Jump to content

MediaWiki talk:Cascadeprotected

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

Quite a long sentence! =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Broken

[edit]

{{editprotected}}

The recent changes to this message broke it. See for example Test page. Please revert them. Thanks – Gurch 09:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

checkY Done I've fixed it rather than reverting it. --ais523 13:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed new version

[edit]

Have a look at User:SunStar Net/A Test Protected Title - this is a proposed new version I have made. Feel free to edit it as you want, I feel the new softer colour looks better. --SunStar Net talk 15:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like it. I think it's too big, and I don't like images in MediaWiki: Don't hate the pastel box idea though. — xaosflux Talk 23:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Sometimes, a page is blocked from creation because of an AFD consensus. The problem is the link only refers to the first nomination. Is there a way to make it link to subsequest ones or do we have to use the old {{deletedpage}} tag? Even so, we still would need to tweak that template. I cannot do it because I am not an admin (yet). --VoltronForce 01:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lacking a 100% consistent naming scheme for repeat nominations, there's no easy way to do this via the WP:PT setup. Our best solution is to simply place a link to the subsequent nomination pages at the top of the original. —David Levy 02:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There does appear to be plenty of code regarding linking to certain VOTEPAGE parameters, but not sure where to pass those to it. We could link to the Page Logs first perhaps? — xaosflux Talk 02:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, with the old template, we can use {{deletedpage|votepage}} if the nomination page is not the first one. {{deletedpage}} with no 2nd parameter would link to the first nom if the article name is the same as the votepage. --VoltronForce 05:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but then we'd be stuck with a dummy page (instead of a truly deleted one). —David Levy 11:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to match {{ambox}} per WP:TS

[edit]

{{editprotected}}

Strictly speaking, this isn't an article template... but it seems to me it would be reasonable to make it match the new standard article space template style... no?

I've got an edited copy in User:Coren/Cascadeprotected. I resisted the temptation to add icons since the original messages did not have any.  :-) — Coren (talk) 23:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems odd; the cascadeprotected message only appears when the article is being edited. We haven't used message boxes for these in the past. I'd recommend asking about it at the village pump, since few people are likely to see the request here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not odd— the message changes depending on whether the page currently exists, so if you copy-and-paste to a new page, you get the working preview, but as soon as it's saved the page exists and the message changes. — Coren (talk) 03:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is by design, of course, since you want the create-protected pages to show something (the "page does not exist" message) even if the page isn't there (which is the whole point). — Coren (talk) 03:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is what you get if you view a cascade-protected nonexistent page: [1]. This is what you get if you try to edit that page: [2]. Here's what you get if you try to edit an existing cascade protected page: [3]. Although I can't tell with a sysop account, I assume you only get the message for the edit page, not the display page. We haven't used boxes for edit page messages before, as far as I know. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, your examples look exactly as expected— I suppose you don't get the message during edition (you never get it on view) because you (as an admin) can edit the page and don't get the "view source" instead (which is where the cascadeprotected message ends up). — Coren (talk) 05:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Leave it be, we don't need any more markup in MediaWiki then is absolutely required (especially not transclusion of templates). — xaosflux Talk 03:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The change was indeed just a suggestion for the sake of visual uniformity, and is certainly not necessary by any stretch of imagination. — Coren (talk) 05:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Though this editprotected has already been disabled, I'd just like to say that I strongly oppose the use of amboxes for anything outside message boxes as included in the main namespace, regardless of technical issues. Nihiltres(t.l) 00:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Color

[edit]

{{sudo}}

Does the cascade-protected message really need to be in red text and bold? Being cascade-protected is no more severe a situation than if the page is fully protected normally, and the protected page message isn't all bold and red. Since this message is distinct from the normal protected page message, it should also have a different id attribute. Some explanatory links would also be nice.

How about changing this part of the message:

<span style="color: red; background-color: white;" id="protectedpagewarning"><strong>This page is currently protected from editing because it is transcluded in the following {{PLURAL:$1|page, which is|pages, which are}} protected with the "cascading" option enabled:</strong></span>

to this:

<span id="mw-cascadeprotectedtext">'''This page is currently [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|protected]] from editing''' because it is [[Wikipedia:Transclusion|transcluded]] in the following {{PLURAL:$1|page, which is|pages, which are}} protected with the "[[Wikipedia:Cascading protection|cascading]]" option enabled:</span>

which would replace this:

This page is currently protected from editing because it is transcluded in the following pages, which are protected with the "cascading" option enabled:

with this:

This page is currently protected from editing because it is transcluded in the following pages, which are protected with the "cascading" option enabled:

More useful and much easier on the eye, I think. Thanks – 81.153.158.137 11:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree but I suppose it matches MediaWiki:Protectedpagewarning like this. GDonato (talk) 17:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So what? The 99.9999% of us who aren't administrators never see that message, but we see this one. We also see MediaWiki:Protectedtext, which has no red at all – 86.140.177.115 16:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really like the helpful linking, but I'm a sucker for consistency (Like MediaWiki:Protectedpagewarning), and it's an important message which should stand out - toning it down might defeat its purpose. Nihiltres(t.l) 22:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At least put the links in... – 86.140.177.115 16:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the requested changes. This message is only viewed by non-admin users (admins see MediaWiki:Cascadeprotectedwarning), so the whole consistency argument doesn't make sense. --- RockMFR 19:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh. I was thinking of this as fulfilling the function of MediaWiki:Cascadeprotectedwarning, sorry. If only the MediaWiki namespace were documented better... Nihiltres(t.l) 20:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 09:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

[edit]

Can something be added to this message about using {{editprotected}} by non-administrators to request that an edit be made to it, such as:

To request that an edit be made to this page, go to [[{{TALKPAGENAME}}|its talk page]] and add {{editprotected}} followed by the change you want to be made to it.

jfd34 (talk) 09:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) It's not necessary; "view source" pages with cascade protection also show the normal "protected page" information above this red box. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:19, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The normal "protected page" information is shown only when it is directly protected (even though it may be cascade protected as well) for example see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Adansonia_grandidieri04.jpg&action=edit which is transcluded onto the main page. Only the red box is shown.
You're quite right. Bad choice of page from me, I suppose. As such, I fully support this change. — This, that, and the other (talk) 12:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Should we use the same code that MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext uses to format edit requests? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we should. Done Anomie⚔ 00:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interface edit request on 29 December 2013

[edit]

Please add {{Submit an edit request|type=full}} to this page to make it easier to request edits to cascade protected pages. Thank you Technical 13 (talk) 20:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Technical 13: What about the existing link to submit edit requests? Would you like to keep it, or to remove it? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 11:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest Mr. Stradivarius I was dead tired and didn't even see it because it is inconsistent with the buttons on all other editnotices/interface pages for that. To answer your question, I would remove that link (and including sentence) and replace it with the more consistent visible button. Thanks! Technical 13 (talk) 13:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, actually trying it out, it looks out of place in the red warning notice to me:
What do you think? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why does this message have a red background, anyway? No other protection messages do. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:14, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Come to think of it, this is really a bug in MediaWiki. This message is supposed to be an edit notice for when users are editing a protected page, similar to the one you see you edit semi-protected pages. Really, when non-admin users try to edit a cascade-protected page, MediaWiki should show a "can't edit" notice, i.e. MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext. I'll have a look and see if there are any bugs open about this. This has been the behaviour for cascade-protected pages for as long as I can remember, so it's quite likely that someone has filed one already. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 05:05, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, there are actually two separate messages, MediaWiki:Cascadeprotected for when you can't edit the page, and MediaWiki:Cascadeprotectedwarning for when you can. So it's not a bug, it's just that we have set the messages up in a confusing way. We could make MediaWiki:Cascadeprotected look like MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext if we wanted to. The problem is that many pages are both cascade-protected and protected normally, so we would end up with both messages being displayed. I think we should be able to work some magic with {{PROTECTIONLEVEL}}, though. Let me try and work something out. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 05:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, it is somewhat confusing. I was wondering why it was so different from the others as well, but figured it had something to do with the fact that cascade protection is harder to detect or something. Even the system doesn't know about it until the last minute when I hit edit (as opposed to view source for interface and full protected items). I'll wait to see what you come up with before I start tinkering (on testwiki where I can safely play with such things and not disrupt the wiki and I am a crat)... Technical 13 (talk) 12:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Technical 13 and Jackmcbarn: Ok, I have finished my coding, which you can see in this revision of my sandbox. This has involved making Template:Protected page text so that I could reuse code both in this message and at MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext. I've attached a couple of examples of what it will look like. (Note that both of these use mbox for the message box with the padlock icon, so they will be coloured differently in different namespaces.)

Examples removed, as they were messing up the table of contents

Let me know what you think, and if all looks well I will put it up live. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 05:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Minor nitpick: we don't have cascading protection set on any templates, but the message in your sandbox seems to indicate that we do. Other than that, looks good. Jackmcbarn (talk) 06:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I was trying to keep the word count down, but I agree that the way I worded it was confusing. I've updated my sandbox to something that should be a little clearer and will hopefully not take up too much space. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 09:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've put it up live. Feel free to suggest more tweaks if you think of any. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 21:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Stradivarius I've been busy today so had to wait to reply... Is there any way that if it is both full (template) and cascade protected it can just use the same output as if it is only cascade protected and suppress the normal warning so there is never more than one warning on the page? Technical 13 (talk) 23:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, not at the moment. MediaWiki:Cascadeprotected can detect whether MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext displays because we have the {{PROTECTIONLEVEL}} magic word, but there is no magic word that can detect cascading protection, so we can't do it the other way round. We could disable the cascadeprotected warning entirely if there's also a protectedpagetext warning, but this would mean that users would be given no hints about why they can't edit the page, if, for example, the page is both semi-protected and cascade-protected. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 06:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to code a new magic word to detect cascading protection. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
gerrit:104999 submitted. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's now merged. Starting January 16th, {{CASCADINGSOURCES}} will work here. (It works on the beta cluster home enwiki now). Use {{CASCADINGSOURCES}} for the current page, or {{CASCADINGSOURCES:pagename}} for some other page. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I threw together a version of the templates that uses the new magic word. There's some pages you can use to test it linked from [4]. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastic work - thank you! I will also be able to use this to make the protection detection better in Module:Protected edit request, so it's a big win. Your versions of cascadeprotected and protectedpagetext look good, and they're simpler too. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 01:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 2 January 2014

[edit]

Please replace the contents of the page with the following:

This causes the full message to always be displayed, even if regular protection is also present. This should be changed before the change at MediaWiki talk:Protectedpagetext#Protected edit request on 2 January 2014 is made. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 04:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 28 August 2014

[edit]

Please replace the contents of this page with the following:


Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jackmcbarn is this just a request to change the background color? — xaosflux Talk 00:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux: No. (It doesn't change the background color at all, actually). This adds support for a new parameter that I just had added to the software. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done — xaosflux Talk 03:52, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 9 August 2017

[edit]

Please change the protection file. File:Padlock-turquoise.svg. Not an full protected logo 38.96.9.224 (talk) 04:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Please expand on the requested change and explain the rationale? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:07, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 21 August 2017

[edit]

Please change the color of the lock to turquoise because that is how cascade protection is described on Wikipedia's protection policy. Ups and Downs (↕) 00:44, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That can't be done here; it's on one of the subtemplates. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:50, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you need to do. Add | image = Padlock-turquoise.svg to the template {{protected page text}}. Ups and Downs (↕) 07:31, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not done for now: please make the required changes to Template:Protected page text/sandbox and reactivate — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request for update

[edit]

Since the policy currently uses the turquoise padlock icon for cascade-protected pages, then this message should REALLY use the Turquoise Padlock icon. 2602:306:379D:1AA0:8D09:90B5:D1A8:555 (talk) 05:32, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the image is produced by Template:Protected page text. I will leave a note over there. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:29, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now  Done. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 00:30, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 13 November 2018

[edit]

Change the line:
| image = Padlock-turquoise.svg
to:
| image = Cascade-protection-shackle.svg

Per this RfC. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 02:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - It isn't broken, and the cascade-protection-shackle icon isn't a padlock. It's a shopping bag. Kamafa Delgato (Lojbanist)Styrofoam is not made from kittens. 03:51, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Lojbanist: The specified file does not look like a shopping bag (it has the gray shackle, which is supposed to avoid looking like a shopping bag) SemiHypercube ✎ 20:06, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cascading template-editor protection?

[edit]

If that exists, the code of this needs to account for it. I ran into this at Template:0 which is template-editor protected, but which is showing up incorrectly in Category:Wikipedia fully-protected templates and also (when you edit it or try to edit it) it auto-reports that it's only editable by administrators due to cascading but it can in fact be edited by template-editors like myself.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:18, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category of Cascade-protected pages

[edit]

Are there any category pages that list all cascade-protected pages? I know that it exists for autoconfirmed, extended-confirmed, template, and full protection, so is there a list of all cascade-protected pages? The only one I know of as of now is the Main Page. Thank you! 2003 LN6 17:44, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Cascadeprotected&oldid=1224929636"