Template talk:Edit fully-protected/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2


{{editprotected}} is used to mark a protected page for a proposed update.



Add this on the talk page of a protected page with the precise wikitext you want to be edited.


What you could type at the bottom of the relevant talk page:
==Wrong category==
The protected page (why was it fully protected if only
an anon vandalized it once, we have semi-protection)
should be in category '''foo''' with sort key '''bar''':

Please replace <tt><nowiki>[[Category:old]]</nowiki></tt>
by <tt><nowiki>[[Category:foo|bar]]</nowiki></tt>

~~~~ {{editprotected}}
The output would be roughly something like this:

Wrong category

The protected page (why was it fully protected if only an anon vandalized it once, we have semi-protection) should be in category foo with sort key bar:

Please replace [[Category:old]] by [[Category:foo|bar]]


It is requested that an edit or modification be made to the protected page.

Please remove this notice and close the discussion once the request is completed.

The template adds the talk page in question to Category:Wikipedia_protected_edit_requests. An admin will see this later, check the talk page, remove the template again, and either edit the protected page as proposed or not - stating what (s)he has done at the place where (s)he removed the template.



Text output by {{Temprot}} which can be used on talk pages of protected templates.

See Also


Add issues below as you see fit, sign with ~~~~


Could someone show some examples of how this can be used? Is it currently being used anywhere? AucamanTalk 17:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

It is particularly useful for the proposed Wikipedia:Stable versions. Its purpose also overlaps and is somewhat easier than Requests for Unprotection. -- 13:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


Why? Because protecting pages that only administrators can edit is inherently anti-wiki and POV. This template tries to minimise that. -- Zondor 06:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


I would like to suggest this template be modified. A lot of the text it contains should be removed from the template itself:

It is requested that an edit or modification be made to the protected page.

Please move this notice and close the discussion once the request is completed.

This template adds a page to Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests. It is a self-reference and so is part of the Wikipedia project rather than the encyclopaedic content.

This notice is to be placed on the talk page and adjacent to the request text. Please make the request clear and specific as much as possible. It is automatically categorised into Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests. Administrators will check this category for protected edit requests to process.

-- Ec5618 19:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


Why was this deleted? Userboxes seemed to be quite popular. I thought they were a great way to say things about yourself without having to write an autobiography. Starla Dear 01:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? -- Omniplex 13:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Instructions missing

This template's explanation is incomprehensible to most users, and it's missing the instructions. Instead of "This notice is to be placed on the talk page and adjacent to the request text.", this should say:

To ask an administrator to edit a protected page, you can add this notice on the talk page adjacent to the request by writing "{{Editprotected}}" without the quotes.

--Espoo 17:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Espoo is right, I couldn't figure it out and had a perfectly valid need for this. Please as some instructions giving the text to be entered. Thanks! Avraham 01:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

See above -- Omniplex 13:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Editprotected update request

For some time {{editprotected}} listed itself in the category for requested updates, because it was used here (on its talk page) as example. That's fixed now for some weeks, therefore I hope that a real request here could now work again:

Please replace
[[Category:Uncategorized templates|{{PAGENAME}}]]
[[Category:Protection templates|{{PAGENAME}}]]

-- Omniplex 05:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Done. --CBDunkerson 15:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, also to Syrthiss who migrated the rest of this zoo. -- Omniplex 17:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


Why does this template have to be protected? It doesn't have a history of vandalism or edit warring, it's not extensively transcluded at any one time (5 articles at time of writing). I'm assuming the admin who protected it just had protection on the brain when they were reading the template, but I think it's unnecessary and by principle we should start from a no-protection starting point. BigBlueFish 15:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit summary

I have modified this template so that users can add the summary of the requested edit. Myrtone

I've reverted it. This makes the conversation hard to follow when the template is removed. Naconkantari 01:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I was trying to make it consistant with {{unblock}} which does allow the user to type in the reason, when the request is comfirmed or denied, the admin simpliy nowikis it or removes the template and keeps the reason, so why not with {{editprotected}}? Myrtone
Editprotected works fine as is, the nominator just types the request, signs, and adds the tag. The admin removes the tag, writes "done" (or a bit more otherwise), signs, ready. No reason to introduce parameters. -- Omniplex 04:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Why have these perameters with {{unblock}} but not {{editprotected}}? I still don't understand. Myrtone

It is best not to look at precedents in Wikipedia, but look at each problem separately and find the best solution. Is a summary parameter and Reviewed subcategory necessary and effective in {{unblock}}? Who knows, its not important, we won't be basing the behaviour of {Editprotected} on {Unblock}. What is important is what is neccessary for {Editprotected} to work efficiently and effectively. I have not seen any arguments for adding the summary parameter or Reviewed subcategory - are there good reasons? I don't think so, I think {Editprotected} works fine as is. But by all means discuss, maybe there is something I am missing.

Importantly, if someone reverts your change to a popular template, do not revert back until consensus has been reached on the talk page (eg in this case, including me, 3 people have turned up to oppose the addition of the summary parameter). Please revert the template to version before the compulsory summary parameter. If there is a concern that people will try to use a summary parameter but it doesn't exist, perhaps an optional parameter as found in {{Helpme}} could be added. I don't like it, it's not necessary and makes things more complicated, but perhaps there is a need.--Commander Keane 06:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the non-summary version and reverted to it. After seeing three editprotected requests in a row with the silly-looking "The summary is: {{{1}}}", I'm convinced that if people want to explain their rationale for editing the protected page, they prefer to do so outside of the template itself. Kimchi.sg 08:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Sometimes blocked users do this with {{unblock}}, I could add an optional paramater but I don't know how to do that, could someone help? Myrtone ()
There is no point to this change. —Centrxtalk • 07:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Adding ar

Can someone please add [[ar:قالب:!]] to the interwiki's. Thanks. Jak123 20:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't look like a template. It looks like a Wikipedia page with sections and bullet points. —Centrxtalk • 22:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

What if the talk page is protected too!!

How can I request to edit a protected page when even its talk page is protected (so I cannot put the template)?? I think protecting talk pages should not be allowed. I would like to edit Angry Nintendo Nerd, a website that attracts thousands of fans and is an important internete meme in the video game community.--Sonjaaa 20:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe you open the log, look up the username of the admin who protected the talk page, and if the admin is still active in Wikipedia, put your {{editprotected}} request on the admin's user talk page. If that fails, escalate the request to WP:RFPP or, if the talk page is a protected deleted page, WP:DRV. --jan Tepo (toki) 00:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


On Template:disambig please add the following: "For templates to place on other pages directing a reader to the disambiguation page, see [[Template:otheruses]]." This can be added at the bottom of the page. Alternatively, add:

"==See Also== * [[Template:otheruses]]"

Reason for this documentation: users looking for the "otheruses" templates but who have forgotten what they're called will likely look for "Template:Disambiguation" which will take them to "Template:disambig". --Coppertwig 14:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

What if the request is denied?

The current text of the template has: "Please remove this template after the request is fulfilled." But what if the request is denied? Shouldn't this be "fulfilled or denied"? Actually, perhaps there should be a somewhat more defined indication of closure, along the lines of AfD closures, perhaps by modifying the template invocation to {{editprotected fulfilled}} or {{editprotected denied|reason=you must be kidding}}.  --LambiamTalk 13:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I've changed "fulfilled" to "handled", and added a section to the documentation on what to do upon resolution, e.g. change {{editprotected}} to &#123;{editprotected}}. Quarl (talk) 2007-03-17 13:35Z

To request protection

A lot of people seem to use this tag when they really want WP:RFPP, or when they are just discussing a possible edit but have no specific proposal. At the risk of making the template a little longer, I think it would be worthwhile to make the template more self-explanatory. What about:

It is requested that an edit or modification be made to this protected page. (fully-protected/Archive 1 protection log)
This template should be accompanied by a specific description of the request. Please disable this template when the request is handled.

This template is for requesting changes to the content of the page. To request that the page itself be protected or unprotected, please make a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection instead.

Thoughts? CMummert · talk 21:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I'll probably implement the top half tomorrow unless someone objects; I don't want to do the whole thing without some a second opinion. CMummert · talk 18:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Go for it. Personally, I've never seen it used to request protection, but I have several occasions where this no clue as to what the edit should be. I'm all for making this box easier to find (i.e. bigger. Is there any way to make the template work like {{unblock}}? Maybe add a parameter for the requested edit (wikisytax and all, i.e. ). And after the edit, the category will be removed,but the template is kept. John Reaves (talk) 19:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
It might be harder to editors to use the template if it had more complicated syntax such as parameters; they are already familiar with the current setup, which is simple and elegant. I rephrased the template slightly which removed an unsightly line break (for me at least) and added a link to the instructions. I also limitd the width to 5.5in, which will make it easier to find by making it taller. CMummert · talk 19:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, good point. I forgot to mention earlier that I bolded "specific description" to try and get the point across. I say go ahead and implement the new template, I think that will be the best way to get comments on the new version rather than waiting for them here. John Reaves (talk) 19:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

NAACP, Bruce Gordon

This section moved here from Template talk:Editprotected/doc.

It should be added that Bruce Gordon is no longer the president of the NAACP. He resigned March 4. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adambelz (talkcontribs) 01:07, 22 March 2007

Not sure how you got to this page, but I fixed it... Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 20:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Unnamed Discussion

Why isn't the template FULLY PROTECTED? Do any of you want people vandalizing this page? TobytheTramEngine There is something wrong, it states that batista is the currnet world heavyweight champion, but the Undertaker defeated at wresltemania 23, and the last man standing match at backlash 2007 ended in a draw after a spear to the bottom of the entrance ramp, i hope you fix this big mistake.

This template doesn't appear on articles, only talk pages. And most of the time it is on about 8 talk pages. So there is no enough risk to justify full protection. CMummert · talk 12:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I see. Thanks! TobytheTramEngine

id="editprotected", bot request

I wrapped the table in a div with id editprotected. This enables custom formatting of the box, like class="editprotected" would. But it needs to be an id, not a class, so that you can link to the request by adding #editprotected to the end of the talk page URL. This will fail to validate if there are multiple protected edit requests, but that should be a very rare and minor problem.

I also want to publicize a bot request to make a useful table of protected edit requests that should make it more convenient to handle them. CMummert · talk 17:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-table version

I turned the current version into a tableless notice. The ability to edit ther template in general is not hampered much. I put the code and example below. Tell me if I made any mistakes. Also, The <div style="margin: 3px;"> cannot be put in the first <div> tag, as this caused errors with centering. —Andrew Hampe Talk 00:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It is requested that an edit or modification be made to this protected page. (protection log)
Usage: this template should be accompanied by a specific description of the request. Please disable this template when the request is handled.

This template is for requesting changes to the content of the page (current requests). To request that the page itself be protected or unprotected, please make a request at requests for page protection instead.


<includeonly>{{{category|[[Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}}</includeonly>


<div id="editprotected" class="messagebox standard-talk" style="text-align: center;"><noinclude><!-- Yes it needs to be an id so it can be linked to --></noinclude><div style="margin: 3px;"> [[Image:Information icon.svg|left|40px]] '''It is requested that an edit or modification be made to this [[Wikipedia:This page is protected|protected page]].''' <span class="plainlinks"><small>([{{fullurl:Special:Log|type=protect&page={{urlencode:{{SUBJECTPAGENAME}}}}}} protection log])</small></span><br />[[Template:Editprotected#Usage|Usage:]] this template should be accompanied by a '''specific description''' of the request. Please [[Template:editprotected#Recommended action upon resolution|disable this template]] when the request is handled. ---- <small>This template is for requesting changes to the content of the page ([[:Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests|current requests]]). To request that the page itself be protected or unprotected, please make a request at '''[[Wikipedia:Requests for page protection|requests for page protection]]''' instead.</small> </div></div><center>{{{1|Message}}}</center><includeonly>{{{category|[[Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}}</includeonly>

Andrew Hampe Talk 00:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Info box colors

 – Wrong venue.

Request to change Joe Girardi's info box to the Cubs red and blue colors (as it was previously listed before someone changed to Yankees blue and gray and then the page got protected). Girardi played twice as many years on the Cubs and also played 2 separate stints in Chicago. He only played 3 years in New York and the Yankees are not the most reflective team for his career. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pascack (talkcontribs) 02:21, 17 July 2007

This belongs at Talk:Joe Girardi. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Bug report

The bottom half of the template goes wide when this template is placed on talk pages, or at least on "Template talk:" namespace talk pages. This broken bottom half's background also matches the color of said talk pages, making it difficult to discern the template from the talk page content (example). Please fix. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The tempalte code was changed by Andrew Hampe to use no tables, and this appears to be broken. I reverted to the table version until the nontable version is fixed and tested. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

New template for {{editprotected}} requests which are up for discussion

When looking at CAT:PER, and at the auto-generated summary at User:VeblenBot/PERtable, I noticed that several of the requests are being discussed - and shouldn't be processed until a consensus canbe reached.

My solution is:
1. Create a new template ({{editprotected-discuss}}), which will replace the {{editprotected}} tag in such cases. Create a new category for it.
2.In the {{editprotected}} template, add the sentence: If you think this edit needs to be discussed, please replace this template with {{editprotected-discuss}}.
Od Mishehu 07:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I've observed this problem on numerous occasions. It appears to stem from the mistaken belief that the template's purpose is to announce a proposal to edit a protected page. (In fact, its purpose is to flag down a sysop to perform an immediate change.) That's why I added text advising against the template's use when an edit warrants discussion.
What purpose would your proposed template serve? Why would we want to attract special attention to these proposals via a new category (instead of allowing the discussions to progress normally)? —David Levy 07:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Discuss and (where needed) advertise the discussion as needed. When consensus to make a change has been reached, use 'editprotected' if no admins are around. Carcharoth 11:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Agree. Sometimes I turn off the templates when I see the discussions going on with a note to report it when it comes back. If you are trying to draw people to the discussions, I would suggest notifying editors through a WikiProject, the pump, or user talk pages if necessary, but I don't see value in having an advertisement for people to discuss unrelated topics which just happen to all be protected. --After Midnight 0001 15:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I have kind of had the opposite problem. I have suggested things on talk pages of permanently protected articles and then waited for days without any response from other editors. But I hesitated to use the {{editprotected}} since it uses the term "immediate" which makes it sound like it is only for urgent matters. So instead of making a new template I suggest removing the two occurances of the word "immediate" from the template. --David Göthberg 01:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

"Immediate" doesn't mean "urgent." It means "without delay." If you believe that it's appropriate to perform an edit now (without continuing to wait for discussion to occur), this is the appropriate template to use.
Removing the word "immediate" (which I added on 30 July) would increase the likelihood of users believing that the template's purpose is to announce a proposal to edit a protected page (an extremely common misconception). —David Levy 02:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


When and why did this template become "immediate"?[1] Is there a non-immediate template I should be using for more casual requests? I'm almost never in a rush. -- 20:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually -- nevermind, I see your response above. Maybe if it just actually said "without delay" that would clarify this... -- 20:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Immediate is fine. The point is that the edit should be made as soon as someone sees it - if it is indeed reasonable, and that there is no request for discussion, and no need for any delay. What I see happening is that a lot of the requests languish as though no one wants to tackle them, or stick their neck out in agreement, although I admit some are so baffling that it is hard to see what edit was intended. (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Request to AFD article denied

I am amazed that my request to have the article Pakistan occupied Kashmir AFD'ed is denied. How can this be? __meco (talk) 10:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should ask at the Pakistan occupied Kashmir talk page.--Parthian Scribe 17:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Spelling Error

{{editprotected}} In the "MCain Phones Joe" section, US Marines Corps needs to be changed to the proper term, ----- " U.S. Marine Corps."" Thanks

 Not done asked user to put the request on the specific talk page, not here SkierRMH (talk) 03:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Since the Doctor Steel article was recently accepted, might I request that Dr. Steel (album) be downgraded from protected to semi-protected status (with the same user authorizations as the Doctor Steel page, i.e. established users and admins)? (If this is in the wrong place I apologize; your instructions were rather confusing...) Thank you very much. I have a sandbox for that page but wanted to move it. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 00:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you are in the wrong place, WP:RFPP is the page for requests like this. However in this case, it might be better to contact the protecting admin JzG about it. Regards, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, that worked about as well as I expected it to: JzG declined (color me not surprised). But at least I followed protocol. Will post it on the WP:RFPP now. Thanks. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 19:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

White phosphorous typo

There is a typo under the white phosphorous section that says: "completion of the three-day Israesli withdrawal", can an admin fix it? -Solid Reign (talk) 23:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. You're in the wrong place - I don't even know which article you are talking about. Could you make the request on the talk page of the article? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Heh, sorry, I had two windows open, edited the wrong one. Sorry about that... -Solid Reign (talk) 15:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

"Go back"

This section moved here from Template talk:Editprotected/doc.

Can we make the words "go back" (in the phrase "Please go back to the page you just came from and discuss there instead of here.") into a browser history link? I'm not sure of the syntax or I'd do it myself, but I know it's something like "history.go-1" Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 10:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Response to "editprotect" requests

This article's content states:

Administrators will check this category for protected edit requests to process. In the three months of September through November 2007, the average time for a request to be handled was approximately 23 hours, and 75% of requests were resolved within 26 hours.

There has been an "editprotect" request on a page outstanding for three days (76 hours) and, given the above statement about response efficiency, I'm beginning to think that the non-handling of this particular request until the edit protection (which is only a week) just conveniently expires is deliberate. According to the image of glowing effiency you wish to portray with the above statistics, processing for this "editprotect" is long overdue. Please can somebody get around to looking at this.

Many Thanks in advance.

Andrew81446 (talk) 05:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The request to fix several aspects of Los Angeles International Airport has gone unanswered for six days and still sits there. This block is indefinite, so it's not going to resolve itself. Can an administrator please get on to this? Mvjs (talk) 07:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


It is requested that an immediate edit be made to this fully-protected page. (protection log)
This template should be accompanied by a specific description of the request.

This template is for requesting edits to a protected page. Alterations to semi-protected pages may be performed by any logged-in user. This template should only be used to request uncontroversial edits, or edits for which there is already a consensus. If you believe that a desired change might be controversial, please discuss it on the protected page's talk page before inserting this template. To request that the page itself be protected or unprotected, please make a request at requests for page protection.

Comments? Happymelon 17:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

(1) Brevity is the soul of wit. Can we shorten the italicized text a bit? (2) I've always loved the red lock icon (see Template:permprot). Can we use that one instead? --MZMcBride (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I've done my best - if there's any more text you think you can cut out, be my guest. I chose the gold padlock because it's used in the protection templates for full protection, which is what this is related to. The red packlock is used for indefinite protection - this page is protected for some very good reason, and will never be unprotected - which is not really what editprotected is about. A change to a page with the red padlock on it is a Big Deal, which is not really the effect we're going for :D. Happymelon 18:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I have absolutely no idea where you got that idea from. I added the red padlock to Template:permprot because I thought it was prettier; we could just as easily use Image:Padlock-zebra.svg. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
If that is the case, then had I been around at the time I would have opposed the use of the red padlock. My interpretation of the red image is derived from its use on {{permprot}} - if it does not, in fact, have any officially-assigned meaning, then even less reason to use it in lieu of the "official" golden padlock. I assume/hope that the zebra padlock was a joke - although it might be an interesting switch to make on April Fool's Day... Happymelon 21:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Looks good to me, and I don't care what color the padlock is :P Hopefully people will actually start reading it and follow the directions. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Looks fine. Someone wanted a shorter version of the wording; how about this? "This template should only be used to request edits which are clearly uncontroversial or which have consensus, to a fully-protected page. Possibly-controversial edits should be discussed on the protected page's talk page before inserting this template. To request that the page itself be protected or unprotected, please make a request at requests for page protection." We could wait and see whether this wording discourages the semi-protected requests before adding in a whole sentence about that; the previous wording said nothing about fully-protected and looks to me as if it means it's fine to use it for semi-protected requests. --Coppertwig (talk) 21:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
The current template doesn't say anything, but the documentation notes that it is only for full protection. Asking for an admin to edit a semi-protected page is completely unnecessary. If I had to cut a sentence, I'd chop the bit about WP:RFP - in my crawl of CAT:PER today I found several semi-protected pages, but not one where the request was for unprotection. Happymelon 21:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Another suggestion

Taking the redesign proposal from the previous section one sentence at a time:

  1. "It is requested that an immediate edit be made to this fully-protected page"
    Simplify, and avoid passive voice? Also, the edit request is not going to be acted upon immediately or necessarily at all, so better not to describe it as an "immediate edit", which raises expectations.
  2. "This template should be accompanied by a specific description of the request."
    Is it really necessary to say this? The template will be used by editors who want to propose an edit. How else would an editor propose an edit except by describing it?
  3. "This template is for requesting edits to a protected page."
    The sentence repeats what is clearly implied by the previous two sentences, and could be omitted.
  4. "Alterations to semi-protected pages may be performed by any logged-in user."
    Is it necessary to say that? The template should stick to the point, which concerns edits to fully-protected pages.
  5. "This template should only be used to request uncontroversial edits, or edits for which there is already a consensus."
    Shorten and move bolding? "This template should only be used to request edits that are uncontroversial and supported by consensus." (is it necessary to link to WP:Consensus?)
  6. "If you believe that a desired change might be controversial, please discuss it on the protected page's talk page before inserting this template."
    "Desired change" → "proposed edit", "inserting" → "using"
  7. "To request that the page itself be protected or unprotected, please make a request at requests for page protection."
    Put the sentence in a new paragraph?


I propose the following edit to this fully-protected page. (protection log)

  • This template should only be used to request edits that are uncontroversial and supported by consensus. If you believe the proposed edit might be controversial, please discuss it on the protected page's talk page before using this template.

- Neparis (talk) 02:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts are these:

  1. I quite like the wording of this first sentence, with the possible ommission of "immediate". Using the passive voice takes the emphasis off the editor who has requested the edit, and onto the actual edit itself, which is what should be important.
  2. You'd be surprised; I've seen "can you make the template smaller", "can someone add a 'date' field" (nothing more or less than that), and so forth. The idea is that editors come together and propose a change on the talk page, make a sandbox if one doesn't exist already, work out what needs to be changed, test it, test it some more, then add the tag and either say "replace this code with this code" or "copy the code from this sandbox". So all the admin has to do is determine that there is consensus for the change, make sure the change works in the sandbox, copy the relevant code, check it works in preview, save, and check a few WhatLinksHere to make sure they haven't screwed anything up. General wishy-washy requests are not usually acted upon, so why not make that clear?
  3. That's true, we could probably lose this sentence.
  4. As I said above, asking an admin to change a semi-protected page is completely unnecessary, but loads of IPs still do it.
  5. Sounds good, maybe change "and" to "or". Linking doesn't take up any space, and makes the run of text a bit more interesting, so why not?
  6. Looks good
  7. I'm not sure why it's necessary to split it into a new paragraph; that will only make the text longer. Even if we do, I really hate the bullet points :D.

And as I've said above, I really really dislike the red padlock! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Happy-melon (talkcontribs) 24 Feb 2008

It is requested that an immediate edit be made to this fully-protected page. (protection log)
This template should be accompanied by a specific description of the request.

This template should only be used to request edits to fully-protected pages that are uncontroversial or supported by consensus. If you believe the proposed edit might be controversial, please discuss it on the protected page's talk page before using this template. To request that the page itself be protected or unprotected, please make a request at requests for page protection.

Reply: I like this one. Quicker to the point; less small print makes it more likely that it will be red. I like the gold lock in this template, too--more harmonious in the overall color scheme. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I've updated the template with this latest design. Happymelon 17:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  1. That first sentence is just so verbose, and still misleadingly says "immediate". I agree the passive keeps the focus off the editor and on the edit, which is good, but there are active voice wordings which would achieve the same effect and be briefer. What about something similar to the following:
Proposed edit to this fully-protected page. (protection log)
(7 words versus 14 words in the current wording)
or as a complete sentence:
Please review this proposed edit to this fully-protected page. (protection log)
(10 words versus 14 words)
Please make / apply / do / ...
2. I agree with your point 2 about the risks of not explaining what should be obvious.
- Neparis (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Why not just drop the "immediate"?? Happymelon 19:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, dropped. What do you think about shortening the 13-word sentence down to something like either the 7-word or the 10-word one I suggested above? - Neparis (talk) 20:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
It's just that neither of them really say the same thing as the current wording. The first is better, but clashes with the second line. It just doesn't flow properly. The second is too ambiguous - who is supposed to review it? The admin or other editors? The third shifts the focus back to the editor rather than the edit: "I would like you to do this". Just my thoughts. Happymelon 21:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
In what way does the first sentence in
Proposed edit to this fully-protected page. (protection log)
This template should be accompanied by a specific description of the request.
"clash" with or not flow properly with the second one, and why should the clash or the flow be any different than for
It is requested that an edit be made to this fully-protected page. (protection log)
This template should be accompanied by a specific description of the request.
Or is your objection more simply whether or not there is a predicate in the first sentence?
I think there is a similar amount of ambiguity in all of the wordings; the current wording is ambiguous as to who is making the request ("It is requested that" — says who?) and to whom the request is being addressed ("that an edit be made" — by whom?); my second example is ambiguous as to who is being asked to review the edit; it could be clarified: "Please would an admin review this proposed edit to this fully-protected page. (protection log)." (still only 12 words) - Neparis (talk) 23:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the term, but it seems about right - the current wording just seems to sound better to me. Happymelon 09:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Any of the versions suggested on this page are fine with me, but in case anybody is looking for extreme brevity, here's another suggestion: "Specific description of proposed edit to this fully-protected page. This edit is uncontroversial or has consensus." By the way, if you want to reduce the numbers of requests for edits to semi-protected pages, I suggest editing the page Wikipedia:This page is protected, which seems to me to be implying that this template is to be used for that purpose. --Coppertwig (talk) 00:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
That might be a little excessive :D. Thanks for the note about Wikipedia:This page is protected - I'll have a look there and update the wording if necessary. Happymelon 09:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi. One consideration with the change you implemented there is that it doesn't give guidance to editors who want edits to a sp page that does not have active monitoring on the talk page. I wonder about directing them to the help desk for that. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Adding back the sentence about semi-protected pages is drifting back towards the original wording; I don't have a problem with that, but others might. Happymelon 14:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
It could be noted at Wikipedia:This page is protected. I'm just not sure if the help desk is the best place to send them, since that's not really what the help desk is for...although I've myself helped people out making that request there. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The redesign has five links in it but it eliminates the most important link - the one to the list of other requests. (talk) 19:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Excellent point - I've linked "requests" to the category. Happymelon 19:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad to see that it is there but it would be better to reword the very verbose italic section and explicitly state that there was a link for other requests. Oh and the template gets used a lot by IPusers on semi-protected pages. (talk) 20:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Remove parameter

I have been seeing a fair number of editprotected templates used with the request added as the first unnamed parameter ([2], [3]). As you can see from the first one, the fact that the whole edit was wrapped in a template tag caused Sinebot not to autosign the comment, which is unhelpful. It is also impossible to quickly disable the template with {{tlx}} or similar when it is passed parameters. I would like to remove the support for the parameter, such that the template cannot be passed any parameters. This should not really inconvenience anyone, as it only affects where they have to put the closing braces. Happymelon 19:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the parameter. Happymelon 19:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Not just for fully-protected pages

{{editprotected}} Please change "fully-protected" to "protected" in the two locations where it appears. There is no reason to pretend that fully protected is any different than semi-protected. Think about it. The only way a fully protected page gets edited is by an admin. Are you saying that there are so many admins who can't type that there needs to be a template just to call attention to their typos, and the rare case were information changes that needs to be corrected? The principle use of the template is on semi-protected pages. (talk) 21:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

 Not done You've got the purpose of this template completely backwards. As an IP, yes, there's no difference to you between full protectoin and semi protection, so you have to propose changes to semi-protected pages on the talk page. But there are over six million users who can make that change for you if it's appropriate. You won't have to wait very long before an autoconfirmed user comes along who can make the change if it makes sense. By contrast, there are only 1,500 administrators on the english wikipedia, which is far less than the number of protected pages. We're not special - we don't decide whether a proposed change is appropriate - we just follow consensus and common sense. The only reason you need an admin to edit a fully-protected page is because a technical restriction prohibits other users from doing so, and the difficulty in finding an admin is the reason for this template. Edit requests to fully-protected pages are no different to edit requests to semi-protected pages or even substantial edits to normal pages - they should be proposed on the talk page, discussed, a consensus arrived at, and then implemented. This template is only relevant for that last step - as a flag to bring someone with the technical means with which to make the edit. If the page is only semi-protected, you don't need an admin to change it, so there's no need to call one. Happymelon 21:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Wow, that many users now? I bet less than 1% are active users. The template is quite useful for flagging the need to make an edit on a protected page, no matter who makes the edit. It separates the request from how about this to how about this, and brings in more vultures to make the edit. The alternative would be to throw out an RFC or something like that, but is highly unnecessary when the template can be used instead. (talk) 22:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Special:Statistics says so, and yes, I expect that your guess is pretty close. I agree to a certain extent with the usefulness of the template in attracting attention, and that certainly makes sense from an editor's and certainly from an IP's perspective. However, from the admin end, every transclusion of {{editprotected}} is another page in CAT:EP and, like all administrative categories, CAT:EP is regularly backlogged with requests. Essentially the problem is that if everyone used the template for semi-protected requests as well as full-protected ones, the (as you say, relatively few) fully-protected pages (the ones which actually need an admin to make the change) would get lost in amongst the other requests, which would completely defeat the purpose of the system in the first place. Happymelon 22:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
However if "anyone" was looking at those requests and making them "immediately", there wouldn't be any for them to get lost among. From a technical standpoint it would be nifty if the software could sort them into protected/semi-protected with a HR separating them so that admins could focus on the ones above the bar and other users wouldn't need to waste their time trying to edit them, although as I said before it is beneficial for everyone to look at the requested protected edits to see if they are reasonable. (talk) 22:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Also please change the word "accompanied" to "followed". In many instances editors have written long rambling discussions of what they wanted done - sort of - and then added the template. It is much better to be very specific as to where you want the request located - after the placement of the template. (talk) 22:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Another good idea. Happymelon 22:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree. "followed" will mean that after a rambling discussion which maybe sort-of demonstrates consensus and which maybe sort-of describes the edit, then someone will have to at least restate clearly what the desired edit is (even if only "the edit described in the above discussion" :-\ )
If non-auto-confirmed users want to use a template to request edits, it should be a different template (or the same template with different options, to put the request into a different category) so that admins can choose not to take up their time with semi-protected edit requests. There are important backlogs admins need to be looking at. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
That would be fine, although I fail to see the need for two templates - just create a {{editsprotected}} template. However it is helpful to have everyone look over the editprotected requests and it would not be handy to have to look in two places. What I would like to see is them all on the same page but separated - the fully protected ones at the top, then a horizontal ruling, then the semi-protected ones. Remember that the distinction needs to be generated on the fly as the protection of each page could have easily changed since the request was made. You have heard of NIMBY, well the opposite is Not Invented Here - a lot of editors have zero interest in contributing something that they didn't think of themselves. Witness the 50 other edits[4] that have been made to Barack Obama since someone did an editrequest to update the delegate count following the most recent primary. (talk) 01:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
There's no need for two templates, I agree, because I agree with others that editprotected requests are only for fully protected pages. The table at User:VeblenBot/PERtable does show the protection level of the page, among other things. When I handle editprotected requests, I sometimes use User:CBM/T/spep to decline the requests on pages that aren't fully protected. In the worst case, you can simply register a username, wait four days, and make the edit yourself. After that you will be able to edit semiprotected pages without waiting. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

That's hardly a valid suggestion. Think about it - Wikipedia has over a million users, some of those users actually see blatantly wrong items, and want to get them corrected, but have no interest in ever using Wikipedia again, let alone registering a username and waiting four days. All they want is an obvious tag that will attract attention from the wider Wikipedia community to the page and get it fixed. All they see is a padlock. They don't even know that admins exist, let alone the difference between fully protected and semi protected pages - all they know is that they can't fix it. There really is no reason to not just use this template for the purpose. As you will notice, I do. (talk) 07:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

If this hypothetical IP user knows enough to use editprotected, they know the talk page exists, which is the real hurdle. If the IP user leaves a note on the talk page, any editor with the page on their watchlist can fix the problem; no admin attention is needed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
You are right - most wikipedia users don't even know that talk pages exist. However, leaving notes on talkpages isn't enough - a flag to the wider community is necessary that will attract editors who do not have that talk page on their watch list (whoever watchlists talk pages anyway?). Relying on editors seeing a note on a talk page is particularly ineffective because there is a large degree of NIH (not invented here). If it isn't someone's primary interest they are clearly not interested in fixing something that someone else found. Notes on talk pages languish for weeks. I know - I've left plenty of them. (talk) 15:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
When you watchlist an article you also automatically watchlist the talk page.— Carl (CBM · talk) 15:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
It's harsh but true, that the main reason your comments to talk pages go unnoticed is probably because your 'username' is a collection of numbers. That said, pages are always protected for a reason, and that reason is also going to result on the pages being watchlisted by involved parties, and probably anyone who is involved in mediating. There are a lot of wikipedia pages which aren't watched, but I doubt that many protected pages are among them. As Carl says, anyone watchlisting a page automatically gets the talk page as well, and vice versa. Happymelon 17:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You can see how much I know about watchlisting... And yes IPusers get ignored a lot - but they occasionally do notice things that need to be fixed, and taking out a username just to get noticed is not a good solution. Out of 6,837,699 usernames I wonder how many are socks, sleepers, and people who have forgotten their password and will never use them again. By the way thanks for fixing the US page. (talk) 19:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Changing formatting

Wikipedia is designed to shift as much of the rendering choices onto the user's browser as possible, for several reasons. Most importantly, it means that the formatting can be made to work more easily with a wider range of browsers, some of which display identical html code very differently. What looks good in firefox almost invariably looks terrible in IE7, and often vice versa, just because of the different way the browsers interpret html. Individual users' display settings, colour pallets, monitor sizes and a host of other factors all affect how the page is displayed, so the more freedom Wikipedia can give the users' browser to display the code however looks best for that users' environment, the better. Secondly, it gives the user the opportunity to make their own customisations via their own .css pages - being overly specific about what formatting you think looks best makes it more difficult for other users to apply their own preferences. Happymelon 09:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Ambiguous reference

I would like to clarify the line in the current version of the template that reads "This template should only be used to request edits to fully-protected pages that are uncontroversial or supported by consensus."

It is not the pages that have to be uncontroversial, but the edits! What about "This template should only be used to request uncontroversial edits to fully-protected pages." If there is an adjective form of consensus, insert it after uncontroversial.

Mumiemonstret (talk) 23:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I added some parenthetical commas. What do you think? Happymelon 09:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, this works. Perhaps a little bit more bureaucratic but quite understandable. Mumiemonstret (talk) 21:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Adaptation to MediaWiki namespace

I have noticed that the template adjusts to the various namespaces it is placed in, by giving the type of the page in the first sentence. This is an interesting and sometimes helpful feature, and I could even say that I like it. However, this superficial adaptability makes the template look rather strange when it is used for requests made for changes to MediaWiki pages. This is due to two elements:

  1. A link in the message box's first line to the hosting page's protection log.
  2. The last sentence, regarding requests for (un)protection.

Given that MediaWiki pages are perpetually protected, both these elements are superfluous and might even look slightly ridiculous in this context; the second one is also fairly misleading. Is it possible to make them not appear when the template is transcluded in the MediaWiki talk namespace? Regards, Waltham, The Duke of 08:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Protection log link is now omitted when used on MediaWiki_talk, and RFP advice is replaced by a note that MediaWiki pages can't be unprotected. — CharlotteWebb 17:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Excellent job, Ms Webb. Thank you for your speedy and efficient action on my request. Waltham, The Duke of 17:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Change wording

The current wording:

It is requested that an edit be made to this fully protected page (see protection log).
This template should be followed by a specific description of the request.
This template should only be used to request edits, to fully protected pages, that are uncontroversial or supported by consensus. If you believe the proposed edit might be controversial, please discuss it on the protected page's talk page before using this template.

This should be changed to indicate that it is used for any protected page. The average number of requests at any given time is three, it should be encouraged that this template be used on semi-protected pages so that the wider community can verify their veracity. Just take out the word "fully" in both occurrences. Also the link to the request log is a bit awkward. Just move the link to the end of the last sentence:

If you believe the proposed edit might be controversial, please discuss it on the protected page's talk page before using this template (current requests).

And don't give me any BS about this increasing the load on Admins, it will decrease the load because it will invite the wider community to review the current requests and comment on them, making it easier for anyone to act on them. (talk) 14:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

No, this will not not increase the load on those few (three, maybe four regulars) admins who patrol CAT:EP, because you would be attracting their attention to requests that they can do nothing about. It is not the job of the admin to judge the merit of a request; if they did comment on an edit suggestion to a semi-protected page, it would be in the capacity of an editor. An admin's voice carries no extra weight whatsoever in such discussions. The only reason an admin is needed to make edits to protected pages is because no one else has the technical capacity. Any autoconfirmed user may make a semi-protected edit, and since there are well over a million of them, they don't really need a template to attract their attention. Given the difficulty in finding admins who are interested in patrolling CAT:EP, I seriously doubt that there are, or would be, any non-admins who would do it. I am personally of the opinion that the links in the template to CAT:EP is completley irrelevant, and could quite happily be removed. Happymelon 16:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I do. I frequently look over the requests. (talk) 15:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
That's good to hear, however I suspect you are in a tiny minority. Although I'm sure you've been asked this before, if (as it appears) you are a committed contributor, why don't you create your own account? Then you're only a few days and edits away from being able to edit semi-protected pages yourself. Happymelon 15:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
There is also {{unanswered}}, which is useful for semi-protected requests (and should perhaps be modified to be more so). Happymelon 16:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Previously no-one wanted to create a separate semi-protected edit request template. (talk)

WWE roster page

I have convinced the editor who was causing the furor to hold off adding his proposed information to the article until the info can be proven by a reliable source.

I ask that now that that has been settled down (see talk page on the WWE roster page for the exchange), that the page be unlocked.

Thank you.

Vjmlhds 22:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Protection for this template

Seeing today's vandalism on this template, I'd like to ask: why isn't it protected? It's not like we have a good reason to go around editing it all the time, and its very nature as a sign of you-can't-edit-this-page means that it's a more tempting target for someone inclined toward vandalism. To me it seems reasonable to protect this indefinitely. Nyttend (talk) 21:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Confused Documentation

Under 'General considerations' it says "Please do not use this template to request edits to pages which are only" Only what? the sentence cuts off and then says "but any user may make the change if it is sensible; administrator intervention is not required" which, if true, would make protection kinda pointless. -- (talk) 18:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

That sentence ends with a link to Wikipedia:Protection policy#Semi-protection, the full sentence is "Please do not use this template to request edits to pages which are only semi-protected". Equally the second sentence is "but any autoconfirmed user may make the change...", with "autoconfirmed" linking to Wikipedia:User access levels. If the links are not showing up for you then there's some display problem with your browser. Happymelon 09:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Remind administrators to give credit to the proposer for the change

Would it be a good idea to add a reminder that administrators should attribute the change to whoever threw up the request? I usually use an edit summary something like "implement edit-protected request prepared by User:Foo". Thoughts? –xenotalk 22:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, we should give credits to the users that suggest the improvements. I usually use the edit summary "Adding border, per talkpage request by Username". I think that makes the users feel more involved, and it also shows to other editors and admins that I didn't just do the edit myself without any prior discussion, and it reminds people to take a look at the talkpage for more details.
For starters we can add something about that in the /doc page of this template, in section "Recommended action upon resolution". We can add some suggested wordings to use, both yours and mine. Another common wording is "Adding border, per editprotected request by Username" or "Adding border, per editprotected request on talkpage by Username".
--David Göthberg (talk) 12:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Template:Editnotices/Page/British people

I haven't seen this before, the above template shows an "Edit" tab, but when I click on that tab, it only shows the source and says it's edit protected. Am I missing something here??!! --Funandtrvl (talk) 00:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It is an editnotice, which means only administrators and accountcreators can edit it. However, since WP uses MediaWiki:Titleblacklist to protect the page and it is not a function of MediaWiki, it appears editable until you actually try to edit it. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 00:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Wow! Thanks! --Funandtrvl (talk) 02:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)