Template talk:Editprotected/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Documentation 1.1 Usage 1.2 Example 1.3 Updates 1.4 See Also 2 Discussion 2.1 Examples? 2.2 Rationale 2.3 Redesign 2.4 ? 2.5 Instructions missing 2.6 Editprotected update request 3 Protected? 4 Edit summary 5 Adding ar 6 What if the talk page is protected too!! 7 Template:disambig 8 What if the request is denied? 9 To request protection 10 NAACP, Bruce Gordon 11 Unnamed Discussion 12 id="editprotected", bot request 13 Non-table version 14 Info box colors 15 Bug report 16 New template for {{editprotected}} requests which are up for discussion 17 Immediate? 18 Environment 19 Morocco has a population of 33 million, not 133

Documentation

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

Usage

{{editprotected}}

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

Example

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]]

User:Example 2008-06-13 16:52 UTC

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.

Updates

Template:Editprotected/Archive 1 is currently protected from editing. To request a change to it, add {{editprotected}} to this page, followed by a description of your request.

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

See Also

• Template:Editprotected/Archive 1 (edit talk links history)
• Template:Temprot (edit talk links history)
• Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests

Discussion

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

Examples?

Could someone show some examples of how this can be used? Is it currently being used anywhere? Aucaman^Talk 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)

Rationale

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)

Redesign

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

-- 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}}]]
by
[[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)

Protected?

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. —Centrx→talk • 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. —Centrx→talk • 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)

Template:disambig

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}}.  --Lambiam^Talk 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 {{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. (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 (talk • contribs) 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)

Message

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

Code:

<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

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 (talk • contribs) 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)

Immediate?

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. -- 67.98.206.2 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... -- 67.98.206.2 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. 199.125.109.36 (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Environment

There should be a section for the environment, I'll be happy to help write it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjk82 (talk • contribs) 15:09, 7 December 2007

I'm not sure what you mean. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Morocco has a population of 33 million, not 133

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.71.64.132 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 23 December 2007