Template talk:Msgbox
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Pi zero in topic Protection
Protection
edit{{makeprotected}}
•–• 16:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
- Here also; do you want full protection, and if so, what's the justification? --Pi zero (talk) 20:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Pi zero: for rename. It is used for other templates. And it would be a mess if someone moves it. Just like how we have xambox protected.
•–• 03:54, 12 November 2017 (UTC)- @Acagastya: How do you see this template being used? Xambox is fully protected because it is to be used on articles in our archives, and it's desirable to reduce opportunities to affect archived articles. --Pi zero (talk) 04:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Pi zero: {{welcome}} is not used for an article, but it is protected. Why? Because if someone moves the page, it would affect every single talk page having this. And I am going to use this as a base template for {{xQuote}} and {{quoteuser}}.
•–• 05:02, 12 November 2017 (UTC)- I'm not fond of xquote. I'm skeptical about this whole family of templates because they don't mesh with the prevailing style of message boxes here and elsewhere. But I agree that's a reasonable justification for protection. --Pi zero (talk) 05:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Done --Pi zero (talk) 05:12, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Pi zero: {{welcome}} is not used for an article, but it is protected. Why? Because if someone moves the page, it would affect every single talk page having this. And I am going to use this as a base template for {{xQuote}} and {{quoteuser}}.
- @Acagastya: How do you see this template being used? Xambox is fully protected because it is to be used on articles in our archives, and it's desirable to reduce opportunities to affect archived articles. --Pi zero (talk) 04:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Pi zero: for rename. It is used for other templates. And it would be a mess if someone moves it. Just like how we have xambox protected.
┌─────────────────────────────────┘
"here and elsewhere" -- you mean other templates on enwn, or from other sister projects, @Pi zero:
•–• 05:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- prevailing on en.wn and some other sister projects, was what I had in mind, yes. --Pi zero (talk) 05:21, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Pi zero: English Wikipedia's infobox appears different from that on eswp. enwn's infobox is different from that on eswn or frwn. {{UEFA Euro 2016}} was different from other infoboxes. This template is light weight, loads faster, has simpler UI and (afaict) it is consistent on desktop and mobile site. It also eliminates the issue of dual licensing (since ambox was copied from Wikipedia) So I don't see why should not we, when each project has something that differs from others, and there is some sort of uniqueness. Not everything between different wiki projects (like enwn and enwn, not enwn and eswn) has to be same.
•–• 05:37, 12 November 2017 (UTC)- In fairness, infoboxen are at a much more sophisticated level than message boxes. --Pi zero (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Pi zero: English Wikipedia's infobox appears different from that on eswp. enwn's infobox is different from that on eswn or frwn. {{UEFA Euro 2016}} was different from other infoboxes. This template is light weight, loads faster, has simpler UI and (afaict) it is consistent on desktop and mobile site. It also eliminates the issue of dual licensing (since ambox was copied from Wikipedia) So I don't see why should not we, when each project has something that differs from others, and there is some sort of uniqueness. Not everything between different wiki projects (like enwn and enwn, not enwn and eswn) has to be same.