Content deleted Content added
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) from Module talk:WikiProject banner) (bot |
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) from Module talk:WikiProject banner) (bot |
||
Line 310:
::Wow, that looks like a cool solution for now. It's way above my pay grade. Thanks [[User:Ww2censor|ww2censor]] ([[User talk:Ww2censor|talk]]) 21:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
:The correct way to do this is to create a custom class mask at [[Template:WikiProject Ireland/class]] which can implement whatever logic the project decides is best. But I do have to question the wisdom of deviating from the standard practice, as it may confuse editors. Are you quite sure that you will never want to indicate that a draft article is of high importance to the project? — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 21:08, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
== Module:WikiProject banner protection ==
I have applied full protection over at [[Module:WikiProject banner]] even though there is a [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Archive/2023/06|declined RFPP]]. This is mostly to match protection level with {{tl|WPBannerMeta}} which uses this module meaning that it is at least as high risk as that page. If someone believes we should allow template editors to edit ''both'' these pages I won't object, but do disagree. This module is currently one of the 20 most used templates and if it isn't deemed high risk enough for full protection I believe it's time to have a serious discussion about ending the use of full protection for [[WP:HRT|HRT]]. Pinging RFPP participants {{ping|Pppery|EdJohnston|ClydeFranklin|Courcelles}}. --[[User:Trialpears|Trialpears]] ([[User talk:Trialpears|talk]]) 18:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
:I honestly thought full protection for high risk templates was essentially depreciated? [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] ([[User talk:Courcelles|talk]]) 18:27, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
::Has there been a problem with template editors incorrectly editing the module? If not, it should probably be at template-editor protection. One of the requirements, stated or not, for being granted the TE right is knowing when you are in over your head and should not edit. I have been editing templates for many years and have many thousands of edits, but I would certainly think long and hard before making anything other than a trivial edit to that module. In my experience, my fellow template editors behave in the same way. (Edited to add: I don't care about full protection on the Template, since all it does is call the module.) – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 18:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
:: It's long been the case that some of the highest-risk templates on the project are fully-protected, although the standard for that is a bit fuzzy. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 18:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
: I have also full-protected [[Module:WikiProject banner/styles.css]] and [[Module:WikiProject banner/config]], since they are used by every call of the base module so clearly should have the same protection level as it. I have not full-protected [[Module:WikiProject banner/auxiliary]], which is only used by about half of all calls, but IMO it also should be full-protected, especially since its equivalents in the pre-Lua system ([[Template:WPBannerMeta/hooks/bchecklist]] and [[Template:WPBannerMeta/hooks/todolist]]) were fully-protected. {{pb}} I think full protection is correct here - there are enough admins watching this page that any edits to it should get handled rapidly and it makes sense that the level of trust required to edit this page is significantly greater than the level required to edit templates with a mere 5,000 calls. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 18:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
::The reason that those templates were fully protected rather than template protected is simply that in most cases they pre-date the arrival of template protection and no one has bothered to lower the protection. Therefore it should not be used as a rationale for increasing the protection. — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 18:57, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
:I guess I should articulate why I think full protection is preferable over template protection for our most high risk pages. It's not at all about me not trusting that template editors are competent. It's just that doing imperfect edits to pages with millions of transclusions can do so much damage that this small burden is warrented even though the probability is small. Even if you have good testcases and miss something affecting just 0.1% of transclusions you would have issues over thousands of pages and the fix may take weeks to propagate out. Ideally I believe all significant changes to templates with over say a million transclusions should get a second opinion if feasible and with full protection we come a long way towards that. Speaking from experience I did some edits with minor bugs to {{tl|Short description}} in my early days as a template editors and if a second person had checked it we could probably have avoided a significant amount of confusion over the next week. If we regularly get something productive like that from these protections I believe they are well worth it.
:Also I'm sorry that this wasn't the best way to start the conversation. I should probably just have just sent a ping and not changed the protection level. --[[User:Trialpears|Trialpears]] ([[User talk:Trialpears|talk]]) 19:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
::Getting other editors to double-check code is certainly good practice, but there is no reason why that person needs to be an admin. Indeed the number of Lua-competent admins is quite low and using full protection is likely to make maintaining modules harder. — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 19:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
::: Complaining about the number of Lua-competent admins in a discussion in which three Lua-competent admins (myself, you, Trialpears) have participated is really not convincing. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 21:09, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
:I personally think that given the circumstances here Template-protection is enough for now, mostly because DFlhb who is a template editor (but not admin) has made (had to make) a number of constructive edits to the base module and its sub-modules recently, none of which seem to have triggered an undesirable result. Since the work is still in progress, it could've been at TPE, and when it all gets settled down, it may have been upgraded to full protection. <span class="nowrap">—'''[[User:CX Zoom|CX Zoom]]'''[he/him]</span> <sup class="nowrap">([[User talk:CX Zoom|let's talk]] • {[[Special:Contributions/CX Zoom|C]]•[[User:CX Zoom/X|X]]})</sup> 21:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
::Though I am the admin who [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Increase&diff=prev&oldid=1161639443 declined full protection originally] I no longer object if people who know about the template consider the protection necessary. Any admin who does apply the full protection should probably have a suitable rationale to offer, since at RFPP people often want similar files protected similarly. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 02:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
:I don't see this extra protection as necessary and it will probably hamper future development of the module — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 16:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
:I have reinstated template protection on these modules, mainly for the following reasons:
:* The guideline [[Wikipedia:High-risk templates]] does not stipulate that full protection is preferred over template protection even for very widely used templates.
:* The reason that [[Template:WPBannerMeta]] and some of its subtemplates are fully protected is most likely because they predate template protection, rather than any deliberate decision.
:* The module is actively being developed, including by one editor who is not an admin.
:* The discussion above and the declined RFPP does not show consensus that the increased protection is warranted.
:— Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 21:05, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
:: You also need to reduce the protection of [[Module:WikiProject banner/styles.css]], and remove the template from [[Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items/content]] to achieve a consistent state. But I find this conclusion disappointing as there have been zero edit requests in the time since this discussion started, indicating that the harms you and others claimed would happen above have not borne out. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 21:09, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
::: Done both of those things myself, given the lack of response here. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 14:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
:Full protection seems a bit much. Template-editor protection is probably sufficient. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 16:45, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
| |||