Wikipedia talk:Protection policy

This page is not for proposing or discussing edits to protected pages.

To request or propose a change to a page that you are not able to edit, place a message on its talk page. If the page is fully protected, you may attract the attention of an admin to make the change by placing the {{edit fully-protected}} template above your request. Requests placed here will probably be removed or ignored.

If the page in question and its talk page are both protected please make your edit request at Wikipedia:Request for edit.
To request that a page be protected or unprotected, see Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.
To suggest that a move-protected page be renamed, see Wikipedia:Requested moves.
To request that a deleted page protected against re-creation be re-created or restored, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.
For information about protecting the main page featured article or other featured content, see Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Protection policy page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Shortcuts

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18: 2 months

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.

This page is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Protection of template redirects

Is it a common practice to apply same protection level of a template to its redirects, regardless of their transclusion count? For context, I was asking User:Primefac here to unprotect Template:Film name, which has only 13 transclusions. They denied because its target Template:Infobox name module is template editor protected and due to perceived risk of vandalism. I have since looked and found more low use template redirects with template editor protection. As per first paragraph of the subject page, Wikipedia aims to keep as many pages open to as many editors as possible. So is it justified to protect low use template redirects because their high use target template is protected? Srf123 (talk) 17:04, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actions at Wikipedia should assist the encyclopedia. While open editing is good, Wikipedia is not an exercise in liberty. Once a redirect to a protected template has existed for a significant period, some people will be used to how it works and what it is supposed to do. Unprotecting the redirect in the hope that a passing IP might improve it would not be productive. Johnuniq (talk) 02:16, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, do they actually need Template editor protection though? Semi protection would filter out most vandals. Being low use suggests very few people are used to it. It isn't a High-risk template that Template editor protection is meant to be used for. Srf123 (talk) 04:28, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adding text about WP:CT/AI mandatory preemptive extended confirmed protection

Per remedy 1 of Palestine-Israeli articles arbitration case no. 5, articles that is stricly within WP:CT/AI topic, broadly construed, shall be ECP'ed preemptively without prior disruption.

I propose adding the following text to Preemptive protection section:

Stylez995 (talk) 17:48, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer a more general and flexible addition as follows: Pages in topic areas with Arbitration Committee remedies specifying protection by default should be protected as specified, without requiring prior disruption. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:25, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]