Wiki143 talk:Protection policy

Indefinite semi-protection

I was wondering, is it in the 'spirit' of wikis? I mean, as generally, it says it should be applied to articles that "are subject to heavy and persistent vandalism", which is the norm with frequent targets, with increasing frequency if persisting, but some articles have been semi-protected for decades, even... so, technically, one can't even find out if they'd still be subject to such persistence, and even notable biographies in 2010 might not be as much in 2025 (and if they are they could always be re-protected)... I'm just wondering if this is sensible, generally, as there are quite a few with such long-term protections... ~Lofty abyss 16:47, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

At one point last year I went through and unprotected a few thousand pages that had indefinite salting, mainly because the titles were either super-long (generally created by LTAs) or so highly-specific to an event or name from a decade+ ago that it made little sense to continue the protection. There are certainly live articles that should probably keep their semi, but I do agree that — provided an admin or interested editor will keep tabs on it — some of the indef semiprots on some of these pages from a decade ago can probably be dropped. It might be worth making a list of pages you think could have their protections dropped, if only to get eyes and to have a record of which ones were done (if they get unprotected). Primefac (talk) 12:58, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Outside of sanctioned topic areas, most indefinitely protected pages had a long-term pattern of disruption, usually years long, before they were indefinitely protected (and, well, that's basically the policy).

Anyhow, it's a worthwhile exercise to review possible unprotections and go through the unprotection process (which is mostly "go through the protecting administrator if they're still an active administrator") for indefinite protections that seem unlikely to be necessary. We actually have a fair number of users that do that already.

One issue I've seen is that pages will sometimes be unprotected because the protection seems to be unnecessary, but then significant disruptive editing resumes and nobody notices that the protection should be restored for months or even years. For that reason, it doesn't hurt to review unprotections periodically too. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:33, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Redirection links (shortcut links)

Fix the redirect links that lead you to a redirect page to instead be the redirected page (not the redirection page)? Alimsts (talk) 13:56, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

shortcut links i mean Alimsts (talk) 13:56, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Template:Ping Are you commenting about the protection policy? If yes, which links are an issue? Daniel Quinlan (talk) 01:38, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Why are the links in shortcut boxes leading to redirect pages but the redirect shows a link instead of actually taking you there? Alimsts (talk) 09:58, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Hold on I get it they loop round Alimsts (talk) 09:58, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

When the link in the box takes you to the redirect page, this is an intentional feature of Template:Shortcut, and is nothing to do with the protection policy. Changes to that template should be suggested at its talk page, because this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia:Protection policy page.

The behaviour of the redirect page itself is coded into the MediaWiki software at a fairly fundamental level; and not only is that also out of scope for this page, it is nothing that we can alter anywhere within Wikipedia. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:36, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

👍 Alimsts (talk) 07:53, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

RFC on extended confirmed

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Extended confirmed definition. It is a proposal to change WP:XC from 500 edits + 30 days to 500 edits + 90 days. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:17, 25 May 2025 (UTC)