Wikinews talk:Protection policy
Add topicLatest comment: 9 months ago by Thriftycat in topic Published articles
Semi-protection
[edit]This page doesn't even mention semi-protection, and could really confuse or mislead new editors. Is there a separate page for this, or has it just been forgotten about? J Di 14:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
High use templates
[edit]I'm adding in the protection of High use templates. Not only is this common sense, but it's policy already. For some reason we just don't have it listed on this page. If this is in any way controversial, feel free to revert and discuss here. Gopher65talk 16:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Published articles
[edit]Should we update this page to include that newly published should receive semi-protection? —mikemoral (talk · contribs) 05:27, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- It would be reasonable to include that, I think. - Xbspiro (talk) 04:07, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- I agree.
•–• 04:08, 29 July 2021 (UTC) - We already use FlaggedRevs to hide new revisions of published articles, right? If so, this doesn't seem necessary. Given our activity issues, it's good to encourage new users to expand recent articles. Thriftycat (talk) 15:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- While I agree that FlaggedRevs ought to be enough, published articles shouldn't really be expanded unless it is a breaking topic. And I can't really remember the last time we managed to publish something while it was truly breaking. SVTCobra 02:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Well, I don't know if I really worded that correctly, but substantial edits/expansions almost trigger another entire review process. SVTCobra 02:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Alright, that makes sense. Thriftycat (talk) 03:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- I think the best alternative is to start a new article with the latest developments. And they are always free to tell us if we made a mistake by using the talk page. SVTCobra 03:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- This appears to be de facto policy anyway and isn't causing major issues. I've no problem with putting it down on paper. Thriftycat (talk) 03:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- To be honest, I'd be fine not semi-protecting articles upon publishing. What I will say is I was told this was the practice when I returned from on of my breaks. And these were no just random people telling me this, but both of them were highly regarded Sysops and Bureaucrats. SVTCobra 03:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Alright, I added a mention of it; of course, feel free to revert for further discussion Thriftycat (talk) 03:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- To be honest, I'd be fine not semi-protecting articles upon publishing. What I will say is I was told this was the practice when I returned from on of my breaks. And these were no just random people telling me this, but both of them were highly regarded Sysops and Bureaucrats. SVTCobra 03:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- This appears to be de facto policy anyway and isn't causing major issues. I've no problem with putting it down on paper. Thriftycat (talk) 03:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- I think the best alternative is to start a new article with the latest developments. And they are always free to tell us if we made a mistake by using the talk page. SVTCobra 03:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Alright, that makes sense. Thriftycat (talk) 03:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Well, I don't know if I really worded that correctly, but substantial edits/expansions almost trigger another entire review process. SVTCobra 02:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- While I agree that FlaggedRevs ought to be enough, published articles shouldn't really be expanded unless it is a breaking topic. And I can't really remember the last time we managed to publish something while it was truly breaking. SVTCobra 02:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)