Template talk:Protection templates

Image

I just restored in place of File:Lock-icon.gif. The second image looks horrible with all the black smudges on it. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I can do something about that, it's derived from the PNG of the SVG, and IMO better than the erroneously deleted JPG (had no transparency at all) or lock-icon.png. The idea is of course to be almost as good as the SVG, only smaller and visible on more browsers. -- Omniplex 01:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I had to write a macro for my editor working with XPM for 64 colours first. If you have other SVG-to-PNG-to-GIF issues wrt to antialiasing artefacts tell me, but I refuse to tackle icons where more than 64 colours are a MUST. -- Omniplex 11:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Downgrade request

Please replace the SVG by image:lock-icon.gif visible with more browsers, it's smaller and (finally, see above) in acceptable quality. The older versions mentioned by Xaosflux are visible in the image history, in image:lock-icon.png, or lost in an erroneous deletion (that was an utter dubious JPG, good riddance ignoring the policy violation). -- Omniplex 11:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't like GIFs. Ashibaka tock 06:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the GIF version looks really bad. howch e ng {chat} 17:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SVG image is fine. No. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old template, for reference

Protection templates +/-
Articles: Dispute | Dispute 2 | Vandalism | High traffic | Deleted (permanent)
Templates: High-use (permanent)
User talk: Vandalism | Vandalism (semi) | Vandalism (IP) | {{unblock}} abuse
General: Semi | Semi 2 | Privacy | Office action
Main page images: General | Temp from Commons | Temporary cropped thumbnail
Other: Page moves | Talk (spambot) | User | Time protection

Edit Request to all pp-templates

{{editprotected}} See: Wikipedia_talk:Protection_policy#Minor_change_for_the_pp-templates. -- _Hdt83 ^Chat 23:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 23:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

`{{pp-semi-vandalism}}`

Shouldn't {{pp-semi-vandalism}} be listed, even though it redirects to {{pp-vandalism}}? After all, the redirect shouldn't be followed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]