll draft my own version. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 16:10, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What exactly do you mean by more descriptive tooltip? I had "this page is [x] protected so that only [y] users can edit it" as the span title.-- Madminecrafter12^{Talk to me} 16:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, wait - for some reason it isn't working though, as you can see from User:Madminecrafter12/sandbox 2. The file's link target is taking priority over the span title. When the span title is "This page is semi-protected so that only registered users can edit it," it instead shows up as "MCW:Autoconfirmed users," as that's the file link. I'm not sure how to fix that though.-- Madminecrafter12^{Talk to me} 16:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, an indicator tag is a thing! Yeah, yours is definitely simpler and better. We should go with that one.-- Madminecrafter12^{Talk to me} 16:16, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) User:AttemptToCallNil/Alpha – see source code. That's how I thought it would be implemented.

And "fully protected" shouldn't be hyphenated. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 16:17, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

AttemptToCallNil - see what I've done with my sandbox now. It's similar to how it was before, but I've incorporated many of your ideas and simplifications into it. Also, does anybody else have any opinions on this? If so, please reply.-- Madminecrafter12^{Talk to me} 23:08, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

You're adding the category even though it says you're not intending to...

Also, I'd really like to see others' opinions on this. I'm sure Majr is going to tell me something new about <indicator>s which makes them completely unusable on this wiki... --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 09:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I recently uploaded a new lock - File:Move protected page lock.png, can be used on move-protected pages that can only be moved by sysops but edited by anyone. The template the locks used, which template can be used by the locks or should them automatically be displayed on protected pages? psl85 ☎ Talk 19:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I've incorporated the move-protected lock into the test version in my sandbox. Right now I have it so that if a page is protected so that either only administrators or only administrators and directors can move it, the olive lock appears. However, it may be better to have a separate lock for when directors can move it. Also, the move lock will only appear if the page has no edit protection; otherwise the edit protection will always take priority (unless I've made a mistake with the template...) - this is how Wikipedia does it (although suggestions of how to change this are welcome). By the way we still would like other people's opinions about this, as this would be quite a major change.-- Madminecrafter12^{Talk to me} 19:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

My suggestion:

• For now, don't use any locks if the page is salted (create=autoconfirmed/director/sysop), that would require site interface (MediaWiki namespace) changes.
• If the page is semi-protected (edit=autoconfirmed), use the silver lock.
• If the page is move protected (edit=none/autoconfirmed, move=director/sysop), use the olive lock.
• If the page is also an upload protected file (upload=director/sysop)... we don't have this case handled.
• If the page is director protected (edit=directors, move=directors[, upload=directors]), use the black lock.
• If the page is fully protected (edit=sysop, move=sysop[, upload=sysop]), use the golden lock.

--AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 19:48, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

My opinion on everything:

First option looks good - I completely agree that it would be annoying, difficult, and not-worth-it, to try to have a lock for a salted page. Second option, looks great. As for the third one, how Wikipedia does it is if a page is fully protected from being moved and only semi-protected from editing, the move lock will not show, only the semi-edit lock. So, are you saying both locks would appear as indicators instead? That would actually be a good idea, and just because Wikipedia uses this system doesn't mean we have to do it exactly as they do it, some differences would be nice. Just would like to be clear on that.

Fourth - that's a good point. Looks like Wikipedia uses commons:File:Padlock-green.svg, so I'll try to work that into my sandbox. In my opinion, if we do a single-lock option, upload-locks should take priority over move protection, and I think that's how it is on Wikipedia as well (correction: Wikipedia does not do this, move protection apparently takes priority over upload protection - feel free to discuss which one makes more sense to take priority here). If we do a double-lock option, the decision is obvious - no need to overwrite anything. Fifth option - yes, what I've been doing is using the black lock (as Wikipedia does not have directors-protection, I thought it would be nice to have a completely new one). And golden is what Wikipedia uses for full protection, so works for me.-- Madminecrafter12^{Talk to me} 20:04, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

It would be nice if there was a way to do this without adding a template, something that automatically shows on all pages would be a lot easier than manually adding it to every such page. I agree the message box looks pretty ugly though, I tend to prefer them for just temporary notices, so if a non-message box approach requires a template then I am in favor of this change.

I have no real opinion on specific colors as long as there is a proper tooltip. --–KnightMiner ^t/_c 21:10, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree we should show appropriate lock icons on protected pages. I think we should show each type of protection separately, so one for edit, one for move, one for upload, and one for anything else we might think of later. Essentially, if these protections can exist separately in the protection mechanism, they should show an individual icon of their own. No priority system, that just makes it unnecessarily complicated. Also I fully agree with KnightMiner that these icons should be displayed on pages automatically without the need to manually transclude anything. I don't know how to do this, I'm not experienced with that. But it would make a lot of sense. How could we otherwise add it if it's protected above our permissions, and the protecting admin forgot (or didn't have time) to use the template? lastly, I currently cannot see any of the icons visible on your sandboxes, Madminecrafter, so I don't know what examples you're talking about, I can only see it in the source code. – Jack McKalling [ ] 12:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

JackMcKalling - see my sandbox now. I've modified it so that all of the locks appear, along with their caption and link for convenience, but it will still appear correctly when transcluded.-- Madminecrafter12^{Talk to me} 12:56, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. It would be nice if the two director/administrator and administrator variants of the edit and move protections had differing colours, eventhough the tooltip is there to differentiate. There were no more colour examples on wikipedia, because the Director role is ours obviously. How would it work to show these indicators automatically for a page without using templates? Would it need to be transcluded from system messages, or is there a mechanic for this? – Jack McKalling [ ] 13:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has continued here.-- Madminecrafter12^{Talk to me} 13:25, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Use of this template

Going off of the above discussion, what should the fate of this template be? It definitely seems too intrusive to be used on articles, although I could see it being used on certain template and module (and possibly file) pages. –Sonicwave ^talk 07:28, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

We might could just delete it. We already have the locks; although they don't convey quite as much information as this template does, if a user without the permission to edit a certain page tries to edit it they will be provided with more information than this template has, including how to request lowering the protection, how to request edits, and a link to the protection log.-- Madminecrafter12^{Talk to me} 14:35, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Anyone want to comment?-- Madminecrafter12^{Talk to me} 14:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I think we should just delete it. However, this discussion, I think, is worth keeping. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 14:31, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

New File

I uploaded a new file for semi protected pages and it came from this site: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Semi-protection-shackle.svg

I was just wondering if we could just switch the semi-protected lock to this to this . More updated svg locks will also come. Sincerely MoMoCool2005 (You can talk to me) 11:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

 Support. Looks much better than the hideously outdated icons used currently. –Majr ᐸ Talk
Contribs 05:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I proposed this on the community portal some time ago. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 09:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)