Wikipedia talk:Protection policy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

RfC on new padlock design[edit]

There is an RfC on the village pump on a redesign of the protection template icons. It is located here: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal/RFC: Redesigning page-protection padlock icons to be more accessible. funplussmart (talk) 02:43, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

There was a brief implementation on the English Wikipedia of the new padlock design for all protected pages from 02:30–04:40, 13 November 2018 (UTC). Does anyone know who was responsible for this? —Wei4Green | 唯绿远大 (talk) 04:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
This edit did it and it was temporarily reverted pending protection of the files. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
@Galobtter: Thank you for the information. —Wei4Green | 唯绿远大 (talk) 05:27, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

OK. For an explanation of today's ongoing padlock design drama, it looks like Bellezzasolo implemented the new design on Module:Protection banner/config. He agreed to change the design according to ProgrammingGeek's request and XYZtSpace's new design proposal/RfC. But xaosflux suggested that the "[padlock] files need to be uploaded locally and protected" on Bellezzasolo's talk page. That's how this protection padlock design back-and-forth confusion was made. —Wei4Green | 唯绿远大 (talk) 05:16, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. The current situation is that the files are create protected, and are upload/move protected on Commons, meaning that there's not much harm in going ahead again, although it may not be the done thing, as seen at the wording of {{Keep local high-risk}}. As an aside, I also propose that the following lock symbol gets added to the roster for interface protection: Interface-protection-shackle.svg Bellezzasolo Discuss 11:01, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
@Bellezzasolo: "interface protection" isn't really a protection level (you can't configure it) so I don't think we need this just like we don't need a FP icon on every mediawiki message. — xaosflux Talk 20:14, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Eh, I think it's worth using — we've got a specific template for requesting edits to interface pages, so while it won't get much use there's no harm in using it there. ~ Amory (utc) 23:22, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Wow. I love the new protection lock designs. Thanks, Wikipedia community, for helping to achieve this. Anonymuss User (talk) 14:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, I think it's cool too. Codyorb (talk) 04:03, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

In some article where a user don't have a permission to edit a page in "This page is currently protected so that only..." after clicking "View source", the page still showing the old padlock. Can someone fix this? Hddty. (talk) 12:55, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Could be something to do with the cache. Purging the page might help. [citation needed] XYZt (talk  |  contribs) – 02:09, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
It was probably from Template:Protected page text, which I updated a little while ago. Should be solved now. ~ Amory (utc) 02:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

The new lock icons are ugly and unnecessary[edit]

These new minimalist icons for protected pages etc. are just downright ugly and gaudy, and to be a little bold they are irritating. The semi realistic locks were perfectly fine. Not everything online needs to needs to be so sleek and without detail. Talk about sucking the soul out of design.-Sıgehelmus (Tωlk) 20:10, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, there was consensus to change it. You could have commented on the RfC, but the consensus was strong. SemiHypercube 20:51, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I see the change necessary to be able to differentiate the different types of locks present before having to hover over the image to see what it was. – The Grid (talk) 20:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
They could have just slapped on letters in Photoshop or Adobe Illustrator. I'm just sick of Omnipresent minimalist graphic design. They could have at least put some outline and shading.-Sıgehelmus (Tωlk) 22:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Also, the "GOLDLOCK" is now yellowish-brown, the "PINKLOCK" is reddish-purple, the "SILVERLOCK" is dark grey, the "SKYBLUELOCK" is Petty blue, the formerly-olive "GREENLOCK" is forest-green, the "PURPLELOCK" is lavender, the "WHITELOCK" is blue-grey, the "BLUELOCK" is over-saturated, and the "TURQUOISELOCK" is dark teal. The only correct lock is the OFFICE one. Kamafa Delgato (Lojbanist)Styrofoam is not made from kittens. 00:22, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
    • As mentioned in the RfA, the colors were darkened to improve contrast. XYZt (talk  |  contribs) – 07:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

We should move this subtopic "The new lock icons are ugly and unnecessary" to somewhere else. The topic here is about replacing the old designs with the new to the WP:Protection policy page, not about the designs themselves. —Wei4Green | 唯绿远大 (talk) 02:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:Redlock no image?[edit]

Why does WP:REDLOCK not have the image of a red lock and the shortcut is unmentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Okay, so i cant edit pages that are semi-protected and I have made more than ten edits and have been active for wayyy more then 4 days. Help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mydogisfast (talkcontribs) 18:12, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Mydogisfast I checked your usergroup and your are in the "autoconfirmed" group which means you should be able to edit semi-protected pages. If your still having issues please visit WP:PERM for immediate assistance. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 11:16, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Accessing old locks[edit]

How do you gain access to view the old padlocks? I am wondering. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 07:21, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Qwertyxp2000: hereThe Grid (talk) 18:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Protection for .js, .css, and .json pages[edit]

Hi. Currently, there is no section for protection that is automatically and permanently imposed on user .js and .css pages, nor sitewide pages. The full-protection section says that:

Some areas of Wikipedia are permanently protected by the MediaWiki software. The MediaWiki namespace, which defines parts of the site interface, is fully protected; it is impossible for administrators to remove this protection. User CSS and JavaScript pages, such as User:Example/monobook.css and User:Example/cologneblue.js, are automatically fully protected. Only accounts that are associated with these pages or interface administrators are able to edit them. This protection applies to any user subpage created with a ".css", ".js", or ".json" extension, whether an equivalent MediaWiki skin exists or not. Those administrators may modify these pages, for example, to remove a user script that has been used in an inappropriate way.

This is out of date. Only interface-administrators can edit User CSS and JavaScript pages, as well as sitewide pages. But, admins can still (I think?) edit user .json pages. Can this be updated? Since consensus is required for changes, I didn't edit this myself. --DannyS712 (talk) 01:47, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@DannyS712: take a look at the update I added, this is really just a 'reference' section about the technical controls - not so much the "policy" so feel free to update it to include correct technical information. — xaosflux Talk 04:51, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: thanks! But, if the proposal to restrict the main page to IAdmins passes, I think we might need to define a new type of protection. I know its not my place (I've only been active for 3 months), but can I suggest "Interface protected"? --DannyS712 (talk) 04:55, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
@DannyS712: "interface protection" isn't really a "protection level" (in that you can't configure it - it is managed by the back end software) - Main page also has some other protection on it right now that you can't really see: it is delete-protected and move-protected in the software - it isn't that way because of the protection policy - it is just built in system protections. Perhaps a footnote may help. — xaosflux Talk 05:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Also looks like that didn't pass, see Special:PermaLink/873800707#Proposing_a_temporary_measure_to_assist_in_protecting_the_Main_Page. — xaosflux Talk 05:02, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Merging pending changes reviewer with other user groups[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Merging pending changes reviewer with other user groups. Mz7 (talk) 00:13, 18 December 2018 (UTC)