See talk page. Only those that are currently semi-protected or warrant protection per WP:SEMI (as per policy).
I have added the currently semiprotected pages from the category[1] to the queue. If we want to use them in the trial then now! Amalthea 20:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
This may also be worthy of the test. Like many of the other sports officials articles, all it takes is one controversial call (or a perceived controversial call) by these referees and their articles immediately become highly visible, BLP vandal magnets (e.g. Koman Coulibaly). Zzyzx11 (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
I think this is worthy of a test as it is a quite contraversial topic often target for POV and unsourced additions The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Gets a lot of vandalism from unconfirmed users, currently not protected but in need of some protection, this may help put them off. Off2riorob (talk) 14:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
About time I suggested this (and that comes from someone who happens to be in the know about them, on and off). Prone to vandalism (or should we say, "Fan-dalism"?) from time to time. --Slgrandson (How's myegg-throwing coleslaw?) 17:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. 山本一郎 (会話) 01:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
School in England. Got regular predictable teenage vandalism before semi-protection, and often anon edits commenting on the new school badge or inserting links to one-off news events involving pupils that don't really relate to the school as a topic. — Hex(❝?!❞) 14:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Receives regular, nasty vandalism from a moving IP located in Thailand if left unprotected; said vandalism extends to leaving comments on the talk page as well. Tabercil (talk) 23:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Been semi-protected since May. One article I thought will get a lot of eyes which can be good or bad. It will also be especially popular during the next two months in particular. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Been semi protected for a while due to vandalism after a UK scandal. I think we could now consider opening it up a little. ϢereSpielChequers 11:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Persistent anonymous vandalism and political POV pushing. An internationally sensitive subject with moderate visibility and a high level of historical controversy, as well as a relatively stable article aside from the POV pushing and vandalism. Gigs (talk) 14:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
New PM of Australia to be sworn in today, ITN underway. Article vandalised many times in the past hours and semi-protected minutes ago. Could be a good test case of Pending changes. --Elekhh (talk) 02:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I've replaced it with traditional semiprotection. There was too much activity at this time for pending changes to be useful. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I've been away a while and didn't realise the trial was on a per article basis. Thus I changed this already from indef-semi (due to a long pattern of sometimes extreme vandalism) to pending changes level 1. Hopefully it will be retroactively approved here, if not then please reset back to indef-semi. Cheers. NJA(t/c) 10:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Currently in the news and receiving significant vandalism. However there are likely to be lots of good edits from anons as well. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Silver-locked disambiguation page. This is somewhat different from the other articles that have been added, and might not be what you're looking for, but I thought I'd give it a shot Purplebackpack89 04:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
We're looking for pages which receive regular vandalism, but which may benefit from constructive edits from anonymous editors as well. I'm not sure this suggestion is suitable because reviewers will spend all day reverting vandalism. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
This article, because of the recent reporting on his comments in Rolling stones has become extremely high traffic and edit. See [2] and [3]. Sadads (talk) 12:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
If we are experimenting, we should experiment. This talk page gets essentially no useful anonymous edits (usually vandalism spillover from the protected article page or forum discussion). We should find out what happens if we use pending changes on these cases, because policy proscribes simultaneous semi-protection on an article page and its talk page. Maybe semi-protection on an article and pending changes on its talk page is an effective combination.—Kww(talk) 15:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm all for experimenting and I wouldn't rule out PC on talk pages, but I question whether it would be appropriate on that page. I had a look and there were only 3-4 reversions in the past month. So on first glance, it doesn't seem to warrant any protection. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
During the trial PC won't work in the Talk: namespace. -- zzuuzz(talk) 07:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
This article is a prime target for every editor who knows about her. It is a WP:BLP issue with the majority of the edits, including comments about her having a child at a young age. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Highly-trafficked semi-protected article. Often recieves edit requests from IPs and new users, requests that would perhaps be better served with review Purplebackpack89 23:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
High traffic, fluctuating level of vandalism, has been protected several times (temporarily) in the past. Current vandalism level is medium-low (1 per week), so I believe is a good test case for pending changes.--Elekhh (talk) 05:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Gets a fair bit of not confirmed vandalism and could well benefit from the pending protection. Request is also from User:Malke 2010hereOff2riorob (talk) 15:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Done
Not done