What does the "pp" stand for? └Jared┘┌talk┐ 00:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
"This page is currently protected from editing because lorem ipsum dolor sit amet." What the hell?! What does "lorem ipsum dolor sit amet" mean?! -- Reaper X 03:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:Article message boxes project has now changed and standardised the styles for most of the message boxes that goes on article pages. We are now planning to change the protection templates to have a matching look when on article pages. But they will keep their old look when they appear anywhere else.
Here is an example of the new look. (Note: Exact colour for the left-side colour bar is not yet decided, and we will of course have the old full text in them, this is just a short example.)
Any input is welcome, see discussion and more examples at Wikipedia talk:Article message boxes#Protection Templates and Wikipedia talk:Article message boxes#Next steps.
--David Göthberg 02:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I have created a /doc subpage for this template to separate the docs from the template code to make further editing easier. I have used the old method (that had consensus) described at Wikipedia:Template documentation before that page got heavily reworked yesterday.
I have chosen to start out with this protection template since it is not used on as many pages as the other protection templates. So if we screw up we don't cause so much damage. I have tested the changes I suggest here in my own sandbox in my own user space.
((editprotected))
To make the /doc page work the following changes needs to be done to this template:
1. Remove the noinclude with the pp-template from the first line of code. It is added in the end instead, see below. Make the first line look like this:
((#ifeq:(({small|))}(({expiry|ʁ))}|yesʁ
2. Remove the documentation from the template and make the lines from the end table tag to the end of the page look like this:
</table>
))<includeonly>[[Category:Protected|((PAGENAME))]]((
#ifexpr:
((#if:(({expiry|))}
| ((#time:U|today))>((#time:U|(({expiry))))}
| 0
))
| [[Category:Protected pages with expiry expired|((PAGENAME))]]
))</includeonly><noinclude>
((pp-template|small=yes))
((template doc))
<!-- Add categories and inter-wikis to the /doc subpage, not here! -->
</noinclude>
That's all.
--David Göthberg 14:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Currently points to Wikipedia: Protection policy, I would like to suggest Wikipedia:This page is protected. —Random832 18:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
How about changing the image for the new images for Accessibility. ~~Awsome EBE123 talkContribs 19:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
((edit protected)) Changing the images to the current version for Wikipedia:Accessability
~~Awesome EBE123 talkContribs 20:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
((editprotected))
Go to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#WP:Accessability ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 22:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I saw a sample of the use of this template and it said "because" followed by the reason, while "because of" would be correct grammar in the sample used.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
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) 19:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
This edit request to Template:Pp-protected has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 - This page may be vandalised, which is not a good thing as it may be offensive. It will be good if it is semi-protected. Nahnah4 | Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here! | No Editcountitis! 09:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
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 ♪ 23:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
FYI: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Page_status_indicators ed g2s • talk 23:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm trying to produce a red padlock on a page such as Wikipedia:Content disclaimer (which seems to fit as "permanent full protection"). What parameters are needed to do this? Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:31, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
( namespace == 10 or namespace == 828 or reason and obj._cfg.indefImageReasons[reason] ) and action == 'edit' and level == 'sysop' and not protectionObj:isTemporary()
['image-filename-indef'] = 'Padlock-red.svg',
- if you search for image-filename-indef
in the same page, there is code like this:-- Pages with a reason specified in this table will show the special "indef" -- padlock, defined in the 'image-filename-indef' message, if no expiry is set. indefImageReasons = { template = true },
indefImageReasons
has something to do with it. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
reason and obj._cfg.indefImageReasons[reason]
and not protectionObj:isTemporary()
in the test above, which neither Mr. Stradivarius (talk⧼dot-separator⧽contribs) nor Jackmcbarn (talk⧼dot-separator⧽contribs) (they being the people who made all but four edits to Module:Protection banner) seem willing to explain properly. Those two rules aside, why is an indef-full-protected template described as "permanently" protected, whereas a page in another namespace, which should rarely (or never) be altered because of legal implications (such as Wikipedia:Content disclaimer, Wikipedia:Copyrights or Wikipedia:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License) apparently is not permanently protected? --Redrose64 (talk) 23:34, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
reason and obj._cfg.indefImageReasons[reason]
specifies that there is a reason and that that reason is present in the indefImageReasons config table. That table only contains a key of "template", so the code effectively checks whether reason
is equal to "template". (The reason and
part is only necessary because if the reason
variable does not have a value set, trying to look it up in the table will cause an error.) not protectionObj:isTemporary()
negates the result of Protection:isTemporary()
, which in turn checks whether protectionObj.expiry
has a numerical value. The code that sets the expiry is fairly complex. Here is the code block: -- Set expiry
local effectiveExpiry = effectiveProtectionExpiry(obj.action, obj.title)
if effectiveExpiry == 'infinity' then
obj.expiry = 'indef'
elseif effectiveExpiry ~= 'unknown' then
obj.expiry = validateDate(effectiveExpiry, 'expiry date')
elseif args.expiry then
if cfg.indefStrings[args.expiry] then
obj.expiry = 'indef'
elseif type(args.expiry) == 'number' then
obj.expiry = args.expiry
else
obj.expiry = validateDate(args.expiry, 'expiry date')
end
end
((PROTECTIONEXPIRY))
, which has recently been enabled on this wiki, and to make it easier to use from Lua, Cenarium has created Module:Effective protection expiry. Effectively, if ((PROTECTIONEXPIRY))
returns "infinity", then protectionObj.expiry
is set to "indef". If it's a date, then protectionObj.expiry
is set to that date as a number in Unix time. If the expiry is unknown - which at the moment means that the page is unprotected or under pending changes protection - then |expiry=
is checked, and if it's a value similar to "indef" then protectionObj.expiry
is set to "indef", and if it's a date, then protectionObj.expiry
is set to that date as a number in Unix time. If the expiry is unknown and there is no |expiry=
parameter, then protectionObj.expiry
will be nil
. So essentially, not protectionObj:isTemporary()
checks whether we were not able to find an expiry date, either from ((PROTECTIONEXPIRY))
or from |expiry=
. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 11:03, 21 December 2015 (UTC)Just to follow up on this, the red padlock is now history. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:49, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Is there any banner to indicate that a file has upload protection, e.g. |action=upload
? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:50, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
action=upload
to the module, but it would require a few coding changes. For example, at the moment, the Protection.supportedActions
table in the module only contains "edit", "move", and "autoreview". I'm pretty sure all of the padlock templates around on Wikipedia use the module, although there might be other non-padlock templates that check for upload protection. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 10:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
|small=yes
? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 01:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)((#invoke:protection banner|main))
. That should be all that's necessary. Actually, try it with the config sandbox first (so the template code would be ((#invoke:protection banner/sandbox|main))
). Then you'll be able to see how things work without worrying about messing up the live templates. I'll set up the main module sandbox to point to the config sandbox instead of the main config so that it will work. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:07, 9 March 2016 (UTC)This template populates Category:Protected images. I'm just wondering if it should be called Category:Wikipedia protected files as I assume non-image files would also go into this category. Also the "Wikipedia" should probably be added for consistency — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Could one of our Lua magicians add a padlock for the new WP:EXTENDEDCONFIRMED protection? We'll want to use the blue padlock as seen on the right.
Our other padlocks link to whichever section in WP:PROTECT, but this form of protection as I understand is only to be used on pages under discretionary sanctions? If so I think we should link to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions (WP:30/500 will do). We'll also want to add the categories Category:Wikipedia pages under discretionary sanctions and I guess Category:Wikipedia pages under 30-500 editing restriction. Pinging recent contributors @MSGJ, Mr. Stradivarius, and Jackmcbarn — MusikAnimal talk 04:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Is the Lua module not updated yet, or did no one change ((Pp-30-500)) to have ((#invoke:Protection banner|main))? Datbubblegumdoe[talk – contribs] 22:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
In case of pages with 2 kinds of protection, why don't both show up? Also, why did the padlock change in this case. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 05:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I have a new suggestion for a reason proposal. I have been loooking for a bit, and I figured that a disruptive editing reason should be added (because the two main causes of semi-protection is either vandalism or disruptive editing. It would be great for this to be added, as there are a high amount of articles being protected from disruptive editing (I'm not too sure if vandalism and disruptive editing mean the same thing, or if they both have the same point). If you could consider the option for disruptive editing as a reason for this heavy used template, that would be great. Thank you, and have a good day. --Redolta (talk) 01:58, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
I always find it strange that the default on these protection templates is to have a big banner. In fact literally 4541 out of the 4542 instances of transclusion of ((pp)) had small = yes/y ([1])The one instance where it was used, I boldly changed as I was quite sure that wasn't the intention of the protecting admin. Instead of having |small=yes
, I'm proposing to have |banner=yes
and the default to be a padlock. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:22, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
...or does the presence of this template still on an article *after* semi-protection has expired mean it can't be edited by an unregistered user? I had a look at Fabinho (footballer, born 1993) on my mobile phone, on which I never sign into my account, and noticed the edit icon on the top right still contained the padlock. After removing it (while logged in from my computer) as the protection expired hours ago, I'm now able to edit the article from my phone as an unregistered user. And, as if by magic, an unregistered user made an unsourced edit to the article minutes after I removed the icon. And no, it wasn't me! If anyone wants to test this on their phone, try 2018 FIA Formula 3 European Championship, which also has had its protection expire, has the template and won't allow mobile editing. Any help/clarification would be appreciated. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 03:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
You may also request that this page be unprotected. ----> You may also request that this page to be unprotected. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 22:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
It seems like something that should exist, but if it does, it may have stopped working; I noticed that Help:Introduction to policies and guidelines/2, which has been protected since 2018, is missing it. Pinging Redrose64, since you seem to be active with this sort of thing. Cheers, ((u|Sdkb)) talk 21:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Several protected talk pages have a subpage for users who can't edit due to the protection. See e.g. WT:About or User talk:Jimbo wales. In those instances, we should be able to use this template (as at e.g. WT:Contents, where there's no subpage). Could we add a parameter that'd allow specification of the subpage? ((u|Sdkb)) talk 23:17, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
There seems to be a trailing space after the tag in this template, which inserts a space wherever this is included. Where the page is a partial markup template (for instance Template:F1R2020) this space can break the behaviour of the template. Is there a reason not to remove this space or bring it inside the noinclude tags? Otherwise you have to have a second set of noinclude tags around the template at point of inclusion where this is an issue. Bigbluefish (talk) 14:44, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
For semi-protected article talk pages, I propose changing If you cannot edit this page and you wish to make a change, you can request unprotection, log in, or create an account.
to the following: If you cannot edit this page and you wish to make a change, you can log in, create an account, or request unprotection.
I do not think that "request unprotection" should be the first thing suggested to new users, because if a talk page is semi protected, it is likely for a good reason. Example (look at all these reverts that triggered the page protection). Thoughts? –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Hey! I've been clearing up a protection related category for a while now, and during that, I've noticed that quite a lot of uses of the ((pp)) template (or similar) include a |reason=
parameter (like here). However, based off of what I've seen at Special:ExpandTemplates and in the module code, this parameter has absolutely no effect on the output. Why is it being used? Protection reasons are provided by the protection log so I wouldn't think that is why, and even if it was, most editors would not notice the text. Aidan9382 (talk) 12:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
|reason=
- It's not that its being used wrong, its that as, as far as my testing went, it has 0 functionallity in any use. Aidan9382 (talk) 12:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
|reason=
was used were by Deepfriedokra, who I'll ping so they can take a read of this. (If you want to check yourself, just see any triple-digit diff on this contribution search). However, all of those edits were also marked with the Twinkle tag, and after looking further, I've seen a different admin doing the same thing with twinkle, so it may be worth looking into. I've literally never used twinkle so I have no clue how the process works through it, so whether the root cause of the issue is human error or the tool providing it as an option is completely beyond me. Aidan9382 (talk) 13:44, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
|reason=
parameter has no functionallity within neither the template nor module, and therefore doesn't need to be added alongside the protection template. That explenation should be in the protection log anyways. Aidan9382 (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
((pp-protected|reason=Persistent [[WP:Disruptive editing|disruptive editing]]; requested at [[WP:RfPP]]|small=yes))
, but should have placed the code ((pp-protected|small=yes))
. The parameter $1 is allowed, but has to use one of the codes in the documentation, and "disruptive editing" is not one of them. The parameter $reason isn't read by the template at all. The bug seems 100% on Twinkle's side, and is pretty minor, so I wouldn't worry about it. Keep doin what you're doin and we will fix it in the background. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:47, 21 June 2022 (UTC)(Side comment) About your use of the vandalism category as an example, when i used ((pp|vandalism)) as a test on my user page, it used the baseplate user page category and not the specific vandalism one, but the blp category would be used over the user page one. I'll probably investigate whats going on there, since I've got no idea why theres a difference. Aidan9382 (talk) 13:00, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
((pp))
, ((pp|blp))
and ((pp|vandalism))
at Special:ExpandTemplates. Set the context title to User:Aidan9382/SafeEnvironmentTesting
(semi-protected for this very purpose) so that the banner actually works and see the output categories. Aidan9382 (talk) 13:32, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
((pp|vandalism))
is not placing in Category:Wikipedia pages semi-protected against vandalism. Pretty minor, but if someone wants to fix it, go for it (assuming it's not intentional for some reason lost in history :) The bug is likely in a module somewhere, e.g. Module:Protection banner or Module:Protection banner/config. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:44, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
((pp|vandalism))
on User:Aidan9382/SafeEnvironmentTesting does not place in Category:Wikipedia pages semi-protected against vandalism, but a mainspace protected page such as Abraham Lincoln does. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
|small=yes
or not. That banner or icon is the primary purpose of Module:Protection banner, which is the core of Template:Pp, any categorisation is a sideline. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:51, 22 June 2022 (UTC)On pages that are move-protected (Move=Require administrator access) but not edit-protected, the ((pp)) template is added, indicating that the page is move-protected. On pages that have both edit-protection and move-protection enabled with different levels (Edit=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access; Move=Require administrator access), the ((pp)) template is added only once, and shows only a padlock about semi-protection from editing, without a padlock about move protection. Shouldn't it be placed twice for pages that have both edit-protection and move-protection enabled with different levels, where the first one is for edit protection and the second one is for move protection? Vlad5250 (talk) 17:58, 14 September 2022 (UTC)