UDWiki:Administration/Protections/Scheduling/Archive

This page contains all previous requests for Protection Scheduling.

Historical Groups Protection amendment

Current Guideline: "Groups that are listed in Category:Historical Groups, and their talk pages."

Proposal: Remove "talk pages" from the scheduled protection.

I don't see much reason for talk pages of historical groups to also be protected. In many instances we are just protecting a page that has no recent content on it (the 'historical' content has already been archived, such as with recent additions MCM) and it also takes away the opportunity for members of the community to actually leave messages to the group, perhaps with memories, or any kind of communication request that still may be valid despite the group being historical.

It also makes it impossible for non-sysops to do any janitorial notifications or ark work (eg. my post on MCM's current talk page).

I don't see the reasons for protection outweighing the benefits of unprotecting group talk pages. Please let me know what your thoughts are, or vote accordingly.

For

1. A quick note too: The other scheduled protection for Historical Group's sister category, Historical Events, was specifically designed in 2009 to not include protection on the talk page. No issue has come of that choice in the past 10 years so I'd be surprised if issues arise with this. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 03:08, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
2. See no harm in that. -- Spiderzed▋ 11:20, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
3. Yeah, I think the opportunity to discuss the historical groups on an associated page would be an asset. --LordMoloch (talk) 21:44, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
4. What was said above -- 23:00, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
5. Yes, please unprotect. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 12:22, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
6. Yea. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
7. Looks like an appropriate move. In favor. --Kjlometros (talk) 14:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
8. tacos for everyone hajen (talk) 18:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

   I have no problem with unlocking anything. This wiki is in need of some TLC. [[Pope Phred (talk) 11:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC)]] unfortunately this was a few hours too late DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 00:17, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Result

Approved - Thanks to everyone who voted. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 00:17, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Closed Open Discussions

Open discussions have always remained unprotected after discussion ends, to ensure the topic is always open for people to provide input.

However, I feel as more time passes, the more reason we should probably protect extremely old open discussions that haven't been edited in years. I feel they represent an important historic conversation that should serve its purpose as an archive. I propose the following to become a Scheduled Protection:

Inactive Open Discussions - Open Discussions that have had had no discussion for 6 months will be protected.

Yes

1. THE CENTRAL SCRUTINIZER 02:38, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
2. The Artist Formerly Known As AudioAttack (talk) 06:05, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
3. Sure, though don’t call it “closed” open discussions. :P —Aichon— 12:25, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

   Oops... Duly noted. THE CENTRAL SCRUTINIZER 01:05, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

4. Suck my nuts. But yeah, it does make sense. The idea I mean, not sucking my nuts. Although... --LordMoloch (talk) 15:59, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
5. @Aichon we'll call it "Open-and-Shut Discussions" instead. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 19:34, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
6. Yea. Can the talk page redirect be removed, so someone could still add their thoughts about the discussion if the main page is closed? -- LABIA on the INTERNET ^{Dunell Hills Corpseman} #24 - |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ^TMG 01:22, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

   If you just mean Open Discussion talk pages, certainly, talk pages won't be protected for the use you just mentioned.. THE CENTRAL SCRUTINIZER 11:58, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

7. There is no reason to butt into old discussions. It is better for visibility to start a new one if and when an old topic becomes relevant again. -- Spiderzed▋ 20:43, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

No

This has passed with 7 votes for the policy. THE CENTRAL SCRUTINIZER 03:48, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Administrative Templates

Templates with administrative only purposes which have been categorized as such in the Administration Templates category.

1. Yes ~ _{18:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)}
2. Yes - Why Not.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 18:30, 8 May 2011 (BST)

• Passed unanimously with 2 (two) whole yes votes. ~ _{16:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)}

Concluded Polls

Polls which are held through UDWiki:Poll and have been concluded. Conclusion is defined as the point at which the author of the poll posts their conclusions (this should happen shortly after the poll closes). The talk page of the poll would remain unprotected. Abandoned or withdrawn polls would be protected without the need for author conclusions.~ 04:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

1. Yea - ~ 04:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
2. Yes --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
3. Yes -- Spiderzed▋ 00:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
4. Yarp - Makes sense. -- Cheese 16:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
5. NEIN first combo breaker in a long ass time--
   
   bitch 04:32 10 March 2011 (UTC)
6. Yes --^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 23:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
7. Yes --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 15:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
8. Yes —Aichon— 02:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• Passed 8 7 to 1 in favour. -- Cheese 01:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

  Seven to one, surely?--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 00:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

  Yeah...I think I was on the lash that night. -- Cheese 15:49, 29 March 2011 (BST)

Historical Events

I'm not sure why historical groups are scheduled protections but historical events aren't. In a historical sense they both have the same principles behind why they should be protected upon becoming classed as Historical.

Basically, I'm proposing that all current and future events that are Historical (as per Historical Events voting) are to be protected on sight. --ϑϑℜ 10:57, 20 July 2009 (BST)

1. Yep - I'm pretty sure no one would throw a fit if we protected them anyway, however. Linkthewindow  Talk  14:25, 20 July 2009 (BST)
2. Yes --ϑϑℜ 14:26, 20 July 2009 (BST)

   I also apologise for the overuse of the historical word 'historical' in my historical proposal. Historical. --ϑϑℜ 17:45, 20 July 2009 (BST)

   ;')--Thadeous Oakley 18:06, 22 July 2009 (BST)

3. Yes--C Whitty 17:03, 20 July 2009 (BST)
4. Yes --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 17:31, 20 July 2009 (BST)
5. Yes --SirArgo ^Talk 17:37, 20 July 2009 (BST)
6. Yes --Orange Talk 18:37, 20 July 2009 (BST)
7. Yes Ans link said, there shouldn't be a problem with this. It's historical for pete's sake. -Poodle of doom 19:13, 20 July 2009 (BST)
8. Yes - Leave the talk pages open though maybe? --Darth Sensitive ^W! 04:36, 21 July 2009 (BST)
9. Yes as Darth. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 07:34, 21 July 2009 (BST)
10. Yes - as above --Brian ^{Talk to me} 12:26, 21 July 2009 (BST)
11. No - talk pages should stay open. I'm assuming you plan on protecting them to based on your reference to historical groups, correct me if i'm wrong.--xoxo 12:33, 21 July 2009 (BST)

    I actually intended on keeping talk pages open (hence why they aren't specified in the request, I forgot about them), because events don't theoretically fall under the ownership of any user or page, unlike historical groups, who have protection, because as a matter of principle there should be no members to maintain the talk page. --ϑϑℜ 10:50, 27 July 2009 (BST)

12. Yes --Thadeous Oakley 18:06, 22 July 2009 (BST)
13. Yes --User:Axe27/Sig 21:16, 23 July 2009 (BST)
14. y--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 21:25, 23 July 2009 (BST)

Passed with 13 for, 1 against. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 02:36, 12 August 2009 (BST)