Help talk:Page protection

Protected pages & terms of use
It is stated in the page that: It is against Wikia term of use to protect large number of pages or for a long time. And there's a link toward the "term of use" page.

But there is nothing I could find about the page protection in the terms of use.

It's vague. What a great number of pages mean? And what are the consequences? Or is it removed from term of use? --Nnnooooonnnnn (talk) 01:23, December 17, 2016 (UTC)


 * As it is stated in http://www.wikia.com/Community_Creation_Policy
 * Unnecessary page protection is a common mistake that is considered harmful to a wiki's development. A clear statement of the community's goals is a better way to promote your vision than technical restrictions. Minato  (Talk) 04:19, December 17, 2016 (UTC)

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. TimerootTalk • 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The info on this page is outdated, just thought I would let you know.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)

Renaming page protection
Is there a way to protect a page from being renamed without protecting the page itself ? and If there is, then how? Luma.dash (talk) 11:18, May 24, 2016 (UTC)
 * Rename protection is also a view of protection, and you can achieve it by clicking "Protect" and selecting the rename protection level in the section below the edit protection section. Or you meant something else? -- Cube - shaped   garbage can  11:23, May 24, 2016 (UTC)

I don't quite understand how you do this, only that I see that "Confirm protection" allows him to determine the users I want to be able to edit. Nothing more or less? Luma.dash (talk)
 * I meant this. Do you see anything similar to it while trying to protect a page? -- Cube - shaped   garbage can  14:31, May 24, 2016 (UTC)


 * Then by this, I will protect it from being moved, but not protect it from being edited? Luma.dash (talk) 16:13, May 24, 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, just select the "Allow all users" option in the upper box and "Block new and unregistered users" or "Administrators and Content Moderators only" in the lower, and all users will be able to edit it and to move it will be able only autoconfirmed users or sysops and content mods depending on what you chose as the second option -- Cube - shaped   garbage can  16:39, May 24, 2016 (UTC)

Protection levels
Is there, or was there, a way to protect a page so that it requires at least rollback rights to edit a page? Dalmatia (talk) 15:09, January 6, 2018 (UTC)
 * There wasn't, there isn't and there most likely won't be. Though you can implement some kind of that protection through the AbuseFilter extension. -- Cube - shaped   garbage can  15:11, January 6, 2018 (UTC)