This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I have anthologised your protected items page to Wikipedia:Cascade-protected_items, to do this job centrally rather than in disparate user pages - thanks for the work you put into creating it. Unless there's a good reason your user page should be unprotected now I guess. Rich Farmbrough, 22:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC).
There does come a point where if someone has decided to unprotect something adding more and more instances on cascaded pages ceases to help. Where is that point I wonder? Rich Farmbrough, 04:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC).
I have created an editnotice for this page at Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items - simply the page to see it in action. Feel free to adjust the wording or styling any way you see fit; also, there doesn't seem to be any way to adjust the image size in {{ Editnotice}}, otherwise I'd've made it larger. 「 ダイノガイ 千?!」 ? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 17:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
A couple of points: we need to clearly state exactly what type of items should be added here, and we should probably decide on a format for listing them all (throwing all pretense of humility out the window, I'd like to point out that the table system I have, while possibly too bulky for our purposes here, is the most advanced one of any of the cascade-protected pages I've looked at up to now =) ). Since I already wrote about the second point, I guess I'll go more in-depth about the first: We should probably be transcluding all items on the most-transcluded template/file reports, as well as all redirects and (in the case of templates, in the event they're not already covered by point 1) all files used by and all templates transcluded into them (and all the redirects to those). We also need to get all templates used by userscripts and editing aids (I'm looking at you, Twinkle, Friendly, and Huggle), and everything used in the MediaWiki: and Special: (are there any special pages which use templates or images?) namespaces. We should also look at stuff transcluded onto fully-protected pages (mostly the Main Page, but for all I know, there could be others). Obviously, this means we'll need a subpage system, since this many items is going to push the page well over template transclusion limits and I have no idea how that would interact with the cascading protection (yay for corner cases! =D ). Perhaps an admin bot could be programmed to handle all of this automatically whenever the reports are updated... Thoughts? -- Dinoguy1000 ( talk · contribs) as 67.58.229.153 ( talk) 05:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Debresser ( talk) 07:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Pages that explain their content here could (and I think almost always should) be placed in <includeonly>...</includeonly>
tags.
Foremost:
Debresser ( talk) 07:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
<includeonly>...</includeonly>
tags do what I think here? That is make the template not render on this page, but still cascade protect the template and other templates used by it. If so, then I think that <includeonly>...</includeonly>
is much better to use than<div style="display:none"></div>
.<includeonly>...</includeonly>
might help (but not sure if it will help).<includeonly>...</includeonly>
apparently doesn't work). The {{
tl}} links are there to allow direct access to the templates transcluded onto here, since they often don't include backlinks in their code. 「
ダイノガイ
千?!」
? ·
Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 19:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
<includeonly>...</includeonly>
surrounded template on my personal lockbox page, but that template didn't get cascade protected.Admin Ixfd64 just deleted a whole bunch of very high-risk images listed on this cascade page. And he unprotected some other images listed here. When doing so he used descriptions of this kind:
But that is wrong. This cascade page is meant to be an extra protection, to protect against silly mistakes, such as admins deleting or unprotecting high-risk templates and images. This cascade page is not meant to be the only protection.
For instance, Ixfd64 deleted several images used in the {{ ambox}} and the other mbox templates. Those templates and their images are used on over 2 million articles and pages. So they need to be locally uploaded here (the English Wikipedia) and protected, even if there are exact copies of them at Commons. There are several reasons for that:
So please, do not delete or unprotect items because they are listed at this cascade page.
-- David Göthberg ( talk) 03:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
{{
pp-template|small=no}}
and {{
nocommons}}
. See how we use both of them on for instance
File:User-info.svg. We should probably see to that those templates are used on all the high-risk images.To be more complete, we'd need to locally upload and protect highly used commons images. That's indeed the most serious security risk with images we have. Commons admins almost systematically refuse to protect locally high risk images. Cenarium ( talk) 16:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I just noticed that this page has "__INDEX__
" placed before the lead, and then immediately after the lead it has "{{NOINDEX}}
". I guess that is supposed to mean that only the lead should be indexed. But does that really work?
When I view the source of the rendered page, the only mark it has is "<meta name="robots" content="noindex,nofollow" />
", so external search engines will not index this page at all.
So the only thing left would be if the Wikipedia internal search understands to only partially index a page?
-- David Göthberg ( talk) 08:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
__INDEX__
and __NOINDEX__
(and their templates, {{
INDEX}} and {{
NOINDEX}}) only have an effect on external search engines; the MediaWiki search engine is unaffected. These are used e.g. to prevent subpages of AN/I and related pages from being indexed by Google and others, so that you have to use the MW search to find anything there. I'm not sure we need these things here, though (are the templates widely enough used to include here?). 「
ダイノガイ
千?!」
? ·
Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 00:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Actually, the lead is wrong on this point. It is possible to have an editable lead, without changing the appearance of the page and (most importantly) while still retaining the benefits of cascading protection. Here's how:
This is basically the reverse of the /doc subpage pattern seen on indef-protected templates. Are there any objections/thoughts? -- Thin boy 00 @187, i.e. 03:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
There might also be an attack by changing the name of the transclusion to a unicode-lookalike, which is a copy of the correct transclusion, waiting for enough material to be added where the cascade is not applied that normal error allows one of them to be used as a vector. A little unlikely, but possible. Rich Farmbrough, 14:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC).
I don't know whether you care anymore, but I noticed that most if not all of the files linked from that page have in fact been deleted locally. Anomie ⚔ 16:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit/move/upload}}
.)Greetings. I saw your comments this change, and wanted to check in with you on this. I hope I'm not responsible for the trouble here. I'm one of the few administrators who participated in the drive, but I don't remember deleting any protected images. I can assure you I'll be on the lookout for this in the future. Is there a way I can see whether I deleted any protected images, or what they are? If so, I can try to restore them. All the best, – Quadell ( talk) 19:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I just now tried to delete File:Crystal personal.svg, and I indeed got a difficult-to-miss red warning asking me to please not do that. This is excellent. I think the wording in that warning is good. However, the wording at #About high-risk images would be very difficult to understand, and perhaps even useless, if the reader does not know what CSS is, or doesn't know anything about the process of moving images at Commons, or similar things. I think it would be better if that first paragraph (after "or is used in the interface") has a simple sentence saying something difficult to misunderstand, like "Please do not delete such images here, even if there is an identical copy at Commons. Doing so may break functionality here on the English Wikipedia." That way, even if the admin doesn't understand anything that follows, s/he will know not to delete the image, and will have some vague idea why. – Quadell ( talk) 13:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't know whether you care anymore, but I noticed that most if not all of the files linked from that page have in fact been deleted locally. Anomie ⚔ 16:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit/move/upload}}
.)An image is high-risk if it is very widely used (among the top 200 images or so), or is used in the interface. Please do not delete such images here, even if there is an identical copy at Commons. Doing so may break functionality here on the English Wikipedia.
Nowadays non-admins can't upload local copies of images if that image name already exist on Commons. However that "protection" is only decent if the image on Commons is protected, so the vandal can't change the image on Commons. And even if an image is protected at Commons the admins there might some day move it, edit it, or unprotect it. (And such changes of images at Commons have happened many times, causing problems here at the English Wikipedia.)
Also, images used in our CSS files are called with a full URL, and that URL depends on if the image is stored at Commons or locally, even if it is the exact same image with the same name. So images loaded through CSS must never be moved to Commons. (Such moves have happened many times before, which broke our system images. That's why many of the images in our CSS files nowadays instead use the URL of the Commons version of the images. I don't know if all those images are protected at Commons.)
Some not-so-widely-used images also need protection because they are especially tempting targets for vandals. For instance the images used for deletion and warning notices get vandalised regularly if they are not protected.
-- David Göthberg ( talk) 17:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
background:url(...)
) will break if a local copy is in use and is then deleted by a well-meaning admin applying
F8.So, I finally got around to testing something (and accidentally partially reverting David in the process =D ) I've intended to look at since shortly after this page got created; namely, how cascade protection and <noinclude/> tags interact. Frankly, it doesn't look good: we don't have very many templates that are directly cascade-protected, but for those that are, their /doc subpages are protected as well. The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that cascade protection should not apply to pages transcluded in a noinclude tag - any templates that should be protected already are (and likely with cascading protection from this page and/or other sources), and template documentation definitely shouldn't be. Any thoughts? Is there a Bugzilla ticket for this already (I couldn't find one myself...)? 「 ディノ奴 千?!」 ? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 06:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
<noinclude>
tags" complicates the matter for little benefit, when we can get the same effect by transcluding the template onto a page like this instead.<noinclude>
" and "not transcluded inside <noinclude>
".
Anomie
⚔ 04:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)Let's look. IMO, this should remain cascade-protected:
These should be transcluded here and themselves un-cascaded:
Cascade protection on these is useless:
<includeonly>
!<includeonly>
, and anything of interest that would accidentally be cascade-protected by being used in an example on the documentation subpage is itself already protected.<includeonly>
. Manages to protect
Template:Next period,
Template:Period color, and
Template:UF-species accidentally, because they are used in examples on the doc page. And protects a few doc-only templates too.So that's a score of 1 legitimate, 4 misguided, and 19 completely odd due to the "Taxobox" system. I'm inclined to just go ahead and uncascade everything except
Template:Portal/Image lockboxes/Names and
Template:ArbComOpenTasks/Subpage for the reasons given above (and protect
Template:Noitalic,
Template:Next period,
Template:Period color, and
Template:UF-species). And I'd also ask AGK about
Template:ArbComOpenTasks/Subpage. Or should we ask for comment elsewhere first?
Anomie
⚔ 03:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 November 23#File:Commons-logo.svg. Anomie ⚔ 19:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
I
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I want the 50 most-used images on Wikipedia put here as described at User:Davidgothberg/Lockbox. -- 75.242.99.203 ( talk) 19:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I would like to get the involved editors' opinions on a problem that is being discussed at T13700 and on Anomie's talk page. Being addressed is what happens when a redirect is listed on this page but is not actually fully protected. I've read the discussions on this talk page, and it appears that this is not supposed to happen, that is, non-fully protected redirects are not supposed to be listed on this page. There is at least one that I know of that is listed on this page, which is the CN redirect.
When you check out that redirect, you find that the "Edit" tab has not been replaced by a "View source" tab, so an editor doesn't find out that the CN redirect is "fully" protected until the "Edit" tab is clicked and the Edit page appears. The Cascade-Protected Notice appears, and the Edit page responds like a View source page. That probably doesn't sound like "all that"; however, there is another result that, to me, is more important.
Not long ago, I came across the CN redirect and it's similar companion, the Cn redirect (lowercase "n"). Both had not yet been categorized, so I clicked on the Edit tab of the CN redirect and found it fully protected by this page. Since I'm not an admin, I used the {{ Editprotected}} template here to categorize the redirects. After an admin added the redirect category templates, I checked to find the Cn redirect correctly categorized into the Protected redirects category, but the CN redirect had been miscategorized into Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. So even though the CN redirect is fully protected by this page, it is not "formally" fully protected and therefore gets miscategorized. Again, to me, that is an important issue that should be fixed.
So I bring this to your, the involved editors', attention to see what I can do to help fix this miscategorization problem. – Paine ( Climax!) 04:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
I want the template "blocked sockpuppet" to be included because it is highly used. --
72.65.238.157 (
talk) 21:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove 'stupid' from the ombox notice. Don't you think it's a bit impolite? Insulam Simia ( talk) 19:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Today (17 October 2013), the discussion at
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Template editor user right was closed, and very soon we will we now have a new user right for template and module editors. With this user right it is possible to edit protected pages in the template and module namespaces; however, it is not possible to edit cascade-protected pages. Looking through the templates transcluded on this page, I am struggling to see a template that would really benefit from cascading protection. As it is, having these templates cascade-protected is not really serving any useful purpose, and is also preventing editors with the new user right from editing them. So, I propose the following:
What do others think about this? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 03:55, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
I would like to merge the contents of a subpage of Davidgothberg with the items on this page. This editor is no longer active and it seems to make sense to keep one list rather than several in userspace. Does anyone have any comments on this? — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 13:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
There did not seem to be any consensus to unprotect the page in the thread above, but there seemed to be more support for the removal of individual templates from the page. I suggest that we start a list of templates to be removed from the page here. We can keep templates listed here for a week, say, and then remove them if there are no objections, or if a consensus to remove them is reached after a discussion. Also, if you have any issues with the process or suggestions on how to improve it, feel free to reply directly below. I'll start the list of templates to remove in a new subsection. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 11:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
First of all I would like to propose the following:
Please feel free to add more below. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 11:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
A few others. -- WOSlinker ( talk) 11:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Here's a few more I'd like to see removed:
These are all very-high-transclusion templates, but I think that they could usefully be edited by template editors. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 07:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
How about the citation templates? Is there any indication that they would be any less protected under template-editor protection? - Floydian τ ¢ 06:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
To Mr. Stradivarius – I was just able to get the fully protected redirect, Template:Anchors, changed to template protected at WP:RFP; however, it must be removed from this page for that to take effect. Can it be added to this list? – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 02:29, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove:
<tr><td>{{User sandbox}}</td><td>{{tl|User sandbox}}</td><td></td><td>Used in [[MediaWiki:Gadget-mySandbox.js]]</td></tr>
from this page. The {{
User sandbox}} template apparently
has already been lowered to
Template editor and is now only being help up from being edited by cascade protection. I would like to be able to change the link to submit the page into a button as other AFC submission links
have been changed recently. Thank you.
— {{U|
Technical 13}} (
t •
e •
c) 14:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove Template:Pmid from this page. It has only 431 transclusions, so it's not high-risk, and the fact that a cascading-protected page is at RfD is causing problems. Jackmcbarn ( talk) 00:54, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Consider switching this page to use Module:lockbox; it will render prettier and prevent this page from being added into spurious categories.
— Keφr 09:54, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add Template:Cob and Template:Cot to this page. They are redirects to Template:Collapse bottom and Template:Collapse top respectively, cascade-protected pages. Steel1943 ( talk) 20:27, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
There is currently an RfC in progress at Wikipedia talk:File Upload Wizard#Templates on MediaWiki:FileUploadWizard.js in regards to inquiring about the possible need to cascade-protect file licensing templates transcluded in MediaWiki:FileUploadWizard.js (utilized in Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard.) Watchers of this page may be interested in participating. Steel1943 ( talk) 00:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Is there a reason why these templates are listed on this page? They are already templateprotected and have only 1600+ transclusions, hardly frequent enough to merit a full protection. Nor do I see any specially sensitive pages they are transcluded in. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 15:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
At only 7000+ transclusions, the current template protection seems to be enough to serve that template, rendering the extra cascade protection unnecessary. Thus, it should be removed. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
A lot of the images listed on this page do not need -protection, they just need upload-protection. This allows editors to maintain the file description page but not change the image. I'm not sure if there is any such thing as cascading upload protection, but I'm wondering whether most of these could be removed and individually upload-protected. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 17:16, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Suppose there are the pages
Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items/header and
Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items/Header. The header on
Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items would be transcluded as {{Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items/header}}
, and the content of
Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items/header would be {{Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items/Header}}
. If cascading protection doesn't cascade indefinitely, these pages could be created so that normal users can edit the header at
Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items/Header.
95.49.122.192 (
talk) 15:18, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items/content has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove Template:Str len/core from the list. It is no longer used. Luis150902 ( talk | contribs) 17:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi! I just thought I should mention that there's a discussion going on concerning what color the cascade protection lock should be. It can be seen at Wikipedia talk:Protection policy#Icon for cascading protection.
If anyone wants to state their opinions on this topic, please do so there. I would greatly appreciate any input.
Thanks!
Noah Kastin ( talk) 06:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Jo-Jo Eumerus! Thank you for your great work on Wikipedia!
I noticed that you added Template:Edit request to Wikipedia talk:Cascade-protected items#Confusing section names in this edit. This states that the discussion which the template was added to is a request to edit a fully protected page. However, Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items does not seem to be fully protected. Furthermore, this was not an edit request, but a request for clarification for something I found confusing. This leaves me very confused as to why the notice was placed.
If you can explain why this was done, I would greatly appreciate that!
Thanks!
Noah Kastin ( talk) 23:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I have anthologised your protected items page to Wikipedia:Cascade-protected_items, to do this job centrally rather than in disparate user pages - thanks for the work you put into creating it. Unless there's a good reason your user page should be unprotected now I guess. Rich Farmbrough, 22:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC).
There does come a point where if someone has decided to unprotect something adding more and more instances on cascaded pages ceases to help. Where is that point I wonder? Rich Farmbrough, 04:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC).
I have created an editnotice for this page at Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items - simply the page to see it in action. Feel free to adjust the wording or styling any way you see fit; also, there doesn't seem to be any way to adjust the image size in {{ Editnotice}}, otherwise I'd've made it larger. 「 ダイノガイ 千?!」 ? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 17:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
A couple of points: we need to clearly state exactly what type of items should be added here, and we should probably decide on a format for listing them all (throwing all pretense of humility out the window, I'd like to point out that the table system I have, while possibly too bulky for our purposes here, is the most advanced one of any of the cascade-protected pages I've looked at up to now =) ). Since I already wrote about the second point, I guess I'll go more in-depth about the first: We should probably be transcluding all items on the most-transcluded template/file reports, as well as all redirects and (in the case of templates, in the event they're not already covered by point 1) all files used by and all templates transcluded into them (and all the redirects to those). We also need to get all templates used by userscripts and editing aids (I'm looking at you, Twinkle, Friendly, and Huggle), and everything used in the MediaWiki: and Special: (are there any special pages which use templates or images?) namespaces. We should also look at stuff transcluded onto fully-protected pages (mostly the Main Page, but for all I know, there could be others). Obviously, this means we'll need a subpage system, since this many items is going to push the page well over template transclusion limits and I have no idea how that would interact with the cascading protection (yay for corner cases! =D ). Perhaps an admin bot could be programmed to handle all of this automatically whenever the reports are updated... Thoughts? -- Dinoguy1000 ( talk · contribs) as 67.58.229.153 ( talk) 05:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Debresser ( talk) 07:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Pages that explain their content here could (and I think almost always should) be placed in <includeonly>...</includeonly>
tags.
Foremost:
Debresser ( talk) 07:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
<includeonly>...</includeonly>
tags do what I think here? That is make the template not render on this page, but still cascade protect the template and other templates used by it. If so, then I think that <includeonly>...</includeonly>
is much better to use than<div style="display:none"></div>
.<includeonly>...</includeonly>
might help (but not sure if it will help).<includeonly>...</includeonly>
apparently doesn't work). The {{
tl}} links are there to allow direct access to the templates transcluded onto here, since they often don't include backlinks in their code. 「
ダイノガイ
千?!」
? ·
Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 19:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
<includeonly>...</includeonly>
surrounded template on my personal lockbox page, but that template didn't get cascade protected.Admin Ixfd64 just deleted a whole bunch of very high-risk images listed on this cascade page. And he unprotected some other images listed here. When doing so he used descriptions of this kind:
But that is wrong. This cascade page is meant to be an extra protection, to protect against silly mistakes, such as admins deleting or unprotecting high-risk templates and images. This cascade page is not meant to be the only protection.
For instance, Ixfd64 deleted several images used in the {{ ambox}} and the other mbox templates. Those templates and their images are used on over 2 million articles and pages. So they need to be locally uploaded here (the English Wikipedia) and protected, even if there are exact copies of them at Commons. There are several reasons for that:
So please, do not delete or unprotect items because they are listed at this cascade page.
-- David Göthberg ( talk) 03:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
{{
pp-template|small=no}}
and {{
nocommons}}
. See how we use both of them on for instance
File:User-info.svg. We should probably see to that those templates are used on all the high-risk images.To be more complete, we'd need to locally upload and protect highly used commons images. That's indeed the most serious security risk with images we have. Commons admins almost systematically refuse to protect locally high risk images. Cenarium ( talk) 16:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I just noticed that this page has "__INDEX__
" placed before the lead, and then immediately after the lead it has "{{NOINDEX}}
". I guess that is supposed to mean that only the lead should be indexed. But does that really work?
When I view the source of the rendered page, the only mark it has is "<meta name="robots" content="noindex,nofollow" />
", so external search engines will not index this page at all.
So the only thing left would be if the Wikipedia internal search understands to only partially index a page?
-- David Göthberg ( talk) 08:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
__INDEX__
and __NOINDEX__
(and their templates, {{
INDEX}} and {{
NOINDEX}}) only have an effect on external search engines; the MediaWiki search engine is unaffected. These are used e.g. to prevent subpages of AN/I and related pages from being indexed by Google and others, so that you have to use the MW search to find anything there. I'm not sure we need these things here, though (are the templates widely enough used to include here?). 「
ダイノガイ
千?!」
? ·
Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 00:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Actually, the lead is wrong on this point. It is possible to have an editable lead, without changing the appearance of the page and (most importantly) while still retaining the benefits of cascading protection. Here's how:
This is basically the reverse of the /doc subpage pattern seen on indef-protected templates. Are there any objections/thoughts? -- Thin boy 00 @187, i.e. 03:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
There might also be an attack by changing the name of the transclusion to a unicode-lookalike, which is a copy of the correct transclusion, waiting for enough material to be added where the cascade is not applied that normal error allows one of them to be used as a vector. A little unlikely, but possible. Rich Farmbrough, 14:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC).
I don't know whether you care anymore, but I noticed that most if not all of the files linked from that page have in fact been deleted locally. Anomie ⚔ 16:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit/move/upload}}
.)Greetings. I saw your comments this change, and wanted to check in with you on this. I hope I'm not responsible for the trouble here. I'm one of the few administrators who participated in the drive, but I don't remember deleting any protected images. I can assure you I'll be on the lookout for this in the future. Is there a way I can see whether I deleted any protected images, or what they are? If so, I can try to restore them. All the best, – Quadell ( talk) 19:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I just now tried to delete File:Crystal personal.svg, and I indeed got a difficult-to-miss red warning asking me to please not do that. This is excellent. I think the wording in that warning is good. However, the wording at #About high-risk images would be very difficult to understand, and perhaps even useless, if the reader does not know what CSS is, or doesn't know anything about the process of moving images at Commons, or similar things. I think it would be better if that first paragraph (after "or is used in the interface") has a simple sentence saying something difficult to misunderstand, like "Please do not delete such images here, even if there is an identical copy at Commons. Doing so may break functionality here on the English Wikipedia." That way, even if the admin doesn't understand anything that follows, s/he will know not to delete the image, and will have some vague idea why. – Quadell ( talk) 13:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't know whether you care anymore, but I noticed that most if not all of the files linked from that page have in fact been deleted locally. Anomie ⚔ 16:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit/move/upload}}
.)An image is high-risk if it is very widely used (among the top 200 images or so), or is used in the interface. Please do not delete such images here, even if there is an identical copy at Commons. Doing so may break functionality here on the English Wikipedia.
Nowadays non-admins can't upload local copies of images if that image name already exist on Commons. However that "protection" is only decent if the image on Commons is protected, so the vandal can't change the image on Commons. And even if an image is protected at Commons the admins there might some day move it, edit it, or unprotect it. (And such changes of images at Commons have happened many times, causing problems here at the English Wikipedia.)
Also, images used in our CSS files are called with a full URL, and that URL depends on if the image is stored at Commons or locally, even if it is the exact same image with the same name. So images loaded through CSS must never be moved to Commons. (Such moves have happened many times before, which broke our system images. That's why many of the images in our CSS files nowadays instead use the URL of the Commons version of the images. I don't know if all those images are protected at Commons.)
Some not-so-widely-used images also need protection because they are especially tempting targets for vandals. For instance the images used for deletion and warning notices get vandalised regularly if they are not protected.
-- David Göthberg ( talk) 17:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
background:url(...)
) will break if a local copy is in use and is then deleted by a well-meaning admin applying
F8.So, I finally got around to testing something (and accidentally partially reverting David in the process =D ) I've intended to look at since shortly after this page got created; namely, how cascade protection and <noinclude/> tags interact. Frankly, it doesn't look good: we don't have very many templates that are directly cascade-protected, but for those that are, their /doc subpages are protected as well. The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that cascade protection should not apply to pages transcluded in a noinclude tag - any templates that should be protected already are (and likely with cascading protection from this page and/or other sources), and template documentation definitely shouldn't be. Any thoughts? Is there a Bugzilla ticket for this already (I couldn't find one myself...)? 「 ディノ奴 千?!」 ? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 06:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
<noinclude>
tags" complicates the matter for little benefit, when we can get the same effect by transcluding the template onto a page like this instead.<noinclude>
" and "not transcluded inside <noinclude>
".
Anomie
⚔ 04:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)Let's look. IMO, this should remain cascade-protected:
These should be transcluded here and themselves un-cascaded:
Cascade protection on these is useless:
<includeonly>
!<includeonly>
, and anything of interest that would accidentally be cascade-protected by being used in an example on the documentation subpage is itself already protected.<includeonly>
. Manages to protect
Template:Next period,
Template:Period color, and
Template:UF-species accidentally, because they are used in examples on the doc page. And protects a few doc-only templates too.So that's a score of 1 legitimate, 4 misguided, and 19 completely odd due to the "Taxobox" system. I'm inclined to just go ahead and uncascade everything except
Template:Portal/Image lockboxes/Names and
Template:ArbComOpenTasks/Subpage for the reasons given above (and protect
Template:Noitalic,
Template:Next period,
Template:Period color, and
Template:UF-species). And I'd also ask AGK about
Template:ArbComOpenTasks/Subpage. Or should we ask for comment elsewhere first?
Anomie
⚔ 03:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 November 23#File:Commons-logo.svg. Anomie ⚔ 19:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
I
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I want the 50 most-used images on Wikipedia put here as described at User:Davidgothberg/Lockbox. -- 75.242.99.203 ( talk) 19:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I would like to get the involved editors' opinions on a problem that is being discussed at T13700 and on Anomie's talk page. Being addressed is what happens when a redirect is listed on this page but is not actually fully protected. I've read the discussions on this talk page, and it appears that this is not supposed to happen, that is, non-fully protected redirects are not supposed to be listed on this page. There is at least one that I know of that is listed on this page, which is the CN redirect.
When you check out that redirect, you find that the "Edit" tab has not been replaced by a "View source" tab, so an editor doesn't find out that the CN redirect is "fully" protected until the "Edit" tab is clicked and the Edit page appears. The Cascade-Protected Notice appears, and the Edit page responds like a View source page. That probably doesn't sound like "all that"; however, there is another result that, to me, is more important.
Not long ago, I came across the CN redirect and it's similar companion, the Cn redirect (lowercase "n"). Both had not yet been categorized, so I clicked on the Edit tab of the CN redirect and found it fully protected by this page. Since I'm not an admin, I used the {{ Editprotected}} template here to categorize the redirects. After an admin added the redirect category templates, I checked to find the Cn redirect correctly categorized into the Protected redirects category, but the CN redirect had been miscategorized into Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. So even though the CN redirect is fully protected by this page, it is not "formally" fully protected and therefore gets miscategorized. Again, to me, that is an important issue that should be fixed.
So I bring this to your, the involved editors', attention to see what I can do to help fix this miscategorization problem. – Paine ( Climax!) 04:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
I want the template "blocked sockpuppet" to be included because it is highly used. --
72.65.238.157 (
talk) 21:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove 'stupid' from the ombox notice. Don't you think it's a bit impolite? Insulam Simia ( talk) 19:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Today (17 October 2013), the discussion at
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Template editor user right was closed, and very soon we will we now have a new user right for template and module editors. With this user right it is possible to edit protected pages in the template and module namespaces; however, it is not possible to edit cascade-protected pages. Looking through the templates transcluded on this page, I am struggling to see a template that would really benefit from cascading protection. As it is, having these templates cascade-protected is not really serving any useful purpose, and is also preventing editors with the new user right from editing them. So, I propose the following:
What do others think about this? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 03:55, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
I would like to merge the contents of a subpage of Davidgothberg with the items on this page. This editor is no longer active and it seems to make sense to keep one list rather than several in userspace. Does anyone have any comments on this? — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 13:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
There did not seem to be any consensus to unprotect the page in the thread above, but there seemed to be more support for the removal of individual templates from the page. I suggest that we start a list of templates to be removed from the page here. We can keep templates listed here for a week, say, and then remove them if there are no objections, or if a consensus to remove them is reached after a discussion. Also, if you have any issues with the process or suggestions on how to improve it, feel free to reply directly below. I'll start the list of templates to remove in a new subsection. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 11:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
First of all I would like to propose the following:
Please feel free to add more below. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 11:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
A few others. -- WOSlinker ( talk) 11:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Here's a few more I'd like to see removed:
These are all very-high-transclusion templates, but I think that they could usefully be edited by template editors. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 07:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
How about the citation templates? Is there any indication that they would be any less protected under template-editor protection? - Floydian τ ¢ 06:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
To Mr. Stradivarius – I was just able to get the fully protected redirect, Template:Anchors, changed to template protected at WP:RFP; however, it must be removed from this page for that to take effect. Can it be added to this list? – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 02:29, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove:
<tr><td>{{User sandbox}}</td><td>{{tl|User sandbox}}</td><td></td><td>Used in [[MediaWiki:Gadget-mySandbox.js]]</td></tr>
from this page. The {{
User sandbox}} template apparently
has already been lowered to
Template editor and is now only being help up from being edited by cascade protection. I would like to be able to change the link to submit the page into a button as other AFC submission links
have been changed recently. Thank you.
— {{U|
Technical 13}} (
t •
e •
c) 14:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove Template:Pmid from this page. It has only 431 transclusions, so it's not high-risk, and the fact that a cascading-protected page is at RfD is causing problems. Jackmcbarn ( talk) 00:54, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Consider switching this page to use Module:lockbox; it will render prettier and prevent this page from being added into spurious categories.
— Keφr 09:54, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add Template:Cob and Template:Cot to this page. They are redirects to Template:Collapse bottom and Template:Collapse top respectively, cascade-protected pages. Steel1943 ( talk) 20:27, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
There is currently an RfC in progress at Wikipedia talk:File Upload Wizard#Templates on MediaWiki:FileUploadWizard.js in regards to inquiring about the possible need to cascade-protect file licensing templates transcluded in MediaWiki:FileUploadWizard.js (utilized in Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard.) Watchers of this page may be interested in participating. Steel1943 ( talk) 00:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Is there a reason why these templates are listed on this page? They are already templateprotected and have only 1600+ transclusions, hardly frequent enough to merit a full protection. Nor do I see any specially sensitive pages they are transcluded in. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 15:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
At only 7000+ transclusions, the current template protection seems to be enough to serve that template, rendering the extra cascade protection unnecessary. Thus, it should be removed. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
A lot of the images listed on this page do not need -protection, they just need upload-protection. This allows editors to maintain the file description page but not change the image. I'm not sure if there is any such thing as cascading upload protection, but I'm wondering whether most of these could be removed and individually upload-protected. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 17:16, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Suppose there are the pages
Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items/header and
Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items/Header. The header on
Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items would be transcluded as {{Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items/header}}
, and the content of
Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items/header would be {{Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items/Header}}
. If cascading protection doesn't cascade indefinitely, these pages could be created so that normal users can edit the header at
Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items/Header.
95.49.122.192 (
talk) 15:18, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items/content has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove Template:Str len/core from the list. It is no longer used. Luis150902 ( talk | contribs) 17:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi! I just thought I should mention that there's a discussion going on concerning what color the cascade protection lock should be. It can be seen at Wikipedia talk:Protection policy#Icon for cascading protection.
If anyone wants to state their opinions on this topic, please do so there. I would greatly appreciate any input.
Thanks!
Noah Kastin ( talk) 06:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Jo-Jo Eumerus! Thank you for your great work on Wikipedia!
I noticed that you added Template:Edit request to Wikipedia talk:Cascade-protected items#Confusing section names in this edit. This states that the discussion which the template was added to is a request to edit a fully protected page. However, Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items does not seem to be fully protected. Furthermore, this was not an edit request, but a request for clarification for something I found confusing. This leaves me very confused as to why the notice was placed.
If you can explain why this was done, I would greatly appreciate that!
Thanks!
Noah Kastin ( talk) 23:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)