Wikipedia talk:Protection policy

This page is not for proposing or discussing edits to protected pages.

To request or propose a change to a page that you are not able to edit, place a message on its talk page. If the page is fully protected, you may attract the attention of an admin to make the change by placing the {{edit fully-protected}} template above your request. Requests placed here will probably be removed or ignored.

If the page in question and its talk page are both protected please make your edit request at Wikipedia:Request for edit.
To request that a page be protected or unprotected, see Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.
To suggest that a move-protected page be renamed, see Wikipedia:Requested moves.
To request that a deleted page protected against re-creation be re-created or restored, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.
For information about protecting the main page featured article or other featured content, see Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Protection policy page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Shortcuts

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18: 60 days

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.

This page is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Position of lock

Could we revert to how the position of the "pending changes" lock looked before? Now it looks like this, with "Pending" wording next to it with a crossed out eye. The previous lock was a simple compact lock icon with a tick, did not include text or other additional features (like the crossed-out eye) and was less obtrusive and didn't draw as much attention. I'd like to restore the lock to its previous visual format whilst making sure users can still understand its meaning (that there are pending changes, which should already be handled by users pressing "Edit source" and the note coming up). Best, 750 h+ 16:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@750h+: I also dislike the change. It's too "busy", the eye icon seems out of place, and it's not visually pleasant. However, this is the wrong place for design feedback. I suggest you start at WP:VPT. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:49, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will move. 750 h+ 23:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can we add Signpost articles as an exception to WP:PREEMPTIVE??

Pre-emptively protecting Signpost articles (to confirmed/autoconfirmed) makes a lot of sense to me because they don't need to be updated post-publication and never really need to be edited except by bots/scripts.

Pinging @Frostly: because they may or may not have an opinion on this topic. Polygnotus (talk) 18:59, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide several examples of signpost pages that were edited unjustifiably, in order to demonstrate that a problem exists. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC) amended Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, the current Signpost editor-in-chief has already confirmed/autoconfirmed protected a lot of the past issues, after they were granted administrative privileges. isaacl (talk) 22:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second Redrose64's request for some examples. We really need to know how often it's a problem before we consider changes to the policy. And even if there's consensus that preemptive protection makes sense, I would want the protections to be automated or done by the Signpost team rather than adding load to WP:RFPP. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 02:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An example or two wouldn't tell you how often it's a problem. Polygnotus (talk) 08:34, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, which is why I asked for examples (which is open-ended), and not "an example or two" (which is closed). I've inserted the word "several" to clarify this. The more examples that you can provide, the easier it will be for us to observe that a problem exists that needs to be fixed. If it's happening on a daily basis, we probably do need to take action; but if it's only once a year, it should be quite sufficient to ask the person who made the edit to explain it; if not, a simple revert will do.

A general principle, that should be followed by anybody seeking to create a new rule, is: can you justify that new rule in a non-hypothetical form? In other words:

demonstrate that a problem exists
show that existing processes are insufficient to overcome the problem
propose a method that will either solve the problem, or prevent it from re-occurring
invite comments and be prepared to defend your proposal
if sufficient parties are in agreement, implement the proposal

You've come up with (3) and (4), but not (1) or (2). I'm just asking for (1) at this stage. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But its not a new rule, it is exception to an existing rule. Polygnotus (talk) 09:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]