Wikiquote talk:Protection policy/Archives/2007

Warning This is a discussion archive created in or until 2007, though the comments contained may not have been posted on this date. Please do not post any new comments on this page. See current discussion or the archives index.

category separation edit

"Protected due to edit wars or vandalism" seems to me better to be divided to "edit wars" and "vandalism", since for the former reason semi-protection cannot be done, but vandalism can be a good reason for both types of protection. "semi- and full protection" and "full protection only" are better to be separated? --Aphaia 02:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

separate. i have no time for more right now... Cbrown1023 talk 02:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Gah, and now I found we have no "semi-protected page" or whatsoever as policy, even a draft. --Aphaia 02:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
On en.pedia, they combined them all into "Protection policy". Cbrown1023 talk 22:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

It sounds reasonable. How about having two categories and put all rules about protection into this document? Also it would be fine for us to set a rules how to determine the temporal blocking terms. We have now no criteria, if I recall correctly. --Aphaia 16:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sounds good. Cbrown1023 talk 21:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Endorsement to the draft? edit

moved from Wikiquote talk:WikiProject Policy Revision

  • Question Why is there a need for a listing of all protected pages? Can't we just create a template that should be put on all semi- or fully-protected pages with an attached category? That way it would automatically update and would show a large message to prosepctive editors to the page. I am already aware that we have Template:Protected but I do not see a category, nor a template for semi-protections. (After this is resolved, I will endorse the policy.) Cbrown1023 talk 04:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • Comment I prefer the current way, since it allows us to categorized pages in details. One category "Protected" is too rough, though I don't oppose to import such category for those protected pages. --Aphaia 09:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • Since the special page lists only pages protected after its creation, and if you re-protecte a page, it will appear on that page (I made a test on Main Page); on the other hand, if all protected page are put into the category proposed, it should be done either manually or with bot. So it is not different that we need to work before we get an auto-generated list. And comparing two ways, list generated by MediaWiki seems to me better, since it hardly forget to include someone newly protected. With category/template, it could happen on the other hand. Aphaia 04:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • Alas, how hard to communicate only letters! We both were confused perhaps, indeed. "poisslbe" is a typographical error of "possible". In other words, if we protected a page from creation, we may have no way to add that page to category, so category couldn't the way to generate the "whole list", so I supposed. Hopefully now our confusion is being solved :) --Aphaia 08:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Return to the project page "Protection policy/Archives/2007".