Template talk:Pp-dispute

Template:Pp-dispute is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories.

Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. This template does not have a testcases subpage. You can create the testcases subpage here.

Template matrix

Type	Full	Semi
Dispute	`{{pp-dispute}}`	—
Vandalism	`{{pp-vandalism}}`	`{{pp-semi-vandalism}}`
High visible templates	`{{pp-template}}`	`{{pp-semi-template}}`
User talk of blocked user	`{{pp-usertalk}}`	`{{pp-semi-usertalk}}`
Spambot target	—	`{{pp-semi-spambot}}`
Generic (other protection)	`{{pp-protected}}`	`{{pp-semi-protected}}`
Move protection
`{{pp-move}}`

Aren't {{pp-semi-hightraffic}} and {{pp-semi-vandalism}} redundant with eachother? I don't think the hgihtraffic one would be needed at all. Picaroon 21:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree with that _→AzaToth 21:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pp-dispute

Shouldn't we be encouraging people to use {{subst:editprotected}} not {{editprotected}}

--Akako |☎ 13:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to subst {{editprotected}}. _→AzaToth 23:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you subst editprotected then it is much harder to comment it out. WHen an admin makes the changes they ordinarily just replace {{editprotected}} with {{tl|editprotected}}. CMummert · talk 12:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reason= parameter

I would like to add another parameter to give a short summary of the dispute. For example, {{pp-dispute|reason=the point of view}} would make the first sentence say "This page is currently protected from editing until disputes about the point of view have been resolved." I can make the change myself, but I want to test consensus. CMummert · talk 12:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization

It would be nice to have this template categorize pages into a reason-specific category, something like Category:Protected due to dispute (if you can think of a better name, go ahead), in addition to (or preferably instead of) Category:Protected. This would allow people to see at a glance all pages protected for this reason, making maintenance and review of page protections much easier, and avoiding the need to create very long and quickly out of date lists in project space. Thanks – Gurch 23:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems reasonable to me, but I want to wait for comments before proceeding. CMummert · talk 12:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to this, but I'd prefer the double-categorization unless/until all the other templates also have their own category. --ais523 13:46, 16 April 2007 (U T C)

{{pp-vandalism}} also double-categorizes, so I think this should too. I am prepared to make the edit unless there are objections. CMummert · talk 01:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made the changes. CMummert · talk 13:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wording issue

The phrasing of "the current version (protection log)" can be easily misinterpreted by newbies to mean that a "version" and a "protection log" are somehow the same thing, or closely related. Therefore, I propose that it say "the current version (see protection log)". Does that work? Should I raise this in Proposals instead? $\sim$ Lenoxus " * " 02:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest to add explanation to discussion area when protecting (or semi-protecting) pages

New citizens of Wikipedia may be flummoxed by a protected page. A note on the discussion page answers their need for explanation and (in the case of semi-protection) can be used to steer them toward registration.

One example of good template language might be something like this blurb provided by Aude, and possibly the text following, created by a new user (me):

The page is only semi-protected, which means if you create an account then after four days you can edit this page and any other semi-protected pages. Semi-protection helps cut down on vandalism, which seems to happen (unfortunately) a lot on this page if it's left open for anonymous edits. --Aude (talk) 17:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

WORKAROUNDS: Obviously, free Wikipedia registration is the simplest way to allow an unregistered user to (after 4 days) contribute to this semi-protected page while still protecting the page from vandalism.

For the unregistered wishing to contribute faster, or anonymously, to a semi-protected page (or anyone wishing to contribute to a fully protected page), one quick though slightly clumsy workaround is to copy the portion that you want to contribute to and create a corresponding section on this page (the discussion page), paste your main article portion in the new section, and make your contributions there. Title your new and improved discussion section something like "Requests for edits to (main article section name)" If you leave your new section edited so that all an administrator has to do is to cut it and paste it in, your contribution may land in the main article before too long, or at least eventually, with a minimum of unnecessary labor, and thanks for your efforts, and to the administrators for theirs. If all else fails, after the article is unprotected (hopefully this will happen someday) you can paste your own edits back into the main article.

Using these workarounds, anonymous (i.e., unregistered) contributions to "Africa" may be slowed, necessary to impede vandalism (alas, poor Africa!) but not completely stopped. Obviously, registration is the preferred alternative.

Ocdcntx 18:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)ocdcntx[reply]

valign

Value of attribute "valign" cannot be "center"; must be one of "top", "middle", "bottom", "baseline".--23:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki links

Please add bg:Шаблон:Редакционна война Thank you. --Petar Petrov (talk) 11:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless date linking.

Currently pp-dispute provides pointless date links when an expiry date is given. Why would anyone need to link to an article about a year, or particular day-month from this template? Please remove it. Hohum (talk) 19:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

{{editprotected}} Go to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#WP:Accessability ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 22:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Come back when you have consensus... —GFOLEY FOUR— 05:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why only full protection?

Please see Category talk:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates#I don't understand.. to keep discussion in one place. -- œ ^™ 05:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 25 August 2013

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change:

|small={{{small|}}}
|demospace={{{demospace|}}}

To:

|small={{{small|}}}
|right={{{right|}}}
|demospace={{{demospace|}}}

This allows use of the new pp-meta parameter. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 21:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding template for semi protection (edit request)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I've created a new version of the template in the sandbox which allows it to be used on semi-protected and fully protected pages. Would someone please review the code, you can see it in action at User:Callanecc/sandbox2, and copy it over. Once that's done, I'll update the documentation. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Callanecc, I like where this is going. The only hesitation I have on this is a lot of the links don't seem to do what I would expect them to do. For example, I would expect the "request an edit" link to open the talk page in an edit window with the edit semi preload on the page. There are a few others I would expect more from. Like the "current version" link should take you to a diff of the current version, not the history page. Even better would be if it took you to the diff between what it was when the dispute started and what it is now (assuming it hadn't been reverted to pre-dispute status, which it often isn't). Just some ideas for improvement and I'd be happy to help code them tomorrow if no-one beats me to this tonight. Good night and dreams of merrily editing the English Wikipedia (or trout fishing...)! Technical 13 (talk) 04:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those are changes which would need to be made to {{pp-meta}}, so I've left a note there to let watchers know that this discussion is going on.

We could use {{Submit an edit request}} so that the "request an edit" link works for both semi and full protection in all of the protection templates (a change needed to pp-meta). Though I'll need some help to change it from a button to a wikilink.

Regarding "current version", and I'd be in favour of unlinking it altogether because the current version is what is being displayed below the template. We could add a "diff" parameter (to pp-meta) which showed the difference between the two versions, though as an admin who uses the template I generally wouldn't bother finding the diff(s) and loading the link into the template. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The semi protected links would be best in my opinion as:

Shouldn't be too hard to implement those and adjust for WP:PINK && WP:GOLD locks... Technical 13 (talk) 06:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've created {{submit an edit request/link}} if that will be of use. Also, it would probably be a good idea to rewrite all of the protection templates as a Lua module at some point in the not-too-distant future, but this looks like a good way of doing things until that gets written. There has been some talk about a new module already at the pp-meta talk page. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've done most of the links per what Technical 13 said, except the current version one because that would mean it would show the protection template being added rather than catching the content dispute. I also haven't turned the login and signup links into fullurls because I think the current wikilinks would work just as well. I also haven't included the request an account, because we'd rather people tried to create one themselves first. I'll rewrite part of the full protection one in a minute or two. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright the changes to the full protection text are in the sandbox, since we haven't really discussed that bit could someone take a look please. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the wording for semi, template and full protection could someone please check the code in the sandbox and if it's alright copy it over to Template:Pp-dispute. Once that's done I'll update the applicable pages (such as the table of protection templates) and let the Twinkle devs know. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to convert this template to Lua

There is currently a proposal to convert this and other protection templates to Lua at Module talk:Protection banner#Proposal to convert all protection templates to use this module. Please join this discussion over there if you are interested. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 23:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Link to draft article

What do people think about including a link to the draft version of an article, if it is fully protected? This would allow collaboration to continue and aid discussion on the talk page. (This first came up at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 15#Draft version.) Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]