Template talk:Protected title

This template was considered for deletion on 2017 March 25. The result of the discussion was "mark as historical".

Discussion

Could you make it so that the title of the page is not bolded as red links look bad when bolded. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 15:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested edit

This template is protected, and should be tagged with {{protected template}}, or another suitable protection template. Thanks – Qxz 20:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —David Levy 22:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interwiki link

{{editprotected}}

Dear administrator, please add the following interwiki link:

[[ia:Patrono:Protected title]]

Thank you in advance, --Julian 12:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 14:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

This template is already protected by virtue of being transcluded in cascade-protected subpages of Wikipedia:Protected titles, but should it not also be protected directly? – 81.153.158.137 11:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not done; this would be a request to reverse an admin action. (The template was unprotected on the basis that it was already used on cascade-protected lists.) It's probably a good idea to discuss this with the admin who unprotected it, User:Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh, first. (Personally, I agree that it may as well be protected, by the way.) --ais523 15:12, 17 September 2007 (U T C)

Meh, re-protected. Prodego ^talk 01:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Limit to #ifexist

See [1]. To continue using this system without breaking, {{protected title}} will have to do without #ifexist. (Either way, admins should not be adding titles to WP:PT unless there is a clearly preventative need to do so, i.e. recreation, but that's a different story). Gracenotes^T § 08:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, it'll need to be rewritten to use one ifexist instead of three, and the list pages limited to a hundred transclusions. —Cryptic 09:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is another good idea, although removing #ifexist altogether would require much less effort. Gracenotes^T § 16:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're down to two uses now (thanks to RockMFR). I see no advantage to eliminating both of the remaining uses; if I correctly understand Tim Starling's explanation, the default behavior (if the limit is exceeded) will be to assume that the page doesn't exist, so we might as well leave at least one use (which will be beneficial when the limit isn't exceeded and will have no effect when it is).

Practically speaking, this issue is only worth worrying about with respect to pages that could realistically be re-created one day. For everything else (such as nonsensical titles and titles used purely for harassment), this doesn't really matter. —David Levy 19:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're down to one use now. However, there is a bit of a "bug" at the moment - pages that exist (the ones with "Delete page" next to them) were formally not protected, but now they are because #ifexist recursively goes through every branch. Tim Starling said that #ifexist will be changed in the very near future to not do this. I assume that this future change will fix the "bug". Even if it doesn't, this functionality isn't really necessary. It's easy enough to manually hunt down any existing pages on the salt lists and remove them. --- RockMFR 19:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work! :-) —David Levy 19:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The recursive branching should only be a problem if the pages that are transcluded contain #ifexist. Thanks to your work, the number of #ifexists = the number of transclusions of this template. This improvement works for a page like Wikipedia:Protected titles/January 2007, but not later months. Without major restructuring of all the pages, removing #ifexist completely is the best option (in my humble opinion at least). And, you're right: manually hunting down transclusions of existing pages is easy. Gracenotes^T § 20:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What would we gain by removing the remaining instance of #ifexist? —David Levy 20:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right now? It would allow us to have unlimited instances of this on a page without running up against the limit. Until the preprocessor rewrite is completed and live, the remaining #ifexist accomplishes nothing that [[{{{pg}}}]] <div style='display:none'>{{ {{{pg}}} }}</div> wouldn't. —Cryptic 22:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It can become a problem, though, if enough non-deleted pages build up that the transclusion max is exceeded and pages become unprotected. As I see it, we have three options:

Keep the single #ifexist in. Split the lists up to have a max of 100 entries on each. This requires anyone editing the lists to check that the maximum is not exceeded.
Keep the single #ifexist in. Keep the lists in their current form. If an existing page is on the list beyond the 100th entry, it will be transcluded. If enough existing pages build up, the transclusion limit might be exceeded and the cascade protection will fail for the remaining entries on the list. Existing pages that are transcluded will be protected.
Remove the #ifexist. Any existing pages will be transcluded. If enough existing pages build up, the transclusion limit might be exceeded and the cascade protection will fail for the remaining entries on the list. Existing pages that are transcluded will be protected. --- RockMFR 22:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's my understanding that, since both branches are traversed, the current 1-#ifexist version will already transclude existing pages and contribute to the transclusion max, the same way it cascade-protects existing articles. —Cryptic 23:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, but this is supposed to change in the very near future. --- RockMFR 23:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Transclusion limits (pre- or post-expand) aren't a problem for existing PT lists – neither is #ifexist, but that will change in the near future as well. Gracenotes^T § 17:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion link

Edit summary: whoops, I meant to remove that part of the link - should work now, right? --- RockMFR 20:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that did the trick. :-) —David Levy 20:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bug in #ifexist count?

Strange that Wikipedia:Protected titles/December 2007/List has an #ifexist count of 0.--Patrick (talk) 18:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand now, a call of #ifexist after a transclusion of the same page does not require an extra database query and is therefore not counted.--Patrick (talk) 09:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]