Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Protection policy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 217.164.255.105 (talk) at 06:39, 4 December 2016. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

PC2 usage

Please comment at the proposal to lower the auto-accept threshold for PC2 and establish usage, thanks — Andy W. (talk) 00:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment on PC protection

Hello. You are invited to comment on this RfC regarding (1) the streamlining of the pending changes reviewing process and (2) the proposed protection of certain articles with Level 1 Pending Changes protection. Please do not comment here—your support or opposition to the proposals should be indicated in the relevant sections, and general discussion should be occur in the "General discussion" section at the bottom of the RfC page. Thank you. Biblio (talk) Reform project. 21:14, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Icon for template protection

I've never been keen on the pink padlock. Since 2015 the red padlock has been unused and I suggest to use this color for template protection. Any opinions please? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:10, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of ECP pages?

Is there such a list? I would like to add it to the section WP:ECP, but I'm not sure if one exists. This would bring it in line with the sections WP:WMF-P and WP:CASCADE. Mihirpmehta (talk) 21:40, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is. It, like all protection levels, can be found on a special page. A bot also notifies when ECP is used at AN. At one point in time this may have been useful. Now however, ECP is much more widely used and any list would be unruly and unnecessary to place on this particular page in my opinion. --Majora (talk) 00:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Majora, I found the page you referred to, and I agree that linking to it wouldn't be much use. Mihirpmehta (talk) 03:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Transclusion count to justify TE protection

I've been searching for a soft/hardline number/estimate to justify template protection, asking here is the next step :P - Mlpearc (open channel) 18:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a bright line - for example it can vary based on the usage (e.g. if it is sub-transcluded; or for templates used in different namespaces). — xaosflux Talk 19:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See expanded information at Wikipedia:High-risk templates. — xaosflux Talk 19:38, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Xaosflux: The line at Wikipedia:High-risk templates "The most common reasons a template or module is considered high-risk are:... It is transcluded into a very large number of pages" brought me here :P I have ran into a couple templates which I feel were borderline usage/disruption and could benefit from higher protection (I didn't keep a list) but I resumed the search today because of {{Star Trek}} which has 11,00+ transclusions, I was going to list it at WP:RFPP but wasn't sure of the prerequisites. Lately the template has been getting more changes due to new stuff coming out, maybe dealing with edit requests would be better. - Mlpearc (open channel) 19:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I don't think {{Star Trek}} warrants currently increasing the projection level - 1000 pages is a bunch, but it's not that many - also this is a bottom-of-the-page nav template, and it is a "simple" template - easy to edit and revert. — xaosflux Talk 20:08, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The specific case of the Star Trek template needs to be fixed by removal per Template talk:Aviation lists#RfC: Should this navbox be removed from non-mentioned articles?. I've been meaning to do that but just haven't gotten around to it. :^) --Izno (talk) 20:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree--there should be a better understanding of what constitutes a high-use template. I have previously opined on the subject but would need to dig a bit to see where and what it was I said. --Izno (talk) 20:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not as simple as a transclusion count. If a template has 50 tranclusions, but the transclusions are on pages like Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump which have been subject to vandalism via templates, that's high-risk. If a template has 1,000 transclusions on low-traffic stubs only, that's not high-risk (at least not to the level of requiring TE; semi would be fine). ~ Rob13Talk 07:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It also depends on the editing rate. Some templates are maintained almost exclusively by IP editors (sports templates for example). Then there's templates like {{bio-stub}} which don't need to be edited much. That template is currently fully (template-) protected with only 138 transclusions, but with a high turnover rate and the potential for BLP damage. I would say, however, that previous talk has suggested that any template with over 10,000 transclusions normally needs at least some protection. Anything over 50,000 transclusions will normally get a higher level of protection. Also any previous attempts to define a hard limit for protection have failed. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
50,000 is quite a bit higher than the standard I've seen used. I typically use the rule of thumb that anything over 10,000 should be template protected (unless, perhaps, none of the transclusions are in the mainspace or article talk pages). This is why there's been no easy consensus on what protection levels to apply, though. Everyone has different ideas of what high-risk means. As an aside, more complicated syntax also implies a higher level of protection should be used, since even good-faith editors can screw up a very complicated template. I would consider a complicated Lua module used on ~1,000 medium-traffic mainspace pages to be high-risk for this reason. ~ Rob13Talk 10:53, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]