Content deleted Content added
Jackmcbarn (talk | contribs) →Implementation: re |
|||
Line 59:
:::::{{ping|Mr. Stradivarius}} ^. [[User:Jackmcbarn|Jackmcbarn]] ([[User talk:Jackmcbarn|talk]]) 02:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
::::::Hmm, I suppose you're right. If we get AnomieBOT to subst it, it wouldn't be so bad. However, if we're going to place it in the category according to its actual protection level, as Technical 13 suggests below, I think we should make it look like it's a request for that level too. Technical 13 may not care so much about the aesthetics of the template, but I do. :) So, after further consideration, I think the best way to do it would be not to subst, and to have the protection level updated automatically. That's just my preference, though. What option would you like the best, by the way? I'd like to hear your opinion too. :) — '''''[[User:Mr. Stradivarius|<span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius</span>]]''''' <sup>[[User talk:Mr. Stradivarius|♪ talk ♪]]</sup> 03:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
:::::::{{ping|Mr. Stradivarius}} The biggest problem I have with that is that it would make it difficult to tell at a glance when {{tlsp|EP|nlp}} is called for. Here's my thoughts: Answered templates are easy. I agree that a generic one is the way to go. For the other cases, the template should be subst'd when it's first placed (the way the PROD template works) so that it can store the original protection level. For open requests, here's my thoughts (template used along left, actual protection level at time of opening along top, categories in cells):
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!
! Unprotected
! Semi-protected
! Template-protected
! Fully protected
|-
| {{tl|edit semi-protected}}
| Semi + warning
| Semi
| Template
| Full
|-
| {{tl|edit template-protected}}
| Template + warning
| Semi
| Template
| Full
|-
| {{tl|edit protected}}
| Full + warning
| Semi
| Template
| Full
|}
:::::::Requests should be categorized under the protection level they had at the time the request was opened, and a warning should appear (both in the request box and via a category) if the protection level changed since it was opened, to allow for {{tlsp|ESp|nlp}} to be carried out easily. If an edit request is opened for a page that's not protected at all, file it under the category that goes with the request template they used (under the assumption that they got the protection level right but the page wrong). [[User:Jackmcbarn|Jackmcbarn]] ([[User talk:Jackmcbarn|talk]]) 04:14, 3 February 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)
*: In that case, if a user places {{tl|edit protected}} on a semi-protected page's talk, would you want it to show up on the page as a fully protected edit request? [[User:Jackmcbarn|Jackmcbarn]] ([[User talk:Jackmcbarn|talk]]) 13:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
| |||