Template talk:R fully protected

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Redirect, a collaborative effort to improve the standard of redirects and their categorization on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Note: This banner should be placed on the talk pages of project, template and category pages that exist and operate to maintain redirects.
This banner is not designed to be placed on the talk pages of most redirects and almost never on the talk pages of mainspace redirects. For more information see the template documentation.RedirectWikipedia:WikiProject RedirectTemplate:WikiProject Redirectredirect pages

Template:R fully protected is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories.

Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. This template does not have a testcases subpage. You can create the testcases subpage here.

To help centralise discussions and keep related topics together, all talk pages of redirect protection templates redirect here.

A question

Why does this template include the instruction "Please do not replace these redirected links with a link directly to the target page."? —Granger (talk · contribs) 04:22, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is to flag fully-, template- and semi-protected redirects so there is no tendency to bypass them in articles, as some editors like to do for some reason (see WP:NOTBROKEN). Joys and Happy Holidays to you and yours! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 10:54, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Paine Ellsworth: Thanks for the response. I think my real question is, why is this instruction particular to protected redirects? WP:NOTBROKEN seems to apply to all redirects, but I only see this instruction in the templates for fully-, template- and semi-protected redirects, as you said. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:06, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are several rcats that give that instruction, for example, {{R from alternative name}} and {{R from alternative spelling}}, which more subtly advise, "It is not necessary to replace these redirected links with a piped link." Then others give similar counsel, for example, {{R to decade}}. Not all redirects are covered by WP:NOTBROKEN, such as {{R from misspelling}} and {{R from incorrect name}}. Joys! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 15:45, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense—thanks for the clarification! —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:42, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasure! – Paine

Nothing displayed

Why is nothing displayed at File:Photo.JPG? There is no categorisation either. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:09, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I knew! I do remember the following note that was lost from {{R template index}} back in June:

When rcats are used to categorize image-file redirects, the category(ies) may not appear on the redirect page after saving even if preferences are set to view hidden cats. Yet the image-file redirect will still populate the category(ies). For example, in the Category:Redirects from moves at the bottom of the page under section heading Media in category "Redirects from moves", an image-file redirect has been correctly categorized, and yet {{Redr|move|short}}'s categories may not appear on the image-file redirect's page. Hidden categories on image-file redirects can also be detected by clicking on "Page information" in the Tools.

The "Tools" page does show the protection, and the image does appear in Category:Protected redirects. But for some reason nothing appears on the image file page. – Paine

I was wrong – that note can still be found on the main index page near the bottom. – Paine 06:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it doesn't seem to matter whether or not a leading colon is used. The text and categories do appear on preview, but not when the edit is saved. As far as I can tell, this only happens with images. – Paine 09:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To Redrose64: I've searched for an open bug report but haven't yet found one. That new Phabricator might be throwing me, though. Is that another labs creation of something out of something-that-didn't-really-need-fixing? – Paine 16:45, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) A leading colon doesn't affect categorisation, but it can affect the display of certain box-type templates - and not just because it's not logical to indent a box that is positioned (centre or otherwise), see Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 231#Czar RfA formatting error. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A problem with this template

Redrose64 – once again I need your help. At the request of an editor I just finished going through all the redirects at WhatLinksHere/Template:R fully protected. I fixed all redirects on that list that were not fully protected by removing {{R protected}} and replacing it with the correct rcats that were needed. What I found as I went through that list was that none of the redirects that were un-, semi- and template-protected had been placed in the maintenance Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. On the redirect pages, the maintenance cat only appeared at the bottom if the redirect was completely unprotected, and yet even then, the redirects did not appear as entries on the category page. As a test, I did a null edit on one of the unprotected redirects, and that made it appear as an entry on the category page. (Then I fixed the test redirect and removed it from the category.) I added a bit of code to the Template:R fully protected/sandbox, which tested well on all of the redirects that were not fully protected. Upon finishing the list on the WLH page, I transfered this template's sandbox code to the live template. I then checked the Persia redirect, which has an unneeded R protected inside its This is a redirect template, and the categories were unchanged. Then I looked at the User:Rebert redirect, which does not have an R protected template within its This is a redirect template, and the maintenance Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates had been added at the bottom of the page. I said, "Oops!", and then I self-reverted this template to remove the sandboxed code. That, of course, made the maintenance cat disappear from User:Rebert's page. So something is still wrong with this template's sandboxed code and the live code as well. Can you show me where I've gone wrong? Painius 01:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

test redirects: Wikipedia:HG – fully protected; Persia – fully protected; User:Rebert – fully protected; Template:R from alternate spelling – template-protected; Template:WP Brazil – semi-protected; Marxist analysis – no protection; Pleasant pathways, Painius 05:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To Redrose64: What I have found so far is that the code:

{{#if:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}} {{PROTECTIONLEVEL:move}}
|[[Category:(Template or Semi- or just:) protected redirects]]
|[[Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates]]
}}

...does not work as expected. That is, if I place {{R template-protected}} on a semi-protected redirect, it just sorts the redirect to Category:Template-protected redirects. If I place {{R semi-protected}} on a template-protected redirect, it sorts the redirect to Category:Semi-protected redirects. It appears that the only time they sort a redirect to Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates is when the redirect is UNprotected. Any other variation does not work as it should. I'm still trying to solve this, but it ain't easy. I am unable to test fully protected redirects even in preview, and I really don't like the idea of doing test edits to the live template. Pleasant pathways, Painius 23:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The {{#if:...}} parser function tests its first parameter simply for being non-blank or blank. Both {{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}} and {{PROTECTIONLEVEL:move}} return blank for unprotected pages; for protected pages they return one of autoconfirmed (for semi-protected pages), templateeditor (for template-prot pages) or sysop (for full-prot). So a test like {{#if:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}} {{PROTECTIONLEVEL:move}} | ... }} is effectively saying "if the page has either edit protection or move protection, at any level, put the page in the first category; otherwise in Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, thank you! So if the prot. level of a redirect is, say, lowered from full to semi-, and the fully protected rcat is left on the redirect in error, then the redirect will continue to occupy the fully protected cat and will not populate the semi-protected cat nor the incorrect prot. templates cat. I think it should populate the latter, which is why I'm looking at the code you helped me with in the Redr template. I think that code can be adapted to work in these individual rcats, which are still extensively used outside Redr. I can test the code variations except for the fully protected redirects. That is where I'll need help. I've set up a similar grid below, and I just need you to tag the bottom row with sandbox versions of each of these three rcats, {{R semi-protected/sandbox}}, {{R template-protected/sandbox}} and {{R fully protected/sandbox}}, then I should be able to use that grid to test the code variations. I won't edit any of your sandboxes unless and until you give the okay.

Prot. level	Semi	Template	Full
	Rcat templates
None	User talk:Redrose64/Sandbox	User talk:Redrose64/Sandbox2	User talk:Redrose64/Sandbox3
Semi	User talk:Redrose64/Sandbox5	User talk:Redrose64/Sandbox6	User talk:Redrose64/Sandbox7
Template	User talk:Redrose64/Sandbox8	User talk:Redrose64/Sandbox10	User talk:Redrose64/Sandbox11
Full	User talk:Redrose64/Sandbox13	User talk:Redrose64/Sandbox14	User talk:Redrose64/Sandbox15

Then at some point when all the above work properly, I will ask that you help me with two more brief tests based upon the difference between Redr usage with and without the protection rcat, just to be sure before we take it "live". Thank you again for all your help both past and present! Paine 04:16, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done. Only User talk:Redrose64/Sandbox15 has done something obvious, although the other two show extra blank space. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you – the extra space is from the This is a redirect/sandbox code – compare your Sandbox with your Sandbox5. I'll let you know when all is right in this first phase, and then we can move on to phase 2. Paine 17:30, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The new code in the three protection rcats has passed the tests so far, Redrose64. Please edit the three redirects in the bottom row from what they are now to:

#REDIRECT [[User talk:Redrose64]]

{{this is a redirect|protected/sandbox}}

That will complete the 2nd of three phases of tests. Paine 12:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 23:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thank you, Redrose64! Now to emulate what was happening before at the User:Rebert redirect, please make the final (hopefully) alteration to all three in the bottom row:

#REDIRECT [[User talk:Redrose64]]

{{this is a redirect/sandbox|rcon}}

{{Rcon}} was chosen at random because Roger Ebert's user page has one rcat. If the protection rcats pass this test, we'll be ready to engage. Paine 03:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 22:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deployed, and so far there are two redirects that have been added to the incorrect protection templates category. I've submitted edit requests for both. Paine 00:26, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you beyond words for all your help, Redrose64! Paine 23:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2023

This edit request to Template:R template-protected has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please update the 2x Category:Template-protected redirects to Category:Wikipedia template-protected redirects 73.93.5.246 (talk) 20:08, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing to remove duplicate request from semi-protected queue Tollens (talk) 20:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is for a different template. Its Talk page redirects here so it appears as if for the same 73.93.5.246 (talk) 20:29, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done My apologies, missed that. Tollens (talk) 21:09, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tollens: thank you! Though there is a 2nd templateeditor=[[Category:Template-protected redirects]] in there needing update too, if you could 73.93.5.246 (talk) 21:24, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! Fixed now. Tollens (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And the documentation now. If there's still anything I've missed please let me know. Tollens (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 9 May 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please update Category:Template-protected redirects to Category:Wikipedia template-protected redirects, and Category:Extended-protected redirects to Category:Wikipedia extended-protected redirects 73.93.5.246 (talk) 20:13, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 22:11, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 17 September 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This template has been nominated at TFM. Please add the following to the top of the page:

{{subst:tfm|R protected}} Awesome Aasim 21:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. SilverLocust 💬 04:18, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]