Forum:Protecting Featured Articles?
Why are we protecting featured articles? Sir gwax (talk) 
03:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I oppose any blanket policy on protecting articles. --Rcmurphy Sq.W (Talk) 03:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. --Spin 03:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- Looks like it's semi-protecting; hmm. Sir gwax (talk)
03:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
The log at http://uncyclopedia.org/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=protect&user=&page= doesn't make clear which are merely semiprotected, but the 'unprotect' tag lists current protection level for both edit and move? --Carlb 03:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- It makes it very clear, at least on my computer. For both editing and moves. --KATIE!! 04:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
When was this officialized? ~Sir Rangeley 
GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 03:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- We have officialized things? Cool. --KATIE!! 04:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, its just that I didnt know we now had a policy of preventing unregistered members from editing featured articles. ~Sir Rangeley GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 04:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I didn't know we had policy. I've been discussing this update for a few weeks now, and it was decided that semi-protection might be a good thing for featured articles. IP users are typically the ones who blank and stuff, and featured articles are higher profile. Worst comes to worst, we can always unprotect. But it doesn't really prevent anyone from editing. Good IP contributions are typically new articles, not additions to old ones. --KATIE!! 04:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Who is it that decided? I have spoken out against such a policy before, and it seems as though others in this topic are doing the same. ~Sir Rangeley GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 04:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm for keeping a protected VERSION of featured articles by the time they were featured.--Rataube 17:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- That'd lead to stagnation and, in my opinion, stagnation is completely contrary to principles of Uncyclopedia. --Sir Major Sir gwax (talk) 18:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Which were you intending to have appear first by default? The live version of the page or the as-featured one? --Carlb 23:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- So even though I'm not a big-wig admin, I figured I should through in my two pence. It seems to me that the limiting of users who can edit articles is contrary to the principles of Uncyclopedial, and on a level quite beyond the usual "no real policies" one, but at the foundation of the site. If you really want to preserve articles (and I've seen this one used!), just link the the oldid of the featured version! That allows the pages to grow even afterwards, something that has actually greatly helped many features long after their stints on the front page expired. I just don't believe that the protection of pages (without legitimate cause such as rampant vandalism or other extreme cases) should be used frequently. I always thought it was supposed to be a last resort. --
Cap'n SimzorzAr, Matey!05:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Just for clarity's sake, please note that YOU can still edit these pages. The only people who can't are IP users and people with very recently created logins. I concede that I have seen some helpful IPs proofread featured articles, so we do lose that by semi-protecting them. But this is not a measure that permanently stops any person from editing these articles. ---
Rev. Isra (talk) 07:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Just for clarity's sake, please note that YOU can still edit these pages. The only people who can't are IP users and people with very recently created logins. I concede that I have seen some helpful IPs proofread featured articles, so we do lose that by semi-protecting them. But this is not a measure that permanently stops any person from editing these articles. ---
I like how the people who come here never tell me what to do. Meh! I think I'll go back and unprotect the not as high profile pages, maybe. But, face it. Who is more likely to blank a page and put "FAGGOT!!!!" on it? A registered user who's had their account for months? Or an IP user or a new registered user? If someone wants so bad to edit these articles, they need only register. And you people who are all like "we shouldn't stop anyone from blah blah blah"... two or three of these articles got vandalized two minutes before I protected them. So trust me on vandal fighting, mmkay? I spend at least ten hours here every day. I only want what's good for the site. I'm not trying to stop people from editing. I'm trying to stop the FAGGOT!!!s of the world. --KATIE!! 09:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Come here never == never come here == never around. --KATIE!! 09:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- I gather that the majority of vandals are unregistered, therefore, by restricting it to registered users, you will be severely limiting the vandalisation levels; I understand that they need only register, but I think this is the best compromise that can be managed under the circumstances, and if it is found that such a policy is not proving feasible, then lock it, but don't just blanket protect it right off the bat... I realise you're trying to stop the "FAGGOT's" of the world, but it's making the non-fags suffer for it. --Olipro
Co-Anc (Harass) 13:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Featured Note
While I think its a good idea to link to the originally featured version, I dont think putting it on the page itself is a good idea. Its sort of a distraction, and doesnt really fit. Perhaps it would go better in the talk page? ~Sir Rangeley GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 05:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- It is a little obtrusive, but putting it on the talk page would limit traffic severely. Perhaps a smaller box? --—rc (t) 05:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed. Sorry, but I think the template looks pretty bad. Could we put it into the bottom or integrate it into the featured article template? ---Rev. Isra (talk)
- I agree. Put it in Template:ArticleFH as another parameter. --Splaka 05:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, I just stole the template:Shortcut code and changed the background. I think maybe Splarka's right...we don't want too many templates, after all. Some pages are already overflowing with them. --—rc (t) 05:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Too true, "this page is undisputed", "this page has too many templates - please add more" and a few others are entirely useless and should be effing killed. My apologies for adding to this fine mess. --Carlb 14:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Little to the left...
t o m p k i n s blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 05:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
That one is perfect. ~Sir Rangeley GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 12:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed that one template instead of two is the cleaner solution - {{asfeatured}} or its successors do imply {{ArticleFH}} so no need to say it twice. There are, however, three (in 2005) which still need to be on the talk page (AAAAAAAA!, Nihilism, Morse code) regardless of template choice. An article (in 2006) customised this box, but nobody cares. Another considered doing so, but fell silent out of humility. Another article, alliteration, again an abnormal and awkward application. Archived. Loneliness can be most awkward indeed. Oh, and Do NOT click any links! --Carlb 14:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Well, they also have custom uses of ArticleFH, so they can just have custom FA's instead? Or, perhaps you could utilise Asfeatured to work on the talk pages, and we could later huff ArticleFH. PS: Why did you delink all my links to the templates? ^_^ --Splaka 02:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I've unlinked and deleted 'asfeatured', customised 'FA' in the cases where it replaces a custom 'ArticleFH' or is displaced to a talk page, replaced all instances of 'ArticleFH' and redirected the (now-unused) template to 'FA', effectively deprecating the two separate templates. --Carlb 11:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Yer making us lazy sods look bad. --Splaka 03:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)