Template talk:Sprotected/Archive 2

Template looks ugly again

Currently, the notice is on three lines at 1024x768 resolution, with the only word on the third line being "unprotection":

As a result of recent vandalism, or to stop blocked editors from editing, editing of this page by new or unregistered users is temporarily disabled. Changes can be discussed on the talk page, or you can request unprotection.

The phrase "or to stop blocked editors from editing" makes no sense. If a user is blocked, then he/she can't edit anything anyway. I propose a return to the original two lines, like this:

As a result of recent vandalism, editing of this page by new or unregistered users is temporarily disabled. Changes can be discussed on the talk page, or you can request unprotection.

-- RattleMan 18:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. I suppose the phrase "or to stop blocked editors from editing" was included so that the template could also be used to protect user talk pages, but we already have {{usertalk-sprotect}} for that. RexNL 17:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Blocked editors edit all the time, particularly if they have dynamic IPs. The sentence was added to indicate articles that are sprotected because banned or blocked editors are editing. Now that that is explained, I'll restore the text. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree; the original looks better.

As a result of recent vandalism, editing of this page by new or unregistered users is temporarily disabled. Changes can be discussed on the talk page, or you can request unprotection.

For edit warring:

As a result of recent vandalism, and due to blocked users editing, any editing of this page by new or unregistered users is temporarily disabled. Changes can be discussed on the talk page, or you can request unprotection.

--Sunfazer [[User_talk:Sunfazer|(HOW'S MY DRIVING?)]] 22:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Please can we change "temporarily" to "currently" to reflect the (regretful) practice that some articles are more-or-less permanently semi-protected.

I made this change. Pcb21 Pete 08:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Also I would really appreciate it if this template could mention that 99.999% of articles are not protected, and we'd dearly love new editors to improve those until their account is old enough. Pcb21 Pete 14:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Printable version

I think we should have some kind of code that makes it so this template doesn't show up in the printable version a page. If you print out an article on wikipedia, you don't care if a page is semiprotected, because you cant edit a page when it is printed. --GeorgeMoney^{Talk  Contribs} 02:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree. And I'd like to take this argument a step further, even. People who read the online version of the article don't care either, and IMO we should really just move this editor centric, obstructive and completely offtopic template to the talk page where editor info like this belong. Shanes 02:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Or what would be even better is that it only shows up when you edit. Then the people who don't want to edit (not me, I do want to edit) don't have to deal with it. --GeorgeMoney^{Talk  Contribs} 03:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

A note does show up if you try to edit and aren't authorised to. So the big box is really redundant and only intrusive and distracting. Interestingly the Germans have understood this. On the excellent German Wikipedia the protection notes are put on talk pages and kept away from article space. Shanes 00:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Shanes. Will a whole shitstorm descend upon on us if we actually try to do this? People seem to be massively resistant to change... Pcb21 Pete 08:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Shanes and Pcb21. --GeorgeMoney^{Talk  Contribs} 22:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

A small error

Just before the last link, there should be a space. The current version says "mayrequest unprotection", but it should be "may request unprotection". Could an administrator fix this? Mathias-S 16:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Whups! Thanks for noticing, and thanks HappyCamper for correcting it. My fault! -Mysekurity ^[m!] 20:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Banned users

Someone removed banned users, which I've restored, because vandalism isn't the only reason for using sprotection, as the policy makes clear. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Usage

There should probably be a <noinclude> section that tells non-admins (like myself) not to use this template without properly sprotecting first. That way, we won't end up with a lot of bluffs with no page protection. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 02:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Minor change prop

I propose chaning "new editors" to "very new editors" to be more in line with other pages. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

As there were no objections, I've added this. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that, just noticed this. Which other pages? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 17:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, guess it was selective memory, went looking for them but not to the point of going through histories :) WP:SEMI says "accounts less than 96 hours old", but that may spill the BEANS on this template. I was hoping to come across [[WP:BITE:nicer]

] to new accounts interested in contributing positively, guess they could read the policy though. Anyone else got any input on this? — xaosflux ^Talk 20:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Tagging the talk page

Given Jimbo's proposal that continuously protected pages shouldn't bear the tag, the policy has been tweaked to allow the tag to go on talk pages instead. However, this creates a problem with the link to the talk page, which doesn't work when the article is placed there (doesn't go bold either, but leads to a Talk:Talk page, which of course doesn't exist). I don't know how to fix this. Does anyone have any ideas? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The simplest solution: I've removed the link to the talk page, instead just asking people to discuss it. Hopefully people will know that discussion of the article occurs on the talk page. A second note: I don't see why changing "page" to "article or project page" is necessary. "Page" already describes all possible pages in Wikipedia, regardless of the namespace it is in. The additions are extraneous and make this template longer than necessary, in my view. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 14:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, the reason I changed "page" to "article or project page" is that otherwise, if the tag is on a talk page, it would say "editing of this page is currently disabled," when in fact it's the article that's sprotected. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

And thanks for removing the link. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see now. To rectify that, I've changed "this" to "the" so that it doesn't imply that the page the template is on is the page that is protected. Is that better? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Thank you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion it would be better to make another template for tagging talk pages rather than have this one serve double duty with an awkard non-specific wording. Haukur 10:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Haukur, you restored the talk-page link. Does that mean the original problem (see above) is back? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, I retained your editing (and I shortened just a little more), but I got rid of the talk-page link, because it comes up as a red link when placed on talk pages: not just in bold, but actually as a red link. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Until today I've never seen this template on a talk page and I don't like the idea of turning it into a talk page template. A new/unregistered user who comes to the Holocaust article now and wants to edit it doesn't have any obvious thing to do. She can click on the cryptic "view source" but it is far from obvious that this will yield anything useful regarding editing. Clicking on "discussion" isn't entirely obvious either. When a user comes to an article on the encyclopedia that anyone can edit and finds that she can't actually edit it she deserves some sort of explanation right away. It doesn't have to be verbose or scary, just a little template with a useful link.

That said, if you are going to use a template like this on talk pages I don't think it should break the useful link to the talk page which I dug out of a previous version earlier. That's why I suggested creating a new template.

But now that you've pointed out that this is already used on some talk pages and breaks badly with the link I inserted I won't insert it again until we've reached a resolution. Haukur 11:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Moving the template to talk pages follows Jimbo's proposal that these templates not be used on continuously protected articles, and I believe there's further discussion about getting rid of the template completely and having some explanation appear when people try to edit, but I don't know the current status of that. In the meantime, this template will be used on articles and on talk pages, so it has to be compatible with both. I'm not opposed to creating a new template, but people are getting a big fed up with having to remember increasing numbers of new templates for different things, so it'd be good if we could use just one. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

In the mean time, until the "edit explanation" mechanism arrives, could you re-remove the big scary bolding for the sentence? There is a big lock and the entire text is wrapped in a box. It really doesn’t need more emphasizing. --Supercoop 13:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

There already is an explanation when people try to edit if you define "try to edit" as clicking "view source" (which I rather wouldn't). I think that the main thrust of Jimbo's proposal was that we don't need a lengthy, ugly and threatening template on popular pages for what amounts to business as usual. I don't think there is consensus for moving the template altogether to the talk page, I'd prefer if we just edited it down to some miminum length, got rid of the bolding and maybe the lock too.

You might have a case for having a different template for pages which we expect to remain semi-protected for a long time (Bush) but dropping the "currently" out of the template is something I'd rather we didn't at this point in time. Haukur 13:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

For awhile, the Bush page had a specially made warning. Wish I knew where it was. And what is this "Jimbo's proposal"? A link or somesuch would help for admins like me who aren't policy wonks. :) --Woohookitty^(meow) 13:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Woohookitty, Jimbo posted the proposal to the mailing list. It's cited on Wikipedia:Semi-protection. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

(Resetting) Thank you, SlimVirgin. I was heavily involved in the initial policy creation but I haven't been keeping up the last few months. --Woohookitty^(meow) 13:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Minimalist version?

I made some changes again; removed the bolding and the padlock and the vague one-size-fits-none wording. Personally I'd prefer if this template read simply: "Editing of this page by new or unregistered users is currently disabled. See Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy." Haukur 13:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

There's such a thing as too muted. We don't want it to overwhelm the page but the whole point of a template like this is to give people important information. Telling them that they can request unprotection is important. It is also important to tell them that they can create an account. Remember, we are writing this for those people who are being blocked due to the semi-protection. Lacking the hows and the whys on how to end the semi protection defeats the purpose of the template, IMO. Again, we're not writing this for us. We're writing it for people who cannot edit the page as a means to prevent endless questions. --Woohookitty^(meow) 13:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The "current" minimalist template addresses your concenrcsn. It has the request for unprotection and links to create an account. --Supercoop 13:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

That's all true but if the reader needs more info it's all in WP:SPP. Of course not everyone will follow the link and maybe some will be left annoyed, I don't know. Haukur 13:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Haukurth, the problem with saying "this page" is that, if it's on a talk page, it won't be true, and we don't want newbies to think they're not allowed to edit the talk page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. That's why "project" was included. Though. I think a better word needs to be found for that too. I mean. Newbies will not know what "project page" means. Honestly, I didn't know my first few months on the site. Would there be a way to make it so that when it says "article", it links to the article itself? I'd think there must be a way to make the template do that. So when it says "this article" on say Talk:George W. Bush, the word article would link to the George W. Bush article. That's an idea too if it's possible. --Woohookitty^(meow) 13:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

We could just say editing is currently disabled, without saying "this page" or "the article" or whatever. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought about that - but it's hard not to make it sound like editing is disabled project-wide, which is the last thing we want to imply. I understand where you're coming from with "this page" and "the article or project page" but I think the latter is as likely to cause confusion as the former when put on a talk page. And we still haven't answered the question of what template to use when you really do want to protect a talk page, as Woohookitty mentioned. Haukur 13:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with the padlock? It's been used in all protection templates for quite a while now, and didn't add to the size of the template that much. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

You're right that it doesn't add much to the size - but here's why I personally don't like it: It looks scary and threatening and makes the semi-protection out to be a bigger deal than it is. The article isn't really "locked" - any Wikipedian can edit it and anyone else can edit it too if they're willing to wait for a few days. Haukur 23:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The padlock forms a universal image on protected pages and should not be removed unilaterally from one in the series. The whole point of graphics is to visually communicate content because all too often people simply ignore an image-free box. As to thinking that it looks "scary" — who in their right mind would be scared of a small padlock? Millions of Wikipedians lock their bikes with them every day. I see no justification whatsoever for its removal. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

What I mean by scary is that it looks like something is wrong - like the reader is being warned to behave or scolded for making the protection necessary. But that's just my perception, I'm glad you have a different one. Haukur 23:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Readers (the people we write this encyclopedia for) don't care about semi-protection policy, banned users, or editing in general. They just want to read the article to learn about the article topic. The information we put in this box is completely irrelevant to the subject of the article, and the wordier, bigger and flashy we make the box, the more distracting and confusing it becomes to our readers. A wikipedia article should (as the style manual states) begin with explaining the subject of the article, not with a note on article-protection and banned users on Wikipedia. So I'd like the box to be as discreet as possible, preferably no box at all. It should go on the talk page. Shanes 00:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Em this is supposed to be an open-edit encyclopaedia. If we prevent people for some reason from editing a page then we need to do it upfront, in a way they can see, on the article page. Burying it where they can't see it, in a talk page they might never visit (or even know about) is a non-starter. As for making it discreet, if you mean hide it, that is not on. If we are stopping them edit, then they have a right to be told upfront and clearly "sorry, guys, because of vandalism, you may not be able to edit this page", not require them to get a magnifying glass, squint or search pages they may not know even exist. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

There's a ballance between presenting a nice-looking and to-the-point article to our readers (without off topic and obstructive distractions), and giving information to editors about the current editing status of the article. I feel we are being too editor centered (self-centered) when we put a big wordy box on top of all these articles. Editors will find out about the protection anyway if they try to edit it. The German wikipedia puts the sprotection tag on talk pages, and I think we should too. Shanes 01:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

But how do you "try to edit" the article if you're not logged in? All you have is a "view source" button and it's by no means obvious that this will yield the information you need. Haukur 10:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

It's maybe not obvious to everyone, but it's a trade off, a ballance, between being obvious to (new) editors and presenting a good article to readers. I'm guessing here, but I'd be surprised if more than 1% of those reading a wikipedia-article are any interested in editing it. And of those very few interested, the "view source" being there instead of the "edit this page" (like on the main page) is quite a good hint to the page being uneditable to them. We are here for the readers, and presenting clear and good artcles to the readers, without confusing distractions, should be our first priority. Shanes 14:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Excellent job in my opinion. It could stand to be more noticeable - bold text and the use of more color can do that. There's no reason for it to consume as much screen real estate as the old template was, and this new "slim" template allows more of the article to be seen and doesn't clutter up the page so badly. Kasreyn 11:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Don’t make it scary and distracting to readers. Ax the bold text, keep it simple as possible and I would say camouflaging it as a test study. --Supercoop 15:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Interwiki

Since this page is protected (why not sprotected?), I didn't manage to add the fr interwiki: [[fr:Modèle:Semi-protection]].
Thanks. Plyd ✉ 14:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit please

Hi. I want someone to do something to this page. I want to change where it says, "Editing of the article or project page" to

Editing of this {{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}
|=article
|Category=[[Wikipedia:Category|category]]
|Help=[[Help:Contents|help]] page
|Portal=[[Wikipedia:Portal|portal]]
|Template=[[Wikipedia:Template messages|template]]
|User=[[Wikipedia:User page|user page]]
|Wikipedia=[[Wikipedia:Project namespace|project page]]
}}

This change also applies to {{protected}}

--GeorgeMoney ^T·C 01:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this template needs change

I am not an admin, so I can't edit it, but I would like for the words "accounts newer than four days can't edit" or something like that, and I think the padlock image that was originally on it should be restored. --NicAgent 20:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Good points. You are correct. Both should be there. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit Conflict:
I think the padlock should go back, and I think it is not a good idea to put "newer than four days", because vandals might say, "Ok then, I'll just wait 4 days and then I can vandalize, Muahahah, Muahahahahaha" --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 20:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure the four day thing is hardcoded - isn't it supposed to be something like newest 1% of accounts? And I still think the lock looks vaguely threatening, I'd prefer a shield if we have to have an icon. That said I'll briefly lower the shields on the template so you or any other non-admin can edit it. It's protected because it's a big fat juicy target for vandalism, not because only us smarty admins are clever enough to decide what it should say :)

Make the changes you want to make now, I'll protect again in two hours (or earlier if a vandal shows up). Haukur 20:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I made some changes unrelated to this conversation. --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 20:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Locking again as planned. If you missed the window just ask and someone will open up again :) Haukur 22:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I really don't know what is the problem with the padlock. A page is locked from general editing, so you show a lock. What on earth is the problem? How by any wild stretch of imagination is a lock scary or theatening??? It is a lock, to show that a page is . . . um . . . locked. If some mythical contributor out there thinks padlocks are scary they have far bigger problems to worry about and frankly they need a good psychiatrist. lol FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

It's mainly big and annoying like that exclamation mark. You're right that it should stay, though, because it indicates briefly what kind of message it's giving. Ashibaka tock 15:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Small change

Just "You may discuss changes on the talk page" → "You may discuss changes on the [[{{NAMESPACE}} talk:{{PAGENAME}}|talk]] page". Tested in my sandbox and in 3 other namespaces, and it works fine. The talk is the best way to suggest changes for an sprotected article, and immediate unprotection is unlikely, so it's silly to point to requests for unprotection while not linking to the talk page. --Rory096 03:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, now "Please discuss changes" → "Please [[{{NAMESPACE}} talk:{{PAGENAME}}|discuss changes]]," since it was changed. --Rory096 06:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Dammit, does nobody read what I say? Sigh, I'll put the template on. --Rory096 21:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Nobody read what I said when I wanted the same change. --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 21:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I know the problem with linking to the talk page. It makes the link bold when it is a talk page. we need to do a {{#Switch}} --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 21:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Since when does {{sprotected}} go on talk pages? Anyway, it would actually mess up (and send you to talk talk:pagename), not make it bold, but I've never seen sprotected go on a talk page anyway. --Rory096 22:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

What about talk pages of blocked IPs that remove warnings? I always see talk pages get sprotected. Also, User:AmiDaniel's talk page got sprotected today. --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 00:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

See the discussion on this page - Jimbo first suggested the idea on the mailing list, having the tag go on the talk page of a semi-protected articles in some circumstances. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a different template for talk page protects, btw. --Rory096 03:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Another possible improvement

"You may discuss changes on the talk page, request unprotection, or create an account." could become "Anyone may discuss changes on the talk page, request unprotection, or create an account." otherwise it makes little sense to established users. Rich Farmbrough 09:33 30 May 2006 (UTC).

I also think it should say "by newly registered or unregistered users". Rich Farmbrough 15:41 30 May 2006 (UTC).

A removal

I'm removing "or to stop banned editors from editing". "Vandalism" covers that. --Woohookitty^(meow) 11:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

To replace that clause is the main reason I bothered to edit this template in the first place. We get a lot of twerps who continue edit warring (in what otherwise might be considered legitimate content disputes) after their original account gets banned. Would you be more comfortable with a separate template to address this reason for sprotection? — May. 31, '06 [12:21] <freak|talk>

Yes, this is really distracting on high-traffic pages like George W. Bush. The vast majority of readers have no need to know anything about "banned users" or even that they exist. Haukur 12:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good then. — May. 31, '06 [12:32] <freak|talk>

Template:Sprotect-banneduser. — May. 31, '06 [12:39] <freak|talk>

The problem with using the word Vandalism on subjects injects a POV from the start. The reader will say "why does this article get vandalized so much; the (subject) must be bad". The original wording was pretty good to convey the message that the article was locked without conveying any misconceived spurious message. --Supercoop 15:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

How about replacing 'vandalism' with 'problematic edits' - ie the first sentence would read 'Because of recent problematic edits, editing of this article by newly registered or unregistered users is currently disabled'. This would avoid WP being seen to 'take sides' in an edit war, and would still cover blatant vandalism (since vandalism is problematic). Readers just need to know what's happening, they don't need to know the particular piece of wikijargon we have decided to use to describe the situation. Cynical 20:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

change

I think we should change, "By newly registered or unregistered users" to "By newly registered users or unregistered users", because people might get confused and think that "newly registered or unregistered users" means that it is either newly registered or newly unregistered.

Also, we should add a few parameters like where it says, "users is currently disabled" we should add "users is currently disabled {{{reason|}}}", and we should have an option, {{{message|Editing of this template page by newly registered or unregistered users is currently disabled {{{reason|}}}. Please discuss changes on the talk page, or request unprotection. You may also wish to create a new account.}}} and we should have a parameter for the image.

Also, we should have a link to the talk page.

Thanks, --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 23:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The first change is ok. The second I'm leery about. The problem with adding a reason part is that most admins won't use it, so we'll end up with an ugly template with {{reason}} in the middle of it or whatever. --Woohookitty^(meow) 00:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all, it is not the template, {{reason}}. It is a template parameter. Notice how it has three curly braces "{", not two. Also, that is an optional parameter. Which means that it won't show up if you don't put anything there. All of those are optional. --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 00:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no need for a reason because 1)I have just reinstated the reason and 2)there is only one reason for using this template. -Splash^talk 00:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. --Woohookitty^(meow) 07:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

But, what if you want to say, "Has been sprotected due to spam" --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 23:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Spam is vandalism. -Splash-tk 21:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I know, but shouldn't there be an option to define the vandalism? --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 21:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the utility in that, no. If someone cares, they can read the history, the protection log etc. -Splash-tk 21:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think people should go out of their way to find the protection log and then look at the summary of the protector. What if a blocked IP is removing warnings from his/her talk page? Then instead of saying, "Due to vandalism this pages is s-protected" it can say, "Due to warning removals". Even though blanking talk pages is vandalism, I still think there should be an option. --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 21:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

That would only make sense if the tag was there for a reader. In increasingly hypothetical situations where all sorts of things might happen, doing your research is easily the best way to go. If an editor even cares what specific flavour of vandalism it was, then they can click a mouse once more. In any case, for talk pages, there's a seperate tag. -Splash - tk 21:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess you're right. --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 22:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

New Header

Splash – you reinserted the word vandalism back into the template so let’s address the cons of that wording. You stated that there is only one reason to protect an article? ...to advertise that Wikipedia is a troll hangout? Placing words like this blazing at the top of high profile articles gives the appearance that Wikpedia has a problem and might give the inexperienced users a feeling that if this article is vandalized then what other articles are vandalized and not noticed – The new user might say "Wikipeida is untrustworthy; therefore, I should look elsewhere for information." The words also don’t assume good faith and Vandalism isn’t the only reason to sprotect an article; sometimes, new or anonymous users might be inserting unreferenced or POV into an article which isn’t quite vandalism. There isn’t any reason to put why an article is protected; if someone really wants to find out, then that person can read the talk page which will contain a more in-depth reason as to the why – one word reason isn’t going to be save-all of Wikipedia. Sometimes, things are quite complicated and you’ll have to read a few lines to understand what is going on.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Supercoop (talk • contribs)

The few lines I would suggest that you read are those contained in WP:SEMI. Furthermore, Wikipedia is untrustworthy and people should be looking elsewhere for information. Anyone protecting an article because an anon inserts POV or unreferenced material is abusing the tool in a manner not supported by the relevant policy. Serious, current vandalism is the only reason to semi protect an article, with really very few exceptions. Assuming good faith doesn't have a great deal to do with this. -Splash^talk 13:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I read it, now will you re-read Wikipedia:Assume good faith - the entire banner protection wording is going against this; therefore, we have two official policies which must be followed. Just step back and think about what the banner looks like to ~250,000 people; not what I think about it or you think about it but what kind of message is this really delivering and is this what you really want as a intro to any subject. --Supercoop 13:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

That's an argument for removing the tag entirely, something I do not support. Jimbo has suggested the idea recently, but it didn't take. I do not agree that AGF has anything to do with this. If someone has been seriously vandalising an article, then they have exhausted any assumptions of good faith, and may well have got themselves blocked as a demonstration of that fact. Insofar as protection prevent editors who have not been bad from editing, well, yes, I agree heartily that we are temporarily suspending assumptions of good faith towards them and this is one reason why I have spent so much time trying to minimize the impact of sprotection. It is tiring to do it by myself, however, and so I have largely abandoned that cause. None of this changes the fact that the only reason for using this tag is a prevalence of vandalism, and that almost all other uses are wrong. Putting the word "vandalism" in a tag when such is the precise cause of the use of the tag is not itself an assumption of anything. It is a statement of fact. -Splash^talk 14:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Remove "recent" and "registered"

The template is a bit big now, I'm removing "recent" as it adds nothing and can be inaccurate given long protections; and registered is redundant. That will condense it by a line. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It worked for 800x600, still 3 lines in 1024x768. Ah well. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I've restored some of the old wording. This tag can now be placed on the talk pages of articles semi-protected instead of the article, per Jimbo's suggestion; see the discussion above. Thus, the wording has to be modified to reflect that, and I've done so, trimming down the template and making sure "talk page" doesn't appear if the tag is on the talk page. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

"...or create an account"

is good advice generally, but it won't actually make any difference to a user who cannot presently edit a sprotected page. Perhaps we should just remove that link, and expect them to read the key document, which is bolded. We're not trying to lead people around by the nose, after all. -Splash^talk 15:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Or maybe they can go edit one of 6822992 other articles for the extremely short period of time it takes a new account to mature sufficiently enough to vandalize edit even semi-protected pages. — Jun. 2, '06 [15:40] <freak|talk>

Not using this template.

Re: Discussions to just not use this at all. Personally, I'm against this, it serves to say why this page is not normal, would a compromise be simply in positioning? I've recent sprotected Wikipedia:About and the banner looked horrible, so I put it at the bottom of the page. It's still there, but not nearly as intrusive to a reader. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea actually. There was some step toward not using the tl at all, and just using a cat. I think the template encourages people to get it unprotected asap which is the mindset they should have. -Splash - tk 21:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Suggested courses of action

It's a minor point, but currently it suggests you "discuss changes (talk), request unprotection or create an account". Shouldn't registering be suggested first, then discuss, then request unprotection? Registering should be encouraged, not seen as a last resort. BigBlueFish 17:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed text

To reduce the amount of changes to this template page, it has been "semi-protected". If you are a new or unregistered user, and see a passage that needs updating, please discuss changes, request unprotection, or create an account.

How does this sound? Yes, it's not as straight forward, but the word "vandalism" et al is just very off-setting for visitors. NL doesn't even display a template, it only mentions s-protect in its category section. -- Zanimum 15:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

It sounds not right, I think. "To reduce the amount of changes" is just wrong: there are many articles that could use fewer changes, but they do not amount to vandalism and would not result in semiprotection. What did the New York Times say? I guess they got something wrong, or something? -Splash - tk 15:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Horse and Cart

I'm wondering if we are looking at this issue the wrong way around and over-engineering the response. The vast majority of editors will be able to edit a semi-protected page. The vast majority of readers couldn't care less about whether it is protect, semi-protected or open to all-comers as they are just here to read. The *only* people to whom a semi-protection status matters are (a) IP-only editors - who experience suggests will mostly be vandals , and (b) newly-registered users. But currently, instead of having the briefest of interruptions to the flow of an article under semi=protection we have a two- or three-line banner at the top telling everyone it cannot be edited by that few to whom the status will actually make some difference. Indeed, it could be argused that the banner actually entices vandalism elsewhere (or names to be registered especially for the purpose. I'm wondering, therefore, if we shouldn't look at how the nederlands wikipedia deals with the issue. You can see the template here and it in use of the Feyenoord article. All they use is a small icon on the top-right of the page of the article. Not obtrusive to the vast majority of people reading/editing the page; far friendlier, cleaner, unobtrusive. Someone to whom it will make a difference will see further details when they try to edit, but most people will just have a simplified Wiki experience. As editors we sometimes like seeing the processes that we go through, and the big block there at the moment certainly fulfills that desire. But it doesn't benefit everyone else and, as we regularly discover, the media think that it matters way more than it does. The same might even apply to the present fully-protected template. It makes mountains out of molehills where most users aren't interested in either - they just want the article. --AlisonW 18:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC) (ps. credit for the link to Walter at Wikizine)

Brilliant. Especially when we try to remember that the majority of people who see an article are readers, not editors. - Amgine 18:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Very sensible.

James F. (talk) 21:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree as well. And for what it's worth, the German wikipedia also avoid confusing and distracting the readers by keeping that box out of article space. Shanes 22:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

OK. Having announced it here and in IRC without anyone saying they think it is bad, I've made the change to the template. Let's give it a day or two and see if it makes any beneficial change; certainly articles look a whole lot better to the general reader as the padlock is unobtrusive. --AlisonW 23:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

For the image, I think we should use {{click}} and link to the protection policy. --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 23:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point; making appropriate amendment now --AlisonW 00:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

You've preserved the part of the template which I like the least - the padlock. I could live with this if there was an obvious way for newbies to "try to edit" but there isn't. There's just a "view source" button and a cryptic icon. Let's say you are a confused newbie who wants to edit the article on George Washington on the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. You go to the page and look for an edit button. You find nothing and get confused. Then you notice the padlock icon and figure it might have something to do with the fact that you can't edit. You click on it but all that gives you is a larger image of a padlock and no relevant information. You get frustrated and decide that this is actually the encyclopedia that anyone who knows the secret handshake can edit.

You might say that this is an unlikely case because only a relative handful of articles are semi-protected. But remember that the ones that are are exactly the ones that newbies are most likely to want to edit. I'm all for a non-obtrusive version of the template but I don't think this one quite works. I think that a padlock is an awful metaphor for semi-protection and I think we need to link to the semi-protection policy. Haukur 00:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree with you partially, that the padlock per se is a bad icon, and I'm dealing now with the image thing. An open padlock though would be misleading ... suggestions for something else that would fit in a 25px box? --AlisonW 00:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Dunno. A shield? Haukur 00:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

hmmmn. possible. logical too. --AlisonW 00:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Not perfect but, in my opinion, a bit less threatening and a slightly better metaphor. A padlock says "no-one can touch this without a key", which makes it a decent metaphor for full protection. But semi-protection means "anyone can play with this if they fill out a tiny form and wait a few days" and I'm not sure human beings have developed a 25 px iconic image for that :) Haukur 00:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe an image with the edit tab crossed out. --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 00:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

What the heck??? Who came up the brainy idea of posting an padlock or a word plastered across my talk page link at the top of the page? All that shows up is a jumble of 'jtdirl (talk)' with some word I presume is semi-protected written directly on top of it. It is tacky, ugly and a mess.

Messages up there are a complete waste of time. Most people don't see them. Even many active wikipedians haven't a clue what the star means, let alone people just visiting WP for the first time and are still unclear what all the commands mean, let alone strange symbols that have no explanation attached. if a page is to be protected by whatever means, a written explanation is vital. Otherwise people arriving at the page won't have a clue about it and will end up wondering why the heck the supposed open-edit encyclopaedia won't allow them edit. The page has to tell them, not paste anonymous words or symbols somewhere on the page and hope that they are good at spotting them and good at guessing. And no, BTW, people don't immediately cop on that everything is a link and hit it. Only a tiny minority of people will spot some wee symbol buried on the fringe of the page. Only a minority of that minority will actually hit it to see if it is a link. The great majority will simply try to edit the page, find they can't, and say "what the fuck is wrong with this? Why can't I edit this?", and probably end up frustrated for Wikipedia over its non-edit free edit pages. About the only place such a message or symbol should go is on the actual edit this page link. And unless you can come up with a form of words to explain that a page it locked, the best way to do it is to show a padlock because everyone knows that a padlock means something is locked. It is the best symbol of communicate that. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

BTW a shield??? lol What the heck has a shield got to do with locking something. Lock = a lock = a padlock. Geddit? FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

What has semi-protection got to do with locking something? Haukur 00:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

*sigh* Have you ever protected or semi-protected a page? You lock it, either to stop everyone but admins editing it (protection) or to stop new users editing it (semi-protection). Users all over WP talk about having to "lock pages" to stop vandalism, etc. That is why all the protection templates use locks as their graphic. It was the universal agreement. (The only debate was which image of a padlock to use.) They don't use shields. What are they meant to do with shields? Bang vandals over the head with them? The whole message about a lock is simple: "This page is locked from editing for some users." BTW a shield is used as a weapon. Are you seriously suggesting we replace a standard image of a non-weapon with the image of a weapon? FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 02:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The metaphor sort of works for full protection (where only a limited number of people have got the 'key' to the article) but it makes little sense for semi-protection. A lock says: "You can not touch this and you may not touch this!" whereas we mean to say: "Anyone can edit this page if they sign in or create a new account and wait a few days." The padlock does an appalling job of saying this and now the text that actually does say it has been removed. Haukur 12:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The FA star template manages to show a descriptive mouseover text. I don't feel confident enough to edit this template in the same manner, but maybe someone else do? Shanes 12:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Done by using {{Titled-click}} instead of {{Click}}. Kusma (討論) 13:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

What about doing

<div style="position:absolute;left:322px;top:10px" title="Editing by anonymous or newly-registered users is presently disabled." id="sprotected">— [[wikipedia:semi-protection policy|semi-protected]]</div>

which adds a semi protected link right next to the title. Look at User:GeorgeMoney/sandbox for an example. --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 01:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree; I think the new form is very much better. I'm pretty sure that I'll end up stealing borrowing this for other wikis (especially as it's much more multi-lingual than some - OK, quite a lot of - text).

James F. (talk) 07:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The lock image perpetuates the misconception that semi-protection is a big deal. Haukur 12:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I could create an .svg depicting half of a condom. — Jun. 18, '06 [13:31] <freak|talk>

That would be a better metaphor in that it implies 'protection' rather than 'locking'. It also doesn't say "you can't!" but rather "you can, if you're willing to make a tiny bit of effort". Haukur 16:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Other icon I find the current icon not very good for this function. I suggest to use this icon; image:Crystal 128 password.png. It is maybe also not fantastic but I think it is better. The dutch Wikipedia is using that icon for this function. --Walter 21:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

That image is LGPL or GPL, not PD so I guess we shouldn't use it with {{click}}. it also doesn't look good so small. Kusma (討論) 22:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I take that back. LGPL should be fine. Just the issue of how it looks at this size remains. Kusma (討論) 22:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks fine to me at that size, i.e. it's obviously keys - David Gerard 22:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

We could have a picture of a UK-style life-sentence. -Splash - tk 00:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

We don't want it to seem like locking. Semiprotection has nothing to do with locking. I think we should get the devs to integrate something in just like the blocking mechanism. If you are blocked, there is still an edit tab, but when you press it, you get MediaWiki:Blockedtext. So if you are an IP, if you try to edit, you get a box that says it is semi protected and you need to create an acount, etc.... Or another idea would be to make something kind of like a hide/show box. When you try to press edit, it doesn't take you to an edit screen, it just inserts a box on the page similar to the old semiprotection box. To view the wikitext, you have to press the edit tab again, and those instructions will be explained on the box. --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 22:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Changing the content of MediaWiki:Viewsource to simply read "Edit this page" (like Mediawiki:Edit does), would accomplish something along what you're proposing, I think. But I'm not sure if it's a good idea. Many people are now accustomed to see the "View source" there instead of "Edit this page" when it's locked. So at least to begin with it could be seen as confusing to use the same text. Shanes 00:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I find this change regrettable. The majority of anon editors, still, are the helpful people who come along and fix a typo and a comma. I began there; I think most of us did. We owe these people an explanation of why they can't edit this article. (I also agree with Splash's point, above, that s-protection is a bad thing, and we should have an incentive to fix the underlying problem.) Septentrionalis 16:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The vast majority of people who access *any* page on Wikipedia are readers, not editors (named or IP-only) and I believe we should give a good experience to them as our prime preference. If one of the small category of people not permitted to edit a semi-protected page tries to do so they will be told that the page is semi-protected and what options they have. They can either fix a typo or comma on another article (and with over 1.2 million articles there are *very* few that are locked or semi-protected - fewer than a couple of dozen) or they can create a handle for themselves, wait four days then edit nearly every article we have for typos, commas, facts, the lot. --AlisonW 22:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but, <broken record>they have to be able to find out that the page is semi-protected and what that means. All they have now is a "view source" button and a cryptic icon.</broken record> Readers are important but editors are pretty darned important as well and all of us start out as anonymous or newly registered editors. The few pages that are semi-protected are very high-profile pages - many people probably start out by checking if they can edit George W. Bush, they can't and they deserve an explanation why.

Aside from these problems, several people have pointed out that the current version of this template breaks for several skins (and/or browsers). I'm going to edit the template back to a text-version. I'll also unprotect the page so that non-admins can participate directly in editing it. Please lock it again if vandals arrive. Haukur 22:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the invisibility of the image in some skins is a big problem. (The image is invisible so the display doesn't break, just as with the featured star and the spoken icon). The only people who might be confused are those who change their skin within the first four days after opening an account. Kusma (討論) 22:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I've taken the tamplate back to the icon-only version as it is clear from the above discussion that there is support for it as against the long and obtrusive text version. (You'd also lost an interlanguage link). As Kusma points out above, the only people who might have a problem with being confused about this are those who change from the default skin in the first four days and, personally, I reckon anyone that does that will be happy to wait four days to edit the couple of dozen articles they can't edit at the point out of the 1.2 million they can. --AlisonW 23:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll concede that the skin issue may not be a big deal (though there may be browser-specific issues as well as noted earlier). I think my other point is much more important and I don't think that text version is long or obtrusive. New users have to be able to figure out why they can't edit the articles, a little image up in the right corner is not enough. Haukur 23:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The explanation comes when they click "view source" or use "?action=edit" or the icon. They could also ask on any help or talk page. Maybe we should try to keep the icon only for a couple of days and see whether the help desk or the {{helpme}} people report an unusual amount of semi-protection related questions? Kusma (討論) 23:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Ooh, you're getting all empirical on me :) I doubt that the rate of questions about semi-protection is large enough for a change in this template to have a measurable effect (i.e. I'd guess that there are hardly any questions about semi-protection). And more questions wouldn't necessarily be an indicator of something bad, it might just mean that the thing in question had become more visible. Haukur 23:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Position still wrong on Safari

I've got Safari 1.3.2, and the keys float (below, I think) the donation message. Is there any way to seperate them, so that they don't overlap? -- Zanimum 12:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

A quick hack would be to move the donation message. The position of the icon is such that it fits with the spoken and featured icons. I guess we should either stop putting new icons in the top right or find a software solution to automagically arrange stuff there in a non-overlapping way. Kusma (討論) 13:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Is that possible, though? It's a Mediawiki message, Mediawiki:Anonnotice. -Splash - tk 14:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It probably works if we simply put a couple extra &nbsp;s in there (that's how space is reserved for the featured star), or (better?) a placeholder with the correct width. Not a very elegant solution though. Kusma (討論) 23:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Issues with non-Monobook skins

On my page (classic) it puts the word right over some other text and produces an unreadable mess with layers of words on top of each other. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 02:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I have copied some code from the Spoken Wikipedia template, which seems to mostly fix the issue in the skins I tried (Classic, Cologneblue). Kusma (討論) 03:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, wrong part of the discussion, sorry. Anyway, my edit should still improve things for non-Monobook users. It still looks a bit strange if a page is features, spoken and sprotected, though. Kusma (討論) 03:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Keys float above donations message

In the Monobook skin, the image of this template is placed right in front of the "Your continued donations keep Wikipedia running!"-text. This looks messy and should be fixed.

I've added top: 26px; to push the icon down slightly so that it misses any site message on the default skin. --AlisonW 08:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

That looks really ugly on featured articles, see Boston, Massachusetts. We really need a central (software?) solution for the site message and icon area. Kusma (討論) 15:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmn. I see what you mean, although at least it doesn't overlap (on default skin, anyway). I wonder whether it would be possible (I'm guessing not though) to have an area at the top of a page that would be reserved solely for icons (such as protection, featured article, etc) that would be available in all skins. --AlisonW 10:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Haukur's proposal

Okay, this is the version I'm currently suggesting:

<div style="right:50px; display:none;" class="metadata topicon" id="sprotect-icon">{{Titled-click |
| image =Crystal_128_password.png
| title = Editing of this page by anonymous or newly-registered users is presently disabled.
| link = wikipedia:semi-protection policy
| width = 16px
| height = 16px
}}</div>
{| class="messagebox protected" style="border: 1px solid #8888aa; padding: 0px; font-size:9pt;"
|-
|align="center"|This {{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}
|=article
|Talk=talk page
|Category=[[Wikipedia:Category|category page]]
|Help=[[Help:Contents|help page]]
|Portal=[[Wikipedia:Portal|portal page]]
|Template=[[Wikipedia:Template messages|template page]]
|Template talk=[[Wikipedia:Template messages|template talk page]]
|User=[[Wikipedia:User page|user page]]
|User talk=[[Wikipedia:User page|user talk page]]
|Wikipedia=[[Wikipedia:Project namespace|project page]]
|Wikipedia=[[Wikipedia:Project namespace|project talk page]]

}} is currently '''[[Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy|semi-protected]]'''. Anyone with a [[Help:Logging in|user account]] older than four days can edit it.
|-
|}

I think this is good because it emphasizes that almost any user can edit the article. It's just one line, it doesn't have any scary icons, it's not threatening or obtrusive and it tells the newbies all they need to know. I think we should fight misconceptions about the semi-protection feature and I think this does a good job of doing that. Haukur 23:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You are failing to follow the discussion above. There has been widespread support for using the discreet graphic that does not disrupt the general Wikipedia readership. If you want to go back to the "bad old ways" of a long piece of boxed text then please get more support first rather than acting unlaterally. --AlisonW 23:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

btw, I just noticed your comment in your locking/unlocking of the template: "Briefly unprotecting so non-admins can get a chance to edit." This is a Wikipedia template that aids in the management of the project. It will be used by sysops (given that only admins can actually change the protection referred to!) so "get a chance to edit" is way offbase. --AlisonW 23:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the only one who has objected to the removal of the text. And there is no "long piece of boxed text", there are fewer than 20 words. You've so far been the only person to remove all text from this template and you've done it four times. Haukur 23:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Then discuss it here and on list and get support - as I did before making the first change - rather than just going ahead with your personal preference. --AlisonW 23:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I've been discussing it for days. You waited six hours after posting your initial idea until you implemented it. Half-an-hour later I noticed it and strongly objected. I still object - a single cryptic icon is not enough and one sentence of text is not obtrusive. And though the keys are slightly better than the lock they're a part of the same flawed analogy about "locking" pages. This is the part that the media keeps getting wrong and we should do nothing to encourage misconceptions. Haukur 23:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The box you're proposing is still obtrusive and its content has nothing to do with the article topic at all. People look up a wikipedia article to learn about its topic, and they shouldn't be distracted from that by having articles begin with any irrelevant message. Wikipedia articles should first and foremost be reader friendly. We are writing this encyclopedia for the readers, not for ourselves. The icon is more than sufficient. Shanes 00:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, it's the place where we come together to create all this wonderful free content. As such, the place has got to be editor friendly. Anyone who wants to create a purely reader-oriented site (like answers.com) can do so with the same content. Haukur 08:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there was six hours on here before I went ahead, but there has also been (well-supported) discussion on list about the effect that large messages have on readers of Wikipedia, especially those readers who happen to be journalists. We create far worse misconceptions by having large "in your face" text boxes that shout at all users whether they are interested in editing the page or not than some small icon of a padlock, a shield, keys or whatever. --AlisonW 08:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Many people agree that large boxes with threatening messages are bad - which is why I've been arguing for weeks for a minimalistic box with as short text as possible. Haukur 08:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

*shrug* Several non-admins have commented on what they think would be good design for this template, it seems to me that their opinions are as valid as any. We protect pages to stop edit wars and vandalism, not to keep non-admins away from editing project pages :) Haukur 23:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

No protection for this template

Why is this template not protected or at least sprotected? If ever there'd be a great target for vandalism this template'd be it. Netscott 23:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Oops, spoke to soon.. seems to be sprotected. :-) Netscott 23:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Another Idea

How about adding a section to MediaWiki:Sidebar that shows the article stats and it links to the associated policy. I have created an example at http://wiki.xyrael.net/mediawiki/index.php/Main_Page?action=purge . If you look on the side, you should see a box that says "article status" and see a link to wikipedia's semi protection policy.--GeorgeMoney ^T·C 23:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting idea, though as we are only talking about a couple of dozen articles out of over 1.2 million it wouldn't be sensible to reserve permanent space on every article we display. --AlisonW 23:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure the devs can make it so it only shows up on semiprotected pages. --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 23:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Revert

I reverted it; it's a notice template. --Sunholm(talk) 23:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

If I remember correctly there was talk on the WikiEn-I mailing list about the garishness about a large notice template on simple sprotected pages. Is that not was the latest changes are about? If I recall correctly User:Jimbo Wales was discussing such matters. Netscott 23:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm putting a newer design... --Bigtop (customer service - thank you for your cooperation.) 23:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Due to vandalism, editing of this by new or unregistered users is currently disabled. Please discuss changes, request unprotection, or create an account.

It's better to have it like above!; it may be garish but it's like a 'work in progress' roadworks sign. --Sunholm(talk) 23:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Revert wars are bad. I've full-protected the template for the time being, though probably on the wrong version. Please come to some agreement here about what the template should be, and then ask that it be unprotected. Jude (talk) 23:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The user should see if he can edit the article or not before he wated his time on the edit. Thus, the notice should be visible. I do not care much what is on the notice but it should be there and be visible. Anyway what is wrong with the old template? abakharev 04:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the old template is that is looks hostile. It gives strong attention to semi-protection status while it is not a big deal. It is also bad PR. There are if you campare to total amount of articles 0% articles semi-protected. But those few articles after the zero are mostly high profile articles. Many readers see those few articles. The whole media attentions about Wikipedia now resent and "that wikipedia is no free anymore to edit" is I believe only happened because of the template .(See section "Media"). Besides ugly and not relevant to the article is is also not necessary. Any template to indicate semi-protection status is a courtesy. The message shown when you try to edit this protected page by the "view source" is already sufficient for those few non-vandal editors who are not logged in or very new. --Walter 20:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It is entirely unfair to blame journalistic ignorance on a template. They should be doing their research properly, which would require them to read the first line ro two of WP:SEMI, which is (or was, but isn't anymore) linked to from the template they are so excited about. The message shown is not really adequate, since it does not properly distinguish between the 4-day and 'never' mode of editing. The articles in question would receive much less bad press if an admin would occasionally actually unprotect something - CAT:SEMI is testament to the fact that they do not. When I used to go through it regularly, I would routinely finish up with 20-40 articles at a given time that actually continued to need protection. This would have dealt with at least a couple of the ones that NYT picked up on. -Splash - tk 22:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

How about something like this? It's not hostile, compact, something uninterested people can just disregard, and will work in all skins (and our mirrors). We could even make it even smaller, saying "This page is currently semi-protected. New users may discuss changes on the talk page." (with wikilinks to explain). The tiny icon in the corner is barely noticeable, and could leave new users confused. --Rory096 07:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

How about this? It's small, links to a page for more information and links to the talk pages so people can request changes. It's visible, though, so people who are wondering why they can't edit can see it. --Rory096 07:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

This page is currently semi-protected. New users may discuss changes on the talk page.

Small, and links to pages for users to get more information and request changes ("talk page") links to the talk when not on talk pages). It's visible, too, so people wondering why they can't edit can see it. --Rory096 07:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks fine. I have no problems with making it smaller. --Woohookitty^(meow) 07:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I join Splash and Alex here. I have major league problems with this template being invisible. First of all, I think it's more hostile not to have it than to have it. Having it invisible means that there is absolutely no explaination as to why these new users can't edit the page. And there is no explanation as to that eventually a user will be able to edit a page. Walter, have you tried editing Wiki as an IP and then try to edit an SP article? Without the template, you get absolutely 0 indication of why you can't edit this page. None. Zero. Zip. It just says that page is protected from editing. It doesn't say why. It doesn't say how to avoid the protect. Yes it gives links but it says nothing direct. We need to make this easy for new users. Hiding a template and making it so they have to try to edit the page...and then click on protection or semi-protection...and then hope that they guess what is going on isn't the way to go. To me, it's essentially biting the hands of newcomers. So. I think it's more hostile than what we had. And I don't think that Jimbo's intention was to hide the template. I think the intention was to make it less obtrusive, which I have no problems with. But hiding it sends the wrong message to everyone. "Hey, you can edit any page on Wikipedia! But not this one! And we won't tell you why!". --Woohookitty^(meow) 07:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Is this a copyvio?

The image that is currently used is licensed under the LGPL. IIRC, this requires citing the author, like the GFDL does. Since we're using the {{click}} function on this image, wouldn't it be violating the license it is under? --Rory096 05:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

SFAICT, no. On commons there is an authorisation, although I don't read spanish that well. --AlisonW 10:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It's actually portuguese, and there's no explicit license given by the creator. He just says that we must credit his website. Technically we probably shouldn't use the click function, but I'm not sure how that usually works. --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 17:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

If he says we must credit him, it's a copyvio, because it's not. --Rory096 06:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

display:none

I don't understand why display:none was added to the div tag, making the hole template invisible!!! Mariano(t/c) 08:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Unprotection

The template's been protected for three days now, anyone mind if I unprotect? Haukur 15:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

We're still debating it. I'd say no. --Woohookitty^(meow) 07:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't mean we have to revert war while we're debating it. If everybody would promise not to edit war, it should be fine, and it's a bad thing that I had to annoy AmiDaniel for 10 minutes to get him to remove the copyvio. --Rory096 07:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the history of this template, it's been changed every day since early May. I think there's a high risk for a revert war. --Woohookitty^(meow) 07:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

No banner text version

Okay, I've suggested a new version where there is no obtrusive banner and no lock icon, just a few words in italics. There are several templates which look like this, most commonly Template:Otheruses. Take a look at George W. Bush and The Holocaust and see if you can live with this version, I'm sure it can be improved, of course. Haukur 11:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I really don't want this to appear as just being the two of us arguing over how to make this work best, but I *really* don't like text being re-introduced as, whatever else you might think, there is clear support for a non-text version. "Suggested" is a misnomer as you've actually put it in place and, whilst I did state previously that I concur something other than a padlock would be preferable rather than go to text maybe a better answer would be to find a free image that could replace the 'questionable' keys instead. --AlisonW 16:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

btw, "banner" because it is at the top above the article, and "text" because, well, it is. I believe the div (which you've removed) was there for metadata purposes (class="metadata topicon") and also needs to be put back in. --AlisonW 16:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I think there is a lot of support for a text version and I'm especially hopeful that the unadorned italicized text will be more broadly acceptable than previous banners. Thanks for the hint on the metadata, I'll look into that. Haukur 17:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't see why we have this template in the first place. If someone clicks the edit button on a semi-protected page, they should see a message that says they must be an established editor with an account at least four days old, etc, etc. The template, especially now, is rather unimportant because it doesn't indicate that there's something wrong with the article (as with the {{protected}} template which denotes an over-the-top dispute). It has nothing to do with the article itself or helping users find another article they meant to go to. Instead, it blends with other, more informative templates like {{otheruses}}. So I'm for removing the template altogether. joturner 20:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Except that there is no edit button visible when a page is semi-protected and you can't edit it. Haukur 03:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I could go for Rory's suggestion in the section above that states This page is currently semi-protected. New users may discuss changes on the talk page. as it does have a purpose. joturner 20:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

"I think there is a lot of support for a text version" .. er .. where? Other than discussion about the best choice of icon (padlock, keys, something else) and the copyright status of one of them I only see you pushing for text (and yes, I'm ignoring the trolling up there). The general discussion here and on lists has been very much pro the change to make this whole 'this page is protected and a few people can't edit immediately' issue look far less of a problem than the previous text version did. --AlisonW 22:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Here are some recent examples from the above discussion where contributors other than me have come out in favor of a text version:

• User:Pmanderson: I find this change regrettable. [referring to the change away from text] ... We owe these people an explanation of why they can't edit this article.
• User:Jtdirl: [A] written explanation is vital.
• User:Sunholm: It's better to have it like above!; [referring to a text version] it may be garish but it's like a 'work in progress' roadworks sign.
• User:Alex_Bakharev: [T]he notice should be visible. ... Anyway what is wrong with the old template? [referring to a text version]
• User:Rory096: How about this? [referring to a text version] It's small, links to a page for more information and links to the talk pages so people can request changes.
• User:Woohookitty: Looks fine. [referring to a text version] ... So. I think it's more hostile than what we had. [referring to an icon only version]
• User:Marianocecowski: I don't understand why display:none was added to the div tag, making the hole template invisible!!!

I hope no one feels I misinterpreted their remarks, please let me know if that is the case. Haukur 03:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Haukurth, I reverted back to the padlock, not because I prefer it, because I prefer the keys, but it's better to have a discreet image than the words back again. They are too intrusive. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

For months we lived with a version that looked something like the following:

As a result of recent vandalism, editing of this page by new or unregistered users is temporarily disabled. Changes can be discussed on the talk page, or you can request unprotection.

This is quite an attention-grabbing banner with bolded text and an icon - apparently people thought that getting the message that a page was semi-protected through loud and clear was important. The version you reverted from as "too intrusive" looked like this:

This template talk page is currently semi-protected. Anyone with a user account older than four days can edit it.

I just don't see how this is too intrusive for the tiny handful of articles which are actually semi-protected. And the lock is a truly awful icon to use instead. Instead of saying "Anyone with a user account older than four days can edit", which is the fact about semi-protection policy which Jimbo has been emphasising lately, it implies that the article is "locked" so that normal people can't touch it. That's exactly the impression we don't want to give. Having no visible template at all would be more honest if you just plain want to hide the fact that certain articles are semi-protected (a valid opinion, though one I don't share). Haukur 03:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of tags on talk pages, Haukur, so I was glad to see the words go. I take your point, but anyone who really wants to edit will ask on the talk page, in my view. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

What happens when an anon tries to edit? Do you know what message they get? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The same message given on a protected page. MediaWiki:Protectedtext. As I suggested above, this isn't nearly as bad as the old template:

This page is currently semi-protected. New users may discuss changes on the talk page.

--Rory096 04:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Actually, the message is exactly what is shown when the page is fully protected. The tab at the top says "full source" and the page doesn't really mention signing up for an account. I don't really like a visible template, but right now that protection message isn't informative at all and we may have no choice. Remember, SlimVirgin, you can always just log out to see the message for yourself. joturner 04:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The message is view source, actually, not that it makes a difference. --Rory096 04:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Grammar/Word Choice Error: Presently

"by anonymous or newly-registered users is presently disabled." (emphasis added)

The word presently means soon or in a short time. I think this message is supposed to mean that editing is currently disabled, not soon to be disabled. Ryanminier 06:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

er ... "presently" means "for the moment but not forever" where I come from. Correct choice of word therefore! --AlisonW 08:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Well then, where you come from, the word is used incorrectly. It's a common usage problem. [1] [2] [3] I realize that there is regional and growing acceptance of presently meaning now, but when the word currently is available and has undisputed usage, why not use it instead? Ryanminier 19:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Alison is wrong. Presently does not mean "for the moment but not forever". It means "in the immediate future", as in "I will be with you presently". Currently or at present have the meaning She is aiming for. People often mix up the words presently and at present. They do not mean the same. It is an elementary error. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not wrong ;-P 'Presently' is one of that list of words which are recognised as having quite different meanings depending on which country/variation of "english" you speak. It isn't an" elemtary error" either. It is a UK -v- USA/non-UK (primarily). "Presently" in the UK is very much a "applies now" term not an "applies future" one. --AlisonW 15:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually you are 100% wrong. The only people who use it interchangeably with currently are those with substandard English. The wrong use of presently (ie, in misusing it to mean currently or at present) is regarded by English teachers as one of a number of examples of substandard teaching, alongside the wrong usage of I and me and incorrect capitalisation. But then substandard English is a widespread problem on Wikipedia. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

My, you are rude, aren't you. I was taught english properly in England and what I said was completely correct. Please take your opinion and attitude elsewhere, thankyou. --AlisonW 13:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Evidence - this just in

Look at this hours old diff: [4] This is good evidence that the icon-only version of the template is ineffective in informing new users about editing a semi-protected article. Nor does a button that says "View source" help much when you are unfamiliar with the interface and looking for an edit button. Fortunately this user posted a question to the talk page so we can sort him or her out. I bet that for every one of these there are many that simply give up in frustration and confusion. Haukur 10:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I would consider that a perfect example of semi-protection and talk pages working! PLus if you start adding every little appearance of a politician on TV then all political articles would get very silly very quickly. --AlisonW 10:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The person may not have a very good contribution in mind but that's besides the point. The point is that people shouldn't have to make inquiries on talk pages (which very few will do) to find out why they can't edit, we should tell them up front. Haukur 10:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Another example just arrived at the talk page of the same article: [5] This contributor figured that only admins could edit the page, and considering my observations in the "Try to edit" section below she can't be blamed. Haukur 10:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Protection

This template was protected (2006-06-20 23:34:20 Bookofjude (Talk | contribs | block) m (Protected Template:Sprotected: Revert war = bad. [edit=sysop:move=sysop])) to stop editing that is causing reversions due to lack of consensus. This appears to STILL be happening by admins ignoring the protection. Either UNPROTECT this, or bring changes to the talk page first. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you please remove the protection template from this template. This template was protected for a long time and the full protection template wasn't there because it would be confusing. You shouldn't use a protection template on a protection template. Please remove it. --GeorgeMoney ^{(talk) (Help Me Improve!)} 18:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Could you unprotect it as well? I don't see how the current protection has brought us any nearer to a solution. The template may say that protection is not an endorsement of the current version but the fact remains that those who prefer the current version have no incentive to negotiate while the page is protected with it. Haukur 18:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I just reduced protection to sprotected. Be sure that we bring up changes to this popular template here before changing it. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

"Try to edit"

One thing that keeps coming up is the idea that all an anonymous or newly registered editor has to do to find out about protection is to "try to edit" the article. But the problem is that a user who can't edit the article doesn't see any edit button. Granted, if the user is familiar with MediaWiki then she may know the normal location of the edit button and notice that it has been replaced with a "View source" button. She may then possibly try to click on that button in hopes of finding something out but I don't think many will. And even if—heroically—they do click on the button the message they get isn't very helpful. This is it:

"This page is protected from editing. If the page is fully protected, only administrators can edit it; if it is semi-protected, only registered users can do so."

"So", our valiant newbie will think, "which is it? Is the page protected or semi-protected?" Struggling on, she decides that the page is semi-protected. "Oh, okay, so what I have to do edit it is to sign up for an account. Let's go do that." A few minutes later the newbie has a brand new Wikipedia account and goes to the semi-protected page again. No edit button. Huh? She clicks on the "View source" button again. The same unhelpful message appears. At this point even the most persistent newbie is likely to quit in frustration. "Encyclopedia that anyone can edit my a**."

We can't assume that newbies are familiar with MediaWiki. We can't assume that they'll find out things we don't tell them. We don't want to have a frustrating newbie experience.

I still think we would be best off with a clearly visible banner explaining semi-protection. Failing that I'll settle for a short message in italics. But as long as the software works the way it does we have to have something and a tiny padlock up in the right corner just doesn't cut it.

If the interface were changed so that users who can't edit saw an "Edit this page" button or (better) a "How to edit this page" button then we wouldn't need to have any visible template at all. But as long as all we have is "View source" we do need such a template. Haukur 09:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

New proposal - modifying MediaWiki:Viewsource

Okay, how about this. We edit MediaWiki:Viewsource to read "How to edit / view source". I'd like to put "how to edit" before "view source" because I think the first is a much more common use case. Haukur 13:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to modify Template:Tooltip-viewsource. Maybe someone can suggest a good wording? Haukur 13:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Modification to MediaWiki:Protectedtext is also needed, I've already done some. Haukur 15:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Did I finally manage to bore you all to death? :) I'll go ahead now and make the changes I was suggesting - if you disagree just revert. And if you disagree and you're not an admin then tell me and I'll revert back for you. Haukur 19:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. I never really understood the point of that "view source" label anyway. Shanes 20:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that part of the reason it's there is to make sure that the GFDL is satisfied. And I suppose it can happen that you're exporting a protected page from one MediaWiki wiki to another, but I should think that would be quite a rare use case. Wanting to edit a protected page is probably much more common. That's my thinking, anyhow. Haukur 20:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

and there is also the case of "how did they do this cool thing?" or perhaps you are wanting to copy wikitext from a protected page, internally. Morwen - Talk 13:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

True. It does happen and it's good that we support it. But I think it's also important to make sure newbies don't get frustrated and I'm sure there's a way for us to keep everyone happy. Haukur 13:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Changing the template

I still think we should get rid of the misleading lock icon and go back to a short text message akin to this. Who are in favor of that? Haukur 20:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You keep asking/trying. I and others keep saying no. --AlisonW 23:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I and others have presented a variety of arguments and offered a series of compromises while you haven't yielded an inch and keep reverting back to your favored version, while pretending that no-one disagrees with you but me. Haukur 23:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Haukur. I am fed up at this stage having that flaming icon appearing over the link to my user page and talk page and simply being presented with an untidy tangled mess of images where nothing can be read. It looks amateurish. If a page is not available to be edited, then that fact should be stated publicly, not hidden dishonestly with some obscure unexplained symbol hidden somewhere on screen. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

And I disagree with Haukur. The note is irrelevant to the article content. Articles should start with an explanation of the article topic as pr the manual of style. They should not start with a self referential note about editing policies on wikipedia. Drop the lock if it's so much in the way and/or put the note on the talk page or (at worst) on the bottom of the page, but don't go back to ruining lots of high profile articles with it. Shanes 23:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not just another website, it's a wiki which anyone can edit and we should never try to hide that nature from our readers. In the rare cases where everyone can't actually edit right away we should say so up front. And personally I think the lock is worse clutter than the words. Wikipedia content is freely licenced and redistributors making read-only versions remove metadata. But we've got to think of our contributors as well as our readers and we have a large array of metadata templates to put on articles. Haukur 23:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

If we put messages about articles' neutrality and writing style on the article page, any restrictions on a supposedly open edit article must be stated on the article too. It would be farcical in the extreme to refuse millions of potential contributors the right to contribute to an article, and then bury in the information on a talk page they might not know exists, or might not want to visit. If something is protected, they have to be told straight off, not lied to about being able to edit an article until they try to. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You are confusing notes about article content with messages about editing that content. If an article is biased or factually disputed or otherwise has flaws, it is of course appropriate to tell the reader this. Whether or not my mother can edit it right there and now has nothing to do with that, the readers don't care. And we aren't lying to anybody by protecting a page without an obtrusive note, we are being considerate and reader friendly when instead presenting a clear and to-the-point article to them. There is also no sucht thing as "the right to contribute". Editing wikipedia is a privilege, not a right. Shanes 02:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Wording

BTW - Why not change word semi-protected in the template, which newbies won't understand, to something like restricted editing or limited editing, both of which are self-explanatory? FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's not give the vandals any ideas

The current language "Anyone with a user account older than four days can edit it" appears to compromise the security of semi-protected pages, by advertising the manner in which semi-protection can be defeated, and implying that semi-protected pages could be repeatedly vandalized by a certain techinque that I won't describe. I suggest that we merely state that "Only established users can edit it." (quoted from the dialog produced when one edits a semi-protected page). This language avoids unnecessarily publicizing a potential security vulnerability in exactly what we mean by "established users" for semi-protection purposes. John254 00:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree the "4 days" statement doesn't even sound good. I'm much more in favor of either "established users" or the use of "very new users" for the description. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought there was broad consensus to replace the words with an image. Did I get that wrong? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I would personally prefer words over an ambigous image. Most readers can read words, not all of them can read the hidden meaning of the image abakharev 06:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a consensus, or even majority support, for replacing the words with an image, though I respect your opinion. If you think it would be helpful we could call a poll. Haukur 09:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't see a 'broad consensus', but I do see a lot of disagreement. AlisonW rather over-robustly asserts that the mailing list and IRC didn't object and thus opts to enforce the image, but overlooks the various dissenting opinions on this talk page (with the implication that because it's on-wiki, such dissent should be secondary). Furthermore, the image approach is established as causing technical problems in non-monobook skins and there isn't even agreement on waht the image should be if it is to be an image. -Splash - tk 16:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't the language come up when one seeks to actually edit the page? I think that's good enough. bd2412 T 02:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Protected, again, applies to admins too

Since there is evidently no consensus on what should be what or even where or which image should be used or if there should be one, I've reverted this to way back before all the current editing around. This is the last version by Freakofnurture. Thus, people should find an agreement here before innocently making further changes to the template. This being a long-lasting editorial conflict and it being a full protect, it applies to admins too. -Splash - tk 16:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't been involved in this, but I believe the best solution is to leave it as-is. The fact that a page is protected should be clearly announced, and a little image in the corner of the page is often missed I would imagine. --tomf688 (talk - email) 16:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Summarising

Since more discussion is needed, I thought I'd summarise what I read as the debate so far:

The use of an iconified image in place of the text-box is proposed for the following reasons:

1. It keeps editorial information out of the way of readers who make up the larger part of the 'population' of Wikipedia;
2. Is less intrusive into articles than the text box;
3. Confused users will see Mediawiki:Protectedtext when they try to edit and this contains the relevant links;
4. The text box being large over states the 'deal' (thought not to be big) of semi-protection;
5. Jimbo suggested on the mailing list that the semi-protection tag is unpleasant.

It is alternatively proposed that the text box be retained because

1. It makes the status of the article clear immediately;
2. It provides more precise information than Mediawiki:Protectedtext is presently able to;
3. Thus new users are more easily able to work out what they have to 'do' to be able to edit;
4. The intrusivity of the text box can be lessened by some the various proposals further up, including the removal of the padlock icon;
5. Philosophical points regarding openness of what is going on and this being lessened by the icon option;
6. The iconified image approach has technical problems in some non-Monobook skins that have not been satisfactorily dealt with yet.

It does not seem to me that either case has significantly established itself in preference to the other in editors' minds. AlisonW in particular seems to try to reduce the opposition to iconfication to either just one person or a number of less useful people. That doesn't seem like a useful approach. So please, discuss pleasantly and fairly and stop flipping the template back and forth all the time! -Splash - tk 16:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Is the version you reverted to, and demanded that nobody can edit, your prefered version, Splash? Shanes 16:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The implication of your question is obvious. No. It is the last version before all the recent changes. Reverting to such a version is commno practise where there is no other stable version to choose pending the resolution of an edit war. -Splash - tk 16:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The status-quo of the pre-revert war version I suppose.Voice-of-All 18:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. -Splash - tk 23:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I rather take that as a personal attack there, but anyway ... The original discussions (and the lists and wiki both have their place in such discussions) were on reducing the somewhat alarming appearance of blocks of text and their being misunderstood by the press - witness the New York Times' article (and others). Oh, and I haven't edited the template in well over a week and even that was only a minor positioning change to avoid the Wikimania message. Maybe you should look at the people who actually repeatedly edit it. --AlisonW 18:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It's critical of certain parts of your argumentation yes, but my observation focuses specifically only on the content of some of your posts and makes no comment — nor any attack — on your person and is thus not a personal attack. I already have pinged two of the people who have edited it, but my summary did not deal principally with people. More useful than telling me where to look would be an examination of ways of keeping everyone happy somehow. -Splash - tk 23:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't particularly care what the template looks like. I despise the icon version personally, but I am just as happy to throw a userscript together to kill the icon and replace it with text. Even though I can edit semi-protected pages it is nice to know that they are semiprotected. Semiprotection is a big deal, and there is no clear way to define who is a reader and an anon editor. If there was a way to not tell readers (that never edit) that it was semi-protected, that would be fine; however, there isn't.

If the problem is that reporters cannot figure out what semi-protection is, how is making it less obvious going to help? Then there will be less people that know about it along with more articles that promulgate the death of wikipedia because of (semi-)?protection's "new" restrctions on editing. Would not the solution be to make the template more explicative, so that people are not confused about semi-protection and they know what it is, instead of shuffling it under the rug? With the tiny icon, the number of people that do not know about semi-protection increases and anyone that would have been confused by the banner is still confused after trying to edit. Kotepho 01:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Placement

I suggested earlier, but didn't get a lot of feedback, about just moving this to the BOTTOM of the articles instead of the top. The tabs would be updated, a notcie would be there, it would be categotrized, it would explain the reason, but it would not be in your face'. Any feedback? — xaosflux ^Talk 23:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

That's alot better than starting the article with this box. I support this. Shanes 23:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit protected

I'm placing this here to ensure there is no objection to Haukurth's change, since reverted, consisting of:

• an interwiki link [[nl:Sjabloon:Semibeveiligd]]
• categorization in [[Category:Templates using ParserFunctions|{{PAGENAME}}]]
• a grammar correction of in to --> into.

If no objections I think these should be reinserted. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Did you spot that edits don't get made to protected pages? One of the principal reasons for the continuing instability is the inability of people to stop editing this while they work things out. That edit would implicitly endorse a version of the page that at least a number of people do not like. It being non-critical, it can wait. -Splash - tk 23:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I never said it couldn't wait...this is all about consensus. I fully support pages made form consensus (see my comments way up above the last time substance was being changed while protected) But these types of changes have not appeared to caused any contention, for example ANYONE please reply here if you truely object to this page having an interwiki link to nl: on it. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)