Conservapedia:Policy proposals

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

A Proposal Regarding Cascading Protection and Sub-page Templates

The following is a little complicated technically, but it's actually a very minor proposal with a very minor scope.

As some may have seen, a while ago I created Template:Officeholder, which has a bunch of sub-pages for different offices.

Template:Officeholder is cascading protected, and all of the subpages show up on it (or, for those more familiar with template-speak, they're transcluded on it). Thus, all of the sub-pages are protected because of cascasion; my proposal is that they not be individually protected.

The reason for this is that if the pages are individually protected, it becomes excessively difficult to unprotect the sub-pages, because not only would the sub-pages have to be unprotected, but the page itself would have to be unprotected. Now, that doesn't seem to hard, but then when you're talking about making one minor change throughout each sub-page, then it's a lot of extra work. If my proposal were passed - the only page that would need to be unprotected is the first, over-arching page. So I'm saying that if a template sub-page is set up to be protected by cascading, then it shouldn't be protected individually.--IDuan 17:51, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Note- this is in no way proposing that templates shouldn't be protected. The pages that I'm speaking of are already protected - just by cascading. For example, with a non-administrator account, try to edit Template:Officeholder/Supreme_Court_Justice. You'll be able to click "edit", but then a message will appear saying that the page can't be edited because it appears on Template:Officeholder, which is protected with cascading turned on (and the edit screen will be frozen).--IDuan 20:21, 21 March 2009 (EDT)
Proposal 
If a template sub-page is set up to be protected by cascading, then it shouldn't be protected individually.
Pages affected 
Template:Officeholder, possibly a few future templates, but the need for sub-pages is not very common at all, so not many.
Additional 
Template:SubCascaded would be placed on these sub-pages to let admins know that they don't need to be individually protected. This would be verifiable by simply checking the "What links here" page, and limiting the namespace to "Template" (the link to this page will be generated by the template). If the over-arching (non-sub) template is on it, then the template is accurate. Additionally, non-administrator accounts could just attempt to edit the page, and they would find out whether it was protected by cascading or not.
This Template Does Not Need to Be Protected
This sub-page template is protected because its base page (the main template) is protected with cascading turned on. Thus, administrators, please do not protect it individually.

To verify that this is protected, please check here to see if the main template is listed and here to make sure the main page is protected.

Support

  1. Works for me if people use it Geoff PlourdeComplain! 19:54, 21 March 2009 (EDT)
  2. I (obviously) support my own proposal. --IDuan 17:18, 28 March 2009 (EDT)
  3. I support and it doesn't affect our security. It would make it easier to edit and change officeholder templates and those templates that need to be changed fairly often. --₮K/Admin/Talk 17:50, 28 March 2009 (EDT)

Those in Opposition