MediaWiki talk:Unprotect

This is so true

When I got promoted to a sysop, I went off to the Administrator's noticeboard to add it to my watchlist. Then I discovered something: the page was protected! It was baffling! So I click the "unprotect", and I realize it was protected against page moves. Whether or not this qualifies as protection is dubious, but I think we could have a better message.

Therefore, I suggest we change the MediaWiki:Unprotect system message from "Unprotect" to "Change protection", as a resulting action from the tab can increase the protection level (from semiprotection to full protection, for example). If there are no objections, I will be bold and do it. — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 01:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest simply "protection". As a noun, this doesn't suggest any particular action, and it's much briefer in a place where every character counts. Deco 04:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that some people (or maybe just I) use those tabs to ascertain the protection status of an article. If it says "protect", I know the article is not protected. If it says "unprotect", I know it has some sort of protection applied. "Change protection" is too long; "protection"'s length is fine but I don't feel "protect"/"protection" is as informative as "protect"/"unprotect". Given these options, I prefer the status quo. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... but unprotect is just so darn misleading. I'll try to think of a short alternative... but it's difficult. — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 22:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about Protected vs Protect? If it looks too similar, you can try Unprotected vs Protected. — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 22:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine with me, if it's what you want. If you do decide to change protect to unprotected and unprotect to protected, you should definitely publicize the change, since it is likely to create a good deal of confusion otherwise. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where would the best place to publicize it be? — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 02:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, here is already the best place to publicize it on En - but also add links to this discussion on the talk pages for the two Mediawiki templates, and also send a mail out on the En mailing list.[1] Other good pages are Wikipedia talk:Protection policy and Wikipedia talk:Administrators. Deco 02:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the change will be going live soon. — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 19:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I have with this change is that "protected" and "unprotected" aren't commands. You don't "protected" a page, you "protect" it, just as you "edit", "delete", "move", and "watch" a page (the other action tabs). The new version is very confusing... what does "protected" mean? Does that mean that it's currently protected, and that I should click that to stop that, or vice versa? In addition, the action at the URL is &action=protect or &action=unprotect, not &action=protected. Thus, I'm going to be bold and revert to the stable version while we discuss this even more. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you have a point...I am with you on this :).Voice of All^T|@|ESP 01:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my idea on the point: it's a verb, true, but clicking the link doesn't do anything. You don't click protect and the page magically becomes protected: you click protect, select the new protection, enter a reason, and then protect the page. Same applies for move and delete. Verb implies that there is an action, when in reality, there isn't. It's inconsistent too: watch is a verb and it DOES do something. So, when I first got all these extra tabs, I was afraid to click them, but would something happen? No! Ah well. I'm not going to revert war about it, it's more a problem with the software. — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 01:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ambush here. protection would be better; what would be best is for the protection status to be visible somewhere else, and leave the button at "protect" (as a shorthand for "alter protection status") all the time. Maybe the protection status could be encoded in some subtle way in the protect button - i.e. "protect --" for nothing "protect ss" for semi-protection; and "protect -p" for move protection, and "protect pp" for move and page protection(i.e. -=nothing, s=semi-protection, p=protected, and the two letters are for page and move protection status, respectively)? JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The biggest problem is that semied articles still say "protect".Voice of All^T|@|ESP 21:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was fixed, I thought... See George W. Bush. — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 23:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, what on earth is the problem with them both saying exactly what the button deals with? "Protection"? All this grammar business is a little teensy bit silly to me. -Splash^talk 00:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, after being an admin for a while you don't notice, but I noticed immediately that it said "unprotect" for pagemove protected pages. It really isn't a matter with the button (except for correctness: unprotect doesn't always lead to unprotection), but with the system. — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 01:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rohit sharma page to be unprotected[edit]

Let's unprotect Rohit Sharma's page as there is useful information to be added. WORDSLAYERCHAMP123 (talk) 15:38, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]