Template talk:Pp-move-indef

Image

So is there a template that provides an icon indicating the move protection, since this doesn't anymore? All of the other page-protection templates mark it as such with an image. -Drilnoth (talk) 02:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Use

Is it the overall intention that this template should be placed on all move-protected articles? I notice that this template, when placed at the top of an article, creates a whitespace in the article. If the consensus is that the template should be placed on all move-protected pages, is there a way to alter it to get rid of the whitespace? Or can it be placed at the bottom with the cats? -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 15:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Remove unnecessary linebreaks and the problems should go away. For example, change

{{pp-move-indef}}
{{infobox example
|…
|…

to

{{pp-move-indef}}{{infobox example
|…
|…

and the whitespace should go away. It could be placed at the bottom with the categories, but that can be annoying if it needs to be changed. This template should be used on all indefinitely move-protected pages. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 16:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

That explains it. All this time, I've been putting it on its own line and that's the problem. Is there a guideline that says it should be put on all indef move-protected pages? Just in the event that someone tells me I'm a dope for adding it. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 16:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think it's formally required under any guideline or policy (perhaps this should be changed :/ ), but in practice one should use them. Certainly I've done a fair amount of work making sure pages use the correct protection templates… see Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 16:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Fix the unnecessary linebreaks added by this template

{{editprotected}} To remove the unnecessary whitespace created by this template in articles, replace it with the version that I have worked on in the sandbox. Gary King (talk) 04:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Done, thanks.  Skomorokh  04:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, it looks like categories will add a newline regardless if all surrounding space is removed, since adding categories to an article does not actually output anything, so technically it creates an empty newline. So my change to this template didn't change anything. Gary King (talk) 04:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Padlock image

Is there a reason that this template doesn't show the image of the padlock that all the other move-protection templates do? --TorriTorri(^talk/_contribs) 04:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Presumably you should talk to Cenarium, who made that change in this edit. I'd prefer that it be explicit, but IIRC the concern was that people mistake move-protection padlocks for edit-protection padlocks—confusing people is far more problematic than not advertising move-protection on pages which rarely need moving. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 06:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I think another problem is that if both move and edit protection are enabled, then there are two padlocks, and presumably there are layout issues with having two that just aren't worth resolving. Gary King (talk · scripts) 04:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hello. I'm Dipankan. I have spotted a vandalism in the template at the bottom - it's written "kkkk". Can anybody remove it please? Dipankan ^{In the woods?} 15:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I've done so. You could have, too, anything inside the green frame is transcluded from the template documentation subpage template:pp-move-indef/doc, which can conveniently be accessed with the edit link in the documentation header.
Cheers, Amalthea 17:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

title.protectionLevels

Moved from Module talk:Pp-move-indef

 – * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:41, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@Mr. Stradivarius: What's the purpose of Special:Diff/626023280? title.protectionLevels is always truthy. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

@Jackmcbarn: I had guessed the wrong cause for the error message. When this was being called from #invoke, Scribunto was passing a frame object into the title parameter, meaning that mw.title.getCurrentTitle never got called. I've fixed this in the latest version. Although, we probably should check for the presence of protectionLevels in case this module gets used on wikis using old versions of Scribunto. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 01:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

@Mr. Stradivarius: Even 1.23 has that, and I don't think it's worth trying to make our modules work on non-WMF wikis. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you're probably right. I thought that if one check added to the module could help prevent admins from non-WMF wikis from coming here and complaining about script errors then it might be worth it. But the proper way to fix it is for them to upgrade to the latest version of MediaWiki, of course. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit request

Please add a protection banner so that the move protection is more notable. –User456541 14:04, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. There was recently a fairly prominent discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 155 about altering the style of the padlocks. I don't recall anybody having an issue with how notable it was. Cabayi (talk) 14:15, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

@Cabayi: objective is listed above, that's the consensus. Request reactivated. –User456541 14:32, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I didn't ask about your objective. I asked you to obtain consensus. Cabayi (talk) 14:35, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

This is meant not to have a visible padlock and you'd need a consensus to change that. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:42, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Adjusting this for non-indef moves

Hey Mr. Stradivarius, in line with this TfD and this convo I'm looking to turn {{pp-move}} into a category only. Maybe this module can deal with implementing that template instead (doing either indef categorisation for indef cats, or non-indef for temp protection)? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:22, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: Probably the way to do this would be to merge both the templates into Module:Protection banner, and add a category-only output option to it. Then we can avoid duplicating the category names/logic across different modules. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Hide the "nominated for deletion" template?

@ProcrastinatingReader: - I'm not sure that a "The template below is being considered for deletion" label on an invisible template is that helpful?

The notice currently appears at the top of several thousand pages; I'd suggest that a vanishingly small proportion of the people who see the notice will understand it, or what "the template below" (which is not below - it's invisible) refers to, or have an opinion on its deletion?

Could this be made <noinclude> ? TSP (talk) 14:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you, and no objection from me. I'm sceptical on the value of these in general, but since a VPR consensus was that this kind of advertisement is how the TfD process works, I'm reluctant to remove it myself. I opened a template-protected edit request for someone else to review. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:21, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done To my reading of the discussion and close, the consensus at VPR was that TfD notices should in general be visible for non-autoconfirmed users, not that TfD notices must always be visible under any circumstances. I agree that having a notice attached to an invisible template isn't particularly useful, and may well be confusing (e.g. if it appears above a different template). Any TPE/admin that disagrees with me can revert this without discussion. firefly ( t · c ) 15:48, 16 July 2021 (UTC)