UDWiki:Administration/Protections

Template:A/PTsub

Shortcut:
A/PT

This page is for the request of page protection within the Urban Dead wiki. Due to philosophical concerns, the ability to protect pages is restricted to system operators. As such, regular users will need to request a protection from the system operators. For consistency and accountability, system operators also adhere to the guidelines listed here.

Guidelines for Protection Requests

All Protection Requests must contain the following information in order to be considered:

• A link to the page in question. Preferably bolded for visibility.
• A reason for protection. This should be short and to the point.
• A signed datestamp. This can be easily done by adding ~~~~ to the end of your request.

Any protection request that does not contain these three pieces of information will not be considered, and will be removed by a system operator.

Once the protection request has been entered, the request shall remain on this page, where it will be reviewed by a member of the Sysop team, and action taken accordingly. Once action has been taken, the system operator will add a comment including a signed datestamp detailing his course of action, and the request will be moved into the Recent Actions queue, where it will remain for one week. After that week is up, it may be moved to the archive (see navigation box below). If the Protection has been granted, the system operator should place the tag {{protect}} on the page(s) that have been protected.

In the event of a system operator requesting a Protection, all the previous points will apply, excepting that a system operator other than the requestor shall review and take action on the request.

Pages in the Protection Queue may already be scheduled protections. For a list of scheduled protections, see here.

Protection Queue

Place pages requiring protection here.

Requested Edits

Place pages requiring editing here.

Recent Actions

Main Page

So back in July there was a discussion which started at Template talk:UDThisMonth and later moved to Talk:Main Page#Main Page Organization Discussion. The idea was to swap the Navigation and Community Portal templates so that the Game Information boxes, which are more relevant to new players, would appear above the community portal (FA, community projects, and ThisMonth). But I just realized that the change never happened. Should I reopen discussion or can the swap be done? Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 03:56, 2 October 2012 (BST)

I'll wait for another sysop since there were only a few people in the discussion and I was one of them, so I don't want to just shove my own opinion through, since I am in favor of swapping them. —Aichon— 07:59, 2 October 2012 (BST)

Sound good to me. *rubber-stamps* ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 08:26, 2 October 2012 (BST)

Ew, any chance someone who wants this to happen could fix the design of the navigation templates so it looks okay? The designer in me is crying out of fear that putting the small boxes hanging from the top-down with a big box below will look ugly as hell. A ZOMBIE ANT 02:47, 3 October 2012 (BST)

I've done this and I've spread out the nav boxes to try and make it more visually appealing, but it's still not perfect. Short of making all the boxes the same size (meaning removing links), I don't see an easy solution. If anybody does, feel free to make it look nicer.--Shortround }.{ My Contributions 12:18, 5 October 2012 (BST)

It stretches the main page (forces side scrolling) on small screens (like mobiles). Might need to adjust the widdth on the individual boxes. ~ _{15:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)}

Fixed the issue with it stretching the page by redesigning it, but it still looks a bit ugly, as was mentioned, with it being so skinny and above something so wide. —Aichon— 17:12, 5 October 2012 (BST)

Also, this. At least it looks balanced with something like that, though it looks weird for other reasons then. Maybe it's time for a main page overhaul anyway? —Aichon— 17:12, 5 October 2012 (BST)

Still forces side scrolling on my phone. Truthfully it may have been that way all along and I just never noticed. I see that the 4 smaller tables' combined width is just over 800px so should be fine on most all screen resolutions. I suppose you could change the width of the small tables to "25%" rather than defining a specific width. Probably a non-issue for most. It looks a lot better than it did this morning. ~ _{17:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)}

Yeah, it's been that way all along. I gave it the exact same width it had before Shortround's changes. It kinda looks like crap if you try to do 25% and have a larger resolution, since it fills it with a lot of awkward whitespace, and at smaller resolutions it can force line wraps, which makes the tables all jagged along the bottom as well. Also, if we do 25%, I don't think we'll be able to line up the stuff in the top table with the things underneath very easily, so that'll look silly too. All I really did was mostly fix the issue with the jagged bottom that we've always had. —Aichon— 20:50, 5 October 2012 (BST)

You could try shrinking the Game Information to take two columns instead of four. See what that looks like, although it might just push things down not so nicely. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:22, 6 October 2012 (BST)

I think that'd end up pushing things down more, which is exactly the problem it has right now. I fixed the problem of it having a jagged edge, but I did so by adding height to it. We can fix the height problem by either stretching it wide or giving it a jagged edge, both of which have issues as well. A fresh design might be in order, because all of our options at the moment come with trade offs, but I don't have time to do one at the moment, since I'm gone for the next week. —Aichon— 08:18, 6 October 2012 (BST)

Well, good luck with that. Last time around I was pretty much only able to change the colours, add the CP box, and fix up the top UD header box thing. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 15:12, 7 October 2012 (BST)

Ugh.... Looks much worse than originally. Like is this that important anyway? I mean I think we're being a bit pedantic when we're changing things for (what I think is visually) the worse just so it helps a newbie find information easier, by two scrolls of the mouse. A ZOMBIE ANT 02:52, 6 October 2012 (BST)

I think we're getting our priorities straight rather than being pedantic. It doesn't look that much worse, and it makes the information much more obvious since it would be "above the fold" on many common screen resolutions. Again though, a new design might be able to fix everything. Maybe toss some ideas around or sandbox something? It certainly beats choosing the lesser of two evils with our current options. —Aichon— 08:18, 6 October 2012 (BST)

I personally disagree, the previous one looked adequate, this looks ugly. So to me that is a fair bit worse. And yes a redesign would suit well, but I'm not going to beat around the bush. I couldn't help with that on a technical point even if I tried so I wouldn't be able to throw around ideas. As for priorities, again, all someone had to do is press the down button on their keyboard twice to get there. It was never that bad. A ZOMBIE ANT 03:49, 7 October 2012 (BST)

I'll have something you all can check out in a day or so. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 16:31, 7 October 2012 (BST)

User:Karek/ProjDev/PD18MP01PT01--Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 12:55, 8 October 2012 (BST)

I haven't been involved in this but I saw this page in RC and had to say it looks nice! --Klexur 13:39, 8 October 2012 (BST)

Why the color change to most recent change box? White looked so much better. Also, could you explain why Community Projects was removed? ~ _{16:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)}

At the time I changed it it didn't work with the page. It's white now. Also yes, I removed stuff that's better placed in the toolbox, we don't need redundancy in links that are already potentially on the page and work better there. For most all of the large removals they're diff notes on the respective template clones in the projdev pages.--Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 21:00, 8 October 2012 (BST)

Also see this. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 21:49, 8 October 2012 (BST)

You plan on putting this in the sidebar? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:11, 8 October 2012 (BST)

Yeah I'm not really seeing any redundancy by including Community Projects on Main. It isn't even within one click of any of the linked pages. I think I understand that you wanted to save space but of all the things you could have removed, Community Projects seems a little like overkill. Maybe that box can be split into thirds with Community Projects and UD this month in the smaller, upper two-thirds and Featured Articles in the larger, bottom one third. ~ _{01:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)}

I'm proposing a redesign of the whole core navigation structure not just the main page. That includes making Community Projects where it actually should be and makes the most sense, Community Portal. Community Portal, as noted in the sidebar diff, will be in the primary sidebar navigation box which is being split into navigation core and Administration quick access and then re-flowed to give a more common sense and less cluttered navigation experience. Community Portal should be the core location for Community related group sourced pages like Open Discussion, Policy Discussion, Community News, etc. Community Portal just hasn't been updated yet, I did just post a request for some suggestions for it's new content though.--Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 01:42, 9 October 2012 (BST)

Any chance we can have consistent width on the three main templates. The links templates just look so small. --Ross Less Ness ^{Enter Stranger...} 17:13, 8 October 2012 (BST)

The current flow of the Community section causes problems with it, specifically the Featured Articles section because it was made with tables instead of flowing divs so the text gets squished instead of flowing around the image. It's on my list of things to fix. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 03:42, 9 October 2012 (BST)

User:Spiderzed/Alts/Sally/Kills200

One of my personal userspace archives that will never ever need any further editing. Hence protected by myself as judge, jury and executioner in one person. Roll in the Misconduct! -- Spiderzed█ 15:24, 4 October 2012 (BST)

You made me check this page for no good reason! Misconbitration! ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 15:53, 4 October 2012 (BST)
P.S. As a generally-established rule of thumb, sysops are allowed to futz around with admin tools on their personal pages to their hearts' content. A minor perk of the job. ;)

Archives

e Protections Archive

2005 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2006 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2008 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2009 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2010 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2011 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2012 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Q3 Q4 2013 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Years 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019