Content deleted Content added
→Implementation: reply |
Technical 13 (talk | contribs) →Implementation: re |
||
Line 56:
::For 1, subst is indeed necessary to save the original protection level, so it needs further thought. 2 and 3 should both work okay the way you want them (though perhaps 3 being complicated will be necessary for 1). [[User:Jackmcbarn|Jackmcbarn]] ([[User talk:Jackmcbarn|talk]]) 03:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
:::I don't really like the idea of forcing users to subst the template, so in that case I think we should just keep things simple and let the template update along with the protection level. If it has too much of an adverse effect on patrolling editors' workflow we can rethink things, but I'm guessing that problems will only surface occasionally. And it will probably be a better situation than we are in now, where I find myself having to change {{tl|edit protected}} to {{tl|edit template-protected}} every other day or so. — '''''[[User:Mr. Stradivarius|<span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius</span>]]''''' <sup>[[User talk:Mr. Stradivarius|♪ talk ♪]]</sup> 05:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
* I really don't care how the template appears visually to users as long as it is placed in the correct edit request category so that {{User|AnomieBOT}} can place the listing on the correct table to be answered. It can "appear" exactly however the user that placed it, placed it as. This would also make the rest of the scenarios fairly moot. A) Display template as posted on page B) If ans(wered)?=no? then place talk page in correct protected edit request based on actual protection level C) if said level changes, just change the category. [[User:Technical 13|Technical 13]] ([[User talk:Technical 13|talk]]) 05:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
| |||