Wikipedia talk:Lists of protected pages

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.

Archives

1, 2

== Readded subsections ==Ď G I've reverted Voice Of All and readded the subsections of "Other pages" [1]. I believe this actually does make maintenance easier. This page is meant to be read by humans, isn't it? --Ligulem 23:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, it breaks the bot and so regardless of its merits would need to be agreed and the parsing added to the bot beforehand; in the intermediate,ws now they aren't in chronological order, which is the order in which they are checked whether lthey should be unprotected; please fix them. Now, this change is extra maintenancet and there is no need to organize these becaouse perman\ently/indefinitely protected pages are moved elsewhere, not re-ordered on this page. This page is forj temporarily protected pages or as a holding area for pages that are i/then listed elsewphere. Tahis is a special example of why reverting without discussion, or alternatively understanding, is bad. —Centrx→talk • 23:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what about the semi-protected ones you removed. Why shouldn't you put them back? Did you decide whether they should remain semi-protected or did you just remove any semi-protected one? —Centrx→talk • 23:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I only removed semi-protected templates. These should not be listed. See also the section above and Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy. If you want to reremove the section titles, please do so. I believe these section titles do make maintenance of this page easier. Since you seem to agree with VoA, that's it then. BTW, how should this page here be used? Simply listing pages in random order seems not of much interest to me. This page here looks rather as if it is largely ignored. --Ligulem 23:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pages are listed in chronological order and added and removed by the bot based on the protection log. The oldest pages, listed at the top, are checked regularly and unprotected if appropriate. Indefinitely protected pages, such as maintenance templates, are listed at Wikipedia:List of indefinitely protected pages. Long-term semi-protected pages were before listed here, but have now been moved to Wikipedia:List of protected pages/Long-term protection. —Centrx→talk • 00:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Save the pandas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.128.72.86 (talk) 00:15, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bug 2171: Adding a special page for protected pages

I asked on wikitech-l about having a special page for this here and was directed to bugzilla:2171. Rotem Liss submitted a patch today (jay!). See his posting on bugzilla:2171. --Ligulem 18:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Automated listing

So there's now a bot that automatically lists and de-lists entries? We don't need to manually edit the list anymore? That's great! -Will Beback · † · 23:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple listing

Someone listed Image:Portal.svg twice, for the same reason, at the same time, with one entry seperating them. 68.39.174.238 19:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, it's some bot that gets stuck in a loop, evidently. 68.39.174.238 19:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Split

Is there any way that this page could be split up to make it easier to watch list/load? I'd like to help clear the backlog, but firefox crashes every time I open it. savid @n 18:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Green Day is the best band to ever exist.

I'm not involved in an edit war that has shut down edits on the September 11, 2001 attacks page and just want to add more information about the news in Germany of a convicted co-conspirator, but the page has been locked for weeks. Why can't I just put the Protection Log on my watchlist so I can be notified of when its status has changed?--Wowaconia 17:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just watch the page itself because Admins are in there cleaning up things unrelated to the edit war.--Wowaconia 17:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You definitely can. The protection status of a page does not have anything to do with the ability to watch a page; they're completely separate features in the software. Besides, if the page is unprotected, the admin will usually remove the protection template from the page, and that will appear on your watchlist. Titoxd^(?!?) 18:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not calling on the ability to watch the Page that is being blocked from editing, I'm calling on the ability to watch the page that logs its protection status. If you just watch the page that is protected you only get the last edit on your watchlist and have no idea if this means someone unlocked the page and a bunch of regular editors began working on it or if its still locked and an admin used their powers to get in there and clean up something unrelated to the edit war, so you have to go to the page everyday and see if its unlocked or not. This just adds to your annoyance that the edit war that your not involved in is still ongoing and you can't do anything about it. The September 11, 2001 attacks has been locked down since Dec. 26, 2006 it would be far less frustrating if you could put http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=protect&page=September_11%2C_2001_attacks on your watchlist. Is there a way to do this and if not why?--Wowaconia 05:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not possible due to the way changes in the protection status are stored in the database architecture of the software. When a page is edited, it generates a row in the Recentchanges table which stores the page's namespace and title, as well as other information about who edited what. When a page is protected, it generates a row in the Logging table, so the mechanism is not the same. An entry reflecting the protection is added to the recentchanges table, but it points to Special:Log, not the page itself. The way watchlists work is that they read information from the recentchanges table by selecting those rows that match the names of pages in your watchlist; the name of Special:Log is not the same as that of September 11, 2001 attacks, so those revisions are not picked up. If you theoretically could add Special:Log to your watchlist, what would end up happening is that you would see all log actions, including deletions, page moves, image uploads, etc., as they are stored the same way. That is something you probably don't want, so it isn't allowed. Besides, every single page in the Special namespace can be considered a small program by itself; in the vast majority of the cases, ?action=watch is a meaningless parameter for the page, as it is not recognized by the underlying Special: page. Titoxd^(?!?) 06:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Logs will show in watchlists in the near future. Voice-of-All 00:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's all vandalism

Pinothyj 07:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)…[reply]

That prior to it being protected the overwhelming majority, perhaps not all, of IP edits were reverted vandalism. —Centrx→talk • 23:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing instructions

The instructions for protecting pages say to list the page here, and they also say that a bot will list the page. Which is it? The instructions are confusing. -- Samuel Wantman 06:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bot will automatically list the page, but it sometimes misses or mishandles them. If you manually list a page here, it will work fine--the bot will not duplicate it--but of course that requires more work on your part. This is much less of an issue now with expiring protections and if Special:Protectedpages is fixed to work properly. —Centrx→talk • 02:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing instructions when you don't understand what to do clearly. This can lead to doing things that you weren't suppose to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:2:9A20:E94F:FB2B:AA80:64FF (talk) 22:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cleared out

I've cleared out this page. In the future, it will scrap from protectedpages (using the new sort options), and simply add the log comments. No templates should be used, like "li" or "article". Voice-of-All 06:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protected Pages update

Special:Protectedpages has been updated, and now include many options for sorting and filtering the list, admins may be able to use this to help resolved improper or forgotten protections now. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I may reactivate this page just to list out the log comments. Voice-of-All 17:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, I'm a bit confused now. Is this page going to be used in the future? If not, I think it should be named "Lists of protected pages". I just trimmed it down with that in mind, but if I am wrong, then please revert. --Iamunknown 22:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Best to leave it as is now until it is settled; it may very well be used, such as in the manner of User:Zorglbot/Shortpages. —Centrx→talk • 00:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Log comments/age

I've added a script to add quick reason, age, and unprotect links to special:protectedpages here[2]. Voice-of-All 02:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check Yo Self

This page is fully protected and has been for a very long time. I do not see why it should continue to be so. May I please have the protection removed or reduced to Semi? Please tell me if I should bark up a different tree. Chubbles 06:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was fixed. Chubbles 09:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

Why does WP:PP redirect here? I think anyone who enters that is likely looking for Wikipedia:Protection policy. In fact, this page doesn't even have the initials of "PP"! At best, I think WP:LPP would be an appropriate redirect for this project. Thanks, Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 00:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed the last post in this talk page is more than a year old... Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 00:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

list of protected talk pages

where can I find that?173.183.79.81 (talk) 22:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here -- œ ^™ 13:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some way to compare protected talkpages with unprotected article pages to better understand whether the alleged reason for protection is accurate? 126.243.109.174 (talk) 09:59, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown users etc?

The automatic list of protected pages contains numerous entries with timestamp and user marked "unknown" and they have also no reason or expiration date. What are these and why do they show up like that? 85.76.40.94 (talk) 21:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Known issue from phab:T68777. You can still view the manual log by searching for each page in the protection log. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Protected page" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Protected page. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 23#Protected page until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Aasim (talk) 06:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]