This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There are additional MediaWiki pages not editable by admins apart from site css, js and json pages. These raw HTML pages show this message to users with insufficient permission. To unify this with the rest of the messages of its type, create the subject page of this talkpage with
{{protected interface|$1|type=interface}}
– Ammarpad ( talk) 19:38, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
administrations may be confused about why they can't edit this page as it's content model isn't something they would normally be expected to not be able to edit." and the current message is exactly what would lead to that confusion, more than if the page is common.js/css and the like which gives clear clue from their title and content. These raw HTML messages in contrast have no distinguishing clue in their title nor in their content. They are just normal MediaWiki pages as the restriction is purely enforced in backend. – Ammarpad ( talk) 21:50, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
|type=interface
is doing here and you're right to be. Your suggestion is exactly what I initially intended to suggest before I later fully understand what {{
protected interface}} actually does. The |type=
parameter is not actually meant to tell user the detailed reason why they are not able to edit the page (what you're attempting to do). It is only meant to tell the groups eligible to edit the page (while leaving the reason explanation to editnotice example given above). It's a misnomer. It's correct name should be |permission=
or even more accurate |group=
since permission can also mean "right", but the template only consider groups. We can still go with your suggestion of passing the reason from {{
protected interface}} and using |type=rawhtml
in calling. But if we do that, we should also pass the error reason of all similar messages from that template, then delete
Template:Editnotices/Page/MediaWiki:Common.css (and its likes), so that on
MediaWiki:Sitecssprotected we can just call {{protected interface|$1|type=css}}. That would be fine to me. But of course, we can also do the simpler (which also builds on the status quo).... just create this message and its associated editnotice like the rest. –
Ammarpad (
talk) 07:11, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
I have disabled the request because there is not a clear consensus for a particular option here — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 14:02, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
|rawhtml=
and a few others; and if an actual need for it exists, I see no particular reason there can't be a |custom-reason=
(or whatever) parameter. --
Xover (
talk) 09:09, 7 January 2020 (UTC)This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There are additional MediaWiki pages not editable by admins apart from site css, js and json pages. These raw HTML pages show this message to users with insufficient permission. To unify this with the rest of the messages of its type, create the subject page of this talkpage with
{{protected interface|$1|type=interface}}
– Ammarpad ( talk) 19:38, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
administrations may be confused about why they can't edit this page as it's content model isn't something they would normally be expected to not be able to edit." and the current message is exactly what would lead to that confusion, more than if the page is common.js/css and the like which gives clear clue from their title and content. These raw HTML messages in contrast have no distinguishing clue in their title nor in their content. They are just normal MediaWiki pages as the restriction is purely enforced in backend. – Ammarpad ( talk) 21:50, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
|type=interface
is doing here and you're right to be. Your suggestion is exactly what I initially intended to suggest before I later fully understand what {{
protected interface}} actually does. The |type=
parameter is not actually meant to tell user the detailed reason why they are not able to edit the page (what you're attempting to do). It is only meant to tell the groups eligible to edit the page (while leaving the reason explanation to editnotice example given above). It's a misnomer. It's correct name should be |permission=
or even more accurate |group=
since permission can also mean "right", but the template only consider groups. We can still go with your suggestion of passing the reason from {{
protected interface}} and using |type=rawhtml
in calling. But if we do that, we should also pass the error reason of all similar messages from that template, then delete
Template:Editnotices/Page/MediaWiki:Common.css (and its likes), so that on
MediaWiki:Sitecssprotected we can just call {{protected interface|$1|type=css}}. That would be fine to me. But of course, we can also do the simpler (which also builds on the status quo).... just create this message and its associated editnotice like the rest. –
Ammarpad (
talk) 07:11, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
I have disabled the request because there is not a clear consensus for a particular option here — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 14:02, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
|rawhtml=
and a few others; and if an actual need for it exists, I see no particular reason there can't be a |custom-reason=
(or whatever) parameter. --
Xover (
talk) 09:09, 7 January 2020 (UTC)