Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Decrease
Before posting, first discuss with the protecting admin at their talk page. Post below only if you receive no reply.
- To find out the username of the admin who protected the page click on "history" at the top of the page, then click on "View logs for this page" which is under the title of the page. The protecting admin is the username in blue before the words "protected", "changed protection level" or "pending changes". If there are a number of entries on the log page, you might find it easier to select "Protection log" or "Pending changes log" from the dropdown menu in the blue box.
- Requests to downgrade full protection to template protection on templates and modules can be directed straight here; you do not need to ask the protecting admin first.
- Requests for removing create protection on redlinked articles are generally assisted by having a draft version of the intended article prepared beforehand.
- If you want to make spelling corrections or add uncontroversial information to a protected page please add {{Edit fully-protected}} to the article's talk page, along with an explanation of what you want to add to the page. If the talk page is protected please use the section below.
Check the archives if you cannot find your request. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.
| Requests for page protection | |
|---|---|
|
Click here to return to Requests for page protection. Request unprotection of a page, or reducing the protection level
| |
Reason: (The redirect, not its target): The page was preemptively protected without prior deletion in logs. No prior history of vandalism. Requesting extended confirmed protection or autoconfirmed protection as WP:Featured articles is autoconfirmed-protected. 2003 LN6 07:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Weak oppose: There is no reason for anyone to be editing it. I got into something like this when I tried to request the removal of the protection for 9/11 (the redirect, not the article). However, I could potentially support reducing it to ECP to change it slightly faster in case the template gets deprecated. For now I oppose however. CharlieEdited (talk) 00:02, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Support A page shouldn't be protected just because "there's no need" to edit it. In this case, reasons to edit it could include, say, improving the WP:RCAT if better categorization templates are found. If there is no apparent reason for either protection or editing, full protection should not be the default. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:41, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
Unprotected, gingerly. Redirect shortcuts are lower risk than templates (see WP:HRT) as they do not transclude their content, which makes me err towards lower protection levels. A similar shortcut with similar page views and similar-ish links is WP:GAN, which is not protected. I will put this on my watchlist. Sdrqaz (talk) 17:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
Reason: I am requesting it here first since the admin who protected it passed away. Protection has been ongoing for nearly 7 years, which is definitely long enough for at least a trial run of no protection. Plus, page views are quite low and edits are infrequent, making it probably not much of a target for the average Wikipedia user. I support no protection but if vandalism ramps up again I would also be fine with PC. Semi is probably overkill but I would be somewhat fine with it. Edit: Linked to redirect by accident CharlieEdited (talk) 23:59, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- That page is a redirect. Do you mean Texas Revolution? Daniel Case (talk) 01:49, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. CharlieEdited (talk) 03:33, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Unprotected. I'm doubtful about the supposed lack of page views as it seems to have had 23,500 in August 2024, but it has been some time since the protection and edits are pretty infrequent after all. Sdrqaz (talk) 17:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. CharlieEdited (talk) 03:33, 1 September 2024 (UTC)