Template talk:Edit fully-protected/Archive 2

Moved from

talk

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. –

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. –

talk

08:55, 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. –

talk

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 {{

talk

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. –

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. –

talk

22:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

So, um... Does someone want to implement this change? Or shall we vote on it first? –

talk

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. –

talk

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? –

Doh. Of course. It's got that equal sign... So this should work: {{editprotected|blah|blah|blah}}. –

talk

06:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Anchor

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)

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)

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Documentation/end_box2&action=edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.136.76 (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

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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.

67.217.16.235 (talk) 19:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Not done: This is the wrong page. You are requesting a change to a

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

Please provide

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,

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

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? --

talk

17:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

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)

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 {{

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)

This edit request has been answered.

It is fully protected article.

Hi could you fix test cases linked it doesent seem to be showing in the template but sandbox is 199.189.84.200 (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)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

toronto is now the fourth most populous city in north america, not the fifth as stated in the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.95.207.35 (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)

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)

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)

{{

editrequest}}). --Redrose64 (talk

) 17:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Close — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.30.38.94 (talk) 10:46, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

208.54.5.142 (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:

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

192.173.160.106 (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;

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Dear Wikipedia editors;

It is undoubtable that the "Chelsea Manning" page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_Manning , and the corresponding "United States v. Manning" page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 [email protected] ; http//:facebook.com/psychobablishous

192.173.160.106 (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)

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)

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)

Moved to

Module talk:Pagetype § Misleading message about redirect

 – Jackmcbarn (talk

) 19:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

This Template:Edit protected/doc has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

‹ The template Edit semi-protected is being considered for merging

. ›