The consensus parameter should probably be locally defined, and not passed through to {{ EP}}, since the text refers to "the {{ editprotected}} template", which will just confuse users. I'd do it myself, but I'm afraid I'd mess it up. Thanks for creating this, it's useful.-- Aervanath talks like a mover, but not a shaker 21:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
{{
Edit protected}}
template.{{
editsemiprotected}}
This template instructs established users to copy text provided by new users. It should remind them that the new user must be credited for the text, for compliance with the GDFL.
So please add the text "Don't forget to give credit to the user who suggested the change in your edit summary" or words to that effect. Jemima PD ( talk) 13:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
The above might look harmless to established editors, but remember it's aimed at a new contributor who's just made a good-faith suggestion – I'm concerned the big red cross comes accross as a little bitey in tone. I propose that [[Image:X mark.svg|20px]], which I presume gets here through {{ EP}}, be either removed outright or else replaced with something softer, though I'm not sure what. Adrian J. Hunter( talk• contribs) 12:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Martin. For now I've replaced the cross with the information symbol from the AGF user warnings, as illustrated below. There's probably something better out there, though. Adrian J. Hunter( talk• contribs) 11:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I thought you were proposing the change for {{ ESp}} but the change has affected {{ EP}} as well. Is this intentional? — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 08:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
template.
Not bad, but it seems too intense. I like the Information icon more, yet it lacks red, which has the effect you mention. How about these? I like the first exclamation mark.
-- JokerXtreme ( talk) 05:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
An exclamation mark is better than a cross, but to me it still carries the suggestion that the original poster is being warned for some kind of transgression; notice the level 3 vandalism templates use an exclamation mark. How about a red version of the information symbol? I should be able to make one when I have access to photoshop next week. Adrian J. Hunter( talk• contribs) 11:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
They seem to have a tendency to look faded when sized down. You can edit it or ask me to do it. -- JokerXtreme ( talk) 13:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't those be merged and select the output within template?
Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to
edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details.
-- JokerXtreme ( talk) 05:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add |permission|perm|p
to the second switch option in {{
ESp}}
to account for the new parameter in this template. —
Bility (
talk)
22:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please unlink the icons (by using [[File:imagename|imagesize|alt=imagealttext|link=]])
. There is no need to link the icons to their description pages, as I can see from some other similar templates such as {{
RFPP}}
and {{
AIV}}
.
jfd34 ( talk) 15:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
{{
RFPP}}
and {{
AIV}}
, thanks for pointing them out.
Anomie
⚔
03:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC)I often see the {{
editprotected}}
template being used on the wrong page. Sometimes it's used on a talk page which is vaguely related to the desired edit,
as here; sometimes on a page related to protection,
as here; and sometimes the connection is tenuous at best,
as here. I would like to suggest that {{
EP}}
and {{
ESp}}
be given a stock answer to such posts, something along the lines of "Not done: this is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the page
Template:EP. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned." Does anybody have any thoughts about this? --
Redrose64 (
talk)
13:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
Note: Template talk:ESp redirects here. This is not a misplaced request.
The current switch is not feeding parameters correctly. The line with "={{{1}}}" is the terminal case for flow-through, and so the line "|u|un|unprotected=semi" must either come before all flow-through lines (i.e. immediately following the switch line) or after the ={{{1}}} line. To be more prescriptive, remove the line:
|u|un|unprotected=semi
And re-insert this line in-tact below the line |misplaced|mis={{{1}}}
, that is, insert it as such:
|misplaced|mis={{{1}}}
|u|un|unprotected=semi
}}
— BigNate37 (T) 04:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:ESp has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I have already added a parameter called xy on the EP template. I would like it to be in the ESp template as well.
FloBo A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 10:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
{{
ESp}}
is full-prot whereas {{
EP}}
is only semi-prot. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
11:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Is it time to update this template to include ETp specific outputs? Mr. Stradivarius, do you think it would be useful/convenient to convert this template to Lua and have it automatically detect the level of protection on the previous page and output accordingly? If that was done, then the {{ ESp}} could be done away with and we wouldn't need a {{ ETp}} to be created. It would simply be use {{ Ep}} for everything and the module will figure out the rest. Technical 13 ( talk) 14:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
{{
EP}}
and {{
ESp}}
- s
and u
:{{
ESp|s}}
→ {{
edit semi-protected}}
is not required for edits to unprotected pages or pending changes protected pages.{{
ESp|u}}
→ {{
edit semi-protected}}
is not required for edits to unprotected pages or pending changes protected pages.{{
EP|s}}
→ {{
edit protected}}
is not required for edits to semi-protected or unprotected pages or pending changes protected pages.{{
EP|u}}
→ Jack, while I like the idea for your new output option. I have a few questions:
Thanks for any answers/ideas on these points! Technical 13 ( talk) 18:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
|sb|sand|sandbox= current version|tc|testcases= current version + testcases note
.{{
edit protected}}
request may be used on pages in any of the Talk namespaces, which therefore means that the {{
EP}}
template may also be used on pages in any of the Talk namespaces. However,
WP:TESTCASES is written primarily for Template: space (although largely applicable to Module space as well), so using {{
EP|sand}}
as a response to an {{
edit protected}}
request which is not in Template talk: or Module talk: might be seen as
bitey. But the discussion page for certain templates is not actually in Template talk: space (for example, try going to
Template:Chembox and clicking its talk page tab), so restricting the use of {{
EP|sand}}
to Template talk: and Module talk: could be counterproductive.{{
EP|sand}}
; but there is certainly potential for its use, since it can yield more satisfactory results than if e.g. {{
EP|?}}
or {{
EP|xy}}
had been used. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
22:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)I'm not sure what the message to be relayed by these parameters is suppose to be...
template
& t
are deprecated and is succeeded by hr
. If it isn't what you're looking for, visit
Template:EP/doc to find appropriate parameters for your use.template
& t
are deprecated and is succeeded by hr
. If it isn't what you're looking for, visit
Template:EP/doc to find appropriate parameters for your use.template
& t
are deprecated and is succeeded by hr
. If it isn't what you're looking for, visit
Template:EP/doc to find appropriate parameters for your use.This seems very inconsistent, inaccurate, and confusing. I propose changing to (and adding a new parameter):
{{
Edit protected}}
is required for edits to {{#switch:{{lc:{{{1}}}}}|f|full = fully protected|cascade = cascade protected|interface = user interface}} pages. Please wait patiently until an administrator who can help you looks this request over.{{
Edit protected}}
is required for edits to {{#switch:{{lc:{{{1}}}}}|f|full = fully protected|cascade = cascade protected|interface = user interface}} pages. Please wait patiently until an administrator who can help you looks this request over.{{
Edit protected}}
is not required for edits to semi-protected, unprotected, or pending changes protected pages.{{
Edit template-protected}}
is not required for edits to semi-protected, unprotected, or pending changes protected pages.{{
Edit protected}}
is not required for edits to template-protected, semi-protected, unprotected, or pending changes protected pages.{{
Edit template-protected}}
is required for edits to template-protected pages. Please wait patiently until a template editor or administrator who can help you looks this request over.{{
Edit protected}}
is not required for edits to unprotected or pending changes protected pages.{{
Edit template-protected}}
is not required for edits to unprotected or pending changes protected pages.{{
Edit semi-protected}}
is not required for edits to unprotected or pending changes protected pages.Is this agreeable? If so, I'll make the changes (can someone make/upload those images, I'm horrible at it.) As far as existing usage, I would be happy to run through and update all usage of these parameters as need be with AWB. Technical 13 ( talk) 02:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Rose that is fair, and I have no issues with going to BAG. Do you think that subst: existing uses is a good idea, or do you know why it isn't already done before I do so I can have some background on this. Thanks. Technical 13 ( talk) 19:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
{{
EP}}
, I only really started using it after I got the admin rights in 2011 and started processing edit-prot reqs. I've hardly ever seen anybody else subst: it; indeed, if you do use {{
subst:EP|n}}
(or similar), it gets saved as {{
EP|n}}
- the subst: is filtered out. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
22:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
{{
substituted|auto=yes}}
on the template, and adds them to
User:AnomieBOT/TemplateSubster force since they almost certainly have more that 100 existing transclusions.
Anomie
⚔
17:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Since s, t, u, nlp, and hr all essentially said the same thing (that the requester is capable of making the edit on their own), I've combined all of these into a single message. I left all of the old abbreviations for these active, but removed them from the documentation. Jackmcbarn ( talk) 19:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
@ Technical 13: I've rewritten undone to just use 2 names instead of trying to use an extra parameter. I think this template is complicated enough without adding extra switches to some of the outputs. Jackmcbarn ( talk) 19:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps the rfpp parameter should be split into two versions: one for responding to requests to protect the page, and one for responding to requests to unprotect it. Jackmcbarn ( talk) 03:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
{{
protected page text}}
(rather like the deletion log entry that you get when clicking the redlink for a previously-deleted page), but it doesn't - of course, there is the link in the text "The reason for protection can be found in the protection log", but they might not spot that. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
14:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)importScript('User:Jackmcbarn/editProtectedHelper.js'); // Linkback: [[User:Jackmcbarn/editProtectedHelper.js]]to Special:MyPage/common.js to try it. Jackmcbarn ( talk) 21:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
@ Jackmcbarn: Why was the unprotected option removed? I use this one fairly frequently for protected templates that are no longer transcluded anywhere. It's a bit bureaucratic to require users to go to [{WP:RFPP]] to request such templates be unprotected, so I usually just unprotect them when answering the request. I was going to use it for Template talk:Age in years, months and days#Post-merge redirects today, but then I found out that it had been removed. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 23:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Would anyone object to reducing the protection level of this template? I see that Callanecc increased it to template protection in February, but it no longer has the thousands of transclusions that caused it to be protected previously: now there are only 15 transclusions, and most of those are due to the template documentation. Personally I would just unprotect it completely, but I can see an argument for semi-protection, seeing as this is used for administration and non-autoconfirmed users can't technically answer any kind of edit request as "done". — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 00:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm often finding myself in a dilemma when someone asks for permission to edit a specific protected article. They are not actually asking for additional user right nor are they asking for a change in page protection level. I believe they often have a fundamental misunderstanding of how page protection works and they are literally just asking for permission to edit that page (like there is a username specific override to the protection). So, my proposal is for a new wording for this decline reason that looks like:
Thoughts? Improvements? — {{U| Technical 13}} ( e • t • c) 19:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
I suggest changing this:
{{
edit template-protected}}
template.to this:
{{
edit template-protected}}
template.as it is too often needed, and perhaps it would save a lot of wasted time and energy, and save some feelings if we hammered the message home a little more. fredgandt 17:51, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Currently {{
subst:ESp|d}}
(and alike) outputs:
Done
Done: Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia.
nobody using the internet these days is under any illusions that everything that happens is by manual will" – So, you are saying other stuff exists, right? Because the majority is insincere, Wikipedia should be insincere too? In that case, I retain my opposition and I let you know that I hate OSE arguments the most.
when might thanks be "ridiculous"?" When you write it and then proceed to explain how you did almost everything, reminding the requester that his request was a mere idea and you did all the hard work. For more instances of incorrect places to say thanks, find a cheap Chinese product and read its fineprint.
Currently, the Not done: at the beginning of the consensus message seems a bit harsh, since we're not rejecting the idea per se, we're just saying that mode discussion is needed. I propose changing it to use the formatting from {{
NeedsDiscussion}}, so it would appear as:
{{edit semi-/extended-/template-protected}}
template.If we still think we need the red "i" instead of the softer blue/gray "i", we could at least change it to Not done for now:, since we're not actually commenting on the quality of the change, just the procedure. --
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE)
18:24, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
How about changing:
to
Reason: It's prevents a second round of declines when the user subsequently asks for a specific change but doesn't know enough to provide a source. -- NeilN talk to me 00:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
While I think it's a good thing {{subst:EP | xy}} asks for reliable sources by default now (see section just above), I believe it would be nice to have the option to just ask for specificity in case the requester has already provided some, so as to not make them think their sources are seen as unreliable by the responder. It would probably best to make the new option, however it might be called ({{subst:EP | xys}} maybe?), the one without the sources part, so as to not interfere with muscle memory, if this were to be implemented. Of course, one could always just write a custom message after {{subst:EP | nfn}}, but the whole point of this template is to make answering edit requests quick and convenient. Thoughts? I have not yet tried to implement this in the sandbox because templates are scary. This is just an idea for now. Rummskartoffel ( talk) 10:38, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
I think the line Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{
edit protected}} template
might be better if it were changed to Not done: please establish a consensus for this potentially controversial alteration before using the {{
edit protected}} template
. Per
WP:ER, uncontroversial changes do not need consensus before being suggested, so this reply should only be used for potentially controversial changes. It's sometimes used outside of that context, though, so adding "potentially controversial" would help make it clearer to responders when it should be used. {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk
20:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Discussion from editProtectedHelper talk on forum
|
---|
|
I believe the revert rationale is invalid. Using the first case for an example, " Not done: page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves." is not a grammatically correct sentence. The bolded part is a status indicator – not part of the prose – and the bolding sets it apart from the prose. A nit perhaps, but important enough (to me) for a discussion, albeit just barely. ― Mandruss ☎ 00:19, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
'''Oppose''' Here is a sentence.
(While I'm at it, I'm not even sure if the colon is needed at all, given what people do when using a {{
Done}} type of template, which is usually followed by a period or nothing.)
Nardog (
talk)
03:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)Currently, one response for {{
edit extended-protected}} reads: Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the edit extended-protected template
. Is this appropriate? It's wording intended for edit protected
, which does require consensus in advance because all edits have to go through administrators and they're not supposed to be put in the position of having to make content decisions, while full-protected is supposed to shut down any controversial editing in any case. But
WP:ECP is different - it is supposed to shut down disruption, but it is not supposed to be used to privilege older users over newer ones; that means that, like with normal edits,
consensus is presumed for things that haven't been previously discussed until / unless someone objects. I feel that that one should be reworded to say something like Not done for now: this alteration has faced an objection or is clearly controversial, so a consensus must be established for it first
, making it clear that it's inappropriate to reply to an extended-protected request this way in the absence of any objections. Note that this is not as big of a change as it seems at first (it is entirely fine for the editor rejecting it to express the necessary objection themselves; and in practice the template is largely used that way anyway); the important thing is the principle that non-extended-confirmed editors can suggest uncontroversial edits, and it is fine for them to be added without further discussion, because the purpose of ECP, unlike full-protection, isn't to make absolutely all their edits go through the consensus-building process. --
Aquillion (
talk)
18:33, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
|hr
and |nlp
, the image varies - for example, {{
subst:ESp|hr}}
emits {{
subst:EP|hr}}
emits |c
and |doc
, the template name enclosed in double braces is adjusted appropriately - {{
edit semi-protected}}
, {{
edit protected}}
etc. Only in one case, |p
does the text vary in any significant way - {{
subst:ESp|p}}
emits ", or if you have
an account, you can wait until you are
autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself" which is absent for the other four levels.{{
EEp|c}}
is allowed, because it's easier to allow it than to prevent its use. It's also legitimately used on occasion; for example, imagine a semi-protected page where two or more people (not yet past the 30/500 threshold) have been edit-warring over the inclusion of some sentence. We EC-protect the article (this is explicitly permitted by
WP:ECP, second paragraph), and hopefully they go to the talk page and discuss it. But imagine that instead of discussing, one of them decides to submit an ECP edit request - clearly this is controversial, because it's what the edit-warring and consequent protection were all about, so an EC user would be exceeding their authority to put the edit through without others agreeing to it. So we deny it by using {{
EEp|c}}
. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
13:37, 18 May 2021 (UTC)I've been seeing duplicate edit requests quite often (as in, multiple requests for the same edit being created at the same time, or opening a new request for the same issue while the original issue is still under discussion; examples: 1, 2, 3), so given the frequency of this occurrence, does anyone think it would be worth adding a duplicate response for convenience and standardisation? Perhaps it could look like this:
Duplicate request: if you have anything to add, please comment under the original request or discussion.
Ideally, there would also be some convenient way to link to the original request, but I don't think that's possible to code into the template itself. Liu1126 ( talk) 13:39, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
The consensus parameter should probably be locally defined, and not passed through to {{ EP}}, since the text refers to "the {{ editprotected}} template", which will just confuse users. I'd do it myself, but I'm afraid I'd mess it up. Thanks for creating this, it's useful.-- Aervanath talks like a mover, but not a shaker 21:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
{{
Edit protected}}
template.{{
editsemiprotected}}
This template instructs established users to copy text provided by new users. It should remind them that the new user must be credited for the text, for compliance with the GDFL.
So please add the text "Don't forget to give credit to the user who suggested the change in your edit summary" or words to that effect. Jemima PD ( talk) 13:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
The above might look harmless to established editors, but remember it's aimed at a new contributor who's just made a good-faith suggestion – I'm concerned the big red cross comes accross as a little bitey in tone. I propose that [[Image:X mark.svg|20px]], which I presume gets here through {{ EP}}, be either removed outright or else replaced with something softer, though I'm not sure what. Adrian J. Hunter( talk• contribs) 12:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Martin. For now I've replaced the cross with the information symbol from the AGF user warnings, as illustrated below. There's probably something better out there, though. Adrian J. Hunter( talk• contribs) 11:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I thought you were proposing the change for {{ ESp}} but the change has affected {{ EP}} as well. Is this intentional? — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 08:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
template.
Not bad, but it seems too intense. I like the Information icon more, yet it lacks red, which has the effect you mention. How about these? I like the first exclamation mark.
-- JokerXtreme ( talk) 05:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
An exclamation mark is better than a cross, but to me it still carries the suggestion that the original poster is being warned for some kind of transgression; notice the level 3 vandalism templates use an exclamation mark. How about a red version of the information symbol? I should be able to make one when I have access to photoshop next week. Adrian J. Hunter( talk• contribs) 11:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
They seem to have a tendency to look faded when sized down. You can edit it or ask me to do it. -- JokerXtreme ( talk) 13:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't those be merged and select the output within template?
Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to
edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details.
-- JokerXtreme ( talk) 05:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add |permission|perm|p
to the second switch option in {{
ESp}}
to account for the new parameter in this template. —
Bility (
talk)
22:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please unlink the icons (by using [[File:imagename|imagesize|alt=imagealttext|link=]])
. There is no need to link the icons to their description pages, as I can see from some other similar templates such as {{
RFPP}}
and {{
AIV}}
.
jfd34 ( talk) 15:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
{{
RFPP}}
and {{
AIV}}
, thanks for pointing them out.
Anomie
⚔
03:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC)I often see the {{
editprotected}}
template being used on the wrong page. Sometimes it's used on a talk page which is vaguely related to the desired edit,
as here; sometimes on a page related to protection,
as here; and sometimes the connection is tenuous at best,
as here. I would like to suggest that {{
EP}}
and {{
ESp}}
be given a stock answer to such posts, something along the lines of "Not done: this is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the page
Template:EP. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned." Does anybody have any thoughts about this? --
Redrose64 (
talk)
13:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
Note: Template talk:ESp redirects here. This is not a misplaced request.
The current switch is not feeding parameters correctly. The line with "={{{1}}}" is the terminal case for flow-through, and so the line "|u|un|unprotected=semi" must either come before all flow-through lines (i.e. immediately following the switch line) or after the ={{{1}}} line. To be more prescriptive, remove the line:
|u|un|unprotected=semi
And re-insert this line in-tact below the line |misplaced|mis={{{1}}}
, that is, insert it as such:
|misplaced|mis={{{1}}}
|u|un|unprotected=semi
}}
— BigNate37 (T) 04:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:ESp has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I have already added a parameter called xy on the EP template. I would like it to be in the ESp template as well.
FloBo A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 10:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
{{
ESp}}
is full-prot whereas {{
EP}}
is only semi-prot. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
11:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Is it time to update this template to include ETp specific outputs? Mr. Stradivarius, do you think it would be useful/convenient to convert this template to Lua and have it automatically detect the level of protection on the previous page and output accordingly? If that was done, then the {{ ESp}} could be done away with and we wouldn't need a {{ ETp}} to be created. It would simply be use {{ Ep}} for everything and the module will figure out the rest. Technical 13 ( talk) 14:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
{{
EP}}
and {{
ESp}}
- s
and u
:{{
ESp|s}}
→ {{
edit semi-protected}}
is not required for edits to unprotected pages or pending changes protected pages.{{
ESp|u}}
→ {{
edit semi-protected}}
is not required for edits to unprotected pages or pending changes protected pages.{{
EP|s}}
→ {{
edit protected}}
is not required for edits to semi-protected or unprotected pages or pending changes protected pages.{{
EP|u}}
→ Jack, while I like the idea for your new output option. I have a few questions:
Thanks for any answers/ideas on these points! Technical 13 ( talk) 18:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
|sb|sand|sandbox= current version|tc|testcases= current version + testcases note
.{{
edit protected}}
request may be used on pages in any of the Talk namespaces, which therefore means that the {{
EP}}
template may also be used on pages in any of the Talk namespaces. However,
WP:TESTCASES is written primarily for Template: space (although largely applicable to Module space as well), so using {{
EP|sand}}
as a response to an {{
edit protected}}
request which is not in Template talk: or Module talk: might be seen as
bitey. But the discussion page for certain templates is not actually in Template talk: space (for example, try going to
Template:Chembox and clicking its talk page tab), so restricting the use of {{
EP|sand}}
to Template talk: and Module talk: could be counterproductive.{{
EP|sand}}
; but there is certainly potential for its use, since it can yield more satisfactory results than if e.g. {{
EP|?}}
or {{
EP|xy}}
had been used. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
22:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)I'm not sure what the message to be relayed by these parameters is suppose to be...
template
& t
are deprecated and is succeeded by hr
. If it isn't what you're looking for, visit
Template:EP/doc to find appropriate parameters for your use.template
& t
are deprecated and is succeeded by hr
. If it isn't what you're looking for, visit
Template:EP/doc to find appropriate parameters for your use.template
& t
are deprecated and is succeeded by hr
. If it isn't what you're looking for, visit
Template:EP/doc to find appropriate parameters for your use.This seems very inconsistent, inaccurate, and confusing. I propose changing to (and adding a new parameter):
{{
Edit protected}}
is required for edits to {{#switch:{{lc:{{{1}}}}}|f|full = fully protected|cascade = cascade protected|interface = user interface}} pages. Please wait patiently until an administrator who can help you looks this request over.{{
Edit protected}}
is required for edits to {{#switch:{{lc:{{{1}}}}}|f|full = fully protected|cascade = cascade protected|interface = user interface}} pages. Please wait patiently until an administrator who can help you looks this request over.{{
Edit protected}}
is not required for edits to semi-protected, unprotected, or pending changes protected pages.{{
Edit template-protected}}
is not required for edits to semi-protected, unprotected, or pending changes protected pages.{{
Edit protected}}
is not required for edits to template-protected, semi-protected, unprotected, or pending changes protected pages.{{
Edit template-protected}}
is required for edits to template-protected pages. Please wait patiently until a template editor or administrator who can help you looks this request over.{{
Edit protected}}
is not required for edits to unprotected or pending changes protected pages.{{
Edit template-protected}}
is not required for edits to unprotected or pending changes protected pages.{{
Edit semi-protected}}
is not required for edits to unprotected or pending changes protected pages.Is this agreeable? If so, I'll make the changes (can someone make/upload those images, I'm horrible at it.) As far as existing usage, I would be happy to run through and update all usage of these parameters as need be with AWB. Technical 13 ( talk) 02:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Rose that is fair, and I have no issues with going to BAG. Do you think that subst: existing uses is a good idea, or do you know why it isn't already done before I do so I can have some background on this. Thanks. Technical 13 ( talk) 19:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
{{
EP}}
, I only really started using it after I got the admin rights in 2011 and started processing edit-prot reqs. I've hardly ever seen anybody else subst: it; indeed, if you do use {{
subst:EP|n}}
(or similar), it gets saved as {{
EP|n}}
- the subst: is filtered out. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
22:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
{{
substituted|auto=yes}}
on the template, and adds them to
User:AnomieBOT/TemplateSubster force since they almost certainly have more that 100 existing transclusions.
Anomie
⚔
17:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Since s, t, u, nlp, and hr all essentially said the same thing (that the requester is capable of making the edit on their own), I've combined all of these into a single message. I left all of the old abbreviations for these active, but removed them from the documentation. Jackmcbarn ( talk) 19:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
@ Technical 13: I've rewritten undone to just use 2 names instead of trying to use an extra parameter. I think this template is complicated enough without adding extra switches to some of the outputs. Jackmcbarn ( talk) 19:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps the rfpp parameter should be split into two versions: one for responding to requests to protect the page, and one for responding to requests to unprotect it. Jackmcbarn ( talk) 03:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
{{
protected page text}}
(rather like the deletion log entry that you get when clicking the redlink for a previously-deleted page), but it doesn't - of course, there is the link in the text "The reason for protection can be found in the protection log", but they might not spot that. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
14:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)importScript('User:Jackmcbarn/editProtectedHelper.js'); // Linkback: [[User:Jackmcbarn/editProtectedHelper.js]]to Special:MyPage/common.js to try it. Jackmcbarn ( talk) 21:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
@ Jackmcbarn: Why was the unprotected option removed? I use this one fairly frequently for protected templates that are no longer transcluded anywhere. It's a bit bureaucratic to require users to go to [{WP:RFPP]] to request such templates be unprotected, so I usually just unprotect them when answering the request. I was going to use it for Template talk:Age in years, months and days#Post-merge redirects today, but then I found out that it had been removed. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 23:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Would anyone object to reducing the protection level of this template? I see that Callanecc increased it to template protection in February, but it no longer has the thousands of transclusions that caused it to be protected previously: now there are only 15 transclusions, and most of those are due to the template documentation. Personally I would just unprotect it completely, but I can see an argument for semi-protection, seeing as this is used for administration and non-autoconfirmed users can't technically answer any kind of edit request as "done". — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 00:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm often finding myself in a dilemma when someone asks for permission to edit a specific protected article. They are not actually asking for additional user right nor are they asking for a change in page protection level. I believe they often have a fundamental misunderstanding of how page protection works and they are literally just asking for permission to edit that page (like there is a username specific override to the protection). So, my proposal is for a new wording for this decline reason that looks like:
Thoughts? Improvements? — {{U| Technical 13}} ( e • t • c) 19:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
I suggest changing this:
{{
edit template-protected}}
template.to this:
{{
edit template-protected}}
template.as it is too often needed, and perhaps it would save a lot of wasted time and energy, and save some feelings if we hammered the message home a little more. fredgandt 17:51, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Currently {{
subst:ESp|d}}
(and alike) outputs:
Done
Done: Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia.
nobody using the internet these days is under any illusions that everything that happens is by manual will" – So, you are saying other stuff exists, right? Because the majority is insincere, Wikipedia should be insincere too? In that case, I retain my opposition and I let you know that I hate OSE arguments the most.
when might thanks be "ridiculous"?" When you write it and then proceed to explain how you did almost everything, reminding the requester that his request was a mere idea and you did all the hard work. For more instances of incorrect places to say thanks, find a cheap Chinese product and read its fineprint.
Currently, the Not done: at the beginning of the consensus message seems a bit harsh, since we're not rejecting the idea per se, we're just saying that mode discussion is needed. I propose changing it to use the formatting from {{
NeedsDiscussion}}, so it would appear as:
{{edit semi-/extended-/template-protected}}
template.If we still think we need the red "i" instead of the softer blue/gray "i", we could at least change it to Not done for now:, since we're not actually commenting on the quality of the change, just the procedure. --
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE)
18:24, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
How about changing:
to
Reason: It's prevents a second round of declines when the user subsequently asks for a specific change but doesn't know enough to provide a source. -- NeilN talk to me 00:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
While I think it's a good thing {{subst:EP | xy}} asks for reliable sources by default now (see section just above), I believe it would be nice to have the option to just ask for specificity in case the requester has already provided some, so as to not make them think their sources are seen as unreliable by the responder. It would probably best to make the new option, however it might be called ({{subst:EP | xys}} maybe?), the one without the sources part, so as to not interfere with muscle memory, if this were to be implemented. Of course, one could always just write a custom message after {{subst:EP | nfn}}, but the whole point of this template is to make answering edit requests quick and convenient. Thoughts? I have not yet tried to implement this in the sandbox because templates are scary. This is just an idea for now. Rummskartoffel ( talk) 10:38, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
I think the line Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{
edit protected}} template
might be better if it were changed to Not done: please establish a consensus for this potentially controversial alteration before using the {{
edit protected}} template
. Per
WP:ER, uncontroversial changes do not need consensus before being suggested, so this reply should only be used for potentially controversial changes. It's sometimes used outside of that context, though, so adding "potentially controversial" would help make it clearer to responders when it should be used. {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk
20:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Discussion from editProtectedHelper talk on forum
|
---|
|
I believe the revert rationale is invalid. Using the first case for an example, " Not done: page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves." is not a grammatically correct sentence. The bolded part is a status indicator – not part of the prose – and the bolding sets it apart from the prose. A nit perhaps, but important enough (to me) for a discussion, albeit just barely. ― Mandruss ☎ 00:19, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
'''Oppose''' Here is a sentence.
(While I'm at it, I'm not even sure if the colon is needed at all, given what people do when using a {{
Done}} type of template, which is usually followed by a period or nothing.)
Nardog (
talk)
03:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)Currently, one response for {{
edit extended-protected}} reads: Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the edit extended-protected template
. Is this appropriate? It's wording intended for edit protected
, which does require consensus in advance because all edits have to go through administrators and they're not supposed to be put in the position of having to make content decisions, while full-protected is supposed to shut down any controversial editing in any case. But
WP:ECP is different - it is supposed to shut down disruption, but it is not supposed to be used to privilege older users over newer ones; that means that, like with normal edits,
consensus is presumed for things that haven't been previously discussed until / unless someone objects. I feel that that one should be reworded to say something like Not done for now: this alteration has faced an objection or is clearly controversial, so a consensus must be established for it first
, making it clear that it's inappropriate to reply to an extended-protected request this way in the absence of any objections. Note that this is not as big of a change as it seems at first (it is entirely fine for the editor rejecting it to express the necessary objection themselves; and in practice the template is largely used that way anyway); the important thing is the principle that non-extended-confirmed editors can suggest uncontroversial edits, and it is fine for them to be added without further discussion, because the purpose of ECP, unlike full-protection, isn't to make absolutely all their edits go through the consensus-building process. --
Aquillion (
talk)
18:33, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
|hr
and |nlp
, the image varies - for example, {{
subst:ESp|hr}}
emits {{
subst:EP|hr}}
emits |c
and |doc
, the template name enclosed in double braces is adjusted appropriately - {{
edit semi-protected}}
, {{
edit protected}}
etc. Only in one case, |p
does the text vary in any significant way - {{
subst:ESp|p}}
emits ", or if you have
an account, you can wait until you are
autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself" which is absent for the other four levels.{{
EEp|c}}
is allowed, because it's easier to allow it than to prevent its use. It's also legitimately used on occasion; for example, imagine a semi-protected page where two or more people (not yet past the 30/500 threshold) have been edit-warring over the inclusion of some sentence. We EC-protect the article (this is explicitly permitted by
WP:ECP, second paragraph), and hopefully they go to the talk page and discuss it. But imagine that instead of discussing, one of them decides to submit an ECP edit request - clearly this is controversial, because it's what the edit-warring and consequent protection were all about, so an EC user would be exceeding their authority to put the edit through without others agreeing to it. So we deny it by using {{
EEp|c}}
. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
13:37, 18 May 2021 (UTC)I've been seeing duplicate edit requests quite often (as in, multiple requests for the same edit being created at the same time, or opening a new request for the same issue while the original issue is still under discussion; examples: 1, 2, 3), so given the frequency of this occurrence, does anyone think it would be worth adding a duplicate response for convenience and standardisation? Perhaps it could look like this:
Duplicate request: if you have anything to add, please comment under the original request or discussion.
Ideally, there would also be some convenient way to link to the original request, but I don't think that's possible to code into the template itself. Liu1126 ( talk) 13:39, 31 December 2023 (UTC)