Wikiquote talk:Protection policy/Archives/2005

From Wikiquote
Jump to: navigation, search
Warning This is a discussion archive created in or until 2005, though the comments contained may not have been posted on this date. Please do not post any new comments on this page. See current discussion or the archives index.

Someone should create this, or make it a link to wikipedia. Right now if you click a protected page link, it takes you here. -Anon

For suitable quotes to the introduction section of this page, see (and expand!) the page about protection. jni 15:18, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Listing deletion error articles[edit]

Since articles that couldn't be deleted because of block-compression errors are supposed to be protected, should we list them here? I'm not sure I see the purpose of doing so, because we already have the list in Category:Pending deletions, and whoever eventually deletes those articles should know that they're protected, if it even matters (since they can still be deleted while protected). — Jeff Q (talk) 04:41, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would not list them here, that would just be duplication of effort. Using the category has the advantage that its contents cannot be delisted by special interest groups because of the protection of all items. This page is intented to enumerate all *classes* of protected pages so a mention must be made of the existence of pending deletion pages. jni 07:41, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I support we don't list those articles in their last days. We can simply say "Article in pending deletion are listed not here, but in Category:Pending deletions." --Aphaia 01:11, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Purpose of this article[edit]

I'm a bit unclear about the purpose of this article. Is it a means to keep the state of the protection log, since the log doesn't guarantee accurate state information? Is it supposed to have all protected pages, which would include indefinitely-protected pages like Main Page? Should we have separate sections for archive (e.g., former "Quote of the day" articles), prevention of recreation (e.g., Reirom), protection from vandalism (e.g., sysop user and talk pages), and possibly pending-deletion? Should we include expected durations, since it seems not to be acceptable practice to protect pages indefinitely? I'm afraid I don't know much about wiki protection customs, including tracking. Thank you for any enlightenment you can provide. — Jeff Q (talk) 04:53, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page is indeed designed to show the "state representation" corresponding to the data from the protection log (the "time representation"). My intention is to list all infinitely protected pages here, except when there is a large list of them (Pending deletions, QotD, etc.) then just acknowledge their existence. The division to sections is to make maintenance easier, protections against vandalism are handled differently in practice than permanently protected infrastructure pages and so should not be lumped together on this page. Since we don't have any process or policy for protections yet, I suggest to follow Wikipedia conventions as much as possible. You can list expected durations if you want, though when all entries are time-stamped with the signature and ordered by time protected it is easy to see when something has been protected for too long (where "too long" is a judgement call, given no policy). jni 07:55, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I introduce other Wikipedia custons just for information. Japanese Wikipedia has two categories: "parmanent protection", that is, GFDL text and MediaWiki messages. For temporary protection they have a chronological list. Protected articles were listed by the sysop who had protected it and signed with timestamp. Anyone can request for unprotection if some protections seem to be outdated. Protection reason is available besides each link. Another custom is on German Wikipedia. They sort protected pages by namespace without protection reason nor date. It is easy to maintain this list and have an overview on situation. Very interestingly German people has no particular page for request for protection. They use VP, talk or IRC instead. --Aphaia 01:18, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)


I protected pages linked from the RC top; like VP, VfD, AN and so on. Some of them were targeted by Ass Pus vandal twice, and (sorry I forgot the place) already there is a proposal for protection, I myself don't think it as sysop previledges abuse, but sorry for that I didn't confirm the community will. I know once this vandal or a vandal with a same way attacked a project (Wikinews) four time in a day, so I hope my protection is not based on a haste decision, but any comments and opinions are welcome. --Aphaia 01:34, 1 May 2005 (UTC)


The copy of Template:Wikipedia is different from others, say the one at wikibooks. I was going to update it (at least to see if it would work here), but it's protected so I have no clue. Just thought someone might want to know.