Help talk:Page protection

Date format
This page should give or link to the date format for the expiry field in the protection interface. OrbFu 23:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's supposed to be GNU Standard format. See here. Timeroot|undefinedTalk • Contribs • Edit count 00:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to let you know
The info on this page is outdated, just thought I would let you know. --124.171.93.226 09:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * How so? Kirkburn (talk) 00:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The Cascading protection is not used anymore
 * It is, still. — I-20 the highway  01:46, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Monobook should be changed to Monaco --Owen1983 15:21, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Will do. — I-20 the highway  01:46, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

There are three unneccesary === at the end of the page. Iggyvolz 15:20, June 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * And there is an edit link at the top of the page. --user452 01:28, June 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * Oops! I thought the page was protected! -- Iggyvolz 14:01, June 19, 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protection status change
Under "Protection levels", the description for semi-protected needs to be updated to show that on wikis where it is required to have an account for compliance with COPPA and other laws, it doesn't have much effect. Once a person has had their account for more than four days and has made 10 edits, they are autoconfirmed and no longer restricted by the page protection. Chances are, a person going to a COPPA-compliant wiki is already going to be in autoconfirmed status.

To make semi-protection useful for these wikis, another level in between "semi-protected" and "fully protected" (admin-only) would have to be created, or else make the "semi-protected" level adjustable so that an admin can select the number of edits and days before a user goes into autoconfirmed status for that wiki. —RRabbit42 ( leave a message ) 14:47, May 21, 2014 (UTC)


 * You can submit feedback and suggestions at Special:Contact/feedback. Personally, I don't see such a customizable protection necessary. -- Tupka 217 14:59, May 21, 2014 (UTC)


 * I realize that it's there just to keep the easy targets away from people who want to cause trouble. I'm just noting that because of the change to comply with COPPA, it makes semi-protecting pages on those wikis pretty much pointless. —RRabbit42 ( leave a message ) 00:16, May 22, 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, seems like something we'd want to cover here. Good catch --  Ransom Time  16:29, June 4, 2014 (UTC)

"Protect all templates" isn't helpful
"Templates containing complex code or are necessary for a particular wiki."

The purpose of a template is to compartmentalize code and be used on a wiki. So isn't this equivalent to suggesting "protect all templates"?

User rights flags have very little to do with code competence, in my experience. This isn't good advice. Rigel Kent (talk) 12:34, March 27, 2016 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily, no. A "stub" template may not nearly be as important as an infobox template, or templates used on the main page. The page is merely suggesting that if you see that a template is being broadly used, or is being used on popular pages, you may want to consider protecting them in order to avoid vandalism. The page does also say, "Do not make the common mistake of protecting pages unnecessarily".
 * How about rewording it to "heavily transcluded pages"? Its current wording says nothing about transclusions or vandalism potential. It instead emphasizes "complex code", seeming to imply only admins ought to be coding or designing. Rigel Kent (talk) 22:52, May 2, 2016 (UTC)