Template talk:Edit fully-protected/Archive 2

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

Closing edit requests

{{edit protected}} Working on requests to edit semi-protected pages of late, I've noticed that I often want to explain to the requester how they can reopen the request when the request hasn't been done. This mainly occurs when the responder asks for more information, such as clarifications or reliable sources. From what I've seen, edit requests aren't like opening up a dialogue, as most are drive-by edits. I am assuming this is the reason we un-transclude request templates with {{tlf}} or {{tld}}, so the request isn't indefinitely in the queue while we wait for a response that never comes. The template above was created to provide the requester with a more user-friendly and good faith explanation of what just happened to their request and how to get it reactivated. I would like to know if there is a consensus for using this instead of tlf or tld to un-transclude the request templates. To be clear, I am supporting a template with this utility, not necessarily this look or verbage. Please see this diff for an example: Jon Jones (fighter). Thanks, — Bility (talk) 06:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Like the idea, and I'll comment at the TfD. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Per User:Thumperward at the TfD talk, I think a better way to accomplish this may be to add a "done=yes" parameter to the request templates instead of using entirely new ones. Thoughts? — Bility (talk) 12:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I added a single un-named parameter to {{edit semi-protected}} that checks for the word "done" and leaves the above box. Let me know if there's any problem with this change so we can discuss and/or revert. Thanks, — Bility (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea, but I think the box is a bit large for a "done" note. Do you think using {{tmbox|small}} or {{ambox|small}} would be OK, or even an implementation of {{resolved}} that explains how to reinstate the edit request? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm fine with any method that gets the job done. I added {{tmbox|small}} functionality, that look all right? — Bility (talk) 15:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Yep, I tweaked it so it floats on the right and is more noticeable. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually you made if float on the left. I preferred it on the right actually. Can we get this feature on Template:Edit protected as well please? And would |done=yes be more intuitive? Because then people can change it to |done=no to reactivate. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh, yeah, I meant left, so it's more easily seen. And I think you're right—done=yes/no might be easier for users to understand if they want to reactivate. I support adding this change into the EP template as well. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I also prefer it floated right so the request is easier to read, or if better visibility on the left is desired, displaying it block style instead of floating. No preference on "done=yes"; it's easier for the inexperienced requester to deal with and more tedious for the responder, so I think it's a wash. Who would we talk to to get the preload to produce {{edit semi-protected|done=no}}? — Bility (talk) 17:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Block style is fine with me, or anything that gets it on a separate line above the actual request, really; I just thought that putting it on the left would better catch someone's attention than having it off on the right side because that's not where one tends to start reading. For the preload, I know there's some template somewhere that does it but I can't recall where--MSGJ should know, I bet. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 Done. But I had a think about the grammar and I think |fulfilled=no is preferable to |done=no. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Bility: I made quite a few changes yesterday. Are you happy with these? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Nothing worth arguing about. Thanks for working on the template! — Bility (talk) 15:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay, not exactly a ringing endorsement ;) Anyway, good to work with you. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Implement Change?

 – Ajltalk 09:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest implementing another change so that we can set the fulfilled param to "notdone" or "notnow" or "not a request" or something similar. It would be useful for requests like this and this. If this has already been discussed, forgive me. – Ajltalk 06:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that might be a good idea. May I suggest that we discuss it on Template talk:Edit protected to keep all the discussion in one place. In fact I'd like to merge these two templates some day. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Moving conversation there now. – Ajltalk 08:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Moved. – Ajltalk 09:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I think this begins to mix meaningful responses to the requester with the maintenance task of suppressing transclusion of the request category. To avoid confusing editors and be more precise about what we're doing with the template, going from "fulfilled=yes" to "removecategory=yes" or "enabled=no" or "open=no" or "status=disabled" would be my suggestion. To me, information about the specific request (like "notdone", "notnow" or "not a request"), should remain in the response below the request where the requester will read it without having to edit the section/page. — Bility (talk) 15:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes I think I agree. Putting these messages above the request might be a bit confusing. I think we should try to avoid acting like robots and explain our responses like humans whenever possible ;) In other words, write in sentences rather than with templates. Bility: I like your idea of enabled=no; (even though I don't want to change it again now!) "fulfilled=yes" suggests that the request has been carried out even though it might have been declined. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

"fulfilled=yes" suggests that the request has been carried out even though it might have been declined.

This was exactly my feelings and intent, whether or not I stated it as such. – Ajltalk 23:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I updated the syntax on the batch from the last change and I am willing to do so again, so don't worry about the administrative repercussions. That being said, the sooner we come to a decision the better, as there are over 50 transclusions and growing at this point. My top choice for this parameter would be "answered" with a yes/no input, although I support any other suggestion without prejudice. — Bility (talk) 23:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Something like {{editprotected|fulfilled=no|answered=no}} which would change to
  • {{editprotected|fulfilled=no|answered=yes}} for a improper request (i.e. not "X" to "Y" or not even a request)
  • {{editprotected|fulfilled=yes|answered=yes}} on an accepted change (or even {{editprotected|fulfilled=yes}})
Of course with these, you'd still use the {{ESp}}/{{Ep}} responses. I would support this. – Ajltalk 05:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Again, there's no need to combine codifying the response with suppressing the category, especially when it makes the template unnecessarily complex. What we're after here is a single parameter to turn categorization on and off so the requester can notify someone they need assistance. — Bility (talk) 14:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, what about just "answered=yes/no"? To me, "fulfilled=yes" sounds more the request was carried out, even if it wasn't. – Ajltalk 16:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we are all agreed on answered now. The fulfilled was my fault; I was looking for something better than done. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Hey, no worries. As long as we can come to a consensus, it's all good. Ajltalk 22:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
So, um... Does someone want to implement this change? Or shall we vote on it first? – Ajltalk 05:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Done, hopefully for the last time. — Bility (talk) 19:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to be a pain. I'll just go hide now. – Ajltalk 19:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Unrelated, but yet still related...

Is it just me, or just the {{tlc|editprotected|fulfilled=yes}} (see above source) template not work? – Ajltalk 05:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Doh. Of course. It's got that equal sign... So this should work: {{editprotected|blah|blah|blah}}. – Ajltalk 06:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


The {{anchor|editprotected}} should not be called if |answered=yes because otherwise you are taken to stale requests instead of the live request. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. — Bility (talk) 17:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Alternative parameter for lazy editors

I answer a lot of edit protected requests and get tired typing answered all the time. Could we have an alternative ans that will save me 5 characters? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Is part of the reason we struggled with the name of the parameter so that new editors would understand how to use the template? Would a new editor know to change ans to "no" rather than answered to "no" to reactivate their request? On the semi-protected edit request side they mostly use the preload, so I don't have to type in the parameter too much. — Bility (talk) 18:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
We could tweak the text slightly, e.g.
Set the |answered= (or |ans=) parameter to no to reactivate your request.
A lot of editors who use {{editprotected}} do not use the preload. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. — Bility (talk) 09:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Okay, implemented. I realised I had to change the semi template as well, since the /answered subtemplate is common to both. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Color meanings

Can someone add an explanation (legend) for the colors used? -DePiep (talk) 11:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Please. -DePiep (talk) 22:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Sry, be more precise, this template uses only one background color and black text - there is no need for an explanation. mabdul 23:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
ooooh, I believe you are talking about Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests, correct? mabdul 23:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes! That Talk page redirects here, hence. -DePiep (talk) 23:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 Done I added a table out of the source code located at User:AnomieBOT/source/tasks/PERTableUpdater.pm., The table might be wrong since I really don't understand pyton. I left a talkback at Anomies talkpage. Regards, mabdul 00:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Nice & Good.-DePiep (talk) 00:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
You were a little off, I've fixed it. Note the only difference for CAT:ESP is that red is "Not protected or fully-protected". Anomie 00:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


Currently the edit request table shows requests on editnotice talk pages in pink with "not protected" as the protection level. While this is technically correct, users are required to use the editprotected template to get the attention of an admin, who can actually insert the editnotice. So does anyone want to see a different color and/or protection level for these? CAT:EP regulars probably know about this, but maybe some admin skip these requests thinking it doesn't require extra permissions to go put {{EP|s}} on them? Just a thought. — Bility (talk) 19:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, a different colour might be nice. We'd have to ask CBM about that. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 26 October 2011

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Documentation/end_box2&action=edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Note that I have no rights to edit the fully protected templates. However, it is advised that you should use {{Edit protected}} on the talk page of the page requires editing (in this case, Template talk:Documentation/end box2) and describe clearly on what you would like to edit, and what it should be afterwards. Regards, --G(x) (talk) 15:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 December 2011

Hello, I am requesting a minor re-edit to the opening phrase of the Toccata and Fugue in D minor article to change the sentence from "Attribution of the piece to Bach is doubtful, and has been disputed by a number of scholars" to "The attribution of the piece to Bach has been challenged in the early 1980's by a number of scholars, and remains a controversial topic". To say only that it is doubtful seems opinionated, and excludes the opinion of other scholars (Such as Helmut Walcha and Christoph Wolff) who actually do believe it to have been composed by Bach. Nothing very serious, but it has been giving the article many problems recently.Rolusty33 (talk) 21:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Rolusty33 Rolusty33 (talk) 21:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Not done: Wrong page. You requesting here a template to be changed. Please repost your request at the correct page. mabdul 22:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 December 2011

Please ad : (Redacted)

Shavedtail (talk) 16:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Not done: Wrong page. You requesting here a template to be changed. Please repost your request at the correct talk page. mabdul 16:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Also, this material is also likely to violate our Biographies of Living Persons policy unless you have a reliable source for this information. If you don't have a source, please just drop it. Anomie 16:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 March 2012

Suggest you strongly consider adding splenectomy as one of the treatments of warm AIHA. According to my hematologist, it is often tried next after corticosteroids and before Rituxan. I see no mention of it currently. (talk) 19:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Not done: This is the wrong page. You are requesting a change to a template. Please repost your request at the correct article talk page.

also...when you do post to the correct page...

Please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Please also provide exact details of the content you want to add or change. In selecting your sources, it would be useful to read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). Thanks. Begoontalk 00:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Waldir's changes

Most of them look uncontroversial, but I'm unsure about the benefit of adding all those extra parameter values (answered, completed, done, finished, fixed, fulfilled, resolved, responded, settled, solved). Seems a bit excessive. Why do we need so many? Do we need any of these? Typing |ans=yes is actually shorter than some of these. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The benefit, IMO, is discoverability/"guessability". I did it because I answered an editprotected request earlier today and knew (but couldn't remember exactly) there was a way to mark the request template as resolved, so I tried to add |done to it (or something to that effect, I forgot which word I initially tried), and that resulted in the template assuming that parameter was the page that was meant to be edited. While I can understand why that behavior has been implemented, I believe using the unnamed parameter to mark it as answered is more intuitive. I assumed that implementing this while keeping current behavior unchanged would be a win-win move. As for the amount of options... again, guessability. I can't know for sure what word will come to others' heads more readily, and since I went for a switch anyway, in for a dime... :) Does it make that much of a difference anyway? Maybe performance-wise? Because I don't think more options add complexity to the switch. --Waldir talk 17:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
More options add complexity to the wikitext. Personally, I think discoverability would be much better served by improving Template:Edit protected/doc to actually mention |ans=yes, rather than relying on people to play guess-the-verb. Anomie 20:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
How about keeping the changes but with only 3 or so options in the switch? --Waldir talk 17:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Not done template

Ooops. I have been using  Not done for semi-protected. Should we standardize it to match Not done:? I had cleared close to 40 from the backlog before I noticed it. Should this be brought up at the pump, the talk page of the templates, or is here fine?--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Add |small= parameter?

Can we add a |small=yes parameter? It's a very large, loud template for usually small, significant but not earthshaking edit requests. --Lexein (talk) 04:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

This wouldn't be technically difficult, but this change would make it easy to confuse the small version of the template with {{edit protected/answered}} (the version produced when |answered=yes). Personally, I like it to be obvious where an edit request is when quickly scrolling down a page, and I find this especially useful when there are multiple requests on one talk page. (We can't tell that there are multiple requests by looking at CAT:EP.) If you can come up with a smaller version which still looks significantly different from {{edit protected/answered}}, then I might support that, though. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour (have a chat) 06:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
How about this ... keep the same size and shape as the answered template, but put a red border around it for unanswered and a green border for answered. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Test cases

Hi could you fix test cases linked it doesent seem to be showing in the template but sandbox is (talk) 13:12, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. I set it up so that the test cases link only appears if the test cases page actually exists. Have you been looking at the template on a page without a /testcases subpage? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 01:45, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


toronto is now the fourth most populous city in north america, not the fifth as stated in the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template {{Edit protected/Archive 2}}. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

How to name the section

Is there a good standard to name the talkpage section (in which I add this template)? I see things like "Edit protect on 15 March 2013", but it could also be "Edit request March 15, 2013". Is there an automated form? -DePiep (talk) 21:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

One or more of the tools which create such sections use the default header "Edit request on dd mmm yyyy" but I don't know which tools those are. I'm certain that at least one tool exists, because of the consistency. See, for example, Template talk:User Wikipedian for#Edit request on 2 March 2013; Template talk:For year month day#Edit request on 11 March 2013; Template talk:For year month day/display#Edit request on 11 March 2013. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
First, I really prefer the wording "Edit request" to "Edit protected" (the template name, but it sounds very old fashioned and techy).
Second, I sort of expect that section titling to be in the preload or so, automated for me. Of course I can type it myself (having to check the format somewhere every time). -DePiep (talk) 21:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I just logged out, and hit the "View source" tab on a semi-prot page, and in there I saw a link "Submit an edit request". The link had three extra items in the query string, in addition to the usual &action=edit&section=new - these were &preload=Template:Edit_semi-protected/preload&editintro=Template:Edit_semi-protected/editintro&preloadtitle=Edit+request+on+15+March+2013 I tried the same on a full-prot page, and the additional items were &preload=Template:Edit_protected/preload&editintro=Template:Edit_protected/editintro&preloadtitle=Edit+request+on+15+March+2013 so in both cases it would have created a section "Edit request on 15 March 2013". --Redrose64 (talk) 21:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes. I found that link to after your guidance. My quesion is: cannot this be into the template? -DePiep (talk) 22:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
That's probably not a good idea. It would break the existing transclusions that are sitting on talk pages with |answered=yes if it was done by default. Even if it was optional, if a user clicked on an "edit" link generated by the template, it would edit the {{edit protected}} template itself rather than the template talk page intended. If there's a good way around these problems, though, I'll be happy to hear it. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 01:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I was thinking about this, and I realised out that you could do this with substitution. It would make this template quite unwieldy if we tried to add substitution code to it, though, so instead of adjusting this one I made a new template, {{new edit request}}. Have a play around with it and see what you think. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 07:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I've found that for both full-prot and semi-prot pages, the "Submit an edit request" link is within MediaWiki:protectedpagetext. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Just a question, but

where is the template for those who have a conflict of interest and would like to make an amendment to a conflict article? For example, me for Launchball?--Launchballer 16:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

{{request edit}} (note that its redirect {{edit request}} is different from {{editrequest}}). --Redrose64 (talk) 17:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


Close — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:46, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 August 2013 (talk) 12:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template {{Edit protected/Archive 2}}. If possible, please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. If you cannot edit the article's talk page, you can instead make your request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for edits to a protected page. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 August 2013 Re: Chelsea Manning, photo of: (talk) 04:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template {{Edit protected/Archive 2}}. If possible, please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. If you cannot edit the article's talk page, you can instead make your request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for edits to a protected page. Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:18, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 August 2013 Re: Chelsea Manning, photo of;

Dear Wikipedia editors;

It is undoubtable that the "Chelsea Manning" page, http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Chelsea_Manning , and the corresponding "United States v. Manning" page, http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=United_States_v._Manning , are of great controversy at this time, and that in all likelihood you all have your hands very full dealing with all the correspondence this might entail.

I would like however to acknowledge and applaud Wikipedia editors for their progressive actions in having already made the redirect from "Bradley" to "Chelsea", and in changing every one of the references to her to fit her preferred gender identity.

In keeping with this arguably controversial, but appropriate, shift in the recording of these historical revelations, may I request that a change be made to the photo accompanying the Wiki-page, that being the use of the recently oft-reprinted photo of both the male presentation of "Bradley", side by side with the feminine presentation of "Chelsea", http://media2.s-nbcnews.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/g-cvr-130821-Manning-wig-4x3-526p.video_620x362.jpg , instead of the single, and now somewhat inappropriate, photo of only the old male presentation which Chelsea was forced to present herself as for so many years. Until Chelsea is able to provide the public with a more fitting photo of herself the media's current photo at least represents that very controversial shift in genders that she has been so courageous to tell the world about, and she deserves to be recognized for her bravery.

Thank you, Misha Balch, LPN, RC, Founder: Gender Alliance of the South Sound Psychobablishous@yahoo.com ; http//:facebook.com/psychobablishous (talk) 23:18, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template {{Edit protected/Archive 2}}. If possible, please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. If you cannot edit the article's talk page, you can instead make your request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for edits to a protected page. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Module:Edit request

@Redrose64, MSGJ, and Anomie: It's been a little while in coming, but Module:Edit request is now pretty much ready. Before we deploy it, however, we need to think about how it will fit in with the workflow of people who monitor the edit request categories. At the moment, the module detects the protection level of pages it is passed, and it categorises the current page based on those protection levels. See the module page for documentation, and see the test cases for a basic idea of what the module can do.

As I've been writing this module, I have come to realise that while automatic detection of the protection level sounds good in theory, in practice there may be some situations where it is not ideal. For example, if an edit is requested to a fully protected template, and then the protection level is reduced to semi, the request will be treated as a semi-protected edit request, but the request text may seem odd because it was written with a fully protected edit request in mind. Another quite common scenario would be where users forget to specify a page name for pages that aren't the immediate subject page. This means that the request category would be generated from the immediate subject page, rather than the page that was actually intended, which might mean that the request is skipped over. Also, assigning categories based on actual protection status means that we need to think about what to do with unprotected pages. What are everyone's thoughts on the best way to make this work?

Also, if you have any other questions or comments about the module, I'll be happy to hear them. And while I'm thinking about it, I have a question for Anomie: at the moment, the urn links percent-encode colons after the namespace name. Is this a problem? I can change it if so. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Percent-encoding colons would be fine. Other thoughts:
  • You should probably do the check currently at line 53 first, with the check at line 48 as an elseif.
  • You should probably also include checks for user JS and CSS, which are effectively sysop-protected. Currently this is as simple as it being in the namespace 2 and matching the pattern /.*%.js$ or /.*%.css$.
  • A harder problem is detecting pages that are on MediaWiki:Titleblacklist. Right now it will claim "unprotected" for these when they are actually protected.
HTH. Anomie 17:52, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, the title blacklist is a tricky one. A few minutes' searching turned up lrexlib, a Lua regex library, but that would need to be actually part of Scribunto as it uses native C files. I see from bugzilla:50454 that getting this to work securely would be difficult, however. Otherwise I suppose we would need to add access to the title blacklist from Scribunto, or ask for a {{MATCHESTITLEBLACKLIST}} magic word. At a glance I don't see any bugs about that last one - will have a more detailed search later on. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 21:59, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
The line 53 check is now fixed as you suggested, and I have added support for user .js and .css pages. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 06:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I just realised another stumbling block to truly accurate protection detection - we don't have any way to detect cascade-protected pages. Most cascade-protected pages are also fully protected, but there are some that aren't, and at the moment they show up as unprotected. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 09:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I've reworked the module slightly so that the protection level is taken from the template, rather than detected from the page specified. This should avoid any problems with inaccurate detection, at least until the problems mentioned above can be dealt with. The result is similar enough to the old {{edit protected}} that I didn't think updating it required discussion, and I have made the switch to the module already. It seems to be working fine with the existing AnomieBOT script. Let me know if you find anything amiss. Also, Anomie, there is now a template for template-protected edit requests at {{edit template-protected}}, so if you could work your magic in creating an equivalent of User:AnomieBOT/PERTable I would be very grateful. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 08:24, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
    Done, and the category is updated to transclude it. I also took the opportunity to refresh the layout of the other protection categories. Anomie 14:40, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

"pause" option

To me it looks useful to add an option |answered=pause, between |answered=yes and |answered=no. The pause implies time for discussion &tc. Pausing the request by stating |answered=yes, however effective, is not clear. In general, |answered=pause could have the same effect though. -DePiep (talk) 23:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The instructions clearly say that {tl|editprotected}} should not be used until a specific edit is backed by consensus. When used properly, pausing a request should never be needed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
More than once such a consensus is challenged by a would-be admin, thereby stepping back in process-time (no problem, but it does require a pause and not the incorrect "answ=yes" status). Also, there may be code-technical questions raised. -DePiep (talk) 13:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Misleading message about redirect

From Module space, using edit request

I experienced: I started an edit request from a protected Module page, to have that module page changed. I landed on the Template talkpage (all fine, I am familiar in there).

Example: {{RailGauge}} (now through a Lua module). Got to Module:RailGauge for a module edit change. Click "view source" (no "edit" because protected), gives link option "Submit an edit request". From that we are lead back to Template talk space for my edit request.

My question is: are these multi-namespace edit requests covered well? (And if so, why is there no module-links-list in this template, as with template space?). I, as an editor, got confused as to "did my request end well". Does an editor get the namespace diff? Why is there not a Module-space links in the template? (The actual experience was with Template_talk:RailGauge#Edit_request_on_26_August_2013 and its module) -DePiep (talk) 21:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

That's not because of anything to do with the edit protected templates. That's just because Module talk:RailGauge redirects Template talk:RailGauge. As far as I know, everything still works fine when that happens. I requested an edit to Module:Infobox not too long ago, and its talk page redirects to the template talk, and it worked fine. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
You just need to fill in the first positional parameter, as in {{edit protected|Module:RailGauge}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
re Jackmcbarn. I did not say it was related to protection. I said it is about redirection. From this template.
I asked an edit request from module space, about module space. I did not choose to be redirected spaces, and I did not have to "know" that I would be redirected. My request was not from outside of Modulespace. (Note that I used, and specified, that route here).
Don't blame me. The route I clicked, as described, made me to expect to be in M space. And no, I'll never need to fill in [also] to arrive as I expected.
My request to change the template stands. -DePiep (talk) 23:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I propose to adjust the link for "submit an edit request" so that it automatically fills in the name of the page you are on. We could do this just for module pages, or on any page where talk page redirects to somewhere else. To this end I have created Template:Submit an edit request and will experiment there before deploying to the interface messages. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I've done some experimenting but what I suggested above does not appear possible, because preload templates do not handle parameters. We could use a different preload template, but I can't see any way to get the module name in the template automatically. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
I've experimented with this too, and it would need a MediaWiki update. Maybe it's time I started learning some PHP... — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
gerrit:116482 will allow this once someone +2's it. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2014

It is important to edit http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Mahesh_Babu (talk) 10:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template {{Edit protected}}. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned.
However, I note that the page Mahesh Babu isn't even semi=protected, so you can edit it yourself. - Arjayay (talk) 11:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2014

Homeopathy is a system of medical practice that treats a disease especially by the administration of minute doses of a remedy that would in larger amounts produce in healthy persons symptoms similar to those of the disease. It is fully legal and official in many countries around the world. The definition belongs to:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homeopathy (talk) 04:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template {{Edit protected}}. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2015

PLEASE delete Samira Samii.... Why no one try to correct the information.... She doesn't live in Germany... She is famous Sport-Manager... The history of Mahdavikia is 10 years old and damage her privacy... How can be WEKIPEDIA DOENST care about the privacy of persons which are in public... Everyday new article with wrong source... and these source are a fact for users... what a shame!!!! Me as an Iranian-German want to support delectation of samira samii page.... MaxXXX-max (talk) 11:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 11:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
@MaxXXX-max: Also, this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template {{Edit protected}}. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2015 (talk) 15:53, 18 April 2015 (UTC) if his wife elsa died she is not sitting with him but his second is sitting with him

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template {{Edit protected}}. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 8 May 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved, unopposed for over a month. I should add that moving templates is largely pointless and should be discouraged where possible. Jenks24 (talk) 13:52, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Template:Edit protectedtemplate:edit fully protected – per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_6 indication, this template is not for use on protected pages, it is for use on fully protected pages, so should so indicate in its naming --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 03:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC) -- (talk) 03:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


Any additional comments:
  • Comment if possible, the current name should autodetect the page protection type of the page in question automagically (would LUA be able to do that?) to display the proper edit request type (semi,fully,template) -- (talk) 03:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
    • It already does do that. The question is what should it do if the page isn't protected at all? Anomie 18:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2015

webwe.com is not added in the list.. which is launched on 06 November 2012.. social network concept.. add people to your list.. or follow people updates by choice..

Updateguru (talk) 10:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you are in the wrong place. This talk page is solely for discussing improvements to the template {{Edit fully-protected}}.
Please make your request at the talk page for the relevant article - whatever that may be. - Arjayay (talk) 11:05, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Fix broken deactivation example in documentation

In the documentation's usage section, the example usage for deactivating a request isn't working as intended.

In source, {{Tlc|Edit fully protected|answered=yes}} should be {{Tlc|Edit fully protected|answered{{=}}yes}} to render properly. 2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 (talk) 23:44, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Rewriting the usage section

On second though, I think it's actually best to rewrite the section for accessibility and semantics. It shouldn't be needed to use headings (they're for navigation), but a description list (the most semantic element for this). Lastly, the All parameters example is wrapped in <pre> (it doesn't use Template:Tlc) and not <code> like the other examples.

I've fixed the issues in the following example. Please replace the usage section with this source:

== Usage ==
; Basic usage
: {{Tlc|Edit fully-protected}}
; Specify pages to be edited
: {{Tlc|Edit fully-protected|''First page to be edited''|''Second page to be edited''|...}}
; Deactivate a request
: {{Tlc|Edit fully-protected|answered{{=}}''yes''}}
; All parameters
: {{Tlc|Edit fully-protected|''First page to be edited''|''Second page to be edited''|''Third page to be edited''|...|answered{{=}}|demo{{=}}}}

2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 (talk) 00:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Instead of using {{Template talk:Edit fully-protected/Archive 2}} you can number the parameters: {{Edit fully-protected|First page to be edited|Second page to be edited|Third page to be edited|...|answered=|demo=}} --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
@Redrose64: Looks like {{Tlc}} isn't rendering for you properly either, so I don't quite understand what you're trying to say. Did you mean {{Edit fully-protected|1=|2=|3=|...|answered=|demo=}}? 2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 (talk) 10:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
It's rendering just fine. What makes you think that it is not? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Category:Non-talk pages requesting an edit to a protected page has been nominated for renamingto Category:Non-talk pages with an edit request template. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. cymru.lass (talkcontribs) 14:40, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 10 December 2018

please protect my template biography page Ankit Shukla (playback Singer) (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template {{Edit fully-protected}}. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:05, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
@Jonesey95: You seem to have used {{subst:ETp|mis}}, but {{subst:ETp|rfpp}} would have been far better. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:33, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2018

Ray Sawyer passed away in Florida on Dec 31, 2018 after a long unspecified illness. His passing was confirmed and announced on SiriusXM after a family member was contacted. The news was also confirmed on the official Dr. Hook Instagram account: https://www.instagram.com/p/BsD39YEjLdB/ (talk) 18:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)H. Numan SiriusXM NYC [1] (talk) 18:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template {{Edit fully-protected}}. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. DannyS712 (talk) 19:10, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


Redirection of the base edit protected templates

Currently, both {{Editprotected}} and {{Edit protected}} redirect to Template:Edit fully-protected. Why not to Wikipedia:Edit requests#Making requests or something, which actually covers all variants (including Template:Edit semi-protected) which is what {{Editprotected}} and {{Edit protected}} actually do. What these templates show depends on the kind of protection used for the article. Fully is just one of several variants... -- (talk) 13:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

It's not so long ago that there were only two variants of edit protection - semi and full. The other three (template, extended confirmed and interface) were introduced in October 2013, April 2016 and July 2018 respectively. The template Template:Edit protected was renamed Template:Edit fully-protected on 14 June 2015. If you wish to repurpose the redirect that was created by that move, the thing to do is to file a WP:RFD. But redirecting a template to something that isn't a template is unlikely to succeed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:14, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
My point is that the templates themselves, {{Editprotected}} and {{Edit protected}}, have already been repurposed. Using either of them on this Talk page, for example, will create an edit request for a template-protected article. Anyway, I'll leave it at this, because WP:RFD#HOWTO seems like much work, and you write that what I have in mind is "unlikely to succeed". -- (talk) 14:30, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Put differently, the current redirect seems to imply that they are aliases of {{Edit fully-protected}}. -- (talk) 14:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Here are the aliases; only four of them include the word "fully". Anyway, templates like {{edit fully-protected}}, {{edit semi-protected}}, {{edit template-protected}} etc. use Module:Protected edit request, which attempts to detect the actual prot level, which is why the text seems to correct itself if you use the "wrong" template. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:28, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Hm, I see. Thanks for the information. -- (talk) 15:45, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2019

Hi administrator,

Would you please help remove a history entry as below in the following link due to disclosure of my personal information (my name). I did not know the response can be posted on the history. Emmafan08 (talk) 15:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@Emmafan08: Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template {{Edit fully-protected}}. Please follow the directions at WP:REVDEL. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2019

Jakstand A portable pinata support stand;A portable stand used to suspend pinatas in the air;commonly used in festive celebrations or events. The jakstand frame consist of Festive Painted tubing, a pulley with a rope for raising and lowering the pinata Jakstand (talk) 06:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template {{Edit fully-protected}}. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. NiciVampireHeart 06:47, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2019 (talk) 18:50, 6 March 2019 (UTC) Cheerleading is not a sport.
 Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template {{Edit fully-protected}}. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 18:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

FYI: Attempting to reduce the misplaced edit notices

I don't know how people keep getting here making these misplaced requests, but in an attempt to stop it I've created Template:Editnotices/Protection/Template:Edit fully-protected and Template:Editnotices/Protection/Template:Edit fully-protected/doc so attempts to edit Template:Edit fully-protected or Template:Edit fully-protected/doc will no longer prompt lost users to create an edit request. If anyone disagrees with that action to the point of WP:BRD, feel free to delete them. Anomie 23:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia page of Chanagun Arpornsutinan( Gunsmile).

Like many others who know his works, I also believe that Chanagun Arpornsutinan deserves and needs a page that can help his fans around the world understand him better and easier.

I am new in the Wikipedia editing community, but I would like to request you to take him and his achievements into consideration and create a page for him. R.Sreelekshmi (talk) 06:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

R.Sreelekshmi, If someone needs a page, you are encouraged to try writing it themselves. However, be well aware that someone "deserving" a page does not mean it'll be accepted. They need to be proven notable first. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 06:56, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

He is a notable actor who has acted in many popular series and movies. It's not possible? R.Sreelekshmi (talk) 07:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

R.Sreelekshmi, I am not going to put in the time to check. If you want to know if a page on them can be created, it is best you do the research yourself. I've provided an introduction to how Wikipedia is run on your talk page. This is the wrong venue, if you need further help, ask on my talk page.moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 07:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 1 October 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus; not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:25, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Template:Edit fully-protectedTemplate:Edit fully protected – This template was moved from "Edit fully protected" in 2015 for "consistency with Template:Edit semi-protected." There is no need for a hyphen after a standard -ly adverb per MOS:HYPHEN. Schierbecker (talk) 00:08, 1 October 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:42, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Corrected. Thanks. Schierbecker (talk) 04:11, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: I would like to ask the question, is this really necessary, if it has been here for the last 7 years without causing issues? Could you be sure that the benefits of moving it would not be outweighed by unforeseen issues? Just something to consider. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 04:29, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
    @Mako001: Template:Edit fully protected currently redirects to Template:Edit fully-protected. After the change, the opposite will be true. Such swaps have been performed many thousands of times over the course of Wikipedia's lifetime.
    "Unforeseen issues" is an effective boogieman for opposing changes on reactionary grounds ("nothing should ever change because changing things could be bad"), because of course nobody can ever guarantee that something won't cause unforeseen issues. But if a template rename, especially for a project (not article) template, is something we're fearful about doing because it might break things, then that's a much, much bigger problem in and of itself. FeRDNYC (talk) 20:24, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
    @FeRDNYC: If you reckon it'll be fine, I trust your judgement. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 00:52, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment It occurs to me: Why do we need {{edit fully-protected}}, {{edit semi-protected}}, et al anymore? The templates are now driven by Module:Protected edit request, which is smart and detects the protection level on the requested page automatically. (In fact, they're so smart that if, for example, you use {{edit fully-protected}} to make an edit request for a semi-protected page, it will ignore your confusion over protection levels and just display a semi-protected edit request regardless.)
Which means, we really only need one template, {{edit protected}}, with all of the other aliases redirecting to it. (In point of fact, {{edit protected}} currently redirects to {{edit fully-protected}}, which makes no sense whatsoever.) FeRDNYC (talk) 01:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
This looks like it would make sense on the surface, but that isn't what is being discussed here and it might have issues that are not clear at first glance. Terasail[✉️] 16:28, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
@Terasail: No, agreed, it was mostly thinking out loud. But it does present a possible "alternative direction" regarding the fate of these templates. If we were to consolidate the templates, the question of "fully-protected" vs. "fully protected" would become moot (they'd both be redirects) and we'd no longer have any reason to discuss renaming. FeRDNYC (talk) 21:17, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Such a consolidation was discussed in 2015, and enough arguments were made for separate templates still being necessary that it closed as no-consensus. The best of them, IMHO, is that protection can be temporary, and the different templates act differently when used on a page that's not protected (or not protected anymore, most relevantly). So, yeah, that is kind of a snag. FeRDNYC (talk) 22:17, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
(Also, point of order: MOS:HYPHEN, like the rest of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, doesn't actually apply to template names, or any other non-article content. I'm not saying "fully-protected" isn't wrong or "fully protected" isn't right, just pointing out that citing MOS:HYPHEN is an irrelevance.) FeRDNYC (talk) 01:09, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose This will remove the consistency between the templates, it won't change the fact that all the edit requests will still be created as {{Edit fully-protected}} since that is handled at Module:Submit an edit request (For the "submit edit request" button on protected pages) all the userscripts around this will convert the templates back to this one, so overall the only thing that will change is what the title shows when you view the template directly. Terasail[✉️] 16:19, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
    @Terasail: I mean... You're right that a rename alone wouldn't change much, immediately / all by itself, but the module code could also be changed. It's not like it's immutable. It wouldn't really make sense to change the module before a rename, tho, so I think Schierbecker is at least attacking this from the correct angle by starting with this proposed move. (I don't expect it will succeed, but if it were to it'd be the right place to start.) User scripts lagging behind... well, that's a huge part of the reason we even have template redirects.
    (The "consistency" argument, I honestly don't understand. 'semi-' is a prefix, 'fully' is a word. Our underlying terminology is inconsistent right from the start.) FeRDNYC (talk) 21:35, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
    Heh. And in fact, while the "Request an edit" button does indeed use {{Edit fully-protected}} in the request boilerplate it sets up, the text of {{permprot}} (the talk page notice for protected pages that shows the button) already suggests (depending on protection level) either {{edit template-protected}} or {{edit protected}}, as the template for users to use when writing their own requests. FeRDNYC (talk) 22:13, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit request 29 June 2023

Description of suggested change: Correct an infinite regress of required consensus.


The template should be accompanied by a clear and specific description of the requested change, and consensus should be obtained before the template is added.
The template should be accompanied by a clear and specific description of the requested change, and consensus should be obtained before the change is implemented.

Dayirmiter (talk) 15:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit template-protected}} template. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 18:31, 29 June 2023 (UTC)