Last modified: 2014-10-27 22:13:56 UTC
I would like that a system message would be introduced in mediawiki. A system message that will be shown if the page is protected (not in the edit page, in the page itself) pointing out that that page is protected (pointing out event to the ones who are allowed to edit that page anyway. This is aometime usefull to avoid missunderstandigs). This can be achived now with a template included in the page, but it's tricky expecially if an automatical protection expiry is set up. And, off course, similar message for page that are semiprotected, move-protected and so on. These system messages should be translated in different languages and customizibile as usual.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 6179 ***
After reconsideration, I'm reopening this as a clear request to have a notice somewhere on the page view in question. Something discreet but still noticeable, perhaps a little pastel box in the top, where the "subtitle" goes.
*** Bug 10630 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Ideas for solutions as collected from users suggestions: * some kind of image (eg. lock) shown somewhere * different color of header (page title) * small line with text such as "this page is (semi-)protected", probably linking to protect log, in place where other additional infos are such as "redirected from foo" or links to parent pages * any other...
I'm of the view that a simple little message in the subtitle area, perhaps with a little image, if desired, is the best option, as I said in comment #2.
I agree. I just wanted to throw in for consideration what I've been told by users.
Any progress with this one? I think a new system message would do it. It could normally show a piece of text (in small-sized font), but people may then change it to their desired look (like a lock image, etc).
Went ahead and committed r25151. By default it adds to the subtitle (This page is protected.) and provides two params to the message, $1 for edit restriction and $2 for move restriction, so that y'all can customize it with parserfunctions as you need to. Not sure I really like it's default view, so I'm going to leave this open for a bit to see if there are any suggestions as to how to improve it ....
Tried to clean this up in r25152. Was making notices too.
What about wikis with different protection types? On one of my wiki's we had protection for other actions as well. Supporting just edit and move makes it unusuable by customised wikis.
(In reply to comment #10) > What about wikis with different protection types? On one of my wiki's we had > protection for other actions as well. Supporting just edit and move makes it > unusuable by customised wikis. > For that case, it will just say (This page is protected), which is what it did pre-commit. Not to mention, raw canonical rights were being inputted into to wfMsg(), which is funky anyway. And I don't want this getting to messy. Getting it to list each restricted 'right' and who can do it would be a bit of a mess. The message would end up in some [x=a,b:y=c] format or worse, and rights for actions/custom actions may not have corresponding UI messages. e.g. 'protect' or 'emailthispage' will show up as 'protect' or 'emailthispage', even in non-English langauges.
I suppose the 'this page is protected' could like to the action=protect URL so the user can see the levels.
I'm worried this is UI clutter at the moment. For a move-protected page this spits out *to every reader* the unnecessary details that: (This page is protected. Some users (anyone) can still edit it while others (Sysops) can move it.) It's not a very attractive message, and the information's going to be pretty useless for most people. If you have move permissions, you'll already be able to see that you can't move it, while if you don't you probably don't care. I'd recommend taking this back out for the time being and thinking a bit more about how this kind of information should be presented, when, and where.
(In reply to comment #13) > I'm worried this is UI clutter at the moment. For a move-protected page this > spits out *to every reader* the unnecessary details that: > > (This page is protected. Some users (anyone) can still edit it while others > (Sysops) can move it.) > > It's not a very attractive message, and the information's going to be pretty > useless for most people. If you have move permissions, you'll already be able > to see that you can't move it, while if you don't you probably don't care. > > I'd recommend taking this back out for the time being and thinking a bit more > about how this kind of information should be presented, when, and where. > I agree entirely. I think a far more subtle message needs to be used. With my initial commit I indicated that it could use a bit more subtlety, and it's now become even more in-your-face :). My suggestions would be either that the message be a) blank, but taking the two params, such that wikis can choose to customize the message as the need, b) a simple and small icon of some kind, displayed in a logical place that won't break local layouts, or c) a different display of the edit tab for users who can edit the article -- something to the effect of "edit (protected)" -- while users who can't edit/move the article will just see the standard "view source" tab. In any case, please don't sync this up on Wikimedia until it's a bit more figured out :)
Maybe it should just be conveying info about edit rights? Still, we does use huge ass ugly move-protect templates sometimes ;)
Reverted a bunch of stuff in r25210. I'd recommend fiddling with this in a branch or patch for the moment.
Could we have classes "editprotected", "moveprotected", "editsemiprotected" and "movesemiprotected" added to <body>'s list of classes? That would allow marking of (semi)protected pages on CSS basis as well.
These categories are fluid; there may be more or fewer available protection levels on any given wiki. There's no hard-and-fast rule as to what "semi-protected" means, for instance; that's what's informally used to refer to a page which has protection set at the autoconfirmed level on Wikimedia wikis, where the available levels are for all, autoconfirmed, and sysop.
How about adding it in more general way then, such as edit-<protectionlevel> and move-<protectionlevel> where protectionlevel would be the keyword such as autoconfirmed, sysop etc.?
I'd recommend it just say "this page is protected". And 'protected' would be a blue link to &action=protect (which all users can see).
(In reply to comment #20) > I'd recommend it just say "this page is protected". And 'protected' would be a > blue link to &action=protect (which all users can see). > What if we simply it a step further and simply provide an alternative to MediaWiki:Edit and MediaWiki:Move for when the page is edit- and move-protected, respectively. For instance, if the page is semi-protected or full protected, a user or sysop viewing the page would just see "edit (protected)" in place of the normal text on the edit tab, or "move (protected)" on the move tab. Let me tinker a bit ...
Created attachment 4170 [details] Add edit-protected and move-protected messages. Perhaps something along these lines?
Created attachment 4171 [details] Add edit-protected and move-protected messages. Perhaps something along these lines?
Longer tab names = bad, we already have enough ;)
Done in r42658
The subtitle is just annoying and disruptive, IMHO. It doesn't seem worth it... I'm reverting in r42664 and marking this bug WONTFIX. If somebody comes up with some good UI models we might reconsider it.
*** Bug 16649 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Given the introduction of [[mw:Help:Page status indicators]], I believe this can now be implemented, deprecating scripts such as these * https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Gadget-Topicon.js * https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Gz260_test/monobook.js
(In reply to Helder from comment #28) > Given the introduction of [[mw:Help:Page status indicators]], I believe this > can now be implemented, deprecating scripts such as these > * https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Gadget-Topicon.js > * https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Gz260_test/monobook.js Yes, but the concept is that these will be done per-wiki (or perhaps per farm), and not in MediaWiki itself. Consequently should this be tracked here?
