Template talk:Protected

What was wrong with the more elegant original lock image? --Cantus 08:55, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

Apparently you forgot to include GFDL info.-SV

Do we need a cheezy icon anyway? Dysprosia 03:06, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

And who is this User:Msg:Protected? Who is such that can dictate such with such suchness, regardless of the regards of the guarded and regarded? -SV

Contents

1 Poll 2 Comments 2.1 Some thoughts on interface design 3 Sandbox 4 Revertion madness 5 This template needs to be split in two 6 Proposal 7 Template bloat

Poll

Use lock image?
UPDATE: Since this poll was started, there have been numerous new proposals and icons entered into consideration. To view a complete listing of all proposals, see User:Squash/Templates.

Support

1. Cantus 22:49, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)
2. squash 06:34, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC) See: User:Squash/Templates for template proposals. This is only a poll for 'Use lock image ?', however not a poll for an overall change to the Wikipedia template 'system' and therefore it is pretty unfair that people oppose against this poll (protected template) and people think the results are to oppose the idea of an overall change. I am voting support, because I want to see both this template and other important templates CHANGED! :-). See my The 'For' Proposition in the comments sections for all of you who think this is such a bad idea.
3. —siroχo 04:58, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC) (After seeing some better designed templates, I think they shoudl be distinguished from the article better.)

Oppose

1. David Gerard
2. —Kate | Talk 06:08, 2004 Aug 2 (UTC) It adds nothing to the notice (which is only directed at editors, the minority of people who will see it) and only serves to distract readers from the article itself.
3. Snowspinner 01:52, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC) It's bad enough edit wars lead to protected pages. Do they have to lead to ugly pictures too?
4. Jmabel 03:07, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC) Like we need an empty graphic? Does it communicate anything not in the words?
5. Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason (https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php?title=%C6var_Arnfj%F6r%F0_Bjarmason&action=edit&section=new) this should not be done manually, rather by stylesheets. See User:Tim Starling/Feature poll#Feature suggestions for what needs to be done to make that possible. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason (https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php?title=%C6var_Arnfj%F6r%F0_Bjarmason&action=edit&section=new) 17:59, 2004 Aug 3 (UTC)
6. Dysprosia 09:24, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC) Images add little, and are unnecessary. Ditto various above.

It depends which one

1. Angela
2. Johnleemk | Talk 12:51, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC) Ditto Siroxo.
3. Neutrality 16:14, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
4. Radagast 23:19, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC) - So long as it obviously LOOKS like a typical padlock.

   I added a version to User:Squash/Templates with the more realistic padlock image Cantus uploaded. —Stormie 00:59, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

5. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 00:42, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC). Wow...it actually looks nicer than I thought it would. I support Squash's proposal!

   I also added a new template idea for stubs. If we do this imagifying stuff, let's go all out :D — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ)

6. AlexG 01:29, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC) - see comments below
7. I'll support if you find a better lock. That one sucks. Looks like a crayon to me. No offence. I really like the templates at the French pedia. If we had something like that, I'd def. support. blankfaze | (беседа!) 02:05, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

   You can create your own lock that doesn't look like crayon :-)

8. On Squash/templates, I like speedy delete and protected with Cantus's lock icon. I think the stub there is ugly. (Were there other choices? I didn't see any listed on this page.) I'd like to see a Vfd template that is less obnoxious than speedy delete. I don't know if stub can be improved--its on so many pages, and if you make the template too big, it'll be bigger than the stub page content. --ssd 05:23, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

   I made it a bit smaller (stole from French Wiki), also, there needs to be a new picture, cuz the tree thing was made in photoshop within 30 seconds

   I hate the yellow lock icon. The -- is ugly, a real mdash would be better possibly. Ilγαηερ's icon for Vfd is confusing and unrecognizable. — ssd 04:46, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

9. I support, but with only with Cantus' lock icon. — Tasty Sandwich | Talk 14:33, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Comments

We should have a separate default CSS for logged-in (i.e. editors) and not-logged-in (generally readers) so that things like this can be hidden from readers. Then we get as carried away as we like with flashy, noticable icons. Pcb21| Pete 11:03, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What about people who are new to Wikipedia and/or computers in general who like the visual things with coloured things... :-) squash 10:12, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

They're beyond help. :) Pcb21| Pete 11:30, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm not completely decided about this but I'm not convinced the message is needed at all. You know a page is protected by fact it says "view source" rather than "edit this page" (or you see a warning if you're a sysop) so what does the template add? If the message is staying, adding an image doesn't make much of a difference, but I think I'd rather not have the message at all. Angela.

Ha, maybe "you" know that the page is protected because of the view source text, but what percentage of the readers are as sophisticated a wikipedia user as you are? For someone who has no clue about how things work because they're completely new or somewhat new, being able to edit pages and then suddenly come upon one that they couldn't edit could be quite confusing. We need the message. I have a preference for informative icons so that you don't have to read all those pesky words if you don't have to, but it does have to be an informative icon... Elf | Talk 19:25, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The French Wikipedia has been using images in their template messages quite heavily: see fr:Modèle:DesaccordDeNeutralite (NPOV dispute), fr:Modèle:Ébauche (stub), or fr:Modèle:Suppression (listing on VfD). I don't think there's a message for protected pages, interestingly enough. While DesaccordDeNeutralite is a bit garish, the others actually look quite good in my opinion; for one thing, the message is clearly distinguished from the article text. Something fairly subtle would be more appropriate for the visual style of the English Wikipedia, but there's still room for an image in there. Pictures, when used with care, can be a big help to navigation, even for experienced users - the brain parses colours and shapes more readily than words. If there are to be images, they must be good ones: recognisable, distinct from one another, and in keeping with the overall "feel" of the site. --AlexG 01:26, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The 'For' Proposition by User:Squash

Editors matter in times of trouble 1. Most of the articles on the Wikipedia doesn't need to be listed for deletion, protection etc. So how can that distract readers. But when the time when there is a page to be deleted and so forth - who is really the article important to now ? ... the editors and so it makes sense to make it usable to the editors and make life easier for them. There is no point in creating a bad speedy delete message for editors to see which the article is soon to be deleted anuway and there is no point for the reader to read the article either! :-)

John Kerry was recently semi-permanantly protected at a time when rather a lot of people are likely to be looking for information on him. George W. Bush is currently protected. I think that covers a reasonable number of readers.

I suspect that most people don't find speedy deletion candidates by looking for pages with the {{delete}} header on; they've more likely to use the category, csd page, or What links here on the template. It therefore hardly matters what the speedy deletion notice looks like.

I agree there is no point in "creating a bad speedy delete message," which is why I would like to keep the current perfectly functional one we have right now. —Kate | Talk 22:55, 2004 Aug 4 (UTC)

Ah, But Kate what about the people AFTER the person who have voted the article for deletion ?!... How would they know how to save an article ? squash 05:50, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)

Because it says to go to VfD and comment on why it should be kept. —Kate | Talk 09:19, 2004 Aug 5 (UTC)

Despite, your comments, I still think that it is better for editors to see the site notice clearly then make life difficult for them :-) squash 09:45, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)

Text-only messages look like part of article I don't like the text only templates for important site notices. They are distracting and when a person reads an article they have to see the article and people are more likely to confuse it with part of the article itself. The templates below that I have designed (including the icons) are supposed to be plain good. And so when a person sees a notice, they would not confuse it with the text. To many people they may seem too distracting and an annoyance. In opinion they are better then the text only ones because of the previously mentioned.

Indented italicised text, as the standard for notices about articles, should be quite hard to confuse with an article. Put a ---- below it if you really want. —Kate | Talk 22:55, 2004 Aug 4 (UTC)

That makes it even worse!, adding a ---- makes it even look more like the article even MORE! and makes it consmetically unappealing. IMO, the ---- should be used sparingly!. If the French Wikipedia has had sucess with their templates (they have a coloured table and small image) why can't the English Wikipedia do something more like that... The French have creative many spectacular pieces of work like The Eiffel Tower... :-) squash 05:50, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)

So don't add a ----. I don't see how the indented italicised text looks like part of the article. —Kate | Talk 09:19, 2004 Aug 5 (UTC)

Never the less, it is still text - and text with text still makes it look like part of the article! squash 09:45, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)

Help in navigation and usability The images assist in navigation with different colours and depth to make navigation better and easier... they are not distracting, In my opinion I think that making a site notice that looks like part of the article is EVEN more distracting then a site notice. And the minimal designs aren't THAT distracting at all!... The brain processes pictures quicker then text... as they say... a picture is worth [number] of words :-). But they add nothing to the template? ... They do, A person can easier distinguish a site notice from the article itself instead of some text only message and so it adds 'usability' in one meaning or another.

Minimal designs? WHAT minimal designs? They all have a border and an image. —Kate | Talk 22:55, 2004 Aug 4 (UTC)

Minimal-er then the previously proposed ones... do you have just have to think that everything I say is correct... I'm not PERFECT, you know... :-| I'm human... squash 05:50, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)

Help non-technically advanced users You may think, it is appropriate for individual templates, what about the techinilogically inadvanced users out there who like the appealing icons and know what to do, if they see something bad in the Wikipedia... do we just lock them out and wondering what to do or ask other people. It would be efficent for the Wikipedia that more people work on articles - whether they are really smart or not. See the logo - Wikipedia - The Free Encyclopedia... what does that mean ? ... I think it means it is open to all users out there not just those who are smart!

People who "know what to do"? If they can't even understand "This article is protected from editing" I really don't think it matters whether we add an obnoxious border and a picture. —Kate | Talk 22:55, 2004 Aug 4 (UTC)

Eh, it's supposed to have a visual impact on the person ?... so it provides a consistent site notice look with the speedy deletion notice ? squash 05:50, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)

The speedy deletion notice should look exactly like the protected page one, unless someone has changed that too. —Kate | Talk 09:19, 2004 Aug 5 (UTC)

Eh, what about those people with sight impairements who use the Wikipedia eh ?... how would they recognized the text from the site notice itself easily at a glance. And it allows people with no sight impairments to just have a glance and know what site notice it is! :-) squash 09:45, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)

If you mean partially-sighted people, then the issue is about the same as for anyone else: they tend to just use larger-sized fonts overall. If you're talking about people using screen readers, the existing template is actually better. Almost all modern screen readers will recognise italics and read the text in a slightly different voice, but they will not be able to recognise images and borders. As for Braille pads, I think that the results would be the same in any case, though I don't know for sure as I've never used such a device. --AlexG 18:38, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Some thoughts on interface design

While I'm not a professional interface designer, I have taken some courses on the subject, and designed a fair few interfaces, both good and bad. I'd like to share a few thoughts on the proposed templates.

• To justify being large and brightly-coloured, something has to be pretty important. I am not convinced that "editing this page is forbidden for now" is important enough to make a big box worthwhile. That box will probably be the first thing a reader notices: do they really need to be told in quite such a loud voice? This visual style should be reserved for the messages that really are important, because otherwise the distinction is lost. Remember that we occasionally see messages like
  The server will be down for an hour starting 0400 UTC
  This is the most important class of message, but is less obvious than the proposed new templates! To keep the distinction, how large would the server-down message have to be? There are plenty of subtle ways of giving emphasis - like "putting something in italics and indenting it" - and if that's not enough, it doesn't mean that a big bold border is better.
• Images should be used with extreme care. When looking at the proposed templates, imagine that you cannot read the attached text: all you can see is the image and border. What does it mean to you? That is the impression that someone will have when they see it for the first time. To me, the speedy-delete proposal (big red X) signifies "error" or "forbidden", for example. (There is a UI convention for this to mean "delete", in the context of a command - like on a toolbar button. When in the context of a report, it is much more common for it to mean "something's wrong".) It is very, very difficult to choose good images: if they are wrong, it looks bad - worse than having no pictures at all. Images must be consistent and understandable, and fit in with the overall style of the site. Which leads me on to the next point...
• This site's interface is a large system; changes should be considered in the context of the whole system. Consistency is important: the new templates need to be thought about in relation to other article messages, and in terms of what they look like on the page. Just as an example, many articles with images have those images near the top of the page: how would coloured messages look there? Remember that people complained about this when categories first appeared, and were displayed in this position. (I'm not saying that this is a show-stopper, just that the issue needs addressing.)
• I think that Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason makes a very good point in the poll above. This is somewhat orthogonal to the question of what templates should look like, but it would mean that they could look good in any skin.

I strongly favour a more subtle look as being more consistent with the existing Wikipedia style. I think that Squash's "minimal" designs are on the right track, but I'd much rather see something more minimal still! Sorry to splurge so much text out. --AlexG 18:38, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sandbox

I have created Template:Protected/sandbox. I'd like to propose that radical new and experimental changes to this template be made there and played with before going "live", and we can discuss style issues here. Personally, I think the color scheme, font style (non-italics), and line breaking of the "yellow" version looks much better and clearer than the grey "message box" style one. But it's the killing of the history link due to the parser problems that makes it "cutting edge" technology that doesn't fully work. VV 22:34, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Revertion madness

Please take the edit wars to Template:Message box. That is where you get to change the format. We only have a skeleton here. --Cantus 23:05, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cantus#Final Decision, I've just blocked Cantus for 24 hours for blatant edit warring in violation of WP:3RR - David Gerard 23:32, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Do you think I'm stupid enough to violate that rule? The 3RR states "Don't revert any article more than three times in the same day.". I did not violate this rule. Unblock me now. (Cantus)

This might be an appeal to either of two technicalities:

1. Cantus is arguing that a template is not the same as an article
2. Cantus is arguing that day refers to something other than a 24-hour period (such as a UTC day, or a day in Cantus' time zone)

In either case, the ruling itself quite clearly says "any page" and "any 24 hour period". The three-revert rule has now been rewritten accordingly, and hopefully Cantus will know better than to expect that such semantics will protect him in the future. The block was completely justified. --Michael Snow 17:07, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Nope. It only clearly said "any page" *after* you changed it to say so, which was *after* I was blocked. Nice going, Michael. --Cantus 05:15, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

1. Cantus is placed on revert parole, indefinately, as was applied to Wik. As a result, he may not revert any page more than three times in any 24 hour period. This may be enforced by 24-hour temp-bans at sysop discretion, as per Wik.. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Cantus. Seems clear enough to me. — Kate | Talk 05:26, 2004 Aug 18 (UTC)

Diffs of reverts:

• [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Template%3AProtected&diff=5231534&oldid=5230138)
• [2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Template%3AProtected&diff=5249675&oldid=5249476)
• [3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Template%3AProtected&diff=5250413&oldid=5249675)
• [4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Template%3AProtected&diff=5250705&oldid=5250413)

—Guanaco 00:34, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

These links seems to be broken (there's no actual diff). I can only find the original change [5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Template:Protected&diff=5242877&oldid=5242639) and 3 reverts [6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Template:Protected&diff=5249675&oldid=5249606) [7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Template:Protected&diff=5250413&oldid=5250201) [8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Template:Protected&diff=5250705&oldid=5250497). Where's the 4th? — Kate | Talk 00:46, 2004 Aug 17 (UTC) Ah—on a closer reading of WP:3RR I see it applies to any 3 reverts, not 3 of the same revert. — Kate | Talk 04:26, 2004 Aug 17 (UTC)

Guanaco's links are fine, they're actually diffs between the versions reverted to, and the versions after those reverts, which are identical. Goplat 03:00, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

And even if they weren't identical, a slight rewording doesn't make it not a revert - David Gerard 07:16, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This template needs to be split in two

First of all this template and then another one for something like whats happening over at Richard Stallman now where there is no dispute but just repeated vandalism from multiple ip addresses, this template suggests that there is a dispute, somtimes there isnt. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason (https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php?title=%C6var_Arnfj%F6r%F0_Bjarmason&action=edit&section=new) 18:53, 2004 Aug 17 (UTC)

There's already a template for protection due to vandalism, Template:Vprotected Goplat 19:13, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Proposal

Standardized message box discussion and voting moved to Template talk:Message box -- Netoholic 04:29, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Template bloat

There's no need to link Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute or Wikipedia:NPOV dispute. The protection policy allows editing protected pages to add such links, but does not require it. Also, many articles that get protected already have those because of other tags that have been placed on them. It's quite good enough to tell readers once or twice that the content of a page is disputed; no need to repeat it twenty times before they get to the actual text. --Michael Snow 00:24, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)