Wikiquote talk:Protection policy/Archives/2007
Latest comment: 17 years ago by Cbrown1023 in topic category separation
|
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)
- separate. i have no time for more right now... Cbrown1023 talk 02:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- On en.pedia, they combined them all into "Protection policy". Cbrown1023 talk 22:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
- Sounds good. Cbrown1023 talk 21:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Endorsement to the draft?
editmoved 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)
- 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)
- But what happens if someone forgets to update it? Cbrown1023 talk 17:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- He can later add it or someone more careful will list it. Anyway I have no idea why you require so redundancy, while we can retrieve the same data you want from special:protectedpages. Aphaia 09:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I know of that page's existance, but if you look carefully it doesn't show every page, it shows less than 50. Cbrown1023 talk 20:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- He can later add it or someone more careful will list it. Anyway I have no idea why you require so redundancy, while we can retrieve the same data you want from special:protectedpages. Aphaia 09:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- But what happens if someone forgets to update it? Cbrown1023 talk 17:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- Another reason category is not the best way, is "cascading protection". We need to put category also to cascading protected page? Also it isn't possible for protected page from creation (see Commons:Commons:Protected against recreation). Category cannot give us the list of all protected pages in an easy way. --Aphaia 13:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- :-) Cbrown1023 talk 00:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't understand your comment about the protected from creation statment (I know it exists, having used a few times myself on en-wiki). Could you please clarify? Cbrown1023 talk 00:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Which part do you not understand? And if you have no idea, why you smiled? I am confused. --Aphaia 03:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Looks like we are both confused! I was smiling at the fact that you found something I couldn't argue with about the current situation, I was in a good mood! :) I just didn't understand your "Also it isn't poisslbe for protected page from creation (see Commons:Commons:Protected against recreation." Did you mean it is possible? Cbrown1023 talk 04:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Which part do you not understand? And if you have no idea, why you smiled? I am confused. --Aphaia 03:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't understand your comment about the protected from creation statment (I know it exists, having used a few times myself on en-wiki). Could you please clarify? Cbrown1023 talk 00:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- :-) Cbrown1023 talk 00:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Another reason category is not the best way, is "cascading protection". We need to put category also to cascading protected page? Also it isn't possible for protected page from creation (see Commons:Commons:Protected against recreation). Category cannot give us the list of all protected pages in an easy way. --Aphaia 13:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- 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)