Last modified: 2012-07-26 20:49:39 UTC

Wikimedia Bugzilla is closed!

Wikimedia has migrated from Bugzilla to Phabricator. Bug reports should be created and updated in Wikimedia Phabricator instead. Please create an account in Phabricator and add your Bugzilla email address to it.
Wikimedia Bugzilla is read-only. If you try to edit or create any bug report in Bugzilla you will be shown an intentional error message.
In order to access the Phabricator task corresponding to a Bugzilla report, just remove "static-" from its URL.
You could still run searches in Bugzilla or access your list of votes but bug reports will obviously not be up-to-date in Bugzilla.
Bug 4667 - More comprehensive protection info instead of undescriptive protect and unprotect tab
More comprehensive protection info instead of undescriptive protect and unpro...
Product: MediaWiki
Classification: Unclassified
Interface (Other open bugs)
All All
: Low enhancement with 1 vote (vote)
: ---
Assigned To: Nobody - You can work on this!
: 6176 (view as bug list)
Depends on:
Blocks: messages
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2006-01-19 03:26 UTC by Edward Z. Yang
Modified: 2012-07-26 20:49 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Web browser: ---
Mobile Platform: ---
Assignee Huggle Beta Tester: ---


Description Edward Z. Yang 2006-01-19 03:26:13 UTC
==Background and Rationale==

:''You can safely skip this and not miss much.''

As things stand right now, there are only two messages for the block tab,
default of which are "Protect" and "Unprotect." With the advent of
semiprotection and page move protection, this simple toggle system is not only
insufficient, it can be downright misleading. Pagemove protected pages are not
"protected" in any conventional sense (most users will never notice), yet they
cause the tab to show up as "Unprotected."

Discussion on [[Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Change "Unprotect" to "Change
protection"]] appears to have resulted in this recommendation that:

Protect -> Unprotected
Unprotect -> Protected

The second change deserves special note in this case: the old Unprotect can be
just plain old wrong in certain circumstances. Suppose a move is page-move
blocked, but has recieved a spate of anonymous vandalism. It would have a tab
saying "Unprotect," but the admin would actually be clicking the tab to
*increase* protection. Saying that the page is simply "protected" removes this

But, as you may have already noticed, it does not prevent the core problem:
these tabs offer little/no information on exactly *what* is blocked. Thus the
feature request:

==The Request==

There are several possible ways to make the current scheme more descriptive.

1. For each aspect that can be blocked (as of now, page move and regular
editing), create a new tab. The tabs have three values, "Unprotected"
"Semiprotected" and "Protected". This can be extended as far as necessary, but
can get unwieldly beyond two tabs. However, I can't think of an elegant way to
cycle all nine possible combinations in one tab

2. Simply name the tab a generic "protection", and offer the information in a
seperate area, perhaps in the same area you see the redirect notice (which is
quite unconspicuous). This would eliminate the need for locked page templates:
the software would tell the user so. I prefer this solution.

It's a feature request, so if you think it's a good idea, go and implement it.
Otherwise, no pressure. :-D
Comment 1 Brion Vibber 2006-06-03 03:07:28 UTC
*** Bug 6176 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 2 Nemo 2012-07-26 13:46:49 UTC
Mostly? done in r90833.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.