From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it. |
|
 B |
This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. |
| High |
This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. |
|
|
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. |
|
| B |
This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. |
| High |
This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. |
|
This article is about one (or many) Thing(s). |
|
|
 |
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Sections with no replies in 90 days are automatically moved. |
[edit] Some means to lock the text
I'm not sure if there is any precedent to do this or not, but from what I have seen, almost all of the edits to this page recently have been to the text, which certainly hasn't changed recently. I was wondering if anyone else would support a change by making the text into a template, fully protecting it, then transcluding it back onto the page. This would prevent people from messing with the text, which there is no reason to edit, but still avoiding having to semiprotect the rest of the page when edits to the text pick up, as we have had to do recently. If anyone else has an idea of ho to lock part of the article without locking the whole thing down, I'm open to other ideas, but it seems to me like we should figure out some sort of a solution here.--Terrillja talk 18:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- I confess a lack of knowledge about technical solutions to problems like these, so I am unable to say what I think would work best. This sounds as good as any solution to me. I agree wholeheartedly that this is an appropriate response, however. The text of the Preamble hasn't changed. Moreover, it never will change, since even if (improbably) there were an Amendment that affected its content, the U.S. Constitution has opted to go with the unfortunate practice of attaching amendments seriatim. There is no need to leave the text open to editing. MrArticleOne (talk) 20:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- It sounds like this would work. If we can get it to work, this should be implemented across the whole range of the constitution articles. A new name 2008 (talk) 21:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- I trust that this mechanism could be edited by experienced or "trusted" editors. I know that many of the Constitution articles have either mistakes in the text, or at least do not preserve the original capitalization. I had intended on one day getting to all of that, but I am busy and I go slowly. As it is, I still have some content I'd like to add to the Preamble article. MrArticleOne (talk) 23:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- My thought was to have the text fully protected, so that no one other than admins could edit it, since the text isn't changing. As far as edits which you want to make, the article had been the way they are now for a while, if it takes you a little while to make the edits you need to make before the text is locked, that's fine. Even after the text is protected, changes can still be proposed using the {{editprotected}} template. My thought is that any changes would be unlikely, so as long as we can make sure that the protected text is accurate before it is protected, I can't see any serious issues.--Terrillja talk 02:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- This sounds intriguing. If it doesn't interfere with editing any other part of the article, I'm in favor of it. SMP0328. (talk) 03:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- That was my idea, so that we don't have to have the entire article protected due to silly vandalism to the text or people trying to "fix" the text.--Terrillja talk 03:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- I can understand that, as I have just done that regarding another article. SMP0328. (talk) 03:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- I am pretty sure that the Preamble's text is accurate; although I didn't immediately check to make sure the punctuation and capitalization were right, I've checked before and I believe all edits to the text over the past many months have been reverted. However, I am equally confident that many other parts of the Constitution on this project are not accurate in one way or another. On the other hand, I doubt that any of them are as plagued by vandalism as this is, so we may not even need to bother with this method of protecting those texts. MrArticleOne (talk) 05:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) I created a template and added it to the page, will request full protection per this discussion. A new name 2008 (talk) 13:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- I moved the template to a sub-page of the article, since this isn't really a "template". It can be accessed at Preamble to the United States Constitution/text. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 20:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Move Request - A discussion has been started concerning moving the Text subpage created as part of this discussion back to a Template. The discussion can be found here. --A new name 2008 (talk) 11:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
