Template talk:Permanently protected

This page is not for proposing or discussing edits to protected pages. To request or propose a change to a page that you are not able to edit, place a message on its talk page. If the page is fully protected, you may attract the attention of an admin to make the change by placing the {{edit fully-protected}} template above your request. Requests placed here will probably be removed or ignored. If the page in question and its talk page are both protected please make your edit request at Wikipedia:Request for edit. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, see Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. To suggest that a move-protected page be renamed, see Wikipedia:Requested moves. To request that a deleted page protected against re-creation be re-created or restored, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. For information about protecting the main page featured article or other featured content, see Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection.

This template has a sandbox /sandbox /testcases

You might want to protect this template --Andersmusician VOTE 22:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why that would be necessary as it has not been the target of any vandalism. --24fan24 (talk) 04:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of irony, I suppose.

talk) 02:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry

I don't see sorry being necessary at the beginning of this template. I could see this being appropriate if editors would see this message when trying to edit the page, but this template is shown on the article's talk page. Any opinions? --24fan24 (talk) 05:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"This page is protected from editing indefinitely, as it is a page which should not be edited significantly for legal or other reasons."

The first clause is ambiguous in that "indefinitely" could just as well qualify "editing" as "protected". The implication could be that the page isn't protected from limited-term editing.

The second clause is ambiguous in that "for legal or other reasons" could equally well answer the question "Why shouldn't it be edited significantly?" as the question "What is the purpose of the significant edits?"

How about "This page is protected indefinitely from editing, as for legal and other reasons it is a page which should not be edited significantly"? Or even less wordy: "This page is indefinitely protected from editing, as for legal and other reasons it should not be edited significantly"? —Largo Plazo (talk) 07:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{

}}

A semiprotection version should be added, since some things are permanently semi-protected (like this template, ironically). See the sandbox circa my timestamp.

76.66.196.218 (talk) 00:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you're right.

{{pp-template|demolevel=semi|small=no|category=no}}

produces

This is a permanently protected page, as it is high-risk. Please discuss any changes on the talk page; you may submit an edit request to ask an administrator or template editor to make an edit if it is uncontroversial or supported by consensus. You can also request that the page be unprotected.

but this is just intended as a demonstration. I suspect that {{pp-template}} could be successfully adapted for this purpose. I suggest you discuss it with User:Nihiltres as he/she seems to have worked most on that template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I left a message at their talk page, requesting input. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 06:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does this template need to be on every talk page for a permanently protected template? I wouldn't mind adding if there's no problem, I guess. Schfifty3 21:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{

}} A user modified this template, but for some reason he changed the red padlock to the silver padlock. This must have been a mistake. Can someone re-add the red padlock, please? -68.219.194.188 (talk) 01:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Notified user who changed it as well. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 02:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Three years ago, this edit made this template difficult to understand (because, where is one to suggest changes in order to get a consensus?). I think the edit was not proofread and should be reverted!--greenrd (talk) 14:18, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, I guess the addition of text at the start is OK, but the removal of text is not.--greenrd (talk) 14:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Paine Ellsworth and Aidan9382: (recent editors of the template itself) The rendered result of using this template on Talk:2024 Iranian strikes in Israel is (presumably because SUBJECTSPACE = whatever the variable is for mainspace) ... because it is a page that has no reason to be changed. ..., which is nonsense. The Iranian strikes page is current news and while some level of protection is clearly justified, saying that there is no reason to ... chang[e] the page is clearly false - and confusing to newbies who don't understand the difficulties in writing templates that fully handle all use cases. People are less likely to follow guidelines if the guidelines say obviously false statements.

In this case, what is really wanted is something like because it is a page that can expect to need this level of protection on a multi-year time scale.

How can we override the default? Or should this template be changed?

I don't see how {{SUBJECTSPACE}} can be hacked (unless we also modify {{SUBJECTSPACE}}, which sounds like mediawiki could would have to be hacked, which would be obviously a much too heavy and arbitrary solution).

Either modifying this template to allow a non-default alternative to the current default phrase; or creating a variant on this template, would seem to be more reasonable and viable possible fixes.

Or should a different existing template be used on Talk:2024 Iranian strikes in Israel? Boud (talk) 13:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Completed – editor

ed. ^{put'er there} 03:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks. But just to make my disclaimer clearer: I'm not sure of all the use cases of this template. Right now I've only considered a sample of size 1. The change makes sense in this 1 case. :) I guess it's true that there are probably no pages that should never be changed, even if there are many that should rarely be changed. Anyway, I assume that you're familiar with how the template is used in the N-1 other cases, and anyone can discuss here if they're unhappy with the change. Boud (talk) 10:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help! and as with all edits on WP, we shall see.

ed. ^{put'er there} 11:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]