Initial text adapted from en:Wikipedia:Protected page. --mav

Ido wikibooks

A request has been made for one on the discussion page of the main page. io:user:mithridates

Proposed?

Why is this a proposed policy, and not enforced? at the very least, it should be an official guideline, but i think it would do better as an enforced policy. If we need to, i will start the voting myself. --Whiteknight (talk) (current) 21:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Should we implement semi-protection? At this point, semi-protection would make sense on Wikibooks for major spam targets like Main Page. Guanaco 17:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Semi-protection policy / Move to Reject, merge to Wikibooks:Protected page--Panic 21:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Categories

I propose to clean up the policy page proper (i.e. Wikibooks:Protected page) by moving the list of pages to a category. The list of pages itself is not policy, but instead is the result of the policy. As such, the category and a link to there from here should be created. Cheers, Iamunknown 17:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Unstable version

Changes have been made to the unstable version. I'm interested in people's thoughts on it. Also feel free to make changes. (Wikibooks:Protected page/Unstable). – Adrignola talk 02:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

It is missing any process for changing the status of the pages. My view is that 7 days protections shouldn't open for contest and the issue should be solely addressable/reversed by the acting admin, the logic is that there should be already a good enough reason for the action and the time required to come to a clear discussion would have to exceed the 7 days to be recognized. Stating this on the text can reduce those requests. Longer protections should be open for validation (that is) if not originating in a community decision (that must be at least be made visible to the editors of the project (root) of that page) the process will be focused in establishing a consensus to the removal but to the continued protection of the page..

There is also a need to establish what constitutes in the content disputes the current version of the page (the page version that the protection will make static). Current version is extremely ambiguous, it depends on how the dispute has been running, most users resort to reversions or other engage in continues changes that promote the content they defend. One example of this type discussions that promote this type of alterations is for instance on the final approval of policies/guidelines drafts, a solution that has been taken is to fix (much like a protection) the proposed text. My view is that the same should be done in any other type of content dispute the version previous to the start of the dispute should be the one to be protected, this is easy to determine by the edits history logs... --Panic (talk) 03:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes?

I thought there was pending changes. I noticed it in Cookbook:Christmas ham. Qwertyxp2000 (discuss • contribs) 00:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Pending changes is not a page protection per se, it is only active on Wikibooks for protection of the readers and it is used in general as a page review tool. Note that it is also an automated process, no administrative action is required (to enable, disable or make a change) and even if possible it is rarely used, most of those few instance have occurred only on Wikijunior. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 01:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)