Template talk:Makeprotected

Makeprotected

❌ I don't see this meeting WN:PP. --SVTCobra 20:09, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Name and purpose
If this should exist at all, there should be the similar to specify auto-confirmed or admin only; also should specify edit or move protection. This means there should be at least four templates for this. It begins to boggle the mind why we would need even one. A simple request on a collaboration page should suffice and if not noticed there's always WN:AAA. --SVTCobra 15:16, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The reason I created it: When I publish an article, and Pi zero is not available, I place this template on talk page. It is a simple request on a collaboration page, yes, but the advantage of having a template is reduced writing; colour helps to identify what kind of request is made (of course it helps me because I chose the colours, but Pi zero wonder what if someone is colourblind?), and once admin dashboard is made available, it would be easy for admins to find and act, just like how reviewers use the other template to see what to review. Admin dashboard is not to eliminate AAA, but to increase the power, making it more admin-friendly. Before creating this template, I had to tweet to admins requesting page protecting or leave a note on their talk, and yet get a "no", search on non-WMF IRC channels to make such requests or follow timezone that was 13 hours behind mine, to review and publish articles. But after creating the template, I realised it could be used for protecting main space redirects (which actually requires edit protection as well). There are loads of templates required, and I will create it when I need it -- necessity is the mother of all inventions. It is a valid argument that hardly anyone monitors testing, and initially, they were in the template which we have in the RC. But the template is designed for admin dashboard. Also, I guess most of us would go back, check RC to see what happened when we were afk. •–• 15:43, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Requesting edit protection?
If there's disagreement over whether to add a parameter for what sort of protection is being asked for, it ought to be discussed here on the talk page. Edit warring is not appreciated (and doesn't look good from someone who's requesting adminship).

I do note that the name of this template is generic; one wouldn't guess, from the name "makeprotected", that it's only about renaming. One could solve that problem either by forking the template into to more specialized templates, or by parameterizing the one template. The two approaches have different drawbacks. --Pi zero (talk) 14:21, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that this was edit warring... - we each made one undo. Acagastya undid with the summary "Undo: Template:Editprotected exists for requesting edit protected." I then looked at editprotected, and saw that it is for requesting edits to protected pages, not for requesting edit protection. I assumed this was a misunderstanding, and reverted with the explanation "Editprotected = please edit protected page, = please protect this page from editing" - I'm not sure where you see any edit warring or disagreement. --DannyS712 (talk) 14:25, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you're right. --Pi zero (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, perhaps the mistake of wordings. So how about ProtectFromMove and ProtectFromEdit. •–•  17:23, 1 December 2019 (UTC)