- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was not merged. ( non-admin closure) BethNaught ( talk) 07:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- Template:Edit semi-protected ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Edit protected ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging
Template:Edit semi-protected with
Template:Edit protected.
If we are really going to use this instead of pending changes, we should probably just have one
Krett12 (
talk)
16:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- Comment I don't think this will turn out any differently than Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 April 6#Template:Edit template-protected. Anomie ⚔ 00:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose per the last discussion pointed out by Anomie. The backend code already uses the same #invoke code with different parameterization. However, {{ Edit protected}} is just a redirect to {{ Edit fully-protected}} so should probably be converted into a multiuse template instead that accepts a parameter indicating the type of edit protection. These two templates currently serve different functions, and are not like pending changes at all. Pending changes can still result in excessive vandalism needing rollback, while fully protected pages cannot, without some rogue administrator. -- 70.51.44.60 ( talk) 04:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose This is probably covered in the linked description, but I'll give a brief sketch of the only reason we need here: Semi-protection is (obviously) not the same as full protection. Distinguishing between the two is important. Can we speedy close on that note? Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 23:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose. If the proposer really wants to get rid of some type(s) of protection then propose changing the protection policy first, before getting rid of notification/status templates for the types of protection that currently exist. ~ Ningauble ( talk) 20:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was not merged. ( non-admin closure) BethNaught ( talk) 07:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- Template:Edit semi-protected ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Edit protected ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging
Template:Edit semi-protected with
Template:Edit protected.
If we are really going to use this instead of pending changes, we should probably just have one
Krett12 (
talk)
16:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- Comment I don't think this will turn out any differently than Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 April 6#Template:Edit template-protected. Anomie ⚔ 00:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose per the last discussion pointed out by Anomie. The backend code already uses the same #invoke code with different parameterization. However, {{ Edit protected}} is just a redirect to {{ Edit fully-protected}} so should probably be converted into a multiuse template instead that accepts a parameter indicating the type of edit protection. These two templates currently serve different functions, and are not like pending changes at all. Pending changes can still result in excessive vandalism needing rollback, while fully protected pages cannot, without some rogue administrator. -- 70.51.44.60 ( talk) 04:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose This is probably covered in the linked description, but I'll give a brief sketch of the only reason we need here: Semi-protection is (obviously) not the same as full protection. Distinguishing between the two is important. Can we speedy close on that note? Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 23:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose. If the proposer really wants to get rid of some type(s) of protection then propose changing the protection policy first, before getting rid of notification/status templates for the types of protection that currently exist. ~ Ningauble ( talk) 20:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).