Template talk:Protection table/Archive 1

Archive 1

Major change to table

As a form of feedback to Wikipedia:Pending changes, I've edited the protection level table on this project page. I believe these edits benefit interpretation of the table and its ability to illustrate the concepts involved.

The user column headings now use the terms found at Wikipedia:User access levels. The page protection row headings now use terms found at or implied by Wikipedia:Protection policy. The cells of the table use short phrases, color coding, and column spanning to promote quick comprehension of basic attributes. (I only contributed the short phrasing. Color coding and column spanning were already present.)

I've separated new users from anonymous users. Although both user categories are presently treated the same way by the pending changes policy, new users are qualitatively distinct from anonymous users. New users log in to Wikipedia, just as other registered users, and are only awaiting confirmation. (The protection policy appears to group new users with anonymous users as a mechanism to reduce editing abuses by sock puppets.)

To determine the short phrases to use in each cell, I started from the revision history of this table. Pertinent attributes appeared to be: the ability to edit a page; when one's edit then became visible (at least to an anonymous user); and the ability to accept pending changes. To help confirm or modify the attribute values, I relied on relevant content in Wikipedia:Protection policy and Special:ListGroupRights, with assistance from Wikipedia:Reviewing and Wikipedia:Pending changes/Trial#Permission levels. I shortened verbosity in the cells by use of wikilinks for the first appearances of "can edit", "visible after accept", and "can accept"; and by including a note at the bottom of the table.

Readers can now more quickly compare each combination of page protection and Wikipedia user. BrainMarble (talk) 02:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Superprotect

A discussion regarding adding a row for the Superprotect protection level has been initiated at Wikipedia_talk:Protection_policy#Superprotect_in_comparison_table.3F. WaggersTALK 09:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 9 March 2015

this is not the source] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.248.99.206 (talk) 03:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protection?

I think template protection is a bit too heavy here. This is mainly just text and the vandalism has come from IP's. Why not just semi-protect this? --Pxos (talk) 21:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it's probably protected for very good reasons. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Would you fully protect this? What are the reasons? This prevents all the good-faith edits here. Including mine. --Pxos (talk) 04:01, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Extended Semi?

Can you please add the newly added extended semi (30/500 protection) on the table? It is currently missing. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 08:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Added. Pppery (talk) 12:15, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, but one thing: reviewers cannot edit extended protected pages unless they are also extended confirmed. Could that be shown in the table? BethNaught (talk) 12:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Done. Pppery (talk) 18:14, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you again. BethNaught (talk) 18:19, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2022

Under Avatar Studios add: In 2021, Avatar Studios finally found its animation studio, Flying Bark (Rise of TMNT, Marvel Studios'What If) They will animate the 2D Avatar films coming to theaters starting 2024, the first of which follows Aang, Katara, Toph, and Sokka as young adults. rel="no follow"Bowenarrow0824 (talk) 20:26, 18 October 2022 (UTC) Bowenarrow0824 (talk) 20:26, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template {{Protection table}}. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. MadGuy7023 (talk) 20:42, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2022

In reading your information about the “Proud Boys”, I wanted to request an edit to the reference to their involvement in the “January 6 United States Capitol Attack”. I’d like to know why Wikipedia is soft pedaling what was CLEARLY an INSURRECTION on our Nation’s Capitol?That’s what it was, and if you’re goal is honesty and truth in the information you provide, it should be referred to as such. Thank you, Linda Nolan.This is my first attempt at this, I hope I’ve done it correctly. Mybrutha (talk) 11:19, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template {{Protection table}}. If possible, please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. If you cannot edit the article's talk page, you can instead make your request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for edits to a protected page. procedural close - the right place for this is Talk:Proud Boys. 💜  melecie  talk - 12:16, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2022

Hamnsick (talk) 11:35, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

new poll from Prorata: https://www.efsyn.gr/politiki/kybernisi/368553_ligo-prin-apo-tin-eytheia-gia-tis-ethnikes-kalpes

 Not done: @Hamnsick This is the wrong place for this request. You should make it at Talk:Opinion polling for the next Greek legislative election and preferably provide a more clear request in the form "Please update poll data" or something along those lines. Terasail^[✉️] 11:38, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2023

Chawla is a Punjabi surname in punjab from Ancient Times. Chawla Clan of Arora ruled the Kingdom Aror and were part of Arora Kshatriya (Khatri) Royal Clan. It originates from the name of a clan of the Arora caste, likely stemming from the crop word chawal, which means rice. Chawla(चावला) derive their ancestry from Sindh and later on after attack of Ghazni they migrated to Upper Punjab [1] TOP CHAWLA (talk) 06:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template {{Protection table}}. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. Lightoil (talk) 10:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2023

I dont really know Ilovetoes1234567 (talk) 23:02, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Nor do we. M.Bitton (talk) 23:55, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Template editor vs. Pending changes level 1 protection

The table currently [1] suggests that being a template editor allows editing of Pending changes level 1-protected pages. Not that it really matters (since a template editor is unlikely to be not autoconfirmed) but still... that seems unlikely to me. So...? EEng 21:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

That's the current layout of the table; any higher permission implies autoconfirmed. Are there actually any non-autoconfirmed template editors? Pppery 21:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I know what the table says -- that's why I asked. I don't know whether there are any non-autoconfirmed template editors, but this is a technical question: yes or no, is it true (as the table implies) that having the template editor right gives you the ability to edit "Pending 1" pages, if you weren't autoconfirmed? The same question would apply to template editor (not autoconfirmed) vs. "Pending changes level 2 with Semi-protection"

Or is it really true that template editor + nonautoconfirmed is an impossible (technically impossible -- not just practically impossible) combination? EEng 21:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

No, that combo is technically possible, as is a bunch of other peculiarities, such as an extended-confirmed user not being autoconfirmed. Is it really necessary to bloat the table by listing absurd combinations. Pppery 21:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

No, quite the opposite, I'm looking to unbloat the table, but first I need to understand how the permissions actually work. So, if it's true you can be a non-(auto)confirmed template editor, can such a person edit a "Pending changes Level 1" page? A "Pending changes level 2 with Semi-protection" page? I'm guessing the answer is No, but I need to know for sure. (And where are these answers found?) EEng 22:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Special:ListGroupRights (and no) Pppery 22:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, goody. Now we're getting somewhere. FTR the answer is that (as one would expect) that template editor is an independent right from everything else (well, they also have "Override the title or username blacklist (tboverride)").

The table is very hard to absorb largely because Template Editor and Pending Changes Reviewer aren't part of a strict "hierarchy" of permissions as you move left to right along the top row. Now, Pending Changes Reviewer is more complicated, but Template Editor can, I think, be untangled from the mix in a way easier to demonstrate than to describe. Now sure how long that will take, but I'd like your opinion when I've done it. EEng 22:12, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Except that what you've done is yet another breach in consistency, and makes the table handle technically impossible situations (unregistered template editors). Resolving those would require more ugliness involving multiple consecutive red blocks. This all seems like a solution in search of a problem. Pppery 00:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Are you talking about the fact that the intersection of "Unregistered, New" and "Template protection" is "cannot edit (unless Template editor, in which case like Administrator)"? If so, why is that a problem? EEng 02:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and it is a problem because that implies that unregistered editors can be template editors, when they in fact cannot (it is technically impossible). Pppery 02:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

So what if it's technically impossible? The kind of editor who will use this table understands that, and anyway "If you are an unregistered editor who has Template Editor privileges, then you can edit through Template Protection" is a true statement, because F => (anything) is a true statement.

Furthermore, the old table (linked above) didn't even handle cases that can happen. For example, it has separate columns for Template editor and Pending changes reviewer, as if you're in one column or another, when in fact you can be one or the other or neither or both, independently. In that version, the intersection of "Template editor" and "Pending changes level 2 protection" shows as "can edit; changes will go live after being accepted by a reviewer", and that's not always true; if you were a Template editor and a Pending changes reviewer, your changes would go live immediately. This could be patched by adding "changes go live immediately if also..."-type language as elsewhere, but that just makes more of mess unless done consistently.

As observed earlier in this thread, the fundamental problem is that the column headings across the top were trying to treat those labels as a hierarchy when in fact they were not (not all of them, anyway). Removing Template editor from the columns begins to fix that (though not completely, because Pending changes reviewer does not, technically, have all rights that Extended confirmed does, so that still needs to be dealt with).

An important side effect of eliminating the Template editor column is that it frees horizontal width for redistribution to the other columns (especially the "Appropriate for" column), making the rows less tall and thus helping the whole table fit on one screen without scrolling, which really improves comprehensibility. That was, in fact, my original concern when I started looking at this, but it turns out (as shown above) that the table was incorrect in several ways, so I'm fixing that.

EEng 03:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• Postscript: Five years later, it looks like I/we put the Template Editor column back, in seeming contradiction to the reasoning above. I vaguely recall, though, that the difference is that a lot of stuff about Pending Changes has been simplified and factored out, so that there's no more tension vs Template Editor. (Not that what I just wrote makes complete sense, but I think the answer to why a T.E. column is no longer problematic is in there somehow.) EEng 17:51, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Asterisk location

I don't really get this edit. As far as I know, there is a convention to put asterisks after the text to which it refers but before the footnote that refers to that text. Putting the asterisk at the front of the text, as that edit does, suggests that the text is a footnote... which will just confuse people, since it isn't. Am I missing something? Yaris678 (talk) 12:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Your rigid idea is wrong. This isn't article text. An asterisk in one place ties to an asterisk in another place, period, and you place them where they'll do that job best. I put the asterisks at front so they'll be more obvious, instead of buried at the end of two entries deep within the table. It's obvious which thing is the explainer and which is the explained. EEng 16:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

There being no response, I'm reverting. EEng 02:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

About the Third Opinion request: The Third Opinion request made in regard to this dispute has been removed (i.e. declined). That's because 3O, like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, requires thorough recent talk page discussion before seeking assistance. The discussion here is neither thorough nor recent. If an editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which are made here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 22:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

OK. I thought the simplest way to resolve this would be to ask a third opinion, but apparently we need to discuss it more.

If we look at Asterisk#Typography it says "Typically, an asterisk is positioned after a word or phrase and preceding its accompanying footnote."

This is how it is used in the examples given by Really Learn English and the United Nations editorial manual.

EEng, can you find any sources where the convention you describe is recommended? i.e. does anyone recommend "An asterisk in one place ties to an asterisk in another place, period, and you place them where they'll do that job best."?

Yaris678 (talk) 09:10, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Not that we use our own articles as style manuals, the key word in what you quoted is typically. The source for "placing them where they'll do the job best" is common sense. A website for semiliterates and a manual for bureaucrats are of no use here. EEng 15:26, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Insult my sources all you like. an you find anything that recommends your approach? Yaris678 (talk) 20:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

In satisfaction of your request that I insult your sources further, here goes: "Really Learn English" is a cartoonish site for people with barely any grasp of English at all, not a venue for discussing style subtleties; and the UN Style Guide is a hyperspecified recipe book meant to keep hundreds of countries from arguing over nothing -- much as is happening here.

As to your "Can you find" query, the answer is that I already did, and already pointed it out for you above. But I'll repeat it for you. Your own "source" -- the article Asterisk -- says typically, which means usually, not always. It means that exceptions apply, according to common sense (which I also already cited).

Someone taught you that everything has to be rigidly one way, or it's "wrong". That advice is, itself, wrong: most things can be done a variety of ways according to common sense (there's that pesky concept again), especially in project (as opposed to article) space, which this is. See WP:SNODGRASS.

By the merest concidence, while you were posting your latest insistence that only things you've seen are acceptable, I had a nice sushi lunch. See right for a bit of the menu. See the little footnote bullets, all on the left? That's what you do when you want to be sure someone doesn't miss the footnote and sue your for giving them food poisoning. EEng 21:33, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I stumbled upon this interesting discussion and thought I'd add my thoughts. I think both Yaris678 and EEng have made valid points. Asterisks normally go at the end of the text, but sometimes they're best placed elsewhere. My view is that if you're going to deviate from the norm, then you need to have a good reason to do so.

In the example of the sushi menu, that footnote is really important and does need attention drawing to it, so the asterisks do make sense in that position. It doesn't look too odd either, because in that sort of list they seem a bit like bullet points.

However in this template, the footnotes aren't as critical. No-one's going to become ill or sue if they don't read them. So as long as they're not invisible, it doesn't really matter where the asterisks go. But we also need to consider the look and feel, the reader's experience. To my mind, the positioning of the asterisks at the start just seems weird. Maybe it's not technically incorrect, but the unusualness of their location is distracting and detracting. The first thing I thought when I saw the template is "that's odd", and it was playing on my mind when I read the rest of the table. If they'd been in the usual position after the text, I'd still have been led to the footnotes, but without being distracted by how I got there.

Remember that this is only a table to be used in Wikipedia guidance, not in an article, so the asterisk location is certainly not of critical importance. Anyone reading the table should be bright enough to figure out which footnotes pertain to which text, wherever they are. Let's just try not to make it too weird. Bazonka (talk) 20:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Bazonka. The important thing is that we're past the fussing about there being only one right way, so we can focus on (as I keep saying) simply what help the poor editor studying this table best understand it. Now I'm gonna lay it on the line. I spent a lot of time, with the help of our fellow editor Pppery, on making an essentially unintelligible (and in several instances incorrect) table [2] into something both correct and comprehensible. Along the way I spent a lot of time thinking about how someone coming to the table cold would go about absorbing it. The notes at the bottom stand out, and someone might very well notice one of them and want to find the table cell it "explains". To make it easier to do that, I moved the asterisks to the front of the cells. That's it. Do we really need to discuss this ad nauseam? Deuterononmy 25 says, "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn"; in other words, Cut some slack to the person doing the actual work. Perhaps that could be applied here. EEng 01:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, I understand your motivation, but I disagree with your conclusion. As I said above, having asterisks before the text is distracting, and in my opinion, less comfortable for the reader. Most readers are going to go from text to footnote, and not from footnote to text, so the findability of the asterisks in the text is not of primary importance. Move them after the the text, and the readers won't be distracted by their unusual positioning, and if someone does want to go from footnote to text, I'm sure they'd be quite capable of finding them. Bazonka (talk) 07:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Needless to say, I agree with Bazonka on this. Yaris678 (talk) 10:45, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I take it the Biblical allusion had no persuasive effect. EEng 20:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Not on me; I'm an atheist :) Seriously though, I appreciate the work you've done here so I don't want to "muzzle the ox", but perhaps part of the corn you're on could be tread in a way that is less distracting to the readers. Bazonka (talk) 20:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

For the record I'm an atheist too, but that doesn't mean the Bible doesn't contain a lot of wisdom (when it's not recommending stoning people to death, of course). EEng 04:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Abbreviating "protection"

EEng: Regarding the abbreviation for "Template protection", since the abbreviation isn't used anywhere else in the table, and from what I see, isn't even used anywhere in the article on protection itself, it would be better for consistency and MOS:ABBR to leave it unabbreviated since it is only saving one line, after all. - Vanstrat ⁽⁽🗼⁾⁾ 21:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

(For those playing along at home, we're talking about [3].) In the words of Emerson, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." Every line counts, to make it possible to take the whole table in without scrolling up and down. WP:CONSISTENCY is about article titles, and MOS:ABBR is about articles (which this is not), so they have nothing to do with anything. What, do you think people won't know what prot. means??? EEng 21:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Regardless, the consistency argument still applies and MOS:ABBR applies to any abbreviation on the english wikipedia not just ones used in articles. Since "prot" isn't being used anywhere in the wikipedia policy regarding protection (and that page uses "protection" 191 times!), the abbreviation is not widely used and saving one line in a table does not warrant the use of something inconsistent with other usage regardless of whether you think people will understand what it means or not. - Vanstrat ⁽⁽🗼⁾⁾ 21:42, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

The "policy regarding protection" is not a table; this is, and different considerations apply. And if you think MOS:ABBR applies outside of article space, you need to spend more time brushing up on on guidelines and policies, and less time worrying about trivia like this. I can hardly believe we've had four posts now on this absurd non-issue. Perhaps you missed the bit about little minds and so on? EEng 21:49, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

If you believe this to be an "absurd non-issue"... why can't it be changed?

"If it is necessary to abbreviate in small spaces (infoboxes, navboxes and tables), use widely recognised abbreviations." MOS:ABBR specifically talks about tables, navboxes, and infoboxes so, yeah, it applies to those. Regardless whether you think the policy applies.. I'll point out that no policy, in article space or otherwise.. agrees with your use of the abbreviation. Based on that quote I will point out that A) This table as no space requirement to be small, it's not trying to fit into something of a particular size... so one line does not matter. It is not necessary. And, B) as I have already pointed out, since it's not used anywhere else here, the abbreviation is not widely recognized by the community. - Vanstrat ⁽⁽🗼⁾⁾ 21:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

For the third time, MOS applies only, only in article space. If you keep this up, I'm going to seriously consider suggesting to Oshwah that your rollbacker privileges be revoked on the basis of your lack of understanding of policies and guidelines. The protection system is complicated and hard to absorb; I and other editors have worked hard to make if possible to take the table in at one glance, instead of scrolling up and down, and yeah that matters -- here's what it looked like before [4], and that's what comes of your kind of foolish, blinkered thinking.

I'm not worried about whether prot. will be "recognized by the community" in a column whose entries read No protection ... Pending changes protection ... Semi-protection ... Extended confirmed protection ... Template prot. ... Full protection. Let's see... what could that prot. mean? What could it mean?? Oh, I'm so frustrated and confused! But I'm just kidding. Since we have few or no mental defectives making use of the table, I have little doubt all its users will be able to figure it out. Now please stop. You've wasted enough time on this. EEng 22:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I want what's best for this encyclopedia as do most others here, regardless of whether other editors have been here longer or not and have read through more policies or not. My rollback privileges have nothing to do with this debate and making ill conceived threats to have them removed is not going to deter me from having a conversation. I'd prefer to keep this conversation on topic (I'm not scouring your account details and bringing up random unrelated details) and I'll ask that you do too. I do see that you have put a lot of work into this template but as I'm sure you are well aware regardless of the amount of effort, single editors do not own any pages, articles, templates and the like on Wikipedia. Your comments do not alter the fact that that abbreviation is not used elsewhere and as it's not required for space saving on this table, whether policy dictates the removal or not, the abbreviation should not be there. - Vanstrat ⁽⁽🗼⁾⁾ 22:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

The logic not needed => should not be there is absurd. The whole table isn't "needed", for that matter -- people could just read the text of the policy on protection and kind of work it out in their heads. The table exists to make things better or easier, and this one, stupid little abbreviation that you're obsessed with is there for the same reason -- not because it's "needed". This has nothing to do with ownership, and everything to do with good sense and taking a global view of the purpose of the table, instead of an obsession with -- yes -- foolish consistency. I won't be responding further unless you have some new argument to offer. EEng 22:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

The entire human race is not "needed"... What I'm saying is that nothing breaks and nothing becomes worse if the full word is there... where as if you abbreviate it, it introduces something that has the potential to confuse (whether or not you find it confusing yourself) as that abbreviation is not used elsewhere. Unless you have an argument other than that you don't like it or that it's somehow required to save space, which I have otherwise explained is not the case, I'll be expecting you to keep the full version of the word on the template. As explained, you do not own the template. - Vanstrat ⁽⁽🗼⁾⁾ 22:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

It appears I've been pinged here... lol. I'll just state here for the record that the basis for granting (and revoking) rollback is one's demonstrated experience and understanding (or lack thereof) of what is and is not vandalism, and that the rollback button is only to be used for removing blatant vandalism (or your own edits, edits in your own user space, and others). I'd consider revoking rollback from someone if they were repeatedly using the tool in violation of policy and despite being reminded and asked to stop. This is clearly not the case, as Vanstrat left an explanation with his edit here in an edit summary.

I wouldn't revoke anyone's rollback rights because of some apparent confusion with the manual of style guidelines and exactly where they apply (so long as it doesn't involve the inappropriate use of the tool, of course). Back when I was given rollback in 2008 when it first became available, I probably didn't know this either... that doesn't mean that I wasn't fit for having the tool and that I would use it inappropriately... A dispute over an edit regarding whether or not to shorten the word "protection" to "prot." and saying, "Hey, the manual of style says that we should avoid it" is an argument I'd see as completely in good faith (if not an almost-legitimate one). Sure, MOS might have been created and designed only for application in the mainspace, but that doesn't mean that we can't turn to it when trying to make legitimate improvements to the project and in other namespaces. It just means that if there's a dispute, we should talk about it and come to a consensus... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Oshwah. I never had any doubts about Vanstrat's GF. EEng 00:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

EEng - Nah, I didn't think that you did :-). I just mentioned the "good faith" part in order to help draw attention to what's really important in general. I wasn't trying to imply that anyone here had any such thought or belief about the other. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Oshwah! Sorry for bringing you into a random discussion lol

My previous statement remains. For the same reasons that the manual of style states that this should be avoided in the article namespace, it should be avoided here. There's no special reason here for ignoring it, since the abbreviation isn't used elsewhere and one line of space isn't crucial. - Vanstrat ⁽⁽🗼⁾⁾ 02:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Based on this, I have added it back. I have no intention on breaking the 3 revert rule. If you still disagree and undo the edit, I can request a third opinion. - Vanstrat ⁽⁽🗼⁾⁾ 02:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

No apologies are warranted here, Vanstrat. I'm always happy to help if I'm needed :-). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:31, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I see you've finally realized that MOS is only for articles, so that's at least some progress. Beyond that, you keep saying that the abbreviation isn't "crucial", or "necessary", but then (as I've pointed out) nothing in Wikipedia is "necessary", Wikipedia as a whole isn't "necessary", and (as you so helpfully pointed out, not apparently understanding that you were arguing against your own position) even the entire human race isn't "necessary" – and yet we indulge them anyway. So instead of necessity, the question as always comes down to what best serves the reader. You've made no argument along those lines, only repeated your appeal to mindless uniformity.

I've returned the page to its state before your crusade began. If you truly feel this preposterous obsession is worth that much to you, please feel free to get a 3O, but bear in mind that a 3O is simply a way to get fresh ideas that may inform the discussion, not a "tie-breaker". EEng 02:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I have made an argument along those lines.. multiple times. As I've stated: it introduces the potential for misunderstanding when the abbreviation isn't used elsewhere (regardless of whether you understand what it means or not). I see that you aren't a fan of consistency either.. but without an element of consistency in an encyclopedia, things easily turn into mayhem. And yes, third opinions aren't a "final say" but they help us understand which side of the argument other editors agree with, which helps determine consensus.

I have requested the third opinion. For the sake of including all details, to the third party looking at this discussion: there is also a bit of discussion at User talk:Oshwah#Template:Protection table. - Vanstrat ⁽⁽🗼⁾⁾ 03:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Ah yes, the slippery slope argument – if we allow an abbreviation here, soon there will "mayhem"! The idea that anyone won't understand what prot. means is idiotic. Really, you're going to have to do better than that. EEng 03:35, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

And your logic that removing one abbreviation, which adds one line, wrecks all the changes editors "worked hard to make it possible to take the table in at one glance" is definitely no better. I'm willing to wait for a third party on this one. - Vanstrat ⁽⁽🗼⁾⁾ 03:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

No, I didn't say anything like that it "wrecks all the changes", merely that it works against the principle that fitting the table on a single screen is important. And in fact the table just barely fits, as it is, on a standard laptop screen at typical settings, so in fact my argument is way, way better, applying as it does to the actually issue at hand and not some hypothetical project-wide "mayhem". EEng 04:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• EEng, per usual, is correct. One line is preferred. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Shall I wire the money to the usual numbered account? EEng 04:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

While I do not agree, nor think that the majority of Wikipedia would either, I concede. I will suggest, however, that EEng refrain from using the language used on User talk:Oshwah and from making irrelevant threats in future discussions.. It simply doesn't help anyone come to a conclusion of a civil debate. - Vanstrat ⁽⁽🗼⁾⁾ 04:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

It wasn't irrelevant, rather it reflected my own ignorance of about the rollback tool. I didn't realize that its use is restricted to vandalism, and therefore the qualifications for its use are restricted to an understanding of vandalism. Had it been a tool used in wider circumstances, your repeated insistence that MOS applies outside of article space would indeed raise a WP:CIR question about the wisdom of placing it in your hands. EEng 05:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Reformatting the table

What do people think of reinstating template editor to the columns of permissions as it used to be, except by reflecting that template editors will almost always be eligible for PC, the table remains neat. This moves the comment about template editors from template protection to a fairly good overview of their permissions, and adds a footnote about the non-congruence). ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 15:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that while a TE will in most cases be eligible for PCR, I have little doubt that many TEs are not, in fact, PCRs. Thus the revised table you've proposed not only makes an assumption, it makes an often-false assumption. In contrast, the assumption that a PCR will also be Extended Confirmed is essentially always correct -- I think someone looked into it, and there was one (1!) PCR who wasn't extended confirmed (and as long as they kept editing, even that wouldn't be true after a little bit). So I think it would be a mistake -- misleading -- to do as you suggest. As a further minor consideration, the new column steals precious width from other columns, forcing some of their values onto an extra line. EEng 16:09, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Would it make sense to have template editor in the main columns instead of Pending changes reviewer? {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 16:37, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

No. There are comparatively few Template Editors, and template editing is a specialized corner of the project inhabited by gnomes and wizards detached from the normal content-editing cares of us mortals. It makes sense for them to be the special case. EEng 17:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Edit request

Can someone add a column called "Template editor" for the Template-protected row? 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 15:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Change the table proposal

Hello, I just made a sandbox version at Template:Protection table/sandbox where I am proposing the following changes.

1. Remove the "Pending Changes" edit right, since it does not change what pages users can edit and so is pointless here.
2. Add the "template editor" right to the table, since it does change what pages users can edit.
3. Separate the "appropriate for" section onto a new line, since with the "new vector" fixed width design the table is quite compressed.
4. Use {{efn}} notes instead of **, ***, ****, since it improves readability.
5. Removed unnesesary note created from having the PCR user right in the table.

I have done all these changes in the sandbox version I was just wondering if people think these are appropriate changes that should be added.

Thanks Terasail^[✉] 16:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry to say this is, at least overall, a very big step down. And now that I look at it, I'm not sure Oshwah's changes a while back didn't introduce some errors -- not sure. As the original architect of the table's overall structure and layout, I'd like to ask if we can hold off on this discussion for a few weeks. EEng 21:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

EEng - What errors are you referring to exactly? Accuracy errors? Table formatting errors? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Don't freak out, Oshwah, I said I wasn't sure. As I'm guessing you know, doing anything with this thing takes a LOT of concentration – here's what it looked like when I started work on it [5] – which I can't muster just now. EEng 00:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@EEng: Yeah thanks for the quick response, it was just a quick proposal I made. But I do still think there are issues with the current template that should be addressed such as the pending changes right on the current template. If in a few weeks is a better time to discuss this template then that is fine. Terasail^[✉] 13:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@Terasail: On the contrary, I believe your proposal is a huge step up from both the current table and the original table. Your table presents the information in a much clearer and less cluttered fashion, while removing irrelevant information. I think we should replace the existing table with your table. Mottezen (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Well since you press the point, removing the PC Reviewer right is a nonstarter. The logic that it does not change what pages users can edit and so is pointless here is fallacious, since this isn't a table of merely what people can edit, but the effects (not only on who can edit what but also what different classes of readers and editors see) of the various combinations of protection status and edit rights; PC protection has an especially complicated interaction with various user rights (of which PC Reviewer is just one) and the table needs to lay those out. Meanwhile, the template editor right, which very few editors possess, is orthogonal to everything else and has a simple effect that's easily explained in a footnote; giving it a table column is a waste of precious horizontal space. EEng 21:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I feel that the actual reason to remove the PC reviewer column is precisely that it has an especially complicated interaction with various user rights. A PC reviewer can be either autoconfirmed or extended confirmed. In the existing column, there is no line in which the PC reviewer has permission outside its position in either one of these categories. All the reviewer-specific materials in explained in the footnotes, making this column a waste of space. On the other hand, adding the Template editor as a column gives it a unique and clear combination of lines where it has permission, and allows us to remove its dedicated footnote.

Your original table is indeed more detailed and manages to explain the PC reviewer's role in the column. However, I think the new tables by Oshwah and Terasail are less cluttered, elegant, and simple to understand. This is why I think we should switch to Terasail's table, and the PC reviewer role can be explained in text notes. Mottezen (talk) 00:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Like the wise man said, things should be made as simply as possible, but no simpler.

• This new table looks less cluttered because it leaves out details, and sticks things in footnotes that could and should be in the table itself. It's not simpler to understand because your eyes have to keep darting down to the notes to find critical details. If you look at the original table [6], the only things in notes are either things that either apply to multiple non-adjacent cells, or are too long to fit in the relevant cell. In most cases the cell still contains text to prompt the memory of those who are already familiar with the scheme. For example, in the Pending Changes row, the cells themselves talk about when various changes "go live", with a footnote to explain what that means (since the explanation is too long to fit in a cell). Once the reader has absorbed the note, he can understand the various cells' references to what goes live, when, without following the asterisk down to the note again; in the new format, you have to follow the asterisks repeatedly to tell what each cell means, even if you already understand the "go live" concept.
• Furthermore, the concept of who can and cannot accept pending changes is completely missing from the new tables -- you have to read the notes to have any idea that the concept of reviewer even exists.
• Most of all, the entire point of Pending Changes protection -- that changes are, er, pending -- is missing from the table proper.
• I don't know from "new vector format", but a table's a table and what the various protections are for is essential to understanding them.
• Let's see, what else ... Ah yes. That table has to use asterisks, not efn. As a note in the old table explained <!- The reason these notes don't use the common <ref> machinery is that, when this table is transcluded into some other page, if <ref> is used then the notes don't appear until the end of the whole page-->. I don't know how that got overlooked.

The proposed table looks simple and regular because it omits (or banishes to notes) exactly what most of its users (somewhat experienced editors who generally understand the protection scheme but need a refresher on e.g. PC works) actually need. The protection scheme has a generally regular structure with some jagged pieces wedged in. If in the name of simplicity the table just shows the regular structure but hides the jagged pieces, it's worthless. EEng 20:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@EEng: Just to follow up on this, the efn tranclusion issue is not a problem with the way I made the table in the sandbox, they will always transclude into the collapsibe "Notes" section. For the point of the table, in my opinion it acts more of an overview of protection levels and requirements for new editors who wish to get a shallow understanding of protection requirements rather than the nuances of pending changes which has its own section at Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection and in my experience if an experienced editor wished to recap the information they would read the paragraph rather than analyse a table for a better understanding. Although this is just a proposal and the "normal editing" sections can be changed to a full row length like currently instad of changing it to column length. Terasail^[✉] 21:12, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• the efn tranclusion issue is not a problem with the way I made the table in the sandbox, they will always transclude into the collapsibe "Notes" section – Yeah they will, along with any footnotes higher up on whatever page uses this template. For example, right here, before the table, I'm inserting a note-->

Interaction of Wikipedia user groups and page protection levels

	Unregistered or newly registered	Confirmed or autoconfirmed	Extended confirmed	Template editor	Admin	Interface admin	Appropriate for (See also: Wikipedia:Protection policy)
No protection	Normal editing						The vast majority of pages. This is the default protection level.
Pending changes	Edits subject to review Edits are hidden, until accepted by a reviewer	Changes automatically accepted Unless there is a pending change, if so all subsequent edits must be accepted by a reviewer.					Infrequently edited pages with high levels of vandalism, BLP violations, edit-warring, or other disruption from unregistered and new users.
Semi	Cannot edit	Normal editing					Pages that have been persistently vandalized by anonymous and registered users. Some highly visible templates and modules.
Extended confirmed	Cannot edit		Normal editing*				Specific topic areas authorized by ArbCom, pages where semi-protection has failed, or high-risk templates where template protection would be too restrictive.
Template	Cannot edit			Normal editing			High-risk or very-frequently used templates and modules. Some high-risk pages outside of template space.
Full	Cannot edit				Normal editing		Pages with persistent disruption from extended confirmed accounts. Critical templates and modules.
Interface	Cannot edit					Normal editing	Scripts, stylesheets, and similar objects central to operation of the site or that are in other editors' user spaces.
* In order to edit through extended confirmed protection, a template editor must also be extended confirmed, but in practice this is almost always the case. Other modes of protection: Create protection Move protection Upload protection Office protection Cascade protection

Here's another note, after the table-->

And now here's the {{notelist}} template:

Unhide the footnotes to see what's wrong.

As to your philosophy, I violently disagree. New editors don't need a shallow, or even any, understanding of protection levels, because what a new editor does is blissfully edit here and there, flitting from article to article like a butterfly, until he runs into an article he can't edit. Then he either moves on, or sticks around and posts something to the talk page, or something, but he doesn't need to understand the particular protection level that prevented him from editing, or how that level compares to other levels, because he's knew editor who's still afraid of templates and forgets to sign talk page posts. The table's target audience is admins who need a refresher before selecting a level to apply to a page, aspiring admins cramming for their dissertation defense, and fairly (or better than fairly) experienced editors who like this kind of stuff and want to really absorb all the details. If you want a table giving a simplistic presentation, make a new template, though frankly I'd object to its use anywhere in project space, because, well, it's simplistic.

EEng 21:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)ç

• @EEng: This new edit to the table you made last week looks perfect! Thank you! Mottezen (talk) 22:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

  The trick was realizing that Pending Changes is best explained via a single comprehensive cell instead of several separate cells. And I rush to say that that realization was inspired by Terasail's version above. Once over that hump, then it did indeed make sense to drop the Pending Changes Reviewer column, after which it was possible to add a Template Editor column. (They can't both be there -- explanation on request.) Now the table is very neat and yet pretty much fully comprehensive. Good work, everyone! EEng 23:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@EEng: I have just seen the updated table and I think it is an improvement and the change to using a single cell for pending changes is much better, this was my biggest issue with the table before. As well as the addition of links to the other protections aswell. Now looking at my sanbox I realise that the way the information is split was not ideal and this is much better. Terasail^[✉] 00:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

You'll get my bill. EEng 00:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Interface protection

Hey AnonymousStackOverflow - Is it Interface protection or Permanent protection or both? See WP:PPINDEF (so I guess it might be Indefinite protection too?). EEng 15:14, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Table implying asterisk

Change the table to:

Interaction of Wikipedia user groups and page protection levels

	Unregistered or Newly registered	Confirmed or Auto-confirmed	Extended confirmed	Template editor	Pending changes reviewer	Admin	Interface admin	Appropriate for (See also: Wikipedia:Protection policy)
No protection	normal editing							The vast majority of pages. (This is the default protection level.)
Pending changes protection	all users can edit. However, once an unregistered or new editor makes an edit, that edit and any subsequent edits by anyone will remain hidden from "readers" (users not logged in) until the edit made by the unregistered or new editor is reviewed by a pending changes reviewer or admin. Logged-in editors always see all changes (whether accepted or not) immediately.	can edit. However, if an edit by an unregistered or new editor has not been reviewed by a pending changes reviewer or admin, the edit will be hidden to logged out users.			normal editing		can edit. However, if an edit by an unregistered or new editor has not been reviewed by a pending changes reviewer or admin, the edit will be hidden to logged out users.	Infrequently edited pages with high levels of vandalism, BLP violations, edit-warring, or other disruption from unregistered and new users
Semi-protection	cannot edit	normal editing						Pages that are frequently edited by anonymous and registered users; some highly visible templates & modules
Extended- confirmed prot.	cannot edit		normal editing	cannot edit*		normal editing	cannot edit	Specific topic areas authorized by ArbCom; pages where semi-protection has failed; high-risk templates where template protection would be too restrictive
Template prot.	cannot edit			normal editing	cannot edit**	normal editing	cannot edit	High-risk or very frequently used templates & modules; also some high-risk pages outside template space
Full protection	cannot edit					normal editing	cannot edit	Articles with persistent disruption from extended confirmed accounts; critical templates & modules
Cascade protection	cannot edit					normal editing	cannot edit	Highly visible pages & files, such as the Main Page
MediaWiki namespace	cannot edit					normal editing		Interface messages
Interface protection	cannot edit						normal editing	Scripts, stylesheets, and similar objects central to operation of the site
* In order to edit through extended confirmed protection, a template editor or pending changes reviewer must also be extended confirmed, but in practice this is essentially always the case. ** In order to edit through template editor protection, a pending changes reviewer must also be a template editor or administrator. Other modes of protection: Create protection Move protection Upload protection Office protection

Faster than Thunder (talk) 03:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this is an improvement, it inflates the size of the table dramatically, and only provides slightly more information about pending changes (Giving specifics for each user right editing pending changes protection). Although I try not to assume, the distinction is not important as most advanced user right holders will understand the pending changes process and this is just overcomplicated for a "new" user who just wants to understand the basic overview of the protection systems. If they want the full details they can read the paragraphs at WP:PP & WP:PC. Tables in this usecase afterall are an overview tool and are not for in depth analysis. Thanks, Terasail^[✉️] 16:05, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Side note: The MediaWiki namespace is (kindof) beyond the scope of the Protection policy, being handled by MediaWiki software and depends on the type of page and can either act as a Fully protected page or sometimes is only accessible by interface administrators which is a distinction that should not be made in the table as its a bit complex for anything but a text form explanation. Terasail^[✉️] 16:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

@Faster than Thunder (Ping to notify of my reply) This is not me completley declining the change but I disagree with this but more input is always better (I do also often get my facts wrong/twisted). Thanks, Terasail^[✉️] 16:19, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Cascade Protection item

Not sure if it shows on anyone else's device/computer, but for me the "Cascade protection" item at the bottom of the table shows as Cascade and then a couple spaces and then "protection". Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 19:19, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

• Not seeing it myself. There are sometimes oddities on particular platforms, browsers, zooms levels, and so on. Unless someone else reports it, you'll just have to suck it up. EEng 22:17, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah, I have an old browser, so it's probably that. Especially when a code check of the template revealed nothing different about the cascade item from the rest of them. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:25, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2023

Toby has asked to change his photo on his Wikipedia to this photo https://email-files.fangamer.com/list_48/campaign_3/foamshower.jpg He has said so in a recent email. Please, it would mean much for this beautiful man 72.166.199.164 (talk) 21:09, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Firstly, it is not clear what article you are referring to. This is the talk page (i.e. the discussion page) for a template related to a Wikipedia policy. Secondly, remember that suggested edits must adhere to all relevant policies and guidelines, in this case specifically those on sourcing and WP:BLP, as well as the image use policies. Actualcpscm (talk) 21:53, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2023

add image to History of cultivation

O. sativa

Xiaoanan1207 (talk) 02:25, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template {{Protection table}}. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:44, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2023 (2)

Poop is known as a very healthy substance in many countries. It is even served as a delicasy. 2023editor (talk) 23:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Lizthegrey (talk) 23:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2023

216.227.248.214 (talk) 16:13, 6 April 2023 (UTC) Hi I would like to edit, please

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you. PianoDan (talk) 17:36, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2023

I need to fix some of the stat errors The goatttt64754 (talk) 19:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

@The goatttt64754: Edit requests are for requesting someone else to make a change on your behalf, not to request the ability to edit the page. You can either wait until you are autoconfirmed yourself, or you can re-open this edit request with the specific changes you want to suggest and another editor can implement them for you. Aidan9382 _(talk) 19:12, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2023

LVJOY17 (talk) 10:09, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Net 25 must be change to NET25.

 Not done: @LVJOY17: You appear to be requesting an edit on the wrong page. This is the page for discussing the template {{Protection table}}. Please go to the talk page of the page you want edited and post the edit request there instead of here. Aidan9382 _(talk) 11:04, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2023 (2)

Reyner124 (talk) 10:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Photo of him, https://i1.sndcdn.com/artworks-bDInTLk0e5UGTfg6-6bN4UA-t500x500.jpg

 Not done: @Reyner124: You appear to be requesting an edit on the wrong page. This is the page for discussing the template {{Protection table}}. Please go to the talk page of the page you want edited and post the edit request there instead of here. Aidan9382 _(talk) 11:04, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2023 (3)

Reyner124 (talk) 10:28, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Change the photo of him https://lastfm.freetls.fastly.net/i/u/ar0/25365fd2fd31f18bf4f27abfc44429df.jpg

 Not done: See above. Aidan9382 _(talk) 11:04, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protect this page?

See sections above. EEng 12:59, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Considering the below too, I'd say its worth it. Aidan9382 _(talk) 13:03, 26 May 2023 (UTC)