Template talk:Protection table

Footnotes

Hello, all.

It appears that footnotes were added to this table several days ago, however; it has caused several old RFCs to get added to Category:Pages_with_missing_references_list as a result - they transclude this template but don't have Lower Greek note sections.

I'm wondering if there is an option to fix or suppress this error - I have no problem going through and adding a {{Reflist-talk|title=Notes|group=lower-greek}} to these archive pages, but there are a ton more transclusions in user spaces that have the same problem without {{error}} (also, it's generally frowned upon to edit archives). Is there an option to add {{reflist-talk}} to the actual template? Or is there another option that I don't know since I'm not too familiar with this template? ~ Matthewrb ^{Let's connect · Here to help} 16:34, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

@Matthewrb Oh I think that was me! I explained my reasoning in my edit summary. I figured old archive pages wouldn't miss a ton if the footnotes didn't appear but hadn't considered the automatic category. I think a good fix would be to make the footnotes appear by default, and then an optional parameter can optionally hide them on the pages that are transcluded. The pages to which I manually added a notelist after the change (and which would thus need to receive the new optional parameter) are:

• Wikipedia:Protection policy
• Wikipedia:Pending changes
• Wikipedia:Flagged protection and patrolled revisions

and i think that's it! Unless the two most invested contributors @Green Montanan and @Oshwah or other people of course prefer always having the huge list directly under the template, this seems like a good compromise. Does anyone here know how to fix the template so that, when a parameter like |hidenotes= is not given, the old notelist is displayed? FaviFake (talk) 18:14, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping.

I don't see how/why it's better not to put the notes under the table. Green Montanan (talk) 18:21, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

No worries. My rationale was that orginally, the notes were few and didn't use much space, but now th're many more and showing them all before the end of the article is annoying. For example, see WP:PP § Comparison table. A lot of space would be wasted above the actual text of the policy, for some minor additions. FaviFake (talk) 18:24, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't see how the space is "wasted". You're just shifting the location of the footnotes. Unless I'm not correctly understanding what you did, it seems that your edit(s) unnecessarily complicate the transclucing of the template, and that should be avoided, because templates should be easy to transluce. Green Montanan (talk) 18:30, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, by "wasted" I meant the footnotes disrupt the flow the page.

Unless I'm not correctly understanding what you did, it seems that your edit(s) unnecessarily complicate the transclucing of the template
That is exactly right. And I agree! So I've now made this optional; the template will continue to work as it always has, but on 3 pages (currently), the notes are moved from the bottom of the table to the #Notes section of the specific page. I should've thought about this ealier, but at least I'm gòad I was able to fix it myself. FaviFake (talk) 18:45, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

This is the exact code that should be "actived" on the template when the |hidenotes= parameter is not given for this to work. FaviFake (talk) 18:21, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done I fixed it myself. This is the situation right now, after the fix:

• Every time someone uses {{Protection table}} alone, they get the usual table, with the usual list of footnotes ttached to the bottom of the page bottom of the TABLE! This means it won't throw any errors if a specific #Notes section is not on the page.
• Only the 3 pages mentioned above by me, they now use the code {{Protection table|notes=y}}, which moves the notes from the bottom of the table to the #Notes section of the page. This now only happens on these 3 pages and is triggered by the |notes= parameter.

FaviFake (talk) 18:41, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Please add this new notes= parameter to the template's documentation. Green Montanan (talk) 18:44, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

I was just about to do that, I've finished replying to your earlier comment right now. FaviFake (talk) 18:45, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

@Green Montanan  Documentation written, i actually also wrote the entire documentation to also explain other stuff like why we user lower-greek efns: {{Protection table/doc}} FaviFake (talk) 19:13, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

I have simplified the documentation. Hopefully I did it correctly. Green Montanan (talk) 19:38, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks? That removed useful info though about how the template works. We usually try to keep as much info as possible on template documentations. But i have modified it to use your format! FaviFake (talk) 19:56, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

It was not my intention to change the meaning. It's just that nobody likes to read documentation, so documentation should be as short as possible. I thought I had captured it all. Green Montanan (talk) 20:00, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

well i for one love reading template documentations! I've also added a note for when lower-greek footnotes are already in use on a page outside of this template FaviFake (talk) 20:02, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

You're the exception, not the rule. Check out RTFM. Green Montanan (talk) 20:03, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

if someone wondered why we use lower greek, explaining it in the documentation would save us the time that it takes to respond. For example, before making the change, I intended to ask here If it was okay to change the notes from the lower greek to the standard Arabic numbers, not understanding that it would break most of the pages it's placed on.

or, If I hypothetically added this template to a page that was already using lower greek footnotes, I would want to understand why all my references "disappeared" after I placed a normal-looking table on the page.

besides, I did keep your simpler layout and place the code upfront, so I don't feel it's too complex. FaviFake (talk) 20:58, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick work! This still does require a change to all the archive pages, since by default the notes are hidden, but that's something I can take on later today unless someone else gets to it first. ~ Matthewrb ^{Let's connect · Here to help} 18:54, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

@Matthewrb Sorry! I misspoke. It doesn't require any change to the archives because by default the template works exactly as it did days ago! FaviFake (talk) 18:57, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

That makes more sense, thank you! All we need to do is purge on the old pages and the warnings disappear.

Related question, is it intentional that the testcases page is missing a footnote list? Assuming that's related to the parameter renaming above?

Sorry to be a bother, again I'm not too familiar with how templates work on en.wiki. ~ Matthewrb ^{Let's connect · Here to help} 19:04, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Exactly.
is it intentional that the testcases page is missing a footnote list?
No it's not! I fixed it: {{Protection table/testcases}}. Thanks. FaviFake (talk) 19:12, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Here's a FULL and COMPLETE protection table

Hi everyone! I figured that I'd show a full and complete protection table that's actually consistent and shows exactly what the "protection levels" should look like, and where everything should be:

Complete protection table.

Protection levels and their impact on various Wikipedia user groups

F	Protection level	New or unregistered editors	Confirmed	Extended confirmed	Template editor	Admin	Interface admin	Appropriate for...
Editing	None	Normal editing						The vast majority of pages.
	Pending changes	Can edit Changes are only visible to logged-in users until reviewed by a pending changes reviewer or administrator.	Can edit Changes are visible to everyone if there aren't any unreviewed pending changes. Otherwise, they are only visible to logged-in users until reviewed by a pending changes reviewer or administrator.			Can edit If there are any unreviewed pending changes, they can only edit the page after reviewing them.		Infrequently edited pages with high levels of vandalism, BLP violations, edit-warring, or other disruption from unregistered and new users.
	Semi	Cannot edit	Normal editing					Pages that have been persistently vandalized by anonymous and newly registered users. Some highly visible templates and modules.
	Extended confirmed	Cannot edit		Normal editing				Contentious topics authorized by ArbCom, pages where semi-protection has failed, or high-risk templates where template protection would be too restrictive.
	Template	Cannot edit			Normal editing			High-risk or very-frequently used templates and modules. Some high-risk pages outside of template space.
	Full	Cannot edit				Can edit		Pages with persistent disruption from extended confirmed accounts.
	Office					Can edit		Pages that the Foundation has determined to be exceptionally sensitive.
	Cascade					Normal editing		Particularly visible pages, such as the Main Page, to prevent vandalism to pages that are transcluded onto them.
	Interface	Cannot edit					Normal editing	Scripts, stylesheets, and similar objects fundamental to operation of the site or that are in other editors' user spaces.
Creating pages	None	Cannot create	Can create					The vast majority of page titles.
	Semi	Cannot create	Can create					Pages with persistent creation disruption anonymous and newly registered users.
	Extended confirmed	Cannot create		Can create				Pages with persistent creation disruption by confirmed accounts.
	Template	Cannot create			Can create			High-risk or very-frequently used templates and modules. Some high-risk pages outside of template space.
	Full	Cannot create				Can create		Pages with persistent creation disruption from extended confirmed accounts.
	Office					Can create		Pages that the Foundation has determined to be exceptionally sensitive.
	Interface	Cannot create					Can create	Scripts, stylesheets, and similar objects fundamental to operation of the site or that are in other editors' user spaces.
Moving pages	None	Cannot move	Can move					The vast majority of pages.
	Semi	Cannot move	Can move					Available to be used as a move protection level, but has no effect since unregistered and new users cannot move pages by default.
	Extended confirmed	Cannot move		Can move				Contentious topics authorized by ArbCom, pages where semi-protection has failed, or high-risk templates where template protection would be too restrictive.
	Template	Cannot move			Can move			High-risk or very-frequently used templates and modules. Some high-risk pages outside of template space.
	Full	Cannot move				Can move		Pages with persistent move disruption from extended confirmed accounts.
	Office					Can move		Pages that the Foundation has determined to be exceptionally sensitive.
	Interface	Cannot move					Can move	Scripts, stylesheets, and similar objects fundamental to operation of the site or that are in other editors' user spaces.
Uploading files	None	Cannot upload	Can upload					The vast majority of file names.
	Semi	Cannot upload	Can upload					Available to be used as an upload protection level, but has no effect since unregistered and new users cannot upload files by default.
	Extended confirmed	Cannot upload		Can upload				Files with persistent disruption from confirmed accounts.
	Template	Cannot upload			Can upload			High-risk or very-frequently used files (usually those that are present on widely-used templates).
	Full	Cannot upload				Can upload		Files with persistent disruption from extended confirmed accounts.
	Office					Can upload		Files that the Foundation has determined to be exceptionally sensitive.
Notes:

The only thing I couldn't figure out how to easily do is to rotate the lock symbols for creation, move, and upload 90 degree. Let me know what you all think! ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:15, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

This looks very detailed!! I like the added things like "interface creation protection" for other users' stylesheets and the rest. But I think the table would need to be reorganised a bit. What do you think of this layout?

Extended content

Protection level	New or unregistered editors	Confirmed	Extended confirmed	Template editor	Admin	Interface admin	Protection against...	Appropriate for...
Semi	Cannot	Can					... edit	Pages that have been persistently vandalized by anonymous and newly registered users. Some highly visible templates and modules.
							Create...	Pages with persistent creation disruption anonymous and newly registered users.
							Move	Available to be used as a move protection level, but has no effect since unregistered and new users cannot move pages by default.
							Upload	Available to be used as an upload protection level, but has no effect since unregistered and new users cannot upload files by default.
Extended confirmed	Cannot		Can				... edit	Contentious topics authorized by ArbCom, pages where semi-protection has failed, or high-risk templates where template protection would be too restrictive.
							Create	Pages with persistent creation disruption by confirmed accounts.
							Move	Contentious topics authorized by ArbCom, pages where semi-protection has failed, or high-risk templates where template protection would be too restrictive.
							Upload	Files with persistent disruption from confirmed accounts.
Template	etc

--FaviFake (talk) 12:24, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Notes

Footnotes, again

@Green Montanan Alright, let's discuss. My view is that we should not begin to explain the protection levels of other Wikimedia projects. This table is already complex enough, and if someone is able to understand it, they are surely technical enough to know how commons and WP work. And if they don't, well, that seems just out scope. FaviFake (talk) 20:29, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't think the footnote explains protection levels at the Wikimedia commons. It just explains that it's possible to upload to what appears to be Wikipedia, but in reality it's to the Commons.

This is important because files uploaded to the Commons can be used on Wikipedia as if they were uploaded to Wikipedia. Green Montanan (talk) 20:31, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I'd be slightly more ok if that were the case, but these are the footnotes that were added:

• Unregistered editors cannot upload anything. Newly registered users can upload files that are copyright free to the Wikimedia Commons and used on Wikipedia in all languages, but cannot upload anything to the English Wikipedia.
• Like all the other protections in this table, the Upload Protection applies only to English Wikipedia, not to the Wikimedia Commons. The Wikimedia Commons is for uploading files which are copyright free and can be used on Wikipedia in all languages. The Wikimedia Commons has its own protections that are independent of the protections on the English Wikipedia

They explain many more things:

• other languages
• copyright (?!)
• "[...] Commons has its own protections that are independent [...]"
• which user groups can upload to Commons

FaviFake (talk) 20:36, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand your issues. All that the footnote explains is the difference between uploading to the English Wikipedia and uploading to the Wikimedia Commons:

1. Files uploaded to the English Wikipedia can only be used on the English Wikipedia, whereas files uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons can be used on Wikipedia in any language
2. Files uploaded to the commons must be copyright free. Editors are actually encouraged to transfer to the Commons copyright free files which were uploaded to Wikipedia.
3. Since Wikipedia and the Commons are a different project, the protections are different

Green Montanan (talk) 20:40, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes. I'm saying this table is already very bloated with minute details and that this additional information is irrelevant Different project, different protections, and an attempt at explaining multiple copyright policies in 1 sentence. FaviFake (talk) 20:52, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

That's one way to characterize it. Another way to characterize it would be that the footnote explains that what is portrayed as a prohibition of uploading by newly registered users in reality is not a strict prohibition and explain the nuances why it's not a strict prohibition. Green Montanan (talk) 20:58, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

The nuances are explained by our dozens of policies. This table is merely a technical overview of how the protection levels work on the English Wikipedia.

Any user on Commons or on the English Wikipedia can technically upload any type of file they want, even if it's copyrighted. Whether the file will get deleted is a completely different thing, and is irrelevant to the protection level of the file. FaviFake (talk) 09:04, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

It's unavoidable to go into the details of copyright because that's what distinguishes uploading to the Wikimedia Commons from uploading to Wikipedia.

I don't understand your point about the fact it's technically possible to upload copyrighted files to the Commons (if you either lie or give an incorrect answer to the question on the form about the copyright status of the file being uploaded). Do you think the footnote needs to address that? Green Montanan (talk) 09:12, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

No, I don't. I think I've explained myself enough.

Commons is a different project. Copyright is regulated by their policies. If you really want to mention Commons, then at least don’t mention these unrelated things. FaviFake (talk) 09:15, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are writing. "Copyright is NOT regulated by their policies". Copyright is governed law. The Commons is reserved for copyright free files.

I don't see how it would be possible to explain that newly registered users can upload to the Commons, but not to Wikipedia, without explaining the difference between uploading to the Commons and uploading to Wikipedia. Green Montanan (talk) 14:18, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

You can just say Commons has its own protection levels, which differ from ours. This table is, again, specific to enwiki.

Of course copyright is not regulated by their policies. I meant to say that there are no protection levels that technically prohibit users from uploading copyrighted files. Their files are deleted according to our policies.

That's like saying "Registered users can create an unsalted article on enwiki, but only if it satisfies WP:GNG". That's not a technical barrier! FaviFake (talk) 14:24, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

"You can just say Commons has its own protection levels, which differ from ours."

Isn't that what the footnote already says? "The Wikimedia Commons has its own protections that are independent of the protections on the English Wikipedia"

Green Montanan (talk) 14:28, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it says that already. My point is that everything else in those two footnotes should be removed. FaviFake (talk) 14:29, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

You would still have to explain why there are two different systems for uploading files. Green Montanan (talk) 14:37, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

No you wouldn't, that's irrelevant in a table of protection levels. A link to a relevant essay or how to is more than enough. FaviFake (talk) 14:44, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

What relevant essay? Green Montanan (talk) 14:48, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

One that explains the difference. Or a how-to, policy, guideline... anything is better than trying to explain it all in a footnote. FaviFake (talk) 14:53, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, what essay does that? Green Montanan (talk) 14:56, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikimedia Commons § Differences between Wikipedia and Commons FaviFake (talk) 14:58, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Even better: commons:Commons:For Wikipedians FaviFake (talk) 14:58, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

I guess we could say "See Wikipedia:Wikimedia Commons § Differences between Wikipedia and Commons for additional details". Green Montanan (talk) 15:03, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Or just wikilink it to a sentence that says there are differences between the two. FaviFake (talk) 15:06, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

I would have to see the exact context to see what makes the most sense. Green Montanan (talk) 15:08, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Something like this?

• Wikimedia Commons's upload protections are less strict.

FaviFake (talk) 15:20, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Are you proposing this as the complete footnote? The footnote needs to say that unregistered editors cannot upload, while newly registered editors can upload, but only to the Commons. Green Montanan (talk) 15:23, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

This one?

• However, Wikimedia Commons's upload protections are less strict for newly registered users.

FaviFake (talk) 15:24, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

This wouldn't make sense to readers not familiar with the Commons. How about

"Unregistered editors cannot upload anything. Newly registered users can upload files, but only to the Wikimedia Commons, a parallel project which supplements Wikipedia."

Green Montanan (talk) 15:36, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't like it, it blends the two protecton policies together as if they were related. Unregistered editors and newly registered users cannot upload anything ever on enwiki. FaviFake (talk) 15:41, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

If you split up the column for unregistered and newly registered users into two columns, one for unregistered and another for newly registered, that would considerbly simplify the footnote. Under that scenario, there would be no footnote for unregistered editors, and the footnote for the newly registered editors could be "Uploading to the the Wikimedia Commons, a parallel project which supplements Wikipedia, is allowed." Green Montanan (talk) 16:17, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Again: enwiki does not distinguish between unregistered and newly registered users.

We don't need a footnote for everything, please :( FaviFake (talk) 16:20, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

We need footnotes for exceptions. Green Montanan (talk) 16:22, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

And this is not an exception. Unregistered editors and newly registered users cannot upload anything ever on the wiki this table is describing. FaviFake (talk) 16:24, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

New editors can upload files that can be used on Wikipedia. That's why it's an exception. The fact that the file resides on a server called "Commons" rather than a server called "Wikipedia" is an irrelevant detail. Green Montanan (talk) 16:28, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

It's not a "server", it's a completely different wiki, with its own different policies, user groups, admins, etc. FaviFake (talk) 16:30, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Whatever.

The fact remains that newly registered users can upload files that can be used on Wikipedia. This is not a theoretical exception. I came across it when I saw an editor whose only contribution was adding to an article an image that they uploaded to the Commons. Green Montanan (talk) 16:51, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

That's a feature of mediawiki, not of our protection levels...

Should we try a WP:THIRD? FaviFake (talk) 16:53, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Once again, "a feature of mediawiki" is an irrelevant detail. The fact remains that newly registered editors can upload files that can be used on Wikipedia. Green Montanan (talk) 17:06, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Should we try a WP:THIRD? FaviFake (talk) 17:08, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

I tried to accommodate you with a modified footnote, but you declined. If you want to initiate a WP:THIRD, I would participate. Green Montanan (talk) 17:17, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I declined because I disagreed with it. I'll go ahead and file it then. FaviFake (talk) 17:28, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I agree with FaviFake that the footnote needs only to explain that the table here applies only to the English Wikipedia. The purpose of that table is to explain English Wikipedia's protection levels and information about Wikipedia commons is too extraneous to be included in a footnote. To the extent that a user reading this table might be interested in reading about it, a wikilink to one of the suggested pages would more than suffice. I might suggest "Upload Protection applies to English Wikipedia, not to the Wikimedia Commons, which has different policies for uploading". Katzrockso (talk) 17:31, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Your proposed wording would be good for readers familiar with the Wikimedia Commons. We would need links to aid readers not familiar with the Wikipedia commons. At the minimum, we would need a link to Wikimedia Commons for a description of the project and to Wikipedia:Wikimedia Commons for more in-depth details. Green Montanan (talk) 17:41, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Why do you say we need these links, if they're outside the scope of this table? FaviFake (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

You lost me. The Commons is in the proposed wording of the footnote. Why would you object to the links? You had previously proposed links to reduce the content of the footnote. Green Montanan (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I didn't object, I asked a question.

However, I'm not sure why I asked that question, I think I had misread your comment. I'll go ahead and change the footnote to the one proposed by the 3O with these 2 wikilinks. FaviFake (talk) 09:47, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I've used commons:Commons:For Wikipedians since it's more welcoming and detailed. FaviFake (talk) 09:54, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Error with div and noresize

In the current template, in desktop mode with default skin, I see the first row overlapping the second. It obscures the default case that applies to the "vast majority of pages". It looks like removing the <div class="noresize"> (added in oldid=1309815241) can solve this (see sandbox), but per mw:Help:Tables#Note_about_large_tables_(noresize_class) this may affect views on mobile. Should we keep the div or not? TheFeds 05:25, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

TheFeds - I'm not sure if this is still an issue with the current revision of the table, but I just opened the table in a private session of a desktop browser so that I could view it while logged out and while using the default skin, and I don't see this issue. Is this issue still present when you currently look at it? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:36, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't see any issues with it as well. Maybe you've enabled the gadget to always keep table headers in view even while scrolling? I suspect that's the cause. FaviFake (talk) 10:48, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Indeed, the "Make headers of tables display as long as the table is in view, i.e. "sticky" (requires Chrome v91+, Firefox v59+, or Safari)" gadget was enabled (behaviour unchanged today). I turned it off, and as you predicted, the table operated properly. Thanks for pointing this out. Is there a way to flag that as a compatibility issue for the gadget developers? TheFeds 21:16, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Probably! You should ask at Wikipedia talk:Gadget or WP:VPT. FaviFake (talk) 23:29, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm contemplating a bug report at MediaWiki_talk:Gadget-StickyTableHeaders.css because I was able to re-enable the gadget, inspect the source and trace the problem to the <thead class="mw-sticky-header-element"></thead> that the gadget injects with MediaWiki:Gadget-StickyTableHeaders.js to wrap the first <tr></tr>. The style .skin-vector-2022.vector-sticky-header-visible .jquery-tablesorter > thead { top: 3.125rem; } is applied. If I disable that line in the stylesheet, the header row moves back up to the position it is supposed to occupy. Whether enabled or disabled, it does not float with the view. Any idea why this table specifically behaves that way, when others (as a random example, List_of_minor_planets:_43001–44000) put the header in the right place and it floats normally? TheFeds 01:56, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

No idea! FaviFake (talk) 08:54, 16 July 2026 (UTC)