Wikipedia talk:Protection policy

RFC: Changing protection icons

I have noticed some of the icons have icons instead of a letter. So, why not change the letters to icons too? –User456541 16:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC) The proposed new icons are (they may require tweaking):

Versions	Pending changes	Semi protection	Extended confirmed protection	Template protection	Interface protection	Creation protection	Move protection	Upload protection	Full protection	Cascade protection	Office protection
Old icons
New icons

–User456541 16:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

What problem is this solving? GeneralNotability (talk) 16:33, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@GeneralNotability: They are more descriptive than a letter and can be used on multiple language Wikimedia wikis. For example, the "WMF logo" on office protection makes people know that this page was "protected by the Wikimedia Foundation". –User456541 16:39, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

No comment if this is needed in general, but if so for interface prot, may be better to go with some code looking symbols instead of the wikilink one, /* perhaps. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:42, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

This sort of thing comes up every 6-12 months - before you choose the colour to paint the bikeshed, first establish that the bikeshed needs painting. Or, is there a demonstrable issue with the current set - are people saying that they are finding them hard to understand? If not, we're in WP:IDONTLIKEIT territory, which is always a dead end. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:57, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I like the new "Office protection" lock, I strongly dislike the new "Extended confirmed protection" lock because it's hostile to colorblind users (identical to "Semi protection" except for color), and I weakly dislike the other changes, just because they're "meh" in general. Also, a random suggestion: for "Interface protection", perhaps use the MediaWiki logo instead of an opening wikilink. Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

How about, for Extended confirmed, if the person has a little crown on his head or other badge of office? EEng 04:46, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I like only the office protected icon, since extended confirmed and autoconfirmed are the same to colorblinds, and full protection does not prohibit all editing. Also, I strongly dislike the interface and template protected icons, since this means that transclusions and links are protected. Anyway, I have thought up of adding a mediawiki icon to the interface protected, and have the creation protection changed to just a simple white paper. ThesenatorO5-2^{argue with me} 11:48, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I like the new template and full protection icons. The office one makes sense too, however it might need little more padding inside the shackle. – Majavah ^{talk · edits} 20:38, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Oppose This proposal feels very much like change for the sake of change, that accomplished nothing. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• I agree that the current system needs change to make it more accessible to readers, but I don't think the proposed changes go far enough. The four icons readers are most likely to encounter in mainspace are pending changes, semi, extended-confirmed, and full. However, the design of these has no solid hierarchy: it's impossible for a reading to tell without clicking through whether e.g. pending changes is lower or higher than extended-confirmed. This needs to be fixed by any potential redesign, and the proposal doesn't do so. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
• I like the office one in general (it could do with some tidying up perhaps, more distance off the bottom?). I explicitly dislike the change to extended-confirmed. Full and TE protections will take some adjustment at minimum, and overall I'm indifferent about both. Agree to changing your proposed IA one per xaos. Surprised you didn't change move protection, as that's always been one I never quite vibed with for some reason. Basically, Jack sums up my views. Full/TE could do with a change probably, but the proposed ones aren't quite there yet. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:26, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Support changes - Minor change, makes us more consistent with other Wikimedia projects, but, would propose using a different icon for extended confirmed protection. We can't forget that the design was originally changed to make the icons more accessible (see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 155). Not having a distinct design defeats that purpose, so I instead propose using commons:File:Extended-protection-shackle-keyhole.svg Ed talk! 17:04, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Support I like the designs better than the ones with just a letter. A letter is fine, but a {{ or [[ might be better. It's a minor change, but it should be a welcome one. Arsonxists (talk) 18:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

More New icons

The interface protected icon should have a {}, which is the base for most code, especially CSS and JS. File:Inteface Protected Icon.png ThesenatorO5-2^{argue with me} 12:05, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

The RfC statement, whilst certainly brief, is decidedly not neutral. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:55, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@ThesenatorO5-2: there is an entire discussion open just above this one on changing icons, why are you starting yet another RfC on only a subset of that one instead of just commenting there? — xaosflux ^Talk 20:08, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

If I saw this lock and had to guess which protection level it represented, I'd guess template protection. IMO, that makes it a poor choice for interface protection. (Perhaps angle brackets instead?) Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jackmcbarn and Jackmcbarn:: Got the message. Drawing new one. 10:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)ThesenatorO5-2^{argue with me}

Oppose This proposal feels very much like change for the sake of change, that accomplished nothing. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm turning off the RfC so we can have a local discussion first. This isn't going to be a very clean outcome if we're still changing the proposal. --Bsherr (talk) 14:31, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Pending changes protection Icon

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ThesenatorO5-2 (talk • contribs) 01:27, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

The issue is that these icons mostly are used at size 20px. Thus: . The white symbol on colored field is intended to provide legibility at that small size. The detail of this proposed icon is simply lost at that size, and the similarity of the colored field to the icon colors exacerbates the issue. --Bsherr (talk) 15:06, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@ThesenatorO5-2: I'm a bit lost in this section - what is WP:PCR and what does it have to do with this section about "New interface protected icon"? — xaosflux ^Talk 15:41, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Took me a minute too. It's a proposal for a pending changes protection icon. --Bsherr (talk) 18:43, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@Bsherr: ok thanks - this entire l2 section is going to where, I'm upmerging it in to the already open discussion above about icon redesigns. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

The image has an invalid license claim. Its file description page claims that it was not previously published, that its author is ThesenatorO5-2, and that the license is {{cc-zero}}. All of these are disprovable: the image is clearly a composite of three, including a blank padlock similar to e.g. File:Pending-protection-shackle-no-text.svg and an eye similar to e.g. File:FlaggedRevs-2-1.svg, but there is no acknowledgement of the sources of these two components nor of their authors. Far worse is the inclusion of the Wikipedia puzzle ball File:Wikipedia-logo-v2.svg, which is not just the property of the Wikimedia Foundation but is also licensed CC BY-SA 3.0, so the use of any other license for a composite image including this logo, without acknowledging the original author in any way, is a violation of the licensing terms.

Also, why is the image stored in PNG format when the components are SVG? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Got the message, changing license. ThesenatorO5-2^{argue with me} 00:06, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

@Redrose64: That is because I made that image in photoshop and do not know how to convert to SVG.ThesenatorO5-2^{argue with me} 00:06, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Photoshop is absolutely useless for manipulating SVG images. Combining two SVG images is a simple matter of using a plain text editor (such as MS WordPad) to open both in separate windows, and moving the desired elements from one to the other. That is how I made File:Speed skating current event.svg from File:Speed skating pictogram.svg and File:Current event template.svg, There is never any need "to convert to SVG" because they are SVG to begin with. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

See e.g. File:Wikipedia Reviewer.svg for how to do the attribution and licensing properly. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Move and upload protection

"Move protected pages, or more technically, fully move-protected pages, cannot be moved to a new title except by an administrator." "Upload protected files, or more technically, fully upload-protected files, cannot be replaced with new versions except by an administrator." Are these phrases true? For example, Special:Log/protect includes "[Move=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access]". --NGC 54 (talk | contribs) 14:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

As I have pointed out several times before (most recently at Module talk:Protection banner#Move-protected), there are five levels of protection for every protectable action. A page that is move- or upload-protected need not be fully protected for that action; they might be template- or EC-protected, but it is pointless setting either of these to semi-protected. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:33, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Extended Confirmed Protection

So I checked this in August, and it said it had to be at least 100 edits. Then a little bit later, I came back and it said “at least 400 edits”. Now in the Extended Confirmed Section it states that we need at least 500 edits to become an Extended Confirmed User. I tried looking in the edit history but it didn’t show any edits from 400 - 500. Is it a suppressed edit or is it something else? EpicRice (talk) 05:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

The threshold has been 500 edits ever since the protection level was first implemented, hence the moniker 30/500. Where exactly did you see the figures of 100 and 400 mentioned? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:28, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Stated: “Granted automatically to registered users with at least 30 days tenure and 100 edits.” and “Granted automatically to registered users with at least 30 days tenure and 400 edits.”EpicRice (talk) 02:38, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@EpicRice: it has been 30/500 the entire time, if you can point to a specific revision that had the wrong text we can probably see what happened? If you see this, also look at the revision history and see if it was fixed after someone just vandalized the description. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Unless it was suppresed, I don’t see any edits or vandalism, I guess I must have viewed the wrong page last time. - EpicRice (talk) 02:57, 18 September 2020 (UTC)