Template talk:Indefinitely protected

Protect

You might want to protect this template --Andersmusician VOTE 22:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why that would be necessary as it has not been the target of any vandalism. --24fan24 (talk) 04:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

For the sake of irony, I suppose. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 02:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

I don't see sorry being necessary at the beginning of this template. I could see this being appropriate if editors would see this message when trying to edit the page, but this template is shown on the article's talk page. Any opinions? --24fan24 (talk) 05:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Ambiguity

"This page is protected from editing indefinitely, as it is a page which should not be edited significantly for legal or other reasons."

The first clause is ambiguous in that "indefinitely" could just as well qualify "editing" as "protected". The implication could be that the page isn't protected from limited-term editing.

The second clause is ambiguous in that "for legal or other reasons" could equally well answer the question "Why shouldn't it be edited significantly?" as the question "What is the purpose of the significant edits?"

How about "This page is protected indefinitely from editing, as for legal and other reasons it is a page which should not be edited significantly"? Or even less wordy: "This page is indefinitely protected from editing, as for legal and other reasons it should not be edited significantly"? —Largo Plazo (talk) 07:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Add variant for perm-semi-prot

{{editprotected}}

A semiprotection version should be added, since some things are permanently semi-protected (like this template, ironically). See the sandbox circa my timestamp.

76.66.196.218 (talk) 00:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you're right.

{{pp-template|demolevel=semi|small=no|category=no}}

produces

but this is just intended as a demonstration. I suspect that {{pp-template}} could be successfully adapted for this purpose. I suggest you discuss it with User:Nihiltres as he/she seems to have worked most on that template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I left a message at their talk page, requesting input. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 06:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Usage on every talk page of a full-protected template

Does this template need to be on every talk page for a permanently protected template? I wouldn't mind adding if there's no problem, I guess. Schfifty3 21:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Mistake

{{editsemiprotect}} A user modified this template, but for some reason he changed the red padlock to the silver padlock. This must have been a mistake. Can someone re-add the red padlock, please? -68.219.194.188 (talk) 01:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Notified user who changed it as well. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 02:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Confusing edit

Three years ago, this edit made this template difficult to understand (because, where is one to suggest changes in order to get a consensus?). I think the edit was not proofread and should be reverted!--greenrd (talk) 14:18, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I guess the addition of text at the start is OK, but the removal of text is not.--greenrd (talk) 14:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

'no reason to be changed' is invalid in at least one case

@Paine Ellsworth and Aidan9382: (recent editors of the template itself) The rendered result of using this template on Talk:2024 Iranian strikes in Israel is (presumably because SUBJECTSPACE = whatever the variable is for mainspace) ... because it is a page that has no reason to be changed. ..., which is nonsense. The Iranian strikes page is current news and while some level of protection is clearly justified, saying that there is no reason to ... chang[e] the page is clearly false - and confusing to newbies who don't understand the difficulties in writing templates that fully handle all use cases. People are less likely to follow guidelines if the guidelines say obviously false statements.

In this case, what is really wanted is something like because it is a page that can expect to need this level of protection on a multi-year time scale.

How can we override the default? Or should this template be changed?

I don't see how {{SUBJECTSPACE}} can be hacked (unless we also modify {{SUBJECTSPACE}}, which sounds like mediawiki could would have to be hacked, which would be obviously a much too heavy and arbitrary solution).

Either modifying this template to allow a non-default alternative to the current default phrase; or creating a variant on this template, would seem to be more reasonable and viable possible fixes.

Or should a different existing template be used on Talk:2024 Iranian strikes in Israel? Boud (talk) 13:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

 Completed – editor Boud, default text has been changed to because it is a page that can expect to need this level of protection on a multi-year time scale. See Talk:2024 Iranian strikes in Israel. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 03:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. But just to make my disclaimer clearer: I'm not sure of all the use cases of this template. Right now I've only considered a sample of size 1. The change makes sense in this 1 case. :) I guess it's true that there are probably no pages that should never be changed, even if there are many that should rarely be changed. Anyway, I assume that you're familiar with how the template is used in the N-1 other cases, and anyone can discuss here if they're unhappy with the change. Boud (talk) 10:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Happy to help! and as with all edits on WP, we shall see. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 11:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Edit request 8 January 2026

Description of suggested change:

Diff: Warning Unnamed parameter |1= set to default value. Please change it. Failure to use {{Text diff}} to specify your requested text changes, if not adequately described above, may lead to your request being denied.
Seti123suruwu4usx (talk) 06:48, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Nugs T·C (they/them) 14:28, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Edit request 22 March 2026

I don't really like how this says a template is "indefinitely" protected from editing, despite the template's name and the fact it is usually applied to templates and other pages that are permanently protected. Can the word "indefinitely" be replaced with "permanently", or is it worded that way for a reason? JHD0919 (talk) 22:52, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: according to the page's protection level, you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. I'm a bit unclear as to what change you're proposing, but you should be able to edit the template yourself. Day Creature (talk) 23:20, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

@JHD0919: See below for why it should (IMO) be "indefinitely". Feel free to reply below, or right here, if you have any other thoughts on this topic. Mr. Starfleet Command (talk) 06:21, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Requested move 19 April 2026

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Clear consensus. Will also leave the note at RMTR. (closed by non-admin page mover) 1isall (talk | contribs) 01:09, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

---

Template:Permanently protected → Template:Indefinitely protected – The wording is incorrect. Pages are not described as permanently protected (even when they are, like high-risk pages). The standard terminology used is always indefinite, because we can't know what may happen in the future. High-risk pages have been unprotected after years because another page substituted its purpose and there are no longer a risk. The proposed rename improves accuracy and allows newbies and non-Wikipedians (whom this template aims) to not believe page protections are indeed permanent. Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 00:03, 19 April 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 00:42, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Note for closer: Jacksonvil (talk|contribs) 00:08, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Support proposed move, seems logical. We should also change the wording in the banner itself to match, since it also says "permanently". "Indefinite" is definitely the standard terminology. Mr. Starfleet Command (talk) 06:16, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Support JHD0919 (talk) 10:14, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Support, while it mainly concerns itself with blocks Wikipedia:Indefinite is not infinite is a well known concept that also applies here. Since we don't protect on principle but based on need (in this case being transcluded "too often"), permanently is indeed unfitting wording, (almost) no action is forever per se. Squawk7700 (talk) 17:22, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit request 1 June 2026

–#REDIRECT [[]]

Description of suggested change:

Diff: Warning Unnamed parameter |1= set to default value. Please change it. Failure to use {{Text diff}} to specify your requested text changes, if not adequately described above, may lead to your request being denied.
~2026-32692-69 (talk) 18:36, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Day Creature (talk) 21:26, 1 June 2026 (UTC)