{{editprotected}} Propose using olive lock to indicate move protection. Just the right balance between green and light green. This is because the light silver currently used is too light and almost disappears in to the background. -- _Hdt83 ^Chat 04:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S: Also the sentence "This page is protected from moving until disputes have been resolved." should simply be: " This page is protected from moving; you may still edit this page. " Pages are not necessarily move protected for disputes. -- _Hdt83 ^Chat 04:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like both ideas but they should probably be discussed more broadly. You should probably post the idea at the village pump or Wikipedia talk:Protection policy. --Selket ^Talk 14:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given the reasons listed at Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Move_protection, move protection may or may not be because of disputes. We could fork this template to reflect the diversity of reasons or get someone with some coding ability to code some flexibility in wording into the template itself. Any takers?--Chaser - T 19:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you want something like "This page has been protected from moves {{{reason|until disputes have been resolved}}}.", and then you can do for example {{pp-move|because I feel like it}} – Gurch 21:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that is what I want the template to look like. Not all pages are move protected because of disputes. The lock color should also be changed because the silver is too light especially against the background in the corner. -- _Hdt83 ^Chat 02:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've disabled the editprotected request while discussion continues. Please re-enable it when appropriate. Cheers. --MZMcBride 20:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The most common two reasons for move protection are 1)move vandalism and 2)naming dispute. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 22:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}} Having a "small" parameter for this template is unnecessary. The green top-right padlock looks too similar to sprotect to new users, therefore any uses of this template should be in its full form or a new icon is needed. GDonato (talk) 11:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you raised this issue at the village pump or Wikipedia talk:Protection policy? Consensus is needed before such a change is made. I do know that the use of "small" protection templates was heavily debated at some point, due to whether or not such a large banner should be used. Cheers. --MZMcBride 18:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry, hang on. GDonato (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leave for now, will discuss at some point. GDonato (talk) 18:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}} Given that prominent and frequently targeted articles are now commonly pre-emptively move-protected, the "until disputes have been resolved on the discussion page" sentence fragment of the template, implying the existence of a dispute, is inaccurate and misleading. I move that the fragment be removed, or appended to recognise the possibility that the protection was to prevent page-move vandalism. Sincerely, Skomorokh 02:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done If it was due to vandalism, {{Pp-move-vandalism}} should be used instead. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 11:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll take this up with the admin using the wrong tags. Skomorokh 12:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that if {{pp-move|small=yes}} and {{pp-semi|small=yes}} were used on the same page, then the move-protection icon would completely cover the semi-protection icon. This overlap may make it hard to tell if a page is semi-protected as well. Does anyone else think we should change the x-position of the green lock icon? --Ixfd64 (talk) 02:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At United Kingdom general election, 2010, {{pp-move|small=yes}} does not appear to be working. -Rrius (talk) 20:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}}

Please revert this because it caused this. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 21:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Ruslik_Zero 17:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}} Go to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#WP:Accessability ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 22:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Come back when you have consensus... —GFOLEY FOUR— 05:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Change:

|small={{{small|}}}
|demospace={{{demospace|}}}

To:

|small={{{small|}}}
|right={{{right|}}}
|demospace={{{demospace|}}}

This allows use of the new pp-meta parameter. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 21:44, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The TFA is move protected temporarily for obvious reasons. This is a technical issue of no interest to readers and very little interest to editors. A protection template can be confusing (it can be confused with a semi-protection template for example), there is no need to have it on the TFA so I suggest to hide it whenever it's the TFA (checking with {{TFA title}}). Protection template bots vary so we can't rely on them, and have to edit the template directly. The suggested code is in the edit window. I'll proceed if there is no objection. Cenarium (talk) 13:46, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Cenarium (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a proposal to convert this and other protection templates to Lua at Module talk:Protection banner#Proposal to convert all protection templates to use this module. Please join this discussion over there if you are interested. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 23:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at the page Aloysius Stepinac and have noted that it is move protected ([1]). However, adding the {{pp-move}} template places it in the category Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. I was wondering why this happens? Thanks, TheMagikCow (T) (C) 09:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TheMagikCow: (seven months later but oh well) That's because the move protection is set as "Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access". The template won't work with that protection level. — MRD2014 ^Talk 02:27, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still interested in doing this - thanks very much MRD2014! With this, I will try to have another look to see if this is possible. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 07:58, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to have TheMagikBOT tagging pages with move protection templates, it should probably only be done on pages with move protection set at "Require administrator access". — MRD2014 ^Talk 14:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently this template should only be used on pages protected from move at "Require administrator access", and not at lower levels (ie. "Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access") as per #Template not working?. Shouldn't the documentation of the template reflect that? Lack of accurate information about the template's use case causes confusion when it is (incorrectly) applied to a page and sorts it to a category of pages with incorrect protection templates with no explanation. — bieχχ (talk) 17:21, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Move_protected_topicons. Thank you. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:47, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: It looks like you closed the TfD yesterday as remove the icon, but it doesn't seem anything has been actioned. Where are we in the process of implementing the result? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:25, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weird, that should have been listed at WP:TFDH. Primefac (talk) 14:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only difference in the code is the presence of noinclude tags. It invokes the same function of the same module. Also the documentation for this module is wrong, it erroneously says that |reason= should be supplied, but the invoked module does not support |reason=. I will update the documentation now, but still makes me wonder if we should just redirect this to the main template and main documentation, to prevent the documentation getting out of sync again. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]