Template talk:RFPP

Semi-protect

Should the page be semi-protected? I think it should. FictionH 18:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the page history. Only one account of vandalism. It is a highly used template, but if it starts to be vandalised, then it should be protected. –Spe bi 11:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm convinced that although the vandalism rate is low, it will cause more good than harm to semi-protect the template - newbies generally don't need to edit this. I'll semi-protect it. Nihiltres^(t.l) 13:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update

I've update the template - a couple of people wanted a "already unprotected" option. I've also switched to clearer set of icons - its particular better for the "declined" and "already" ones IMO. WjBscribe 19:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I must admit, I liked the old icons much better. What was the improvement in particular for those icons you mentioned? I'm decent with vector images, so I could probably mirror improvements in the older style. Nihiltres^(t.l) 21:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have to say, I like the new ones better, as well as the clarification around SALTing and the 'already done' options. The new icons are ... more subtle or something - Alison ☺ 21:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well for one thing the old icon for "already protected"/"already unprotected" was pretty random - having the clock seems clearer. Also the symbol that was being used for "decline" is used as an "oppose" symbol on multi-lingual projects so it seems confusing to use that here. The X seems a more obvious "decline". The old icons are also quite associated in people's minds with there use at RFCU. Aside from that, I think the new icons are aesthetically more pleasing (though that's obviously a minor point) and the occasional bit of change seems like a good thing. WjBscribe 21:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh, shiny new icons. :-) By the way, shouldn't we have a "RFPP's not for fishing" icon like the one at WP:RCU? On a related note, I think that the periods should be removed from the first three templates. One often intends to write something immediately after the template and the period just cuts it.--Hús ö nd 01:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have to add that after seeing the new icons on WP:RFPP, I think I prefer the old ones. These seem too dead or too dim or too whatever prevents them from standing out like the old icons.--Hús ö nd 01:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed re. the periods. I still like the new icons, mind. Also, a "Protection is not pre-emptive" option would be neat - Alison ☺ 01:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's another good idea.--Hús ö nd 03:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a "not pre-emptive" option. Haven't managed to sort the full stops yet though. WjBscribe 03:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No more full-stops :) Thanks for the pre-empt update - Alison ☺ 04:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, thank you, thank you for removing those periods. I'd been using the raw template syntax just to avoid them :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible update

Is it possible to create an RFPP template similar to this?

Declined — Featured articles on the Main Page are not protected unless there is severe and unrelenting vandalism.

I ask because I see a large amount of requests at WP:RPP asking that the day's FA be protected because of vandalism. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added this in [1] – Steel 23:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank'ee. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 01:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please fix this

The template spat out the following:

Semi-protected for a period of indefinite. After indefinite the page will be automatically unprotected.

When is "after indefinite"?--Thinboy00 ^talk/_contribs @955, i.e. 21:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this? WjBscribe 21:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was on the page it's supposed to be used on, but i forgot the link... this is an old version, i just realized....-- Thinboy00 ^talk/_contribs @958, i.e. 21:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template should only have a time parameter if the protection is for a given time. If the page has been protected indefintely, it should should be {{RFPP|full}} only, not {{RFPP|full|indefinite}} which will result in the output you described. WjBscribe 22:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for a change for "Indefinite"

For indefinite protections (EG. Userpages), the template returns things like "Semi-protected for a period of indefinite. After indefinite the page will be automatically unprotected.", which is a load of nonsense (The latter part). Can some recognition of "indefinite" be added so it returns a difference sentence like "The protection will never expire, but must be manually revoked if need be" ? 68.39.174.238 (talk) 05:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OOps, I missed the above. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 05:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Updated image

I tweaked the template to use Image:Stop x nuvola with clock.svg as opposed to Image:Pictogram voting info.svg for user blocks. Please reply with comments/concerns/complaints/etc. caknuck _° is not used to being the voice of reason 18:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

For "already done" options (ad, ap, au) shouldn't there be a third optional field for the name of the administrator that protected it? For example:

{RFPP|ap|Causa sui}

would yield

Already protected by Causa sui (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Just a thought. I'd add it, but I have no idea how. ⟳ausa کui ^× 02:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Punctuation problems

There appears to be some strange punctuation problems when using a third field in some cases (i.e., you get a period-comma with no trailing period). I believe this can be fixed by moving the period out of the individual case statements, and to the end of the template. Let me know if anyone objects to this change. Plastikspork (talk) 17:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For example,

Declined – There is not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection at this time. If there's significantly more disruptive activity in the future, consider relisting., only one edit in the last two days

However, it appears it's a bit more complicated since not all of the messages are complete sentences. Plastikspork (talk) 18:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who can use it

Is it just for admins to use or can anybody do the blocking? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only admins can actually protect pages. –xeno^talk 19:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought so, just checking because I got the instructions how to add one when I tried to edit the protection page The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would anyone mind?

I'd like to change the wording of this to e.g. "Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be unprotected automatically." Instead of "Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks. After 2 weeks the page will be automatically unprotected." Does anyone mind if I do that, and if you don't mind, do I just do it manually for each example? I'm nervous about messing up the template. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 08:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like that never got done, SlimVirgin. Agree - good idea. DONE in sandbox. Working on the one below.

Done--Elvey^(t•c) 22:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another Would anyone mind?

Would anyone mind? I think we should break the marker for "If the page has already been protected or unprotected prior to the request (or the protecting administrator hasn't placed a marker on a report)" into two makers, one for If the page has already been protected or unprotected prior to the request and the other for if the protecting administrator hasn't placed a marker on a report. It was annoying when I filed a request and the reply told me it was already done, even though it was NOT done when I requested it. :::@Cyberpower678: per comment in template source, apropos these 2 proposed changes. Done.[Addendum - as long as I'm pinging cyberpower: is the "Please confirm." by your bot necessary? (In other words: Does it make a significant number of mistakes of this sort? Are the manual confirmations it requests turning out to be helpful?)] --Elvey^(t•c) 22:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I cannot make any modifications to the bot at this time.—^cyberpower_{Merry Christmas:Unknown} 02:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't object to having the new parameters commented or reverted out until Cyberpower678 can actually maintain the bots again. The templates mostly exist for clerking by bot (before it was clerking by script so it's always been automated to a point) so generally anything that'd require the bot to be modified should wait until the bot can handle it. tutterMouse (talk) 20:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. A series of RL shitty luck has pretty much made it impossible for me to do any maintenance, or even let me access my bots. However, I can say with certainty, that starting next weekend, I will back up and running completely.—^cyberpower_{Merry Christmas:Unknown} 21:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm aware of the issues but figure these changes are probably redundant to parameters that already exist in the template anyway so I'd say I do mind. tutterMouse (talk) 21:06, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted some Elvey's changes, specifically regarding the three new parameters as they seem to handle from what I can tell is a small and occasional window where someone makes a request and finds it has been un/protected during the request being made. It's too specific and infrequent a situation to require a small change in wording and not all protection will be done via RFPP anyway. tutterMouse (talk) 14:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what it's for. You're a bit trigger happy on the revert buttons. Didn't even take the time to grok what I did. --Elvey^(t•c) 01:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, don't agree that I was any bit trigger happy or didn't process it but instead of telling me how I got it wrong, care to explain what it is they do so I do know what they're for? tutterMouse (talk) 06:21, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Read what I wrote on this page. Look at the templates. FS. --Elvey^(t•c) 07:32, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Elvey: Then I ask that you clarify what you mean. I read it and still come to the conclusion you made three new parameters because of semantics which I don't entirely agree is an issue for two ways of saying the same thing. I'd prefer to discuss things and find a consensus instead of getting into a revert war so please try and meet me halfway especially given you made the changes unilaterally and are fighting to keep them in even though you don't have consensus. I'm not being antagonistic because I dislike the changes but because they didn't seek consensus, it's still a big deal for changes like this.

To me, splitting the markers seems redundant because we already have three for un/protection happening before the request has been actioned, not before it was made. If an admin did un/protect without adding anything to a request either because they un/protected it without even seeing the request on RFPP or un/protected after seeing it on RFPP without tagging it then to other admins the outcome is the same, another admin has dealt with the matter. Then when or where isn't too relevant because it needn't go through RFPP at all, that's the whole point of the wording that was there before. Your main disagreement to me seems to be with the wording not being clear enough though semantically to any clerking admin both "Already done" and "Currently done" mean the same thing, the only difference in wording is if the un/protecting admin looked at RFPP or not before changing the protection level and we can't always ascertain that because admins don't need to go through RFPP to do that. I get that it's a bit complex in how it works but that's only my view and welcome corrections from your viewpoint so I can fully understand the intent here. tutterMouse (talk) 08:08, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could we figure something out? Evidently the only working options for "already protected" are au and ap, which state that it was protected prior to the request, which is usually not the case. The pn, dn, etc don't work at all. Personally I think the way it was before all of these changes was fine, where it said it was "already protected by [admin]", or just "already protected". I don't think it's that relevant to know whether it was protected before or after the request. The requester probably only cares that it got protected, and not who did it or when they did it. — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed the "prior to request" language. Everything is fine now, in my opinion. We don't need to get anymore specific — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable given the confusion I've seen the wording create and that the changes were made unilaterally anyway. tutterMouse (talk) 20:40, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

this works for me. Thanks. --Elvey^(t•c) 01:23, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, just now reading through all of this and I see what you mean Elvey. It's just a matter of who the language is directed to, which I believe is the admins. I'll go through the requests, and if I see "done" that tells me the admin who signed the post protected that article. If someone else did it, they'll put "already done by X" telling me X already protected that article and we don't need to look into that request any further. One solution is to make the "done" parameter also accept an admin name, but we'll have to do the same for "semi-protected" and the others, which also accept a duration -- meaning we'd end up with the RFPP template accepting up to 3 total parameters, which might require the bot to be recoded some, and will conflict with responseHelper. Happy to go with a workaround if we come up with a good compromise, but I'd argue avoiding technical reworking is favourable. Best — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Figure the au, ap and ad parameters would handle "Done by X" type resolutions. the "done" parameter generally shouldn't be used as much as it is given there's more specific action based parameters to use. tutterMouse (talk) 14:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Small redundancy bug with pending changes with time parameter

Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.

Notice the comma and repeat of the time. Ryan Norton 21:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What comma and repeat of the time are you talking about? – Steel 23:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you did there - thank you! Ryan Norton 23:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline symbol

I've switched the symbol for the 7 decline options to File:Pictogram voting oppose.svg as discussed at Wikipedia talk:Requests for page protection#Choice of symbols. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 21:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template editor

Given the introduction of the new "template editor" right, we need to expand things a little: we now have a new "template" level of protection, which can be edited by admins and template-editors, because the right doesn't enable its holders to edit fully-protected pages. As a result, we should soon see requests that fully-protected templates be downgraded to "template" protection. Nyttend (talk) 16:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Substitution

WP:RFPP is getting a permanent archive instead of the current rolling-archive. Details can be found at WT:RFPP/Archive9#Archiving RfPP requests and WT:RFPP#Technical roadmap.

In Special:Diff/882556628, Pppery noted that a permanent archive should probably contain substituted templates. I agree.

In the next few days, we will be converting this template to automatic substitution. ~~Cyberbot I is blocked and needs a major rewrite anyway, making this an uncontroversial maintenance decision.~~ The automatic substitution by AnomieBOT will ensure backwards-compatibility with all tools. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:03, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How are you going to ensure that the subst result will be bot parsable? — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:57, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The templates will substitute to HTML comments that can be parsed easily. Huggle and ClueBot NG do this kind of HTML comment parsing all the time, on user talk pages, where all templates are substituted. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Cyberbot I will probably be back sooner than I originally thought, as the only blocker is the soon-resolved phab:T213475 ticket. The substitution update will only happen after the bot has been updated to work with the HTML comments.

Please see the source code of Template:RFPP/sandbox for the new syntax. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]