Template talk:Unprotect

Delete
The reason is because the code was copied from. When this proposal wins, I'll put redirect here.

Proposer: Deadline: January 16, 2011 23:59

Support

 * 1) my Ctrl+C is broken, so I say write per proposal.

Oppose

 * 1) What if articles need to be unprotected...
 * 2) Per Fawfulfury in the comments. They both serve a different purpose. "When this proposal wins," >_>
 * 3) I think this template is mostly useless since this mostly only works on semi-protected pages, but anyway, I'm opposing because deleting a template just because you think it is copied is not a good reason to delete it.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) This is actually quite handy. The only bad thing is that the main sentence is the only difference. I'd say we alter the looks and remove the "unprotection" type and expiration, as I think they are unneeded for such thing.

Comments
What do you mean by it was copied from ?
 * I meaned
 * It's not a copy of that either. It's a little different. They serve different purposes.
 * How are they different? They're both with the same code. To put this template on protected page, you need to be sysop, but sysops already can unprotect this! For any other purposes you must use because it has "Full unprotection" as default.