Wikipedia talk:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:RFPP)
Jump to: navigation, search

Archiving requests[edit]

You should be able to archive requests after you think you're done with this page as requesting a page for protection. Saying that [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Archive_1]] would be fine to archive them. --Allen talk 04:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to change the format of RfPP[edit]

I've been thinking about this for a while. I'd like to propose two relatively minor changes to RfPP that will make the page much easier to use for admins:

  1. Have the newest requests placed at the bottom of the relevant section. This is the way every other noticebaord works, and it means that when an admin comes along, they see the oldest requests first. Much more importantly, from my perspective, though, is that it will prevent section numbers from changing while an admin is Working through the backlog. At the moment, if there are requests for page X and page Y and I answer the request for X and come to edit the request for Y, if a request for Z comes in before I've saved the page, my response ends up in the wrong section (example).
  2. Remove the template from section headers. Currently, requests are in the form of ===={{la|foo}}====//*Temporary semi-protection: persistent vandalism. This makes navigation around the page a real pain, especially when there are 20 or 30 outstanding requests. I'd like to change this to ====Foo====//{{la|foo}}//*Temporary semi-protection: persistent vandalism. That means the section header will be the same in edit mode as when it's displayed, and so the software will return you to the section you just edited after saving the page. It also means (as minor side benefits) that the section links in edit summaries will work properly, that it's easier to link to sections, and that links to sections can be previewed in Popups (I know not everyone uses it, but I can't live without it!).

What do other people (particularly admins who regularly handle requests here) think of this? Courtesy ping for Cyberpower, who can tell us whether it would be practical to change his excellent bot to cope with the new format (I'll notify WT:Twinkle, as well). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with removing the template from headers as the issue with navigation being broken because of the templating has been mentioned in the past and would want for * '''{{la|foo}}''' for the formatting of that section but that's more for visual readability purposes. As for moving oldest to the top and new ones at the bottom, it'd be a good way to present the oldest to admins but I feel also more immediate requests might end up stagnating until they end up at the top, I'd have to see how it works out but I don't oppose it. Additionally, making this a formal RFC be a good idea as it does involve changing the operation of the page a bit and it's always good to get a wider opinion on critical aspects of the site like this. tutterMouse (talk) 15:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
We can do it as an RfC, I suppose. I was just hoping that a few of the regulars might weigh in and shoot it down if I've missed some obvious problem or refine the proposal a little. But hey, let's go with an RfC. As for requests stagnating, I think they do anyway—I quite often come here to find 20 or 30 outstanding requests and find that some of the more urgent cases have been dealt with by other admins who are probably unaware of the RfPP request. And I normally work from the bottom up, because there's no obvious way of differentiating urgent requests from any other (perhaps we should change that?). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
@HJ Mitchell: I suggested an RFC as at least it'll draw attention this way from regulars and others alike but no, I feel your proposal is fine. Some requests do tend to stagnate true but I hope reversing the order helps with that issue occasionally. If we really want to try and minimise the amount of overflow and and old requests then we could do with a second proposal, possibly coming up working out how to draw attention to requests older than, say, 18 hours or thereabouts would be helpful as often critical or complex requests do go unheard for a lot longer than I feel is reasonable, often feel like comparing it to a vandal at AIV who nobody bothers to block. tutterMouse (talk) 16:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you, but I think the main problem is a lack of admins handling requests. Plenty of admins regularly look at AIV, and quite a few patrol recent changes, so active vandals usually get blocked reasonably quickly, but only a handful of admins seem to regularly answer RfPP requests and even fewer are willing to clear a backlog rather than just answer one or two requests. But one thing at a time—perhaps making the page easier to use will encourage more admins to pitch in... HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Restructuring RfPP so it invites more admins to help out would be good but like you say, something for another proposal. tutterMouse (talk) 17:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, this page is the only area I get thanks' via echo on a regular basis for m work as administrator. For most of the other things, I typically do not get anything or get booed. This can be a good argument for attracting more admin power here.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Hmm. "Tired of being booed? Want appreciation for wielding the mop tirelessly? Come to RFPP where people will reward you with thanks merely for protecting and upto 80% less boos for general clerking! Why wait, come clear a perpetual backlog today!" tutterMouse (talk) 15:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Approximately like this.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I support both of these changes (no braces in the header, and new requests at the bottom). The template brackets in the section header are particularly annoying. It's understandable that templates in a header don't expand, but Mediawiki's behavior in this case is frustrating. (It should treat the unexpanded template brackets as pure text). We can't easily fix that, but we can stop putting braces in the header so that indexing into the section will work again. EdJohnston (talk) 16:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I support removing templates from the headers, this should simplify things. I do not have a strong opinion on what should at the top and what should be at the bottom though I personally would prefer to have the oldest at the top - this makes them more visible, since at the bottom they are sandwiched between sections.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I always support anything that makes editing easier. Oz\InterAct 09:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes to the second idea. As for the first I'm not really bothered where the new ones are listed. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 15:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)